Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "ACADEMIA IS BROKEN! Stanford Nobel-Prize Scandal Explained" video.

  1. First of all, this grifting channel is utterly disgusting. He's intentionally uses clickbait title to skew the reality of academia and the situation being discussed in the process. A person of such caliber and that position is nearly never the main author of any of these papers, they're not responsible for collecting, handling, analyzing the data or writing the paper, they're an overall supervisor, manager and therefore their name is last. If a technician at a company commits fraud and bad work ethics in delivering a product, the overwhelming majority of the fault lies with the technician, not the CEO of that company. And furthermore, this guy have absolutely no understanding of the verification process of fraud. You can't just put out a serious claim of allegation and then pretend as the word of an unknown person, probably unqualified on a not qualified website as proof. What do you mean exact replication? Did you count the pixels that are stored inside the images via somekind of software, where's that analysis of the stored photo? Your eye finding is not good enough. People at that scale of a Nobel Laureate doesn't have time to deal with nonsensical untrustworthy crude allegation, if you want to prove that something is wrong, do a proper analysis by software, homie. And even more than that, Sudhof published nearly 400 papers in his entire career, you found 35 allegations, allegations, btw, and one case of proven fraud that's not even comitted by him. This is not a scandal, this is low life YouTube grifting technique.
    1
  2.  @pablovirus  Buddy, it's a joke for you to think that people can look at those and claim they're replicates by eye. Buddy, there are 921600 pixels in a standard 1280*720 photos, and at the scale of tiny micro scale experiments, it's even more. So why don't you start doing real science and investigation work by analyzing the photo pixel by pixel if you're claiming absolute duplication and realize that your eyes are not a trustworthy tool at all?
    1
  3.  @hungrymusicwolf  So it means in that case Elisabeth Bik will never get a Nobel Prize, because she didn't prove fraud in a single important paper. She alleges fraud and may have prove some fraud in a lot of insignificant papers, though, and these grifting channel does the propaganda.
    1