← All influencers

Dr. Andrew Huberman

Neuroscientist (Stanford) · host of the Huberman Lab podcast

A genuine, rigorous academic in his own narrow specialty (retinal ganglion cell/optic nerve regeneration) whose popular protocol claims are a separate body of work graded independently here. The split is stark: his own co-authored breathing RCT is real science but doesn't test what he claims it does; a specific immunology claim is flatly wrong (independently fact-checked by outside journalists); and several signature numbers (cold-exposure dopamine, sauna growth hormone) trace to single small studies that failed to replicate or measured a different hormone than claimed.

Evidence vs. their claims

Across 8 testable claims, where the weight of independent evidence lands — on their side, or against them. Their own research network is excluded as evidence.

Read relative to their stance: when they dispute a claim and the evidence supports that claim, it counts as against them. Each row shows their stance, so you can see which way the evidence cuts.

Conflicts of interest

• Broadest commercial portfolio graded on this site: sponsorships/equity across 15+ brands (AG1, Momentous, Eight Sleep, LMNT, ROKA, and others)
• Documented position reversal on blue-light-blocking glasses — called them largely unnecessary in 2021, then co-branded a commercial glasses line (ROKA 'Wind Down') in Nov 2024 and began promoting them heavily; the science did not improve in their favor over that window
• 2026 disclosure of his own personal low-dose testosterone replacement therapy, which his audience read as materially undisclosed context for his 'natural' testosterone-optimization content

Stated factually. Conflicts do not by themselves make a claim wrong; they are context for weighing it.

Claim-by-claim (8)

Grouped by health topic. A person's claims often span several areas — here's where each one lands.

Educational only, not medical advice. Verdicts grade the evidence, not the person; see the methodology.