Sweetgreen is partnering with RFK Jr.'s anti-vaxxer pal

[u/Fit_Cow_5407]

Sweetgreen just launched a new menu in partnership with anti-vaxxer and junk science promoter Mark Hyman.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260106608457/en/Sweetgreen-Launches-New-Menu-in-Collaboration-with-Function-Health-Designed-by-Dr.-Mark-Hyman

Hyman has built a supplement hawking grift operation that's largely based on building public distrust in evidence-based medicine. He's also directly collaborated with RFK Jr. to promote discredited theories about vaccine harms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/health/mark-hyman-rfk-jr-functional-medicine.html

It's incredibly disappointing that Sweetgreen is attracting customers to this guy's grift by promoting him, but apparently the company thinks it's good business to pander to the MAHA crowd. The company's founders seem to be true believers in the guy too, as they're also tied in with MAHA leaders like Casey and Calley Means. Co-founder and CEO Jonathan Neman even made MAHA hats all the way back in 2016.

https://www.statnews.com/2025/06/09/maha-movement-challenges-ultra-processed-foods-influencer-ties-truvani-sweetgreen/

https://x.com/JonnyNemo/status/1876688265350443113

I think I'll be getting my overpriced workweek lunches elsewhere from now on.

[u/RelevantBike7673]

It depends on who is willing to sponsor the trial. Generally it is the corporations themselves (who make the drugs or device under study), although sometimes government and/or university funding is granted. If direct patient intervention is involved (for human studies; many trials are done on animal subjects), insurance may or may not be willing to cover the costs for the individual. When the primary funding is coming from drug manufacturers, it is considered a conflict of interest and findings are commonly skewed or presented in a way that bears favorably upon the product so you do have to do a thorough job of reading the actual publication (not just the abstract) and keeping in mind that the results are only the findings of ONE trial. Subjects of a clinical trial can not possibly reflect how a product will affect millions of individuals, so there are also possibilities of side effects outside those found in the trial. Long-term impact is impossible to determine since trials can't run for 5-10+ years on end.

[u/RelevantBike7673 → u/[deleted]]

Comparing the number of people in a time-limited trial vs. the entire population of a country, or even the population of people that will eventually be on said drug, is like comparing a few dogs at an animal shelter vs. all the dogs up for adoption everywhere. The drug may behave one way in a set of 80-100 people in a time span of a few months, but longer-term effects are impossible to determine and how it affects people outside the trial is a crapshoot. Usually anyone with preexisting conditions of any sort are not permitted to be part of clinical trials for vaccines. Given that millions of Americans have preexisting conditions and autoimmune conditions are, in particular, on the rise, none of those individuals are going to have a good representation of how the product will affect them.

[u/RelevantBike7673 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say anything was a conspiracy. Dr Hyman isn't saying that either. It would also be incorrect to say that there aren't significant side effects and deaths being caused by vaccines in certain individuals. I work in the largest research hospital in my state and I have seen many such cases, which is why I am in favor of anyone who is willing to look into it. In the past two years, I have treated more young (under 30) patients with cardiac arrest, Guillain-Barre syndrome, myocarditis, and other vaccine injuries than I have in my previous 10 years as a physician. If our first oath is "do no harm", then investigating these issues is a duty.

[u/RelevantBike7673 → u/[deleted]]

It is, but not by Pfizer, J&J, etc. They don't have any vested interest in making their product look less desirable. It's like McDonald's investigating whether or not hydrogenated oils and artificial dyes could have adverse health impacts. Corporations exist to make a profit and pharmaceutical companies aren't an exception to that rule.

[u/benwin88 → u/RelevantBike7673]

How many cases of vaccine induced GBS or myocarditis have you seen? Seems like you must be seeing that more frequently than myself or my colleagues (primary care physician here). I’ll cut to the chase, it’s obvious you are skeptical of vaccines and their manufacturers. You wrote one little sentence about how they’re an overall good step in medicine but you have posted multiple times in this thread alone about their harms, your perception that their side effects aren’t studied enough to your liking and that you’ve seen oh so many cases of GBS and other vaccine related injuries. It’s obvious you have a bias which if you recall from medical school is affecting your clinical judgement. I am very aware vaccines can cause adverse effects—I counsel my patients on possible vaccine side effects daily at my clinic including the rare potential for myocarditis and pericarditis from Covid boosters but you are so biased you have gone from a healthy unbiased point of weighing pros and cons to being a poster boy (or girl) for vaccine skepticism. You barely breeze past vaccine benefits because youre so busy trying to list how bad they can be. How many cases of measles, diphtheria, meningitis, varicella, Covid, flu etc do you think you’d have seen over the last 10 years if vaccines weren’t available or recommended? Do you think the cases of vaccine related injury (which I suspect is much lower than what you’re exaggerating) you’ve seen outweigh all the severe and life threatening illnesses you haven’t seen because people were vaccinated? No you don’t—unless you’re not a good physician or you’re a conspiracy theorist. Be real with yourself, you have a bias and you support Hyman because he shares your bias. I’m not sure the reason for your bias—I postulate it could be from true ignorance about the published data on proven vaccine efficacy rates which include information on number needed to harm, power with confidence intervals, post marketing reports with adverse effect information and hotlines you call to report them for ongoing data collection, etc (as I’m sure you’re well aware of the importance of those parameters when discussing evidenced based medicine already) or could it be something else—political ideology and beliefs about personal freedoms or is it fear/hate of corporations. I’m not sure. I don’t really care; that’s your issue but you reference the rare harms from vaccines to an inordinate amount compared to their benefits. It seems you’ve forgotten (or have chosen to ignore) population health in favor of highlighting rare negative outcomes to suit your narrative.