HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Veritasium

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

67627 ratings | 1756466 views
Mounting evidence suggests a lot of published research is false. Check out Audible: http://bit.ly/AudibleVe Support Veritasium on Patreon: http://bit.ly/VePatreon Patreon supporters: Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Jason Buster, Saeed Alghamdi More information on this topic: http://wke.lt/w/s/z0wmO The Preregistration Challenge: https://cos.io/prereg/ Resources used in the making of this video: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Trouble at the Lab: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble Science isn't broken: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#part1 Visual effects by Gustavo Rosa
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (5508)
Leigh Chamberlain (16 hours ago)
Every scientist and every student in the world needs to watch this video!!! Actually.... EVERYONE in the whole world needs to watch this! There's just so many mainstream scientific beliefs that are based on the founding of old science and misunderstandings. Brainwashed from influential and prominent figures of the past who would turn in their graves if they knew their teaching had become taught as fact. Science needs to keep challenging the "Facts" Lets face it, once upon a time mainstream science laughed at anyone who thought that the earth wasn't flat! GREAT video mate, love your honesty and determination to find truth not just the trendy.
Most good social scientists I know tend to take all regression style studies with a grain of salt. They might repeat a significant result found by others or themselves, in the cinema of academia. But they would not expect it to be true. Or useful. Its truer than an assertion made in a bar, but less true than something you see directly. The video does not talk about social science experiments...the next great frontier in getting “truer” results....
Andrea Spadaccini (1 day ago)
Hit or miss _I guess they never miss _*_huh_*
Nicolas Samanez (1 day ago)
"As flawed as our science may be, it is far away more reliable than any other way of knowing that we have" people need to understand this
Rob Karmic (2 days ago)
yes its wrong
Sarstan (2 days ago)
My statistics professor pointed out a simple thing about studies: if you don't get the result you want, just throw it out and run it again. Statistically speaking, if it's at all possible, it WILL happen eventually. It makes it nice to stick out a really crazy idea and have results to back it up. The fact that it can't be replicated doesn't matter, it's already become a headline in the media and a fact.
Michael Franz (2 days ago)
Science is expensive. Researchers/ Universities are dependant on the $€¥ and they better not upset the providers.
Lachy Becke (2 days ago)
so the simple answer is no, and clickbait title? orrrrr.... ????
robert hicks (3 days ago)
Here is a question, why do you assume that most published articles support agw, when IF you look at a specific science's peer reviewed magazines, they do not. For instance, glaciology peer review will talk about glaciers melting off centuries before co2 skyrocketed. yet those articles are counted as supporting agw because they do not say that its not man made. IF you look in geology peer review magazines you will not see anything about co2 causing climate change. You will see articles discussing it but none of them say that there is any connection. none of the articles about geology, glaciology, marine biology or others that support agw are in the fields own peer review magazines. Why is that?
skorpinakos (3 days ago)
really good video
Cooper (3 days ago)
This is a fine criticism of published research as a whole, but it completely unfair to research that has rigorous standards behind it. Double-blind placebo controlled studies do not from many of these shortcomings. It is important to read and understand the procedural methods used during studies. But it is incorrect to say that just because some research is done poorly that it all is.
GAPIntoTheGame (3 days ago)
In other words, replication studies should be far more respected and performed
alan smithee (3 days ago)
So what you're saying is people have esp... But only when it gets them going? It is so sad that this makes perfect sense.
unacceptable lemon (4 days ago)
well that settles it. The earth is flat.
Milos Veselinovic (4 days ago)
American Citizen (4 days ago)
Let me guess... a lot of published research is false but if the research supports evidence of man-caused global warming then the research is ALWAYS correct. Right?
Joel Henderson (1 day ago)
+American Citizen And I was pointing out the stupidity of using hypocrisy as the basis of your belief, in case you missed that. You're a moron. Not because you don't believe in global warming, but because you have no ability to form well-reasoned thoughts, and because you still haven't backed up your original claim that I've repeatedly tried to get you to support. Additionally, you are making claims that I'm part of the problem, whatever that means in your head (since you apparently don't believe there's a problem to begin with), without knowing literally anything about my lifestyle. For good measure, I notice you're a Republican. Cool. So am I. That gives me an opportunity to point out I'm not huge on regulatory legislation, and that there are other things that can be done to improve the issues surrounding climate change. For instance, let's get rid of subsidies going to coal plants. Things like mandatory low-cost leasing, and tax breaks. Let the free market take over; coal power costs go up, making renewables even more competitive than they already are, renewables are further implemented driving their costs down, etc.
American Citizen (1 day ago)
+Lizz Wellne - But tens of millions of years in the past the warming did not kill off all life on Earth. In fact, life thrived. I really don't care if it is the sun or something man is doing. It is NOT the end of the world. Life adapts to climate changes. And we will too. There -- now you don't have to cry yourself to sleep anymore. Everything will be OK. You don't have to worry about the big, bad Republicans and the sky falling...
American Citizen (1 day ago)
+Joel Henderson - I was giving an another example of hypocrisy, in case you missed that. If you are contributing to the problem (and YOU ARE) then you are the problem. And so is Al Gore. And Obama. And the climate scientists who fly around on jet planes.
Joel Henderson (2 days ago)
+American Citizen Just to make sure you get it, since you ignored important questions previously: "It's a bit like forming an organization to fight domestic abuse while you are still beating your wife at home." And what you're doing is saying "Look, the dude in charge of that charity beats his wife, so why can't I?"
Joel Henderson (2 days ago)
+American Citizen Are you trolling? You're not even making sense at this point. If you can't make a halfway decent argument, then we're done here. "It's a bit like forming an organization to fight domestic abuse while you are still beating your wife at home." And what you're doing is saying "Look, the dude in charge of that charity beats his wife, so why can't I?"
Clark Magnuson (5 days ago)
Millions of marksmen have been arguing about what accuracy rituals to use. In 25 years on line and years before in books, it never resolves. No individual can do enough experiments.
monstersince (6 days ago)
https://youtu.be/8kBD3lOax44 Q I.
Quina (6 days ago)
Cough cough global wamring. Oh wait, there arent any experiment there.
ParadoxHorde (6 days ago)
this is why we need to push for study replicability and HEAVY disclaimers on studies and reminding researchers that sample sizes should be kept in mind.
Nostrudoomus (7 days ago)
Long complicated unnecessary explanation predicated on a falsehood. At the start of your argument you characterized the statistical analysis of the results of an a scientific experiment as the prime measure as to if the conclusions of an experiment is truth or falsehood. In fact, statistical analysis simply tells you how large the margin of change in the experimental sample actually is. If the materials or methods are flawed statistical analysis will not tell you anything valuable, this is why the peer review process is so important. Laypersons these days have been told to look for statistically significant figures in study result, this is important because if the study simply points to a positive result in the analysis and claims victory, yet they have not done a statistical analysis to determine the actual size or significance of the figures then the study is truly not even worth reading, that is for the layperson, it would have value for scientists who want to duplicate the study and see if they replicate the results. Then the sophistication of the analysis is up to the researcher.
Kiki Lang (8 days ago)
When I left school, there was over five thousand biological journal in publishication. The number has gone up since than. When you say, Inspite of the mistakes, it's still the best method we have. Most of the research being done is so esoteric, only few people can understand the the subject. An expert in one field, is mystified by the work in another's field that is almost the same. The problem is when you ask, "Most Pubished Research is Wrong?" you lend fuel to fire where people who barely finished highschool are running for the school board because they know the world is flat.
QE ornotQE (8 days ago)
Whoever you are, the people behind this video, you did a great job. Well done to all, including the presenter.
FP Wiegmann (8 days ago)
As a molecular biologist I can ASSURE you. 100%. Psychology, sociology etc are NOT SCIENCE. They are interesting academic pursuits but their findings should not be taken as proof or evidence of some truth. In fact, these are the pseudo-sciences. They are vehicles for political fiction and subversion and social engineering.
Teo Drag (10 days ago)
finally a human i would like to talk to....
Marqan (10 days ago)
My favourite experiments are from the US army, before 1990. Huge sample size and the only goal is efficiency, no corporate interest, no scentist ego. Sadly they can't test everything and I couldn't trust them nowadays.
Michael Hirschmugl (11 days ago)
Scientists want to decrease my pee-value??
Darius Eversol (14 days ago)
this is stupid and boring as usual, so it gets a thumbs down from me!!
Kirk Jones (15 days ago)
9:10 spot on regarding replication studies.
vappole (15 days ago)
How do you support your last statement?
ghostsinthere2008 (15 days ago)
I believe in scientific research as the key for the future of humanity - for reducing suffering and bettering the world past present and future. I long wanted to become a scientist. But during my undergrad studies I decided to instead focus on engineering instead of science in part for this reason. There are too many issues with scientific research currently for me personally to want to devote my life to it. I believe that engineering and science need each other, and that engineering needs more help right now than science does. We can do so much with better engineering of the scientific knowledge that we already have. Not that Elon Musk is the person of truth but he agrees with that perspective and has devoted his life to engineering solutions.
Brian Evans (16 days ago)
this has exposed a whole can of worms
Daniel Xu (17 days ago)
This video is false.
ron taylor (22 days ago)
If the published research is about global warming / climate change due to human interaction. then my answer is YES it is Wrong.
Zach Shipstead (24 days ago)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Here's the simple solution. Never expect things to get settled in a single set of studies, and never trust anything that hasn't received at least 10 years of scrutiny. Believe it or not, this solves all of the above problems. It isn't sexy, but works.
Muhammad Nada (24 days ago)
I feel this video should have an introductory session for non statistic gurus like me
Habuenehucho (24 days ago)
I still ship you and Diana
Rosanna Miller (27 days ago)
Awesome video.
Bazooka Bandicoot (29 days ago)
I'm not against weed but your really shouldn't be throwing up 420 in your logo. I guess you're not very serious about this.
life42theuniverse (1 month ago)
0:11 if it is by just the title "retroactive influence" on cognition and affect; doesn't that imply not a reading of the future but a interpretation of the present based retroactive interpretation of the past? in other words a change of mind?
Marc Bennet (1 month ago)
Very interesting video, thank U x posting. One note of caution if I may: in the field of medicine P-hacking, publication bias etc are so serious that > 50% of publications are rubbish. Furthermore, > 99% of doctors can't reason statistically, they don't have any clue, scary but painfully true (my word as an insider).
Douglas Sirk (1 month ago)
i feel like this is less of a problem in mathematics, where you either have a proof or you don't. most of your peers will determine very quickly if you're full of crap.
Itsiwhatitsi (1 month ago)
Intuition > Science
Nader Abed (25 days ago)
Your intuition can be mistaken as well...
Jason Toth (1 month ago)
To be blunt, the modern feel good, egalitarian idea that anyone can become a "scientist" just by doing a degree in some science is at fault here. The fact is all real discoveries and things of use come from geniuses, and there aren't that many in the world. Everyone else pretending to be scientists just do busy work and at best, help accelerate the work of the few dozen real geniuses in the world.
Nader Abed (25 days ago)
You could also say that only few geniuses can come from the art/music world (i.e. Björk)
b9y (1 month ago)
You need to do this as a Ted Talk!
Joe Villaflores (1 month ago)
yes because checking them again cost money and zero recognition... Except climate change because almost every scientist said so.........
Digby Howis (1 month ago)
Considering this video is published research of sorts, does that make its findings false or true?
eirtaza (1 month ago)
west is too advance
Matick Axoli (1 month ago)
P-haking is phaked up.
Ryan Penrod (1 month ago)
Thanks for giving more excuses to the climate change deniers. Your title could have been more specific and less click-bait.
Poojan Thakrar (1 month ago)
Is this the same topic that was explained on that one Planet Money episode?
Darris Hawks (1 month ago)
Maybe grant reform? Idk how it all works. Clearly the incentive issue is the problem though lol
Darris Hawks (1 month ago)
I feel like this could be somewhat resolved by removing the profit motive from journals. Or whatever motive it is that's causing them to make such silly decisions as "we only publish novel things"
Noe J Nava (1 month ago)
yes, there is a huge incentive to publish at least wrong (biased) results. Both schools/research institutions and journals, however, are to blame as well. On the one side, those who hire the researchers will use academic productivity (i.e., publications) to determine salaries, titles, etc. On the other side, journals often do not publish no significant results, nor replication studies despite the fact that they are science too!! Left aside that some social "scientists" are eager to back up their opinions and some journals work more as think tanks rather than science.
Gaming Fury 510 (1 month ago)
Nah that 53% is due to the fact we can sense when there’s some erotic stuff due to our Sexual Body parts
Fabio Gerussi (1 month ago)
Molto interessante. Traducendo... chi la spara più grande, vince!
Underdrummer (1 month ago)
Man-made Global Warming research doesn't do this though. It's really real. For real.
Underdrummer (1 month ago)
I know most published health research is false because they keep saying conflicting things. Salt is bad, eggs are bad, take in less calories and you'll be skinny, fat is bad, alcohol is good and then it's bad again. I think this applies to most fields.It's mostly a bunch of BS!
Underdrummer (15 hours ago)
I'm not saying YOU are saying that. I am saying past health science has said that. I don't agree that MOST published research is wrong but if we just look at history, we can see that a great deal of it is. Especially in the health and food areas. Take a look at the FDA, they're all kinds of wrong!
Joel Henderson (2 days ago)
+Underdrummer Wait, what? I never said anything about high protein and low carbs, and I didn't say the part about 'fat is not bad' is part of "the basics of dietary advice." I stand by what I actually referred to as basic dietary advice. The High protein low carb thing has been a persistent fad, mainly, where publicizers of science overcompensated for the fact that most Americans eat way too much refined carbs. As for the low fat craze, yeah it went overboard. I don't deny that science can get things wrong. But generally you're best off making decisions with the evidence you do have. And while the advice on fats has changed greatly, it hasn't done a 180, nor do I expect it to. Saturated fats, while certainly not the great evil they were once made out to be, are still shown to be a generally poor choice compared to other options. Fats in general don't need to make up a huge part of your diet, either. A big part of the problem you're seeing, though, is about the limits of statistical analysis and correlative studies. There is a lot of individual variance in response to dietary choices: when you were talking about salt and cholesterol, most of us are fine with moderate amounts, and a few seem to handle ridiculous quantities. But there are people who have large responses to relatively small doses, and they skew the risk upward. Which isn't the study being wrong, but rather presenting an incomplete picture.
Underdrummer (2 days ago)
All that has been making people unhealthy for years. That's my point. High protein and low carbs. Healthy carbohydrates like vegetables and fruit is the way to go. Fat is not bad yet "the basics of dietary advice", as you put it, say it is. Remember the "low fat" craze of the late 80's? That's what science was telling consumers and they were WRONG. Science gets things wrong all the time. That's my point.
Joel Henderson (3 days ago)
Not at all. If you stop looking at headlines, and don't take a journalists word as to the significance of a study, the basics of dietary advice have been the same for decades: eat a wide variety of fruits and veggies (the more the better), keep consumption of animal fats low to moderate, and keep the amount such that you approximately maintain your weight (not day to day, and maybe not week to week, but month-to-month shouldn't change too much, and shouldn't consistently skew one way or the other unless you have a specific reason for wanting to lose or gain weight). If you want to add "skip the sweeteners" and "avoid man-made trans fats at all costs" for good measure, be my guest. As for the specific examples you listed: Salt and eggs in moderation aren't bad for everyone (in fact everyone _needs_ some salt), but they're very bad for some people, and bad for most of us if we go overboard; calories in, calories out is still true- your body doesn't defy physics- but it is vastly oversimplified; fat isn't bad generally, but trans fats are, and if you replace foods with a lot of saturated fat with foods higher in mono- or poly-unsaturated fats you'll be doing yourself a favor relatively speaking; alcohol and coffee are still being hashed out, but most dieticians won't balk if you have a little of either in your routine- just keep alcohol to a minimum, with no binge drinking.
Theodor Witter (2 months ago)
Very interesting. But this problem can be addressed, if society is willing to. Which I doubt is the case. The root of the problem is the incentive to corrupt scientific research together with ideologies that prevent people from even being aware of their junk science. All of this is backed by political interest groups. Some great examples from the "science" called "Gender Studies": 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OfoZR8aZt4 A documentary from 2013, which resulted in Norway stopping all public funding for "Gender Studies" (while this still exists in most western countries, probably because "science is only a social construct" and works differently in Norway than elsewhere) 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k "Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies" from 2018, showing that in certain fields of "science" you can publish the most ridiculous things, including a feminist rewrite of Hitler's Mein Kampf. So when I hear about antropogenic climate change that "the science is settled" and there is "a 99% consensus", that doesn't make me any more confident about the legitimacy of that "science", which has been show to be biased, corrupted and heavily politically influenced. Most of this crap leads to morality charged leftist political ideologies, more precisely Marxism in all it's diverse flavours. This is a dangerous cancer and if we don't fight this, we will soon end up in another dark age of ideological ignorance, violent conflicts and the end of western civilization. And if you like to ask yourself the question "who profits?": The second largest economy on this planet, working hard to become No. 1, and which happens to be a communist country.
Yo wut (2 months ago)
Well in the SJW joke journals all papers are wrong.
Malika Thueler (2 months ago)
This shows the importance of meta analysis
Campusanis (2 months ago)
The most shocking thing to me in this video was the fact that some journals would blindly refuse replication studies.
jehovajah (2 months ago)
Not really! The truth is a lie! True results should be published only when 2 or 3 teams gain the same data . The method and design is what should be peer reviewed and then farmed out to 2 or 3 research groups to follow.
Dean Berry (2 months ago)
The Right has yet another platform to spread the truth. Please sign up. https://friends.freezoxee.com/welcome
Nick Holmes (2 months ago)
That's why peer-review and academic rigour doesn't stop at publication.
victor turban (2 months ago)
Nevere trust a statistic you haven't faked yourself!
Ha Vu Tran (2 months ago)
Hi. Seems like your video here is listed in the "reading list" for ICLR 2019 Reproducibility Challenge, which really highlights your excellent presentation of the topic :) https://reproducibility-challenge.github.io/iclr_2019/
Mark Proffitt (2 months ago)
NOT BEST METHOD AVAILABLE. Experiment is by definition fuzzy. It's based on probabilities. Stacking probabilities can easily push something to unmeasurable. The way to improve science is to use 1st Principles derived from Logic to create the experiments and tests of the results. There are a minimum of 36 specific Alternative types for anything you can make or do. If you don't consider all of those 36 Alternatives types you are ignoring something that might be drastically affecting your results or interpretation. Typically only 13% of the Alternatives are even considered. That means 87% randomness built into the experiments.
redtails (2 months ago)
I'm right now having a lot of trouble publishing 2 negative-data (meaning no differences found) papers, as no one is interested and those which are interested are indeed claiming there are major flaws in the design and missing control groups. Critical thinking seems to be much more rigorous with negative data compared to positive data. As I feel the pressure to publish in order to finish my PhD, we'll have to formulate the data in such a way that the message appears positive. Is it fraud? No, not at all. I like to think that, instead of describing empty drinking glasses, it's better to describe it as "tools to start a party"
HIHI_MAN_TV (2 months ago)
0:35 was that neutral, negative or erotic? :D
D7oo (2 months ago)
i just finished stat302 cores and loved how accurate it is, but this vid makes me regret taking this cross as elective :)
Otto Beumelburg (2 months ago)
Great summary, long overdue and absolutely vital for researchers. Publication is a mess, hence why a nobel prize winner boycotted Nature, Cell and Science journals. The first TED talk I ever saw was about just this kind of statistical error, and its effects on wrongful incrimination. Not that TED deserves your presentation, I consider them utter hypocrites on their own. It's actually this reason that I don't follow Veritasium closely, since he emphasizes a lot of mainstream science and never people like Sheldrake or statisticians like Dean Radin for their part in significant scientific bias.
Minastir1 (2 months ago)
This is why we need to do science even on fields that are "figured out"
JG Alegria (2 months ago)
yes i often think about this, especially since I started studying psychological research and discovered how many studies don't get published in good journals because they don't show any new findings or don't confirm the findings!
Life was Given to us (2 months ago)
Oh geez are we just now realizing scientist are human too??
Bryan Chu (2 months ago)
This is actually scary
The Nose Plays (2 months ago)
Even knowing all of this is open and verifiable information and still many groups cling to their dogmatic beliefs in science far more stringently and pathologically than many religious fundamentalist they so often claim to hate. In their hubris they have the gall to claim the intellectually superior high ground when in fact they stand on mountains of sand.
Graham Meek (2 months ago)
Great video.
ron taylor (2 months ago)
Gavin Drees I'm replying to your comment here because youtube sends me to a welcome page when I hit the reply link that does not have a way out of it , typical youtube ignorance. anyway there are a lot of climate change videos on youtube and apx 99.9 % of them are total waste content because they focus on co2 having an ability to cause the climate to warm. the facts are co2 cannot cause warming at all , never has and never will. its just not physically possible.
Shannon Parkhill (2 months ago)
Again, capitalism's profit incentive derails renovation and the pursuit of knowledge.
Ugandan Knuckles (2 months ago)
So, let me get this right... Are you implying that the scientific method is incomplete and could be improved? Or that scientists/researchers require a new incentive?
Ian Skeggs (2 months ago)
50% of 1 is 1/2, or is it ...... let’s think about this. Etc. That’s what scientists do and it costs billions
PrivateSlacker (2 months ago)
A fox found a rabbit using a typerwriter. (old story, I know.) Curiosity took over hunger and the fox asked "What are you doing?" The rabbit said "I'm working on my thesis: How rabbits eat foxes." The fox LOLed. The rabbit said "I'll show you. Follow me" and went into a large cave. A minute later, the rabbit came out alone and continued typing. Inside the cave could be see a lion eating the fox. MORAL: What matters most in research is not your thesis nor your methods, but who is your advisor.
Riya Bisht (2 months ago)
What's the background song? So relaxing
BeyondTheVeil (2 months ago)
Quarks cannot be observed. Smashing particles together results in jets of particles and light, but those particles are always protons/antiprotons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos. That's it. Quarks, bosons, mesons, gluons, et cetera, have never been detected directly. All these fake particles have been created out of thin air, have been reified into existence, and are talked about as though they are real, as though their existence has be observed. Same with dark matter, dark energy, big bang, any kind of black hole, neutron stars, gravity waves. None of these things has ever been observed. They are fictions built to support a what should be a dead, un-predictive, Creation Theory based on all the real evidence against it, the Big Bang.
Yaseen Barri (3 months ago)
Just brilliant
Arnór Ólafsson (3 months ago)
2:25 american flag
Brandon Morris (3 months ago)
I mean welcome to a world where ideas are consistent but people are not. biggest problem in our existence.
Ryan Cormack (3 months ago)
So many biases, you've only scratched the surface here.
Douglas Pantz (2 months ago)
So shouldn't the paper about how most published researched is false itself be false 🤔
Nome Sobrenome (3 months ago)
The thing is we are NOT trying to get to the truth, but just following carriers in science.
michael cripps (3 months ago)
the research with the chocolate may have had some truth to it? that fact of the matter is gene expression can be dictated by the trauma of a parent. this could have a deeper relation to personality in that their mental state, for example, the chocolate produces endorphins that affected these peoples gene in a positive way rather than a trauma before birth and any given brain chemistry changes the outcome not just a genetic expression. That just shows the importance of a well and simply designed experiment to remove as many variables as possible.
Daniel Bauerkemper (3 months ago)
I don't think I've ever thanked someone for creating a Youtube video. So please, do accept my heartfelt thanks for creating this.
TacoTacoTacoTaco (3 months ago)
Statistics are very intertwined with logic once it comes to actual interpretation. Scientists like testing things and reading data, they don't like arguing and using logic. Scientists and lawyers will INTENTIONALLY use fallacies to prove significance to their data. (Cum hoc/post hoc propter hoc) No matter how high the P value/statistical significance, correlation does not equal causation. Sadly, if they didn't do this though, they would not get funding.
Abraham Benedict (3 months ago)
As a student of Industrial Engineering for almost 7 years or so, I can say for certain: the method you said is noob lol.
Homo Sapien (3 months ago)
I sent this video to my whole class
edward lewis (3 months ago)
53%? to me that just means the cost of identifying the 'trick', or hint, is too high to be worth trying to understand
Guy Fawkes (3 months ago)
Sounds about right... So much BS is published, and also a lot of what we "know" is wrong xD so yea.
Anirudh vashisht (3 months ago)
did something happen to you at work and this is how you cuss the system
Micheal (3 months ago)
Is it weird that his whole video uses research to say research is false?

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.