In the wild world of online health and longevity, influencers like Bryan Johnson, Joseph Everett, Joe Rogan, and Andrew Huberman promise science-backed wisdom. Millions tune in daily.
But their controversies reveal a messier reality. From financial ties and flip-flops to personal scandals, these figures show how motives can twist even the best intentions. Let’s break down the key feuds and flaws, drawing from investigative reports, media exposés, and online critiques, while exploring why nobody’s fully trustworthy and how to navigate it all.
You can have the cake, but it’s a meat-pie
„Is Bryan Johnson cake?” asks YouTuber Joseph Everett, also known as „What I learned„. He then goes onto demystifying the longevity guru with a series of daily videos.
From supposed supplement mishaps, data manipulation all the way to alleged cheating on test scores. Crazy NDA’s with employees and even personal attacks are there too. He claims everything Bryan does is in the pursuit of more money selling what’s literally called „Snake Oil”.
Bryan is also Vegan, which, both as a diet and lifestyle is heavily criticised by Everett, who’s more of a carnivore/omnivore proponent.
He routinely bashed Johnson labeling his movement a „scam” based on „crap science” and weak studies (e.g., questionnaire-based research with biases like recall errors and failure to control for lifestyle factors).
Bryan fires back by accusing Everett of undisclosed ties to the meat industry. Ties that Everett denies as defamatory.
Yet investigative reports from outlets like The Guardian and Greenpeace’s Unearthed link Everett’s content to pro-meat narratives amplified by industry funding. For instance, his videos heavily cite experts like Dr. Frank Mitloehner from UC Davis’s CLEAR Center, which receives millions from giants like Tyson and Cargill. Everett’s titles, such as “Vegan Diets Don’t Work. Here’s Why,” can feel selectively manipulative, cherry-picking data to favor carnivore views while ignoring counter-evidence.
The back and forth continued for a while, and eventually led to Everett proposing a boxing match to set the score.
The Anti-pharma Joe Rogan
Joe Rogan has been openly anti big-pharma. This was the most visible during the pandemic. He openly (and mostly rightly) criticized the vaccine push, as often being completely unnecessary and ignoring other options.
His heavily manipulated CNN footage is now history. The mainstream media changed the colors of the video, to make him look sicker than he is.
His diet, exercise and lifestyle choices could also lead to believe he’s detached from the pharma industry. Like a lone ranger fighting „the good fight”.
During the pandemic, I felt like it was one of the few sane voices out there. And I appreciate it a lot!
However, he did co-found Onnit – a health and wellness company making supplements. He also heavily promoted one of their products – Alpha Brain on the podcast. That got him in trouble with the FTC, as his involvement in the company wasn’t fully disclosed.
In the end the company was sold to Unilever – another giant, soulless corporation. In that light bashing Pfizer may be genuine, but are we sure it is?
Given Pfizer also deals in supplements, it’s really difficult to say.
Huberman’s rose colored glasses
Andrew Huberman is the Stanford neuroscientist behind the Huberman Lab podcast. Currently the most popular health oriented podcast in the world.
He has long emphasized that there’s limited scientific evidence supporting the broad benefits of blue light blocking glasses, particularly for daytime use, as blue light aids in regulating circadian rhythms and promoting alertness.
Instead, he recommended alternatives like dimming lights or using device night modes to mitigate sleep disruptions from evening blue light exposure.
Then he partnered with eyewear brand ROKA to launch „Wind Down” glasses in late 2023. They’re premium red-lens frames designed specifically for nighttime use to filter blue and green light for improved sleep, stress reduction, and mood.
Critics, including online commentators and a YouTubers accuse him of hypocrisy and profit-driven motives, claiming he downplayed general blue blockers before selling his own branded version priced at $100–$300.
Huberman defends the product by distinguishing it as an advanced, science-backed tool for evening routines, not a daytime solution, though the debate continues to fuel skepticism about influencer-backed wellness products.
Why this happens?
Everyone has their motives. People do want to make money. People can also change their mind.
And yes, people also bend the truth to match their narrative.
But that is not a thing that’s specific to any one person on this list. Everyone does it to some extent.
Controversy gets you visibility faster. Sure, it does have a „fallback” stage in which you lose followers eventually, but the net gain is there.
Piggybacking on someone popular has always been the way to get clicks. And the article you’re reading right now is partially that too. Full disclosure. But I do have an anti-controversy take here.
That scrutiny is also the beauty of the internet.
If you put stuff out there, be ready for people to try and look under the hood. And no matter their motives, if there’s something fishy, be sure someone will find it.
Popularity of Coffeezilla shows, that investigative journalism with a bit of clickbait can go a long way. And it can genuinely save people from bad choices.
How far can the truth bends before it breaks?
The online world is full of half-truths and bendy perspectives. It’s not black & white. It’s likely you won’t be able to find someone with a perfectly clean track record in any discipline.
But calling everyone a scammer is not a great idea either.
Do you need to take sides in the Bryan Johnson vs Joseph Everett feud? Really? Do you feel that invested in what some influencer has to say about another one?
Why?
Most of the name-calling rarely gets resolved. It stays in the grey area forever. In the meantime it gets clicks to both sides.
People love a good fight. It makes the daily life that much more interesting. Who’s right? Who’s lying! Let’s engage!
Picking sides
The problem with picking sides, is that you voluntarily detach yourself from a trove of information just because someone said so.
It’s definitely important to know about the inconsistencies. The small hypocrisies. The bendy truths.
But all four of those people share valuable things. And if you’re interested in health, fitness and longevity, it makes no sense to cut your information pool in half by taking sides.
Everyone’s questionable, so question everyone
In my other career, I often told beginner designers to develop a bullshit detector. Like an instinct that allows you to filter what senior designers say. To never trust experts with full confidence. Including me.
This same approach is necessary here.
Knowing people are flawed and have personal interests, we can still get a full view on new concepts that may be worth trying.
Or at least reading more about them. Shuffling through some scientific papers. Pretending we get it.
I don’t want to decide between vegan or carnivore right now. Instead I combine veggies, fruits and meat together. Making sure everything is high quality and organic.
I have grown to like those four guys. I listen to their videos and podcasts. I don’t treat their words as gospel however. It’s ideas that I can later cross-check against other sources.
Jumping into feuds like Johnson vs. Everett means cutting off valuable info. Why dismiss Everett’s critiques of vegan studies just because of his meat leanings? Or ignore Rogan’s fitness tips over his supplement sales? These guys share useful ideas!
Johnson’s longevity protocols, Everett’s data breakdowns, Rogan’s exercise routines, Huberman’s sleep science – all interesting stuff. Just put it all through a “bullshit detector” and use it.
If not for Bryan Johnson, I never would’ve found this fun way to improve my HRV! And it works.
Feuds are stupid. We’re not going to get far that way.
Set your detector to high, and just dive in! Relax.
More information is good!
Watch it as a video:
