Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Most Age Records are Pension Fraud, Scientist Says" video.

  1. Let me crush some of those points. > then why are you doing a video about it? Because it is interesting. > One of the most effective way to improve longevity in many animals is calorie restriction and exercise. Poor people often have both, although not voluntarily. Wild animals also <die younger> than domestic ones, so the "caloric restriction and exercise" cannot beat <basic healhcare>, security and access to resources. If you are saying that poor people have the first because their lives are harsh I don't see any problem in also stating the second, their longevity should be smaller. > The population least likely to have their proper birth records are poor people. Ergo, they are like to just plug in 1st or 15th of the month they believe they were born in. Also, the older a person is, the older their birth record is, and the more likely they were born outside of a hospital. Older record keeping was much less rigorous than modern records. My Father-in-law had two different dates for birth records. One for the 1st, one for the 3rd of the month. Same month, same year. So his "pension fraud" would only gain him two days of payout. This is very off put, I don't even think it clasify as a counter argument. One of the points she said is also that those registries are guessed, so nothing strange here. I also have some familiars that are 3-5 years younger than they are registered. > but to then submit a paper for publishing without validating his hypothesis is poor science. Sabine citing a non-reviewed paper is bad science communication. To me this is an example of confirmation bias. Sabine (who often seems suspicious of government spending), sees a paper suggesting that spending programs are filled with fraud, then broadcasts its message without much scrutiny. She said <YET> not peer validated, which means she expects it to be. Not being peer reviewed also don't imply falsehood. I can understand this is not the degree of quality you epxect in science communication, but you can't judge her video as "confirmation bias" just because it don't adequate to what you consider the ideal. The paper also is not based on spending programs being filled with fraud (and most people know they do, you don't need a random not peer reviewed paper to back it up).
    1