This has traditionally been the excuse of quacks
>I've tried multiple things he mentioned which haven't worked which also didn't cost me anything.
And this is "throw things on a wall and see what sticks".
It's ok if you're doing research (even there though it should be tamed as an approach) but it's not OK when giving medical and health lifestyle advice.
Not really. Quacks usually try to sell you profitable remedies that have no chance of working and only cite scientific research in order to be misleading.
What if his product/remedie is just the "content" he produces. Not much different to a quack then.
Some people do seem to assume that since he's getting paid to promote supplements, that those supplements are basically another herbalife. I haven't seen anybody give any evidence for this though.
In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly: he sells talking about remedies and regimens for YT eyeballs and popularity (which can be turned into money indirectly).
I seem to recall listening to a podcast where he cited a study that wasn't very conclusive and he said that it wasn't very conclusive.
So no. No it is not.
>In this case he doesn't sell snakeoil directly
If I had a dollar for every person who told me that he's selling snake oil without giving a clear example I'd be able to set up my own version of herbalife.
I really find it weird how many people despise him for really vague reasons. Like, why? He's pushing scientific studies. There is nuance. Not everything is expected to work. Not every study that shows something interesting has a high p value. He says all this. Quacks dont.