Tech Mogul Bryan Johnson Faces Scrutiny Over Supplement Trial Cover-Up
A recent New York Times investigation has cast a shadow over tech entrepreneur Bryan Johnson’s anti-aging efforts, alleging that the mogul attempted to conceal side effects in trials for his supplement line. Johnson, known for his extreme self-experiments aimed at reversing the aging process, now faces questions about the integrity of his “Blueprint Stack” supplement and meal program.
The Blueprint company initially touted promising results from their studies, claiming significant health improvements for participants. However, the Times report suggests that these studies may have employed questionable practices and downplayed serious side effects.
According to the investigation, 60% of study participants experienced adverse effects, including concerning drops in testosterone levels and prediabetes diagnoses. Participants also reported negative reactions to the strict food regimen and the use of allulose, a sugar substitute. The report indicates that some employees feared speaking out due to stringent confidentiality agreements.
Internal conflicts within the company came to light with the departure of Oliver Zolman, a key figure in the Blueprint project. Zolman expressed concerns over the study’s integrity, though conflicting reasons for his exit have emerged.
In response to mounting criticism, Blueprint released limited study data showing positive outcomes. However, public complaints have since surfaced, corroborating the NYT’s findings. Johnson maintains that his personal health markers have improved significantly.
Further controversy surrounds Johnson’s age reversal claims. Blood test results reportedly indicate an increase in his biological age, contradicting statements made in a recent Netflix documentary. Johnson has addressed these discrepancies, attributing them to normal fluctuations in biological age measurements.
Responding to the NYT story, Johnson accused the publication of sensationalism and constructing a narrative. He had preemptively commented on the anticipated article, suggesting a bias in the reporting.
As this story develops, the scientific community and public alike await further clarification on the efficacy and safety of Johnson’s anti-aging protocols.
