I haven’t watched the video, but I’d like to comment anyway.
The bias problem is universal. Bias from money, bias from beliefs.
I’m always puzzled, for instance, by the blind following of people who just post opinions on the net. Here on this forum and elsewhere. When someone comes with a problem, people will post links to videos and blogs of famous bloggers who posted opinions. It doesn’t matter for the followers if that person is selling books, supplements, etc. A ‘follower’ gets a liking for someone out of confirmation bias and from that moment on, whatever opinion the influencer expresses becomes ‘THE truth’. As if truth existed in science! Truth is a construction of religion and sects. “Truth” is the claim of people who are trying to fool you. Science is always evolving.
Bloggers and vloggers need to create content. They get money from it. They’ll interview each other to repeat the same things and reinforce each other to validate what they’re preaching to their followers.
Their language uses the keys to capture the attention of unsuspecting followers-to-be: “big pharma”, “your doctor won’t tell you”, etc. Why aren’t they talking against ‘big supplements’, ‘big publishing’, ‘big charlatans’?
And followers… follow.
These influencers have mixed up in the mind of good people what science really is with what it isn’t.
Science is always evolving. Even “evidence today” depends on the sample, on the questions one was asking, on the measuring apparatus, on the duration of the experiment. And on scientific papers, serious scientists talk about the probabilities that something behaves in a certain way.
Based on this, theories get temporary validation. It is validated until more evidence becomes available to show that it needs to evolve to something else. More evidence comes when the sample is bigger, or the length of the experiment is longer, or the measuring apparatus is more sophisticated, etc. Or the question asked was better formulated.
But influencers don’t talk about scientific findings in this way. They immediately try to sell a supplement, or a book. A paper comes up saying substance A seemed to alleviate the symptoms of illness B… let’s sell a supplement with A! Let’s write a book telling people how A will save their lives! Let’s make it attractive by adding the catching phrases like “what big pharma doesn’t want you to know”, “what your doctor won’t tell you, because he wants you to be sick”…
But wait! Is substance A as effective if taken as a supplement? What dosis are safe? How long should one take it? Is the pill in the supplement tin really filled with A? Say, the subjects in the sample investigated in that experiment, where they men? Women? What ethnic groups were represented? What conditions did they suffer, besides illness B? For how many years were they afflicted? Is there more research about A? What was the improvement? 0.1% better?