Good journalism would be an article going through all the papers from the Huberman podcasts and his analysis of them (which he always cites if it’s been peer-reviewed, etc) and debunking all the misinformation. But nope. It’s all about talking to enough people hoping they say some crap about the personal life about a private person, cherry picking information and building up a story from that.
The sunscreen thing, I just passed the first link that came to me, showing that in fact there is proof of bad agents in sunscreen.
If you go check the video of Huberman and sunscreen, very easy to find, you’ll see how he literally says that sunscreen is important because you don’t want to get cancer, it’s just that SOME SUNSCREEN has been found to have toxic components that may cross the blood-brain barrier, and he simply advices to BUY A GOOD SUNSCREEN.
See how this “journalism” works? They pick those little things and extrapolate into madness instead of doing actual work. Because why would you do the actual journalism if there is an easier way to get clicks?
And I am sure one could find some contradicting science to Huberman’s podcasts and I would LOVE to see that. In fact, I think Huberman would love that too. That’s science!!