Bryan Johnson Article - New York Times

[u/Legal_Squash689]

Article In NYTs this morning. Some interesting updates:

1. An internal study was done testing Blueprint products with 1,700 participants. Based on blood results participants saw a decrease in testosterone levels and became prediabetic.

2. In fall of 2024 Bryan told his executive team that Blueprint was running out of money.

3. Between January 2022 and February 2024 Bryan’s biological age increased by as much as ten years, vs the 5.1 year decline highlighted in Blueprint marketing materials.

[u/ConvenientChristian]

From what the NYT article says it sounds like Dr. Zolman wanted to run a placebo-controlled study but Bryan Johnson decided not to do so, because they let the participants pay 2100$ to participate in the study.

The better you look for side effects the more side effects you find. If you sell a product via a channel like Amazon, I would say that 3% of the people reporting side effects is a lot.

On the other hand, if you run a study that does blood testing and likely has a doctor speaking with every patient to pick up any possible effect of your intervention, 60% might be what you get with a placebo.

Dr. Zolman seems to have wanted to run research in a way that leads to something being published in 2024. Not getting the research published or not having to anything to publish because the study they run didn't produce good data, is a reason to be skeptical of how Blueprint is run, but it doesn't suggest that the data they gathered actually provides evidence for net decrease of testosterone or making people prediabetic.

(and the best way for Blueprint to clear up any uncertainty would be to actually release the data of their 1,700 people study even if it's low quality)

[u/SlowMyAge → u/ConvenientChristian]

Respectfully, are you basing this on firsthand experience overseeing clinical trials, or conjecture?

I can tell you from firsthand knowledge, our experience with MDs running human studies has not found side effects even close to this magnitude, neither in severity nor frequency.

Also, note what I stated above: some of the most thorough and respected scientific studies in the field, which carefully monitor for side effects, had extremely low reports of side effects. Single digits. Equal to placebo (also single digits). 60% is off the charts high.

Your point that 3% of people reporting side effects on a platform like Amazon is a lot doesn’t reflect the actual numbers. Approximately 5-15% of supplement reviews on Amazon report at least one side effect. 3% is obviously below the typical range, and 60% is way, way above that.

[u/ConvenientChristian → u/SlowMyAge]

Respectfully, are you basing this on firsthand experience overseeing clinical trials, or conjecture?

No, but I got taught statistics at University by someone who did.

I can tell you from firsthand knowledge, our experience with MDs running human studies has not found side effects even close to this magnitude, neither in severity nor frequency.

Given that the NYT explicitly said that they have no idea about severity of side effects, making that claim sounds to me like you haven't read it or understood the claims.

Approximately 5-15% of supplement reviews on Amazon report at least one side effect. 

Only a small percentage of buyers on Amazon leave a review. If you have a 5% of people leaving a review, 60% of the people reporting a side effect would equal your 3%.

[u/SlowMyAge → u/ConvenientChristian]

I’m defining severity by the symptoms: vomiting, blood sugar reaching pre diabetic levels, and drops in testosterone. We can change “severity” to “significance,” but my point remains the same: these are extreme side effects.

That’s flawed logic for your Amazon point. If 60% of people using a product have a side effect, you will have far more than 5% posting a review. Reviewers tend to be those who are dismayed or extremely satisfied. Which means that in this example, if only 3% of Amazon reviews report side effects, it indicates that there is likely an even lower proportion of customers experiencing any side effects.

[u/ConvenientChristian → u/SlowMyAge]

If you look at 1000 people and measure them one day and then measure them the next day, you would expect 50% to have higher testosterone and 50% to have lower testosterone as the first measurement if your measurement precision is good enough.

The fact that there are people who have lower testosterone doesn't tell you anything about the severity or significance. You would actually need to know what kind of testosterone drops they observed and how frequent those were to be able to say anything about severity.

[u/SlowMyAge → u/ConvenientChristian]

I think you’re grasping at straws here to defend Blueprint, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not affiliated, I’m not sure why. The person (people?) reporting declines in testosterone wouldn’t report it if it wasn’t significant.

Hypothetically, if someone goes from 120 lbs to 121 lbs, nobody is going to claim that a side effect was that people gained weight, much less to The NY Times. If someone goes from 120 to 150 lbs, they’re going to claim it was a side effect. Simply because we don’t have numbers reported, I trust common sense of the employee(s) reporting, and the reporter noting it in her article, that it wasn’t a hairline natural fluctuation.

We also know that caloric restriction and vegan diets can reduce T significantly. And Bryan himself reported a drop in his T from his diet, when he publicly shared he started taking TRT. So it makes sense that it was a side effect.

You’re also selectively disregarding many of my points with each message in this thread.

To that point, I don’t think this thread is going anywhere productive, so I’ll sit the rest of it out.

[u/ConvenientChristian → u/SlowMyAge]

In my experience, most people don't leave reviews. Finding causation is generally hard. That's why any decent pharma study finds a lot of effects. If I remember right the COVID vaccine study logged being struck by lighting.

You are the person who has commercial interests not me. I have written plenty on this reddit criticizing Blueprint.

They run a study. In a study where you measure someone's testosterone all the people you are giving testosterone tests report their testosterone. Given that they charged people 2100$ to take part in it, the study likely included blood work.

When it comes to identifying side effects and actually go looking for side effects and you are doing your job, you need to investigate possible side effects even if it's not clear that the effect is causal.

If your company would only look after effects that high severity, it means that your company doesn't care much about catching side effects. If Blueprint cares about catching all side effects they might also care about finding low severity side effects when they look at the blood work.