Why do we pay attention to "celebrity" self produced videos?

Looking to start a new thread

Why do we pay attention to “celebrity” self produced videos?

When most of the people do not have any real experience in a laboratory and or any peer reviewed published work?


BS walks money talks!

1 Like

I think there are few lab / bench scientists who are good at translating their research (or their general area of study) into information that is usable by the broader public.

Secondly, few of us have the time or expertise (or access) to read all the relevant research papers and come to an accurate conclusion about why or how a given piece of research is relevant to our specific lives or situation.

So, for most people on limited time, budgets, and relevant educational background, we have to rely on people to do the “translational” work for us.

Sure - its great when you get a well-spoken, coherent, and thoughtful scientist that can convey his or her research in a way most people can understand it. But - thats definitely not the norm.


In the case of Dr. Greg Stanfield from New Zealand, I don’t think he is any more qualified than my local physician. Actually, I trust my primary physician more.
Yes, I am old and grumpy at times, and very, very skeptical of media sluts.


Grimes grimes grimes…

What is the definition of “celebrity”? Number of subscribers? One MD whose vids I view, has 142k versus 174k of the Young Turk - Ford Brewer, MD. So not that far. He uses a catchy phrase in the vid - “internet docs”.

After beginning his career in full-time emergency medicine and as full-time faculty at Johns Hopkins. Dr Brewer quickly realized that many disabilities and diseases brought to the ER are preventable. He returned to Johns Hopkins where he studied and served as chair of the post graduate studies on Prevention.


The other is Dr. Annette Bosworth (391k subscribers). I am not into keto, but I get nuggets of useful info from her keto vids.

1 Like

You are not going to like my reply.

In my view.

Brewer is a money scrounger, the fact he is always trying to sell you a product, service, membership, supplements, etc. His presentation of information is minimal at best. Another “aggregator” of information repacking and selling.

There must be a substantial amount of pa$$ive income, that all these doctors and non- doctors pontificate.

Money talks and BS walks.


I do not dislike the reply. We need not like the same MDs or info.

Your assessment, however, does not turn me off. There is info I find useful.

1 Like

Some of them provide useful information, even sometimes when they are wrong. Worldwide, I believe new scientific papers come out at some ridiculous number likes 100’s or 1000’s per day. It’s impossible to keep up without help from others.
Peter Attia has a whole team doing research, and while he is certainly getting rich, I don’t see any motive behind what he presents.
Rhonda Patrick seems very intelligent, does a lot of research and is genuine.
Brad Stanfield is a mixed bag, but he does give his sources of papers to review.
If you wonder from life extension, ZDogg, and Vinay Prasad, have great knowledge and common sense.
Most of the others I’m not impressed by but that could change.

And for those of you that lump all physicians as interchangeable, don’t. Vast differences in intelligence, knowledge, honesty, motivation, etc.


One of the other issues with just going to the researchers for guidance on their areas of expertise, is that they are frequently biased towards their own research. David Sinclair seems to be a good example of this… lots of published papers on resveratrol, but many other researchers say they can’t duplicate his work, the ITP sees no lifespan improvement… so just reading the research and listening to the researchers in their interviews frequently is not the only answer.

We all need a variety of sources… and we all bring our own biases to the table when we choose a given individual or group to listen to. Thats why I appreciate the different opinions here… people frequently bring perspectives I have not considered myself. No single source is likely perfect, but perhaps with enough discussions and sources we get a reasonable understanding of the issues.


I only care about the YouTuber’s ideas and whether or not said ideas are backed by data and communicated effectively. You don’t have to have done research in a laboratory to communicate research results effectively. Personally attacking the messenger (instead of debating the message with data) is just lazy, IMO.