Talk:Bryan Johnson

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) → Bryan Johnson (entrepreneaur, venture capitalist) – Bryan is now much more a venture capitalist than when the page was originally created. This is where he now spends most of his time and energy. Curt Miller (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The parenthetical phrase does not need to be a complete description of the person. (The suggestion also seems misspelled, which I assume is just a typographical error.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a venture capitalist is still an entrepreneur of a sort, in any case, it would not use the unwieldy disambiguator, it'd either be entrepreneur or venture capitalist per WP:CONCISE -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bryan Johnson 2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Gushy little bio

Is it me, or does this article seem like a fawning fluff piece? Does anybody else think it should be trimmed down? That encyclopedia article shouldn't be gushy? Chisme (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. This seems like it was written by a PR team ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BodegaBiscuit (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bryan Johnson kernel flow.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

@Bon courage, could you please elaborate as to your reasoning behind this revert?

Google his name and virtually everything that comes up is about his anti-aging practices, and not about his work as an entrepreneur. Shouldn't the thing that he is most known for be mentioned in the introduction? And I wasn't adding any new information or references; I was simply summarizing in the introduction that which was already in the body of the article, along with one of the same references that was used in the body of the article. It's not "primary" if it has a reference, and I can't see how it is "undue" when it's already mentioned in the body of the article and there are countless articles about it when you google his name, whereas very few articles come up about his other work/activities.

And, perhaps even more confusingly, what was wrong with adding an in-text link to Ginkgo Bioworks, since it was already mentioned in the article and has a wikipedia article, doesn't it make sense that readers may be interested to click it to learn what it is if they are unfamiliar with it? If you think this is promotion or something, I have no connection with the company or even any particular interest in it, but it is typical that concepts like that are linked to their articles in-text when such articles exist. It's no different from how braintree, venmo, and paypal are also linked to in this article.

Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The link is okay (though probably that stuff about fund portfolios all needs to be cut). WP:MEDIUM is not acceptable, and anything about "life extension" is WP:FRINGE so would need respectable sources to put it in a sensible context anyway. Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that my post here served as a catalyst for you to remove even more from the article... The stuff about "life extension" was not making any claims as to whether or not he is actually succeeding at what he is claiming to be doing. There's no denying it is what he is most known for. Including it factually is not the same as endorsing it. There are countless other sources other than "Medium" that mention his anti-aging practices that can be used as references. To leave out the thing he is most known for would be leaving the article extremely incomplete and would be misleading to our readers. Many people would likely be confused and think they were on the article for the wrong person.

Note this quote from WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." The objective fact of what he is doing is notable. If it said something like "He has successfully reversed his biological age," then that would be a problem. But saying "He claims to have reversed his biological age," is objective and notable and can be cited by reliable sources. Is the BBC reliable enough? If you want something from a more skeptical perspective, then is this article acceptable?

If the link was okay then why did you revert it too, may I ask? Vontheri (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this article from bloomberg balanced enough? It contains this quote from one of Johnson's physicians: “We have not achieved any remarkable results,” he says. “In Bryan, we have achieved small, reasonable results, and it’s to be expected.”

We can't exclude notable information just because we don't like it. I really can't fathom how including what he is most known for, as long as it is done in a neutral and non-biased way, is not worthy of inclusion, nor do I see how it violates WP:FRINGE or any other wikipedia standards. Vontheri (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything that states or implies a health effect needs WP:MEDRS. Material is not omitted because editors do or don't like it, but for NPOV any mention of a fringe idea must either be contextualised with mainstream commentary, or omitted entirely. Is there any RS commentary on Bryan's claims? The nearest I can see is probably The Guardian[1] but even that's not great. Maybe a query to WP:FT/N is in order? Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply stating what his practices are is not implying that they actually have a health effect, unless it is worded in such a way as to imply such. As long as it is worded correctly, then it would be violating a neutral point of view (as well as violating notability) to not include the thing that a person is most known for. I think the quote from his physician in the bloomberg article should contextualize things: "We have not achieved any remarkable results,” he says. “In Bryan, we have achieved small, reasonable results, and it’s to be expected.”

It doesn't matter if his practices "work" or do what he claims. It only matters that it is what he is most known for, and to entirely exclude it from his article is violating notability. It just needs to be described objectively/neutrally, and simply stating "Bryan Johnson does x practices" (without saying that he does so successfully or any other value-judgement) is neutral and notable. I think the above quote from his doctor puts things in perspective, and the Guardian article you linked is fine too. To exclude it from mention entirely seems like a rather extreme position. I don't think so little of our readers' intellects to think that they need to be told what to think or that they can't handle controversial information; we should just provide objective facts.

Can you please tell me yet why you reverted my other edit where I simply linked to another article in-text? Was it an unintentional oversight or was there an actual reason?

I am posting an RFC to WP:FT/N as you suggested, as well as the following places which I feel are also relevant: WP:POVN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transhumanism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futures studies, and Wikipedia talk:Notability. Here is the text of what I have posted:

"There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both WP:notability and WP:NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks!"

Please let me know if you feel I didn't accurately or sufficiently summarize your position in those RFC posts.Vontheri (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And I just noticed after I made my RFC posts that you had gone ahead and made your own post at WP:FT/N. Quite a difference in tone, isn't there? I tried to describe both our positions neutrally, yet you give your post the sarcastic and biased title, "Millionaire discovers secret to eternal life." Let's keep neutral point of view in mind as well as Fringe, please. I'm not proposing we endorse his practices, only that we neutrally and factually state that is he doing what he is doing. Vontheri (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd already posted at WP:FT/N. For NPOV on fringe ideas, policy is "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Since there are apparently no sources to contextualize this guy's "ideas" properly in relation to established scholarship, omission is the way to go for now. WP:N is irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not going to answer my question about the revert of my other edit?

You hadn't told me that you had posted at FT/N, so I assumed you hadn't. Your post there was extremely biased and sarcastic, whereas I attempted to neutrally describe both our positions. Please read this. Also, I fear that had it been posted only to Ft/N and nowhere else, it would violate this, which says, "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased."

You've failed to convince me that including it in a factual, neutral, non-biased, non-endorsing manner would "unduly legitimize" it. It would not unduly legitimize it, especially if we include the quote from his physician: “We have not achieved any remarkable results,” he says. “In Bryan, we have achieved small, reasonable results, and it’s to be expected.” And how is WP:N possibly irrelevant? A big part of my argument is that it would violate notability standards to exclude the very thing he is most known for.

Hopefully we will get input from other editors soon.Vontheri (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what link do you want to add? Notability pertains to whether articles exist, not what's in 'em. To say that taking 111 supplements has "reasonable results" wrt aging reversal, would need strong (very strong) WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What link do I want to add where? I don't understand.

I absolutely am not suggesting to say that taking 111 supplements has "reasonable results". That would be what I would want to avoid saying. I do, however, think we should factually state that he is doing what he calls "anti-aging practices", which could include stating that he is taking 111 (or however many) supplements, without saying that it "works". Saying he is doing something is not the same as saying that what he is doing "works".

I stand corrected regarding notability. I've seen numerous editors use the term "notable" or "notability" to refer to things within an article. I see nothing here to suggest that the information about his practices, as long as it is presented in the right way, should not be included, and it would bias-by-exclusion to not include it.

Anyway, we seem to mostly be going around in circles. I think we should wait until other editors have a chance to give input. Vontheri (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I see now that when you said that about "reasonable results" you were referring to the quote from his physician. Sorry, I didn't make the connection until just now. His physician was not talking specifically about the supplements. Johnson is doing a lot more than just taking pills. He's also following exercise regimens, specific sleep schedules, certain dietary practices, having frequent diagnostic testings, etc. It's not surprising that exercise and healthy eating would have "reasonable results" to health, even if some of his other practices could be useless or even potentially harmful. And again, simply stating that he is doing something is not the same as endorsing it. Vontheri (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You're doing a lot of interpreting and special pleading there. How do you know it's not the "no sex after midnight" rule the physician has in mind? There is no known method to reverse aging or live to be 200 (or forever). Inclusions of fringe ideas confers undue legitimacy. if we can't contextualize BS like this we omit it. That's policy, and it's not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clear from the article that the physician was talking about the totality of his practices, and not any one specific practice.

There could simply be a reference to a reliable article that says "there are currently no known methods to reverse aging that are accepted by mainstream science." or something of similar wording. I'm sure there are countless reliable sources out there that would say something like that that we could cite. It's not impossible to contextualize this.

Let's wait until other editors have a chance to respond. We clearly aren't getting anywhere just the two of us. I will wait until someone else gives input now. Vontheri (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the problem. There is no published sensible material on Johnson's nonsense. I've seen some comments from scientists on Twitter (I think) calling this Broscience out as the bollocks it is, but it needs to be in a RS for us to use it. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible sources describing his anti-aging practices and eccentric diet The Times, Vice.com, The Conversation, Cosmopolitan.com, New York Post, Fortune Well, The Guardian 2022, The Guardian 2023. I wouldn't say all of these are reliable. But after doing a deep scan on the internet these are the best I could find. The Guardian piece from 2023 may be the best there. None of these are WP:MEDRS but a few lines could be added about his daily routine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your input. I'm sure a relevant source that says something about anti-aging practices in general could be found. The reference doesn't have to be talking about Johnson specifically to say something like "there are currently no known methods to reverse aging that are accepted by mainstream science."

And I'm not even totally sure MEDRS even fits with this situation. It's borderline, but it could fall under "beliefs" in Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?, ie. if we describe Johnson's beliefs about what his practices are doing. Regardless, I think it would make the article incredibly incomplete to not at least mention it. And it shouldn't be hard to find a source to cite as a disclaimer about anti-aging practices in general. Vontheri (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That they're pseudoscience, or maybe a PR stunt in this case. Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For any newcomers to this discussion: there is now an RFC about this issue which can be found below on this page, so I suggest posting any new comments to the RFC rather than to this thread. Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is over-reliant on questionable sources. The worst examples are probably the citation of Johnson's own website [2] and his Amazon author page [3] for promotional content, but beyond that many of the sources seem to be interviews and the like, which should not be used in the manner they are. We should base articles on what others say about the subject, not what he has to say about himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Made a start. Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article include information about Bryan Johnson's anti-aging practices?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would make the article incomplete to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally and not in a way that implies endorsement. Excluding it could also violate WP:NPOV, which states, "the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view." The other editor, @Bon courage, feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. A third editor, @user:Psychologist Guy, has also given some input. It would be appreciated if others could give their input. Thanks! Vontheri (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To summarize things for any newcomers to the discussion: My thoughts are that to exclude the information about Bryan Johnson's life-extension/anti-aging/whatever-you-call-it (we can debate what terminology to use) practices would make the article incomplete, as it is what he is most known for. It would be like if the article for George Washington described his military career but never mentioned that he was the first American president.

There are plenty of sources saying that he does these practices, so whether or not he does it is not at question. What is at question is if it is too fringe to include or not. Bon Courage has argued that it is too fringe and that there are no reliable sources to put it in perspective. My view is that simply stating, in a neutral way, that he does what he does is not the same as endorsing his views. We don’t have to have a source specifically debunking the efficacy of Bryan Johnson’s practices anymore than we need a source specifically debunking the efficacy of every single homeopathic product that has an article, or debunking the specific homeopathic practices of every homeopath who has an article. A general source saying that mainstream science does not accept homeopathy as efficacious is sufficient. Likewise, a source saying anti-aging practices in general are not accepted by mainstream science is completely sufficient for this article. Vontheri (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You make the point against yourself. Wikipedia very much does "debunk" homoepathic products and practices wherever they are mentioned, because that is a core requirement of NPOV/GEVAL. See Oscillococcinum for example. Policy is explicit: if you're going to invoke medically extreme claims, you need rational context. We don't just put it on the table without comment. Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here from Yapperbot. Here are my questions:

1. @Vontheri what exactly were you hoping to include about his anti-aging practices? I think that one clear thing from the above discussion at Why were my edits reverted? is that there are a lot of ways we don't want to phrase this.

2. Anyone: I understand that there are some sources that mention his anti-aging that seem to meet RS but not MEDRS. Do most sources about him reference this, or only some?

3. Anyone: Are there MEDRS on anti-aging in general?

Thank you, SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage Articles for practitioners of homeopathy do not typically say anything debunking homeopathy, let alone the person's specific practice of homeopathy. See for example: Mukesh Batra, John Franklin Gray, and Constantine Hering

@SomeoneDreaming, Thank you for your contribution. To answer your questions:

1. There could be two options. The first would be restoring the article as it was before Bon Courage's reverts, with some changes to include a disclaimer about anti-aging practices. The second could be something like this, but not necessarily these exact words:

In the intro: "Johnson has received media attention for his anti-aging practices. (citation)

Somewhere in the body of the article, probably a new section: On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced what he calls "Project Blueprint," which is an attempt to reverse the "biological age" of a number of his organs via certain dietary practices, large numbers of supplements, a strict sleep schedule, frequent diagnostic testing, among other methods. (citations) He has claimed to have reversed his biological age by a few years, but one of his physicians has been quoted as saying, “We have not achieved any remarkable results. In Bryan, we have achieved small, reasonable results, and it’s to be expected.” (bloomberg citation) Mainstream medicine does not currently recognize any methods of reversing the aging process as being scientifically possible. (citation)

2. Searching his name on Google, it seems that the vast majority of articles that come up are about his anti-aging practices. Articles about his business activity are mostly older and fewer in number.

3. I need more time to do research to give an informed answer to this question. I found this article that says " In almost all instances, claims of drugs, health supplements and other types of intervention are not based on any evidence supported by sound scientific knowledge." I also found one journal article that seems to support the idea that dietary restriction can result in life-extension, although extending life is not the same as literally reversing biological age. If I'm not mistaken, that is one of the practices Johnson is engaging in. Vontheri (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; seeing the proposed text is really helpful. I support including information on his practices in the way you do above. However, I caution using the articles you've cited above as examples; just because other articles are like that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. In fact, the Mukesh Batra article looks like it needs cleanup for promo. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Without seeing a proposed text, and the sources being cited, it is hard to be definitive, but as a general principle, if something is given significant coverage, excluding it from a biography because it involves 'fringe' beliefs would be an odd decision to make. Some people are Wikipedia-'notable' solely because of such beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Johnson eats some kind of eccentric vegan diet with intermittent fasting (he consumes all his meals before 11am), takes over 100 supplements a day, and has done blood transfusions with his teenage son. He has done a lot of other odd things. There are some reliable sources that describe these practices. There should be no issue mentioning these facts. The issue seems to have been about biomedical claims regarding these practices. We should not not be making any health claims here, I think a few lines about his daily routine should not be an issue. All we can do is just report what his daily routine is, not make any anti-aging claims about them. If we just neutrally word what his routine involves I don't think there should be a problem with that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Instead of "for his anti-aging practices", I recommend "anti-aging ideas" or "attempts". In the body, "Johnson tried to reverse the "biological age" of a number of his organs via dietary practices, supplements, a strict sleep schedule and frequent diagnostic testing.(bloomberg citation) Mainstream medicine does not currently recognize any methods of reversing the aging process as scientifically possible.(citation)" "Project Blueprint" and the physician's quote are not very informative. Senorangel (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think mentioning "Project Blueprint" is relevant because that is what he calls it, and is what it has been called by the media. There's no bias in mentioning what he calls it. "Project Blueprint" should also probably be a redirect to this page, as I wouldn't be surprised if some people search the term on Wikipedia.

The quote from the physician helps to put it in perspective, to counter Johnson's extreme claims.

I'm fine with "attempts" instead of "practices." "Ideas" could imply that it is just a philosophy or ideology, rather than a lifestyle he pursues. I also think "attempts" sounds more accurate than "tried." "Tried" sounds more past-tense, making it sound as though he gave up and is no longer doing it.

Also, to more accurately reflect what the journal articles say, instead of, "Mainstream medicine does not currently recognize any methods of reversing the aging process as scientifically possible.", I'm changing my proposed last sentence to: "Although there is some evidence that caloric restriction may increase longevity to some extent, there is no evidence that the reversal of the aging process in humans, or reversing the "biological age" of any organs, is possible by current means, and nearly all claims that drugs, health supplements and other types of interventions can reverse the aging process are not based on scientifically sound principles.

Here is the full text of what I am now proposing to add to the article:

Intro:

Johnson has received media attention for his anti-aging attempts.

New section titled "Anti-aging attempts":

On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced what he calls "Project Blueprint," which is an attempt to reverse the "biological age" of a number of his organs via certain dietary practices including caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, large numbers of supplements, a strict sleep schedule, frequent diagnostic testing, and a single plasma transfusion, among other methods. He has claimed to have reversed his biological age by a few years, but one of his physicians has been quoted as saying, “We have not achieved any remarkable results. In Bryan, we have achieved small, reasonable results, and it’s to be expected.” Although there is some evidence that caloric restriction may increase longevity to some extent, there is no scientific evidence that the reversal of the aging process in humans, or reversing the "biological age" of any organs, is possible by current means, and nearly all claims of drugs, health supplements, and other types of interventions reversing the aging process are not based on scientifically sound principles.

(Of course I am open to alterations by anyone else interested. Other references can be added as well, if anyone has others they want to add. It's a first draft.) Vontheri (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Vontheri (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• oppose Seems WP:Fringe to me. Perhaps come back if/when he's 65 and he still looks his current age and there's academic research which gives credibility to what he's doing. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

So, as of now it looks like we have 3 definite supporters (including myself), and 2 definite opposers (Including Bon Courage). That leaves two remaining who I presume are light supports?

@AndyTheGrump You seemed like a likely "support" but depending on the content of the proposed text. Does the text I proposed above look satisfactory to you?

@Senorangel You sound like you support the idea of including something about his anti-aging attempts, but had some suggestions regarding changes. I agreed with changing "practices" to attempts, but I thought leaving in the physician quote and "project blueprint" (the name Johnson uses for what he is doing) was best. If you feel strongly about it, then I can remove the quote from the physician, but I do think leaving in "project blueprint" is helpful to readers who may be searching for that term, as well as relevant in general since it is the name that has been generally used for his attempt.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input, including the "oppose". Vontheri (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that there have been two "oppose" (I'm including bon Courage), three hard "supports" (including myself), and two of what I will call "soft supports", and given that it has been a few days without additional comments, I am going to go ahead and add the proposed text to the article. As I have had more time to think about it, I can see where Senorangel is coming from regarding the physician quote, so I will remove it from the text that I am adding to the article.

If anyone has any objections, questions, comments, etc. then please let me know. Thanks to everyone who has responded to the RFC. Vontheri (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOSUMMARIES applies. The RfC should be closed in the normal way by a neutral party after 28 days. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You're persistent aren't you? There's nothing saying that that is the required process here, (which says "There is no required minimum or maximum duration"), but okay. I was intentionally NOT closing the RFC to leave room for objections, as I stated in the last sentence of my last post. Vontheri (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus to add stuff like "Although there is some evidence that caloric restriction may increase longevity to some extent" sourced to a 2006 opinion piece. That proposal elicited the response that it's FRINGE, which is exactly right. I general this RfC has been bollixed up but changing the question as it goes on. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That sentence can be taken out if that is what consensus decides. I added that sentence to say what the reference said, as we are supposed to start with a reference instead of starting with our beliefs and then finding references to agree with out beliefs. I said it was a first draft and that I was open to changes. I added the text to the article after no one responded with any objections after three days, but you reverted it; that's fine. Now I will wait.

Regarding "That proposal elicited the response that it's FRINGE": Look at the timestamp on the "oppose" vote and then look at the timestamp on the post where I made the first draft that included the sentence about caloric restriction. My proposed text was written after the oppose vote, so that sentence about caloric restriction wasn't the catalyst.

Regarding what science says about caloric restriction and life expectancy, you may want to take a look at some of these articles: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=caloric+restriction+aging Vontheri (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, I'm only interested in reliable sources. Just saying "caloric restriction" is obtuse anyway - are you going to go to a famine-torn area and tell the starving people that if they'd only practice "caloric restriction" they'd live longer? We're getting a long way from B Johnson and his bullshit in any case. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

His attempt is notable. I am not sure, however, how they should be mentioned and to what extent. For example, Johnson's claim of reversing his biological age by years sounds very ambiguous. What were his criteria? They should probably be checked with an expert on this. Senorangel (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This article may serve as a good starting point to understand what criteria he is using to determine his "biological age". (It should go without saying, but just to be perfectly clear, my linking to the article is not intended to be a personal endorsement of his practices or ideas, nor am I making any claims as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what he claims about his organs/health/biological age. Neutrally documenting what someone believes or does is not the same as believing it or endorsing it myself.)

This blog post written by Johnson Goes into some detail about some of the criteria he uses. (I understand that it isn't typical to use a blog post like that as a source on Wikipedia, but I'm linking to it for context and as a starting point for further research. I am not proposing the blog post as a reference to be used in the article.) Vontheri (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Both unreliable sources. This[4] piece is at least rational: basically this is an "astonishingly silly" PR stunt - Tech Bro nonsense for sad men. That's what Wikipedia needs to be conveying. Bon courage (talk)` Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

He appears to rely on certain biomarkers for his claim. I am not totally comfortable with saying "biological age". Senorangel (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What wording would you prefer instead? Vontheri (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There are more questions about the project the more you look into it. Most of the claims in his post do not include start and end measurements. He could have started out very healthy. Many individuals have claimed to have reversed their age in some sense or another. It is an unconventional assertion that is too often made without much to show for it. Senorangel (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Partial mention of Johnson's "attempts" instead of "practices". In the body, "Johnson claims to have improved certain biomarkers via dietary practices ..." without the physician's quote. I am ambivalent about Project Blueprint. Senorangel (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support mention, but oppose last sentence of proposed wording (outdated sources which don't mention Johnson). There are plenty of more critical sources I haven't seen mentioned yet, like this, or that. DFlhb (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for finding those sources! I agree they are much better and are actually pertinent. The two sources I had before were just the best I could find at the time, but even then I felt they were not ideal.

  I've been a bit occupied lately, but I will get back to you with a revised proposal within the next couple days as soon as I have time. And I'll get back to Senorangel as well. Vontheri (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It's kind of a bit difficult to both accurately say what Bryan Johnson claims yet at the same time avoid any terminology that may be objected to. His stated goal is anti-aging, so I feel that we must mention that in some way. Just because it may not be scientific doesn't mean we shouldn't accurately say what he claims, of course with balanced counter-arguments, just like how articles relating to flat-earth ideology say things like "flat earthers believe the earth is flat". We don't avoid saying that they claim the earth is flat just because we know it isn't flat. So, it's a fine needle to thread, but here is what I have written now, see what you think everyone/anyone interested:

On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced an anti-aging attempt that he calls "Project Blueprint." Johnson claims to have improved certain biomarkers via dietary practices including caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, large numbers of supplements and medications, a strict sleep schedule, and frequent diagnostic testing among other methods. He also underwent a single plasma transfussion with his son as the donor, but he says he will not repeat the transfusion due to lack of benefits. His attempts have been met with criticism from some experts in fields related to aging. Moshe Szyf, a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at McGill University, has expressed skepticism that science is yet capable of achieving the remarkable results that Johnson claims to be reaching for. Andrew Steele, a longevity scientist and author, has stated that genetics play the largest role in determining a person's life expectancy and that no amount of the practices that Johnson is doing can change genetics. Vontheri (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Still way too credulous and respectful of this nonsense. We need to be clear it's a PR stunt and scientifically nonsensical. Bon courage (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If you know of a reliable source claiming it is a PR stunt then I'm all for adding it as long as it is worded factually. Otherwise it is just your opinion and doesn't belong in the article. Vontheri (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

From the source I linked above: "The internet has been bombarded with the astonishingly silly anti-aging routine of Bryan Johnson, mostly because his publicists are working overtime to make it so unavoidable". Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be respectful… SomeoneDreaming (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to WP:FRINGESUBJECTS, if sources aren't. Bon courage (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We certainly need to be respectful at all times.

I'm not sure if the reference Bon Courage mentioned passes WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSORG. The article seems like more or less a gossip editorial. For example, see this quote from the article: "It’s also worth noting that this boon in PR for a previously mostly anonymous tech dude might be a way for him to talk over a 2021 lawsuit from his ex-girlfriend that claimed Johnson kicked her out of his house when she was diagnosed with cancer. Just saying." WP:NEWSORG says "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true.) Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." The author hasn't cited a source for how they know that he has this team of publicists, so it may be in the category of rumor or gossip. (Although it does intuitively seem likely that, given the media attention he has received regarding Project Bluepirint, he probably does have a team of publicists.) WP:NEWSORG also says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." so I'm thinking that it could be okay to mention it as long as it is worded in the right way. I'll leave it to others to determine if it is acceptable as a reference or not. Would anyone else care to weigh in on whether or not the source can be used, and if so in what way?

Assuming others agree that it is acceptable, then here is what I have now. How does this sound?

On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced an anti-aging attempt that he calls "Project Blueprint." Johnson claims to have improved certain biomarkers via dietary practices including caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, large numbers of supplements and medications, a strict sleep schedule, and frequent diagnostic testing among other methods. He also underwent a single plasma transfussion with his son as the donor, but he says he will not repeat the transfusion due to lack of benefits. His attempts have been met with criticism from some experts in fields related to aging. Moshe Szyf, a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at McGill University, has expressed skepticism that science is yet capable of achieving the remarkable results that Johnson claims to be reaching for. Andrew Steele, a longevity scientist and author, has stated that genetics play the largest role in determining a person's life expectancy and that no amount of the practices that Johnson is doing can change genetics. A 2023 pajiba.com article claimed that Johnson has a team of publicists working to spread information on the internet regarding Project Blueprint. Vontheri (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The PR criticism is now called into question with a WP:CLAIM while everything else is asserted as fact, which looks like a POV problem. If you need sources to "cite their sources" before they're usable, you've now got a lot of trimming to do. The "some expets" stuff is unsourced and makes it sound like there's some kind of debate about this. Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is stated as fact except that which is undeniably factual, such as the fact that he calls it "project blueprint". Note that the second sentence also has the word "claim" in it, starting with "Johnson claims to have..." The "some experts" part is cited by citation #7. The pajiba.com article is clearly an opinion piece, so I think the word "claim" is appropriate. If a non-opinion source that states he has a team of publicists exists then I would use a different wording that did not use the word "claim". But if we are using this source, then note that it's also a source that suggests he is doing all this anti-aging stuff as a way to detract attention away from his leaving his wife, so it's definitely an opinion piece at best and an unreliable gossip piece at worst. I'm basically 50/50 as to whether or not it should be considered a reliable source for this article, which is why I requested input from others. That said, if you (or anyone else) want to suggest a different wording, then please do so. Vontheri (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The point is the whole thing is celebrity gossip of the "rich tech bro does weird stuff" type. All the (weak) sources used mix opinion and reportage; whether he's using publicists is a question of fact, not opinion. Looking at how this story has rampaged across the gutter press (but been largely ignored by respectable outlets) shows that, and in lieu of counter-sourcing I see no reason to doubt it. Bon courage (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

How about "stated" instead of "claimed"? Like this:

A 2023 pajiba.com article stated that Johnson has a team of publicists working to spread information on the internet regarding Project Blueprint. Vontheri (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why attribute it at all, while leaving truly dubious things (like that he only had "a single" transfusion) stated in Wikivoice as fact? In any case, he seems to have moved onto his penis now.[5] Bon courage (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If we make a continuum from "hard news" on one end, and "gossip piece" on the other end, and "editorial" somewhere in the middle, then the Pajiba article is the furthest towards the "gossip piece" end of the continuum than any other article that has been linked to anywhere in this discussion. Most of the articles are closest to the "editorial" part of the continuum. It is also the only source that says anything about him having a team of publicists, so it makes sense to attribute the claim to its source rather than state it as pure fact. If other sources, especially higher quality sources, make the same claim, then I would agree that it should be stated as fact. Also, this source seems to imply that the media attention is a result of a snowballing effect from the initial article in Bloomberg, where it says "Since Bloomberg profiled him in January, Johnson has become known for his extravagance and discipline by spending millions of dollars on anti-aging remedies, publicly documenting his anti-aging regime under the name “Project Blueprint.” The Bloomberg article, in addition to being the first to write about Johnson, is also probably the closest to the "hard news" end of the continuum of all the sources being used. So there is an argument to be made that the media attention may not be due to a team of publicists, but is simply due to all these media companies not wanting to be left out of getting a story that they think will attract readers and thus increase revenue. Until we have confirmation that he has this team of publicists from a higher quality source, then if we even include it at all, then we should make it clear that it was included in only a single source, and given that it's a rather low-quality and highly-opinionated source, we should explicitly name the source.

I'm hoping a third party other than the two of us can weigh in on this. If anyone else is reading this, care to give your views? I'm also hoping this can be over with soon as I'm getting rather tired of it. This is not even an article I have that much of an interest in or ever intended on spending nearly this much time on. There are other things, both on and off Wikipedia, that I would much rather be using my time for.

The "single transfusion" has been mentioned in multiple articles, and the "Fortune" article is from a fairly well-respected publisher. Not as well-respected as Bloomberg, but certainly more respected than things like the Guardian or Daily mail or especially this obscure Pajiba. There are plenty of articles that are critical of him for doing the transfusion, sure, but I'm not aware of any article that calls into question whether or not he actually had the transfussion, nor that alleges that he secretely had more than one plasma transfussion. So it's definitely not a dubious claim. However, I will add an additional source regarding the transfussion. But, even after specifically looking, I still can't find any articles anywhere that claim he hasn't actually had the tranfussion or that he secretely had more than one transfusion. So it's definitely not "dubious" as you claimed. Vontheri (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This source[6] says he has "regular" transfusions. Bon courage (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a blog, not a news article or even an editorial. It's even written in the first person perspective, and Bryan Johnson is only a tiny part of the article and certainly not a primary or even secondary focus. People can get information wrong or misremember things. The source you linked also says he gets transfusions of blood instead of plasma. Blood transfusions and plasma transfusions are different things. He's never claimed to have had a blood transfusion, nor has he ever claimed to have had a plasma transfusion more than once, and it's quite a conspiracy to think there's some reason he would admit to doing it once and say he's not doing it again but secretly actually be doing it regularly. There's zero evidence for that. Vontheri (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's an article in the National Review by Lionel Shriver. The point is you seem to be tying yourself in inconsistent knots to assert stuff you apparently like and add distancing editorial to stuff you don't. It all further points to how this stuff is impossible to include given the current sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I really don't have strong feelings about this in either direction at all, so I'm not trying to further any sort of agenda. I told you on another talk page what my personal thoughts are about Bryan Johnson and what he's doing. I just want the topic to be encyclopedically, neutrally, and factually documented. If "stuff I apparently like" is documenting facts, then yes, I'm pushing to include the uncontroversial fact that he had a single plasma transfusion. Whether or not he should have done the transfusion or what his motivation for doing it was may be controversial, but the fact that he actually did it, and the fact that he did it only one time, is not controversial. I've used the word "claim" several times, both for claims made by Johnson and claims made by critics; there are no "inconsistent knots". Let's give someone else a chance to weigh in now before we make so many posts that no one is going to take the time to actually read this and figure out what we are even talking about. I won't be posting here anymore until someone else other than the two of us has a chance to give input.

To anyone else, so you know what is going on, the following is the text as is currently being proposed. Please let it be known if you think it is ready to add to the article, or if there are any changes you want. Specifically, should the last sentence be included or not, and is the pajiba.com source a reliable source? And if the source and sentence should be included, then should it be worded "A 2023 pajiba.com article claimed that..." or "A 2023 pajiba.com article stated that..." or some other wording entirely? And please... let's get this over with soon..? Here is the text:

On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced an anti-aging attempt that he calls "Project Blueprint." Johnson claims to have improved certain biomarkers via dietary practices including caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, large numbers of supplements and medications, a strict sleep schedule, and frequent diagnostic testing among other methods. He also underwent a single plasma transfussion with his son as the donor, but he says he will not repeat the transfusion due to lack of benefits. His attempts have been met with criticism from some experts in fields related to aging. Moshe Szyf, a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at McGill University, has expressed skepticism that science is yet capable of achieving the remarkable results that Johnson claims to be reaching for. Andrew Steele, a longevity scientist and author, has stated that genetics play the largest role in determining a person's life expectancy and that no amount of the practices that Johnson is doing can change genetics. A 2023 pajiba.com article claimed that Johnson has a team of publicists working to spread information on the internet regarding Project Blueprint.

Vontheri (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Vontheri (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This source also supports regular transfusions ("every month") with his son and his father, and gives an FDA quote I haven't seen before: "Such treatments have no proven clinical benefits for the uses for which these clinics are advertising them and are potentially harmful". Aside from that the piece is glowing and uncritical. DFlhb (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the FDA is a reliable source! Maybe something like "Johnson has gained press attention for attempting to gain eternal life and paying special attention to the 'rejuvenation' of his penis, by taking dozens of dietary supplements, having blood transfusions with his son, and adopting other wellness techniques. The FDA commented that such treatments have no benefit and may be harmful" (all sourcable from sources already mention). Bon courage (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Problem is that the FDA only commented on the transfusions, not the rest of his protocol; and the "penis rejuvenation" seems to not be a main 'thrust' of his approach ("special attention") but only part of a systematic organ-by-organ 'rejuvenation' process of overscreening for disease and applying targeted 'therapies'. DFlhb (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Bah, too bad. Funny how other organs haven't been publicized: almost as if this is a PR exercise calibrated for maximum attention! Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Johnson has only ever claimed to have had one plasma (not blood) transfusion and I don't see any rational reason why he would admit to doing it once but then secretely be doing it more than once. And where are these sources getting this inside information from if he is doing it more than once? It seems the sources claiming he has "regular transfusions" are simply erroneous. Nevertheless, if you want, I will change the wording. The FDA quote is certainly relevant and I agree it should be added as well. How is this?

He also says he underwent a single plasma transfussion with his son as the donor, but he says he will not repeat the transfusion due to lack of benefits,(previous citation here) although some sources claim that he undergoes regular or monthly infusions. The FDA has stated that transfusions like the kind Johnson had are without benefit and may be harmful.(citation you gave here)

Do you have any thoughts about the Pajiba.com source and sentence, by the way? Vontheri (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the FDA quote in that article says "plasma" and not "blood". No company or individual or other entity is even offering blood transfusions for alleged anti-aging purposes, but there are some offering plasma transfusions. The sources that say he had multiple transfusions also say "blood" instead of "plasma". It seems pretty obvious that these sources simply have their facts wrong. There is no one presenting any sort of argument such as "he claims to have had a single plasma transfusion but actually had multiple blood transfusions." It's not uncommon that lay people get "plasma transfusions" and "blood transfusions" confused with each other, but they are different things. If they got one fact wrong, then it's not a leap to think they also got another fact wrong. Vontheri (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong. He received six transfusions. It was definitely plasma however, and not blood. I can admit when I'm wrong.

Source: https://fortune.com/well/2023/07/13/blueprint-ceo-bryan-johnson-defends-plasma-donation-son-youth-aging-longevity-brainstorm-tech-fortune-utah/

The above article says that he said in a tweet "Discontinuing therapy: completed 6, 1L young plasma exchanges. 1x/mo (1 w/ my son). Evaluated biomarkers from biofluids, devices and imaging, no benefits detected."

The confusion I had was due to the fact that only one of the six transfusions were using his son as the donor. The others were from other donors.

My full proposed text is now the following, with the final sentence and pajiba.com source subject to approval or disapproval by consensus:

On October 13, 2021, Johnson announced an anti-aging attempt that he calls "Project Blueprint." Johnson claims to have improved certain biomarkers via dietary practices including caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, large numbers of supplements and medications, a strict sleep schedule, and frequent diagnostic testing among other methods. He also underwent a series of six monthly 1-liter plasma transfusions with his son as the donor for one of the transfusions, but he says he will not repeat the transfusions due to lack of benefits. The FDA has stated that transfusions such as the kind Johnson had are without benefit and may be harmful. His attempts have been met with criticism from some experts in fields related to aging. Moshe Szyf, a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at McGill University, has expressed skepticism that science is yet capable of achieving the remarkable results that Johnson claims to be reaching for. Andrew Steele, a longevity scientist and author, has stated that genetics play the largest role in determining a person's life expectancy and that no amount of the practices that Johnson is doing can change genetics. A 2023 pajiba.com article claimed that Johnson has a team of publicists working to spread information on the internet regarding Project Blueprint. Vontheri (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Vontheri (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I support this change. Any movement? Personally I think it's wreckless to not have this information on this page. Thenumberfor (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm just not quite sure at what point it is safe to add the text to the article and it not get reverted... Vontheri (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A new Guardian source out today.[7] Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention, for now. We've kicked this around and I just don't see a way of covering this stuff in a way befitting a serious encyclopedia. This is without prejudice to inclusion later should some decent sourcing appear which puts this "eternal life" stuff in a properly sceptical/scientific context. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that it has been a while and there have been no new comments in this discussion, I have requested formal closure. Most commenters seem to support inclusion in at least some form, but discussion on the particulars has stalled, so, personally, I think the best thing would be to go ahead and add my proposed text, and then let the article evolve organically from there. I think my last revision of my proposed text is at least good enough to go ahead and add to the article, and then any particulars from my proposed text that anyone wants to change can easily be changed by editing the article.

As for the new article Bon Courage found: if someone else wants to add something from that article then please go right ahead, but personally I've gotten tired of this. I have other things I'd rather move on to. Vontheri (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Project Blueprint" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Project Blueprint has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22 § Project Blueprint until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To anyone reading this: Please refer to the RFC above for context. Note that I added that redirect before I knew that my addition to the article would be reverted. I would not have added the redirect had I known it would be reverted. In my view, the issue as to the redirect should be decided with after the result of the RFC is formalized. If the result is to add the information about his anti-aging attempts, then the redirect should stay. If the result is to not include the information, then the redirect would not make sense. Vontheri (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia lets me down badly

i came to this page to try to find out what scientists thought of Project Blueprint. Nada. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Kelly222 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kelly222 WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are not a place to pick apart articles. There is probably very few scientific reviews about it, and you should see the discussion about including medical practices in this article. If there was consensus on allowing it, and there are sources, you should have the ability to add them yourself rather than nitpick other people's work. Panamitsu (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are absolutely the place to pick apart articles. Finnigami (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Scientists haven't bothered to publish anything (unless you know of something? All I've seen from "scientists" is a couple of contemptuous tweets). It's a PR stunt which has mostly gained attention in the shittier press (Daily Mail, Sun, NY Post, etc.), whihc is not usable on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kelly222 You may want to have a look at the RFC above on this same talk page. There used to be information about project blueprint, but it was removed. There is currently discussion about adding it back. Vontheri (talk) Vontheri (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Johnson's penis

I don't have time for yet another two months to spend on this article, but I'll just put this here for whoever may see this page: which of these versions is better?

Or, should there even be a separate paragraph about his penis to begin with? There aren't separate paragraphs about the other specific practices he has undergone; what is special about this one?

And @Bon courage, why are you even adding information about his anti-aging practices when you made it very clear in the RFC before that you don't think they should be mentioned in the article at all? Did you change your mind? Your edit summary in your revert said my sources failed MEDRS, but by your standard then doesn't the guardian article you referenced fail MEDRS as well? May I point you to your own essay: User:Bon courage/Crying "MEDRS!"? Since prior consensus was to allow guardian articles as references for this article, then surely actual studies and an article from Yale University's website are reliable sources for this article as well. If it's just the studies that are objectionable, then the Yale article basically summarizes what the studies have found, so using just the Yale article but not the studies as references would be sufficient (if not optimal).

Shouldn't it be described exactly what the procedure is that he underwent instead of the vague term "electric shocks"? Basically, he is undergoing a procedure that is used to treat erectile dysfunction (although he doesn't personally have ED). The procedure has shown efficacy for certain types of ED in a number of studies (a few of which I used as references, but by no means were those the only such studies), but it is not at this point FDA approved.

Also, saying "Following a two-month regime" implies he has finished the practice, but the Guardian article says he has been doing it for two months, not that he ended after two months.

I thought there was about an 80% chance bon courage would either revert or at least largely modify what I added, as he seems incredibly persistent in having Wikipedia be the way he personally thinks it should be. I personally don't have the time or energy that he has, so I'm going to just leave the article the way he left it with his reversion of my edit. Hopefully someone else who does have the time and energy to take this on and word things in a thorough, accurate, non-biased, and non-sensationalized way can come along.

I'm pinging the editors who participated in the previous RFC in case any of them are interested, but, for the sake of my own time and mental health, don't expect me to be likely to participate much, or at all, if a discussion does develop. @SomeoneDreaming @AndyTheGrump @Psychologist Guy @Senorangel @TarnishedPath @DFlhb @Thenumberfor Vontheri (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus changed on what to include, so (for better or worse) Wikipedia now covers Johnson's rejuvenation efforts. The Guardian article is not making medical claims. The sources you added don't even mention Johnson (as well as being unreliable). Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Bon Courage changed the article back to how it was before any of the penis stuff was mentioned. So unless anyone else objects, I'm considering this a non-issue now and I'm fine with the article as it currently is. Vontheri (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe an area for once where censorship is right. Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Johnson's books

I recently proposed a change in the "Published works" section, mentioning the two books "Don't Die" and "We the People" that Bryan Johnson released in November 2023 under the pseudonym of Zero. I don't understand why the changes were reverted @Bon courage. I think that these works are worth to be included in the page, do you think there is a better way to include them? Thank you. Seianus (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Have they been mentioned in independent sources? Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned on his website here and here and I think on his social profiles too. But in general I didn't find any other sources besides his own mentioning the works he published. Seianus (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversy and/or personal life update?

Should any of the claims made about him by his partners or the blood transfusion be mentioned under person life or a separate section (Controversy)? 69.162.230.42 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Significant Change In Physical Appearance

I do feel that the picture of Bryan Johnson currently in use is rather outdated, and nigh unrecognizable to his current self, might we want to change this? I am a rather new Wikipedian, unsure about the protocols for doing such a change. Big Señor (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)