[elbigbad]

My comment was assuming you’re the average person. I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should. But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree?

Somewhat related anecdote: I’m reminded of a good friend who is preeminent in their field. No one would know them outside of their area of expertise, but anyone within that area of expertise (or who has learned that area of expertise from their college textbooks) knows their name. I got dinner with them over the holidays last year and they lamented that, I’m guessing based on name recognition, they receive a steady stream of communications (letters, email, etc) from laypeople who always think they have done something amazing previously thought impossible, or they have a new insight that everyone else ever has missed. Invariably my friend no longer spends time going through these because in every single of the hundreds of comms they’ve read, there’s always some confound factor or something basic the writer missed that invalidates everything. I am not an academic, but my impression is that while laypeople like you and me can brute force things and have amazing insights, mostly we’re just wrong for some reason that a trained scientist or academic would have spotted immediately.

[DoreenMichele]

I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should.

I've been on HN nearly 14 years. A fair number of people know something about me, though certainly not everyone.

But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree?

That's a personal attack, which is a violation of HN rules.

Your entire comment is about me and a justification for dismissing me and not pertinent to the point I'm making.

I provided a source. It's got a nearly 20 minute video. You are welcome to watch it and explain to me what is wrong with it and why it's a scam and I shouldn't believe any of it.

[elbigbad]

I can’t even imagine giving so much credence to every conspiracy theory or supposed breakthrough that only appears on YouTube that I spend time watching everything. There are only so many hours in the day, time is precious, and the onus is on the person making the claim to support them, not the other way around. It’s like someone telling me to watch everything on YouTube about copper bracelets taking bad energy and putting the onus on me to disprove it, but that’s not how science works.

I will share though that I have heuristics that help me gut check new claims. None of them are infallible but they can give a good indication that saves me watching every layperson video making outrageous claims. Those heuristics include things like getting published in major journals, getting peer reviewed, having large and well thought out studies controlling for confounding variables, having leaders in a field support or coauthor the studies, and more. There are also heuristics in the opposite way, which I won’t get into, but suffice to say that the position of “everyone thinks I’m a ‘nutter’ but this one thing happened to me in one case and it has never been repeated but I believe it and the establishment/BIG GENETICS is trying to keep the research under wraps but here’s a video you can watch that proves everything” is not only not compelling to me, but in fact ticks a lot of the anti heuristic boxes. ;)

[DoreenMichele]

That's not what's going on here.

You are dismissing a specific source out of hand, apparently without so much as clicking the link provided since he's not a lay person, he's a scientist with a degree in biology.

You aren't required to check out anything at all, but your ugly dismissal without bothering to check the source isn't any kind of meaningful rebuttal of anything.