2y ago

Academia is BROKEN! Nobel-Prize Winner with Fake Results (Medicine)

The whole channel should have way more views. Science fraud is a topic that scientists knows and talk about but it is always vague and it's hard to point at precises cases due to lack of documentation (and journalists in general).

9 comments

I would not consider reactionary youtube videos to be a reasonable place for the consideration of the validity of a scientific claim. So many are just propaganda and misinformation. Note: The youtube account is using the video to push a questionable investment scheme.
- Thank you, I was about to post the same thing.
  Youtube videos like this is the modern equivalent of getting medical advice from a random person in a bar you have never met before about 20 minutes before closing time.
  Yes, there is a replication problem in science but youtube is not the place to get information about it.
- Yes the ads is quiet bad. I didn't know this was a reactionary youtube channel. Do you have any information of the video content being false?
  
  That is not how it works. You are the one posting dubious claims, it is your own job to back up those claims with actual evidence.
The whole channel should have way more views.
Maybe the creator Pete Judo should lean on his behavioral science and psychology background to find out why it doesn't.
For me, the reason I'm not going to watch it is because the title and thumb scream "social media conspiracy theorist" rather than the seriousness and professionalism the topic rightly deserves.
Glowing red eyes? How am I supposed to believe this is a serious and/or constructive criticism of a huge genuine problem?
- I guess you would hate every single leftist channel in France with that. Maybe I misunderstood the overall position of this community. I can see trying to address scientific fraud is frown upon here.
  
  I guess you would hate every single leftist channel in France with that.
  I hate any cheap tricks used to provoke emotional responses as a method of generating engagement. I especially hate when the person using them boasts a background that implies their use is very intentional.
  Maybe I misunderstood the overall position of this community.
  I wouldn't know, I'm nobody's ambassador.
  I can see trying to address scientific fraud is frown upon here.
  But you have certainly misunderstood mine. Addressing scientific fraud is entirely worthwhile and necessary.
  I just won't be choosing a source for that who I suspect is deliberately manipulative and pushing dodgy investment schemes. His entire brand looks like a desperate attempt to be seen as an authority on anything at all.
Cool story bro.

9 comments