Thanks! So you said It’s blatant misinformation based on false data Your link says Kurzgesagt should be more transparent about their funding (see e.g. the strawman section) shouldn’t rely on science funded by billionaire philanthropists and big pharma shouldn’t rely on purely Western data sources Those are very different statements. In particular, your says that the science and data can be completely correct, but that by obscuring conflicts of interest they reduce credibility, and by using Western data sources and scientists, their perspective is skewed. It can all be good and credible science, but it’s science from a single perspective. It’s an interesting discussion, but it doesn’t support your point that this should be disinformation or based on false data. It supports a much more moderate point that it represents a limited worldview, I’d say.