A few days ago Bryan Johnson wrote a series of posts on Twitter announcing that “The New York Times is preparing to publish a hit-piece on me.” The words set a small corner of the internet on fire. Defenders and detractors came out of the woodwork to weigh in on the controversial biohacker.
After Johnson sold his credit card processing company to Venmo for $800 million he embarked on a mission to live forever. He reportedly spends upwards of $2 million a year on biohacking protocols including taking blood infusions from his teenage son, and taking unproven gene editing treatments at a clinic off the coast of Honduras in order to gain muscle mass. He also was the subject of a recent Netflix special that spread the message that every human has a duty to do everything they possibly can to keep death at bay.
Over the last couple years I’ve done a lot of reporting on various grifters and charlatans in the longevity space and I get a lot of messages from people asking me to do a deep dive into Johnson’s protocols and supplement business. And while I’ve mentioned him a a few times in various videos, I’ve had trouble committing to a full investigation because, well, to be honest, Johnson confuses me.
The rest of this story is hidden behind a paywall in order to keep the lights on a PokeyBear HQ. If you want to keep independent journalism alive, consider becoming a premium subscriber.
In its most positive iteration: my impression of Bryan Johnson is that he is something akin to an astronaut pushing the boundaries of what is scientifically possible in the biohacking realm. He has done more than anyone else I can think of to test the theory that measuring every biomarker possible and making interventions along the way to keep it all in optimal ranges can, in fact, result in substantial health gains. This idea, known as “the quantified self” also underpins a lot of what functional medicine promises to bring the world. He tests the protocols on himself and is his own guinea pig—so the risk is his alone. This is admirable in and of itself. He puts effort into transparency, reporting on what works and where he has gone wrong. For what it’s worth, I also find him surprisingly funny.
Even so, it’s hard for anyone who has watched Johnson’s rise into the limelight not to see the same hallmarks of narcissism, cult following and outright commercialized grift. Though he often claims that this biomarkers prove that he is “the healthiest person on earth,” it’s hard to square that with his waxy-skinned look, thinning hair and aloof demeanor which I can only term “wellness vampire”. He sells an expensive biohacking olive oil that is, I kid you not, called “Snake Oil” which he encourages his followers to take shots of. He sells a supplement powder along the lines of AG1 . He even occasionally compares himself to Jesus, prophesying that his “Don’t Die” movement will be the future world ideology.
After Johnson informed the world that the New York Times was planning a “Hit piece” my impression of him began to solidify. He posits that the New York Times just wants to destroy a good man’s reputation because he is on the verge of revolutionizing human health. He says that the reporter is “trying to construct a narrative” with “misleading questions” that will make him look bad no matter how he answers them. He also appears to accuse the reporter of blackmail when he compares the reporter’s inquiry to the legal troubles he had with his ex-fiancé when he wrote:
“Here’s the truth: many wealthy people deal with people who use illegitimate tactics to extract money from them. It’s sad but true.”
It could be, that I’m misreading the intent of his tweet—again the most charitable interpretation of his words. Maybe he’s only saying that his ex, who he abandoned while she was battling stage 3 breast cancer, was trying to extract money from him through legal proceedings. And yet, by positing that the reporter was fundamentally being dishonest for approaching Johnson with her findings before going to print mistakes good journalism practices for some type of fraud. Worse than that, accusing her or the Times of blackmail without evidence is dangerous to a the credibility of journalism in general. While Johnson has every right and reason to protect his own reputation, doing do at the by discrediting the reputation of a well-regarded reporter is wrong, and perhaps defamation in and of itself.
Share this post