JacobFoods | Nutrition
Region: IT
Saturday 25 July 2026 20:45:07 GMT
110576
9296
239
113
Music
Download
Comments
Nonexistent :
bro this creator just spent this entire video explaining how studies being funded by a “biased” source doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a problem & y’all are STILL in the comments talking about it like it is 😭😭 DID YOU NOT HEAR A SINGLE WORD HE SAID!??
2026-08-05 18:46:47
1
Madison Foster Disc Golf :
“WHO funded the studies???” The people interested in finding out the answer to what they’re studying….maybe?
2026-07-25 20:56:00
1329
marcellmenzel :
Funding sources absolutely matter. Decades of data prove funding bias statistically skews results to favor sponsors. Transparency is necessary, but it isn't a foolproof shield against bias or fraud. While outright faking isn't the norm, it happens. I personally know researchers who 'tweaked' data just to secure future funding. Peer review isn't magic. Healthy skepticism is necessary. We have to question everything. That doesn't mean we should dismiss research outright, because of who funded it.
2026-07-26 06:36:56
287
Beatrice.Sugarman :
i study politics and my boyfriend has a doctor in biology, the question on who funded the study is 10000000% valid bruh 😭
2026-07-26 12:46:38
118
r.s🇵🇸 :
more often than not, research is not intended to the general public for interpretation, it’s for other researchers within the community. what we lack is *knowledgeable* mediators between the scientific community and the rest of the world. it’s dangerous otherwise
2026-07-26 04:50:42
283
pipoca :
Funding bias is definitely a thing. Very occasionally it's the result of actual fraud (See e.g. Andrew Wakefield), but mostly it's because of Publication Bias. Studies that aren't beneficial to the sponsors are more likely to be abandoned, meaning that the studies that are published are more likely to be statistical aberrations than you'd expect. But it's just one bias among many and while it's important to be aware of, it can be accounted for.
2026-07-26 15:09:56
65
0hoeshaver :
Methodology isnt immunity to bias, ts is just naive and ignores both the philosophy of science and scientific history
2026-07-26 06:04:21
64
Art Freak825 :
Yes, they document and explain everything in detail, except for how they faked the data in the first place.
2026-07-26 07:44:25
10
laraslores :
Funding determines what is studied and what isn’t. That’s quite some bias
2026-07-26 15:38:50
65
Liminologist :
I have a MSc in research methods and a PhD. Most people don’t know enough about research methods to spot bias and funding absolutely influences research outcomes.
2026-07-26 07:05:59
34
llluja :
Most studies are done because they allow researchers to advance in their careers and secure academic positions, which also means they are way too often done for little to nothing :d people talk about the academia as if they bath in money, but their reality is just the opposite
2026-07-26 19:09:17
16
Kharanar :
a lot of talk to prove nothing... bias can be disguised in much many forms, straight right lying being just one of them... 😏
2026-07-26 05:51:33
11
eyeseno :
Well no enough money literally renders all of this absolute not to mention the fact that even getting funding for a study at all is a price and people will change the entire premise of the study in order to ”ethically” produce the desired results
2026-07-26 01:03:59
9
SimonKyr :
It is different in different fields. Ex research in societal science, health economics and so on are not as great at declaring bias or conflict of interest. Some science is also not replicable by its nature, or even dependent on the researcher. You are simplifying too much.
2026-07-26 05:16:46
30
Professor Scritch :
Also, a group of independent peers evaluated the rigor of the manuscript in advance of publication. ❤️🐶
2026-07-26 00:42:01
40
Justin Termaat :
Even if a study was done completely fairly and unbiased by unbiased researchers funding can still introduce bias in multiple ways. And you won't necessarily be able to tell by reading the study because the single study itself may not be the problem but rather the many null results that never reach you are (for example).
2026-07-26 05:18:21
14
Jack :
Quality scientific journals do this all for you. Sometimes you have to verify if a journal is worth reading and then you can generally trust that journal indefinitely.
2026-07-26 01:45:43
11
Pizzar0llzs :
you make good clean informative content. we need more people like you who aren't soulless grifters in the online health and nutrition space.
2026-07-25 22:12:11
77
Spicy Peanut :
along with a list of all conflicts of interest, we also have peer reviews. the people who say "who funded it" dont know what "peer reviewed study" means and just ignore the first two words
2026-07-26 17:53:19
16
theolwiggleroo :
This is a wildly optimistic view. Do you do peer review? Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes don’t. But all the time you are relying on the honesty of the authors… who have a huge incentive to publish, funding aside. I’ve literally seen a paper drop 15% of participants from a working paper to the published version with zero mention of it, they just presented a different number of recruited participants. There is no reasonable way to catch that, especially without public preregistration.
2026-07-26 15:32:47
20
Max :
The bigger case here is the studies we don’t get to read. Because some researchers get clauses that the funder can choose if it should be published or not. If, let’s say, a sugar drink company is funding a study, and that study shows that sugar drinks are damaging to the consumer’s health, they just bury that study. This is the big issue with privately funded research, but the message gets distorted when reaching people’s minds.
2026-07-26 17:14:48
11
Dragbeat :
If you are philosophically informed, you would have already known that in the end we are directly relying on anecdotes. The network of anecdotes is just being kept in check. That's not leveling the playingfield as it applies to anything and science has reliable networks of anecdotes and most other things don't
2026-07-26 06:02:21
5
lavs.jose :
We also need to remember that science is self-correcting. Even if a “biased” study is published, other labs around the world will try to replicate the results. If they can’t or they show different results, it will correct the original publication. We don’t talk enough about all the papers that get retracted in a yearly basis.
2026-07-26 20:35:00
7
kuerbiscreme :
What I always say is "Well it's great that you know they are falsified, that makes it even easier for you to debunk them". But of course that never happens because guess what, they don't even know the studies in 99 % of cases. They tell me I'm stupid for "just believing something some told me" while doing exactly that.
2026-07-26 12:24:09
5
To see more videos from user @jacbfoods, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
