Is Andrew Huberman Credible?

The short answer is NO.

Just like in health and disease, no one is either perfectly healthy or sick. Instead, we all lie on a continuum. Huberman interviews a lot of well-spoken so-called authorities. These may be his more credible interviews compared to ones we he is the "expert." However, as I will show you, he does not appear to have the tools to differentiate between the important and the insignificant.

My case is the interview between himself and the chairman of the ophthalmology department (his boss) at Stanford. Not only was the interview an embarrassment, but some of the key suggestions, supported by Huberman, were (are) downright deadly. If he doesn't understand the foundations of his own discipline, then how can he be a judge of other subject matter?

Keep in mind, that he boastfully introduces himself as a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford Medical School. If he were just an opthalmologist, he would almost get a pass. However, since he also has a science degree, his lack of understanding of the root of his discipline is INEXCUSABLE - AND VERY HARMFUL TO HIS PATIENTS AND AUDIENCE.

Making matters worse, he has 5.89M subscribers, and 3.9M viewed the shameful video:

Here is the link to the eye video with its deadly recommendations.

https://youtu.be/_ltcLEM-5HU?si=ysvBGEX7cagAp73E

Let me set the stage for an explanation. Sean Connery, playing James Bond, said to the villain,

"APPARENTLY, I HAVE A TERRIBLE LACK OF CURIOSITY."

Here is Huberman (aka "steroid") admitting that his learning style is memorization.

I know this is cherry-picking, but he does not mention the method of questioning what he memorized or critical thinking in the discussion.

I enjoy the context of the "curiosity" quote because one of the few (only) TRUE ophthalmologists was Dr. Trempe. Ophthalmologists are medical doctors first and eye doctors second, and he NEVER lost sight of that. Dr. Trempe explained that his understanding of the root causes of ophthalmic/systemic diseases was due to his curiosity.

Here are 4 principles we should all use to determine the truth - in any discipline.

It's (almost) NEVER one thing
When you are told about a spectacular result, ask the question, "Compared to what?"
Never stop asking "Why?" no matter how tedious or annoying your questions appear.
Beyond why that is specific, question things more broadly. For example, what is the agenda? It's usually $$$.

After suffering through the Jeffrey Goldberg / Huberman video, I can only conclude that despite their collective stature and degrees, these 2 DEFINITELY lack curiosity. The driver could be any of the 4 above or - more likely - they are products of an educational and medical system that is primarily memorization and consensus-driven.

These two have not evolved away from this. Consider this agenda. Huberman has 5.9M subscribers on youtube and presumably makes $$ from views and product endorsements. If he tells the truth (IF HE KNOWS IT), he could get deplatformed and lose a nice revenue stream. See 4. above.

Here is the summary from the podcast to my best recollection. There is no way I'm listening to 3+ hours of their drivel again. I almost poked out my eardrums the first time.)

Cataracts are caused by light exposure. This section starts at 1:31:50

I am including a recent blog on cataracts and early mortality risk, starting with the Age-Related Eye Disease Study #13. SEE THE CHART BELOW AND DOWNLOAD THE PDF.

IS IT CREDIBLE THAT UV EXPOSURE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE MORTALITY BECAUSE IT CONTRIBUTES TO CATARACT?

ANSWER: NO

ARE THE 2 GENIUSES AT STANFORD CREDIBLE? SAME ANSWER.

Here is a summary of the study criteria and population.

AREDS included 4,757 participants, ages 55-80 years, with cataracts, AMD, or both. AMD results are based on 3,640 participants who had early or worse AMD. Cataract results are based on 4,629 of the participants with cataracts in one or both eyes.

AREDS included participants with AMD ranging from none in either eye to advanced AMD in one eye but good vision (at least 20/30) in the other eye. The participants were enrolled at 11 clinics nationwide, and their clinical progression was followed for 5 years. Fifty-six percent were female. The median age was 69 years. Enrollment began in November 1992 and ended in January 1998.

2. Cataract as a cause of vision loss: This section starts at 2:01:01.

Goldberg starts the discussion by DEFLECTING from the major diseases and talks about refractive error. His agenda - pushing glasses. Ugh.

KEEP IN MIND, EVEN THOUGH DR. TREMPE WAS AN MD FIRST AND AN EYE DOCTOR SECOND, 99.999% OF EYE DOCTORS ARE ONLY FOCUSED ON VISION LOSS - AND NOT THE HEALTH OF THEIR PATIENTS.

"The next most common cause of vision loss is cataracts. Cataracts is a normal aging process."

TRANSLATION: DYING YOUNG FROM A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE IS PART OF THE NORMAL AGING PROCESS.

The chairman of the ophthalmology department at Stanford has NO CURIOSITY! The very shameful statement he made - with no rebuttal from Huberman is, "we actually see cataracts long before surgery is needed."

They both love how cataract surgery "works perfectly - it is a solved problem!" Dying young is NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

Steve Kirsch's macular disease was also observed from years before he had a massive stroke in his eye - with more to come.

They are both intellectually and morally exempt.

3. Glaucoma

They both agree it is a neurodegenerative disease. With that in mind, they have no idea of causes or solutions. He relates glaucoma to spinal cord injury and says, "There is no ability for regeneration."

Stanford guys: "Optic nerve degeneration leads to permanent vision loss."

He states 2 risk factors.

aging
increasing eye pressure.

These concepts are 30-50 years old. These "docs" with no curiosity are stuck in the 1970s or 1980s. Dr. Trempe was aware of the causation of glaucoma in the 1970s.

Stanford guys: eye drops, surgeries, and lasers to reduce eye pressure.

Might they as the question, "why is the pressure going up?"

See 1-4 above - dogma and lack of curiosity.

4. Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Stanford guys: The major risk factor is obviously aging.

But the Stanford guys have a solution for this - the eye injections. This leads to an increase in death by 270% in 2 years. Huberman agrees with the eye injections.

TRANSLATION: Huberman agrees with the treatment that significantly increases a patient's risk of dying. But, vision is improved meagerly at best.

The chair - Goldberg goes on to say that the problem with the deadly form of macular disease - the bleeding - is due to the "inappropriate formation of new vessels."

Really? His statement is completely incorred.

What is really happening is new vessels are formed in response to the original vessels failing. Your body doesn't do something as stupid as these guys.

Stanford: "We have injections and they can be very effective at controlling wet macular degeneration."

This is true because in most studies when the patient dies, their bad eye outcomes are NOT INCLUDED IN THE STUDY RESULTS.

PLEASE READ THAT STATEMENT ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE YOU GET IT.

5. DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: 2:14:10

Stanford: We are now treating diabetes (of the eye) with lasers and deadly injections.

Lewis: Hmmm. So maybe if we laser the entire diabetic, we can cure this disease?

Hmmm. So, if we stop new vessel growth and increase their risk of dying with these injections, we cure many patients' eye diseases by killing them? After all, when the patient dies, we can assume their vision is 20/20, right?

Huberman: To my understanding type 1 diabetes is all or none. That is, either they produce insulin or they don't.

Hmmm. He has never read the literature. For example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570378/

And here is the crescendo.

Stanford guys - stimulated by Huberman. Ozempic and related "is a very exciting development for the diabetes field." 2:19:00

If Huberman does NOT understand his own profession at the most fundamental root cause how can we trust anything he says?

I'm posting a PDF of some of the literature that connects eye diseases with cardiovascular disease and EARLY "ALL-CAUSE" MORTALITY.

The key study is AREDS #13, and here is the graphic supporting the eye-mortality connection. AREDS stands for "Age-Related Eye Disease Study," sponsored by the NIH and conducted on 4500 people in multiple centers. Before and primarily since then, this thesis has been repeatedly reproduced - but no action has been taken.

Click on the pdf document below to see the extent of the research that shows how the eye is connected to the rest of the body and serves as a "canary in the coal mine."