What's Going On With Andrew Huberman? All The Drama Explained

Andrew Huberman, 48, has become a well-known name in the world of health and self-improvement in recent years. Combining his expertise in neuroscience with an approachable, unapologetically masculine personality, Huberman delivers seemingly endless ways to "hack" your brain and body to achieve optimal results on his popular podcast, Huberman Lab.

Until recently, his career was pretty much scandal-free, and many credited him as being one of the few figures online who consistently delivers accurate scientific information in a way that's also easy to digest, but New York Magazine recently published some alarming accusations about his personal life.

The New York Magazine Story

The story, titled "Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control: The Private and Public Seductions of the World’s Biggest Pop Neuroscientist," alleges that Huberman lied to multiple women and made them all believe that he was exclusively dating each one.

The accusations are disturbing. He allegedly was splitting rent with one woman whom he'd dated for five years and was doing IVF treatments with her while apparently also sleeping with at least five other women and using therapy-style tactics to gaslight them all. The story also claims that this was happening within the last two years. If true, this suggests an extreme amount of deception and manipulation on Huberman's part—but it's important to point out that all of the accusations are from anonymous sources.

A Serious Problem

I'm willing to assume that Kerry Howley, the writer of the story, isn't just completely making things up but sharing such a sensational story with entirely anonymous sources gives readers shaky ground to stand on. It also raises a serious ethical question. To answer it, ponder this: Would you really think it was fair for a major magazine to run a story about you or someone you love based entirely on information that can't be checked or verified by anyone else?

Howley says that the women are remaining anonymous to protect themselves, which I can understand, but then you have to wonder what they're really hoping to accomplish. As journalist Meghan Murphy wrote on the subject, "Speaking out, telling the truth, going up against the powers that be demands accountability in order for there to be genuine legitimacy to a challenge or claim. Of course it’s a risk, but that’s the point. Without the risk, there is little impact. What an anonymous Twitter user says should have significantly less weight than what a person with a name and a face and something to lose says."

Potential Media Bias

Because of Howley's choice to publish a story with no verifiable sources, readers are forced to take a skeptical approach for now, especially given the growing hostility toward Huberman from legacy media groups. Despite being a non-political figure, he has occasionally refused to conform to the demands of both the industrial medical complex and "woke" ideology, and he's friends with other heterodox thinkers like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman. He's also spoken openly about developing his faith in God. Those factors, coupled with his increasing popularity and his lack of corporate media ties, make him a threat to those with a different agenda, as seen by this very flimsy hit piece by Slate that also came out around the same time as the New York Magazine allegations. "The wildly popular podcaster and scientist claims he can help you live a healthier life," the article states. "But we should think of him as a Dr. Oz type."

This claim is very odd given that, while Huberman's moral character might be in question, his credentials are not. He has multiple degrees in psychology and neuroscience, and even those who don't like his online persona generally agree that he delivers scientific information responsibly. He's also currently employed by Stanford University.

Mixed Responses

Surprisingly, the story hasn't made that big of a splash. The general consensus appears to be that people who already didn't like Huberman now feel that they have additional reasons not to like him. Those who enjoyed his work seem to be largely unbothered by the accusations since there's no way to verify them.

There is another kind of response that is more concerning, which is coming from those who insist that even if Huberman did engage in those manipulative behaviors, "it doesn't matter" or that it makes him cool or a "Chad." This is gross. If #MeToo was way too extreme (and it obviously was), then the cruel, juvenile claim that it's good or normal for a man to cheat on multiple women is also a massive misstep, just in the opposite direction.

Ultimately, New York Magazine put readers in an impossible position when they chose to publish a story with anonymous sources and a potential bias. Huberman's own response seems to be no response at all, which might prove to be a good strategy, given how quickly the story has already lost its steam.

Evie deserves to be heard. Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.