Eric seems lightly inclined to fringe theories and self-importance, but nothing I'd call fraud. Bret has been pushing some pretty unfortunate stuff though, including prophylactic ivermectin as a superior alternative to vaccination:
> “I am unvaccinated, but I am on prophylactic ivermectin,” Weinstein said on his podcast in June. “And the data—shocking as this will be to some people—suggest that prophylactic ivermectin is something like 100% effective at preventing people from contracting COVID when taken properly.”
He wasn't just claiming that ivermectin might have some efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (possible, though I doubt it), or that the risks of the vaccine were understated to the public (basically true; but it's a great tradeoff for adults, and probably still the right bet for children). Bret was clearly implying that for many people--including himself, and he's not young--the risk/benefit for prophylactic ivermectin was more favorable than for the vaccine. There was no reasonable basis for such a belief, and the harm to those who declined vaccination based on such beliefs has become obvious in the relative death rates.
The first article I've linked above is by Yuri Deigin, who had appeared earlier on Bret's show to discuss the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 arose unnaturally, from an accident in virological research. This was back when that was a conspiracy theory that could get you banned from Facebook, long before mainstream scientists and reporters discussed that as a reasonable (but unproven) hypothesis like now. So I don't think Bret's services as a contrarian are entirely bad, but they're pretty far from entirely good.
What's fraudulent about them is not their papers (there are none of any relevance to speak of) but their character. They are both self proclaimed misunderstood geniuses who have been denied Nobel prizes in spite of their revolutionary discoveries (in 3 different fields, Physics, Economics and Evolutionary Biology). In actuality they are narcissistic master charlatans with delusions of grandeur.
Then the comment by ummonk above is off topic because there is no credible claim of scientific fraud. Lots of people are blowhards with odd opinions. So what?
And the ones that are masquerading as having Nobel worthy research chops to get the audience to believe their gripes about the scientific establishment is on topic enough.
It seems you don't like them for some reason, but complaining about the scientific establishment isn't fraud and has nothing to do with censorship. So what's your point?
One claims to have discovered a Theory Of Everything, putting forth a paper riddled with mathematical errors and with the caveat that it is a "work of entertainment". The other claims to have made a Nobel worthy discovery that revolutionizes evolutionary biology.
I wouldn't use the word 'charlatan' as leniently. Without commenting on the validity of their work, the 'mainstream opinion' about them is most certainly negative. Yet instead of pivoting elsewhere, they stick by their convictions. They might be right or wrong on their opinions, but they are hardly doing it to win any favours. And it's certainly not wrong to stand by something you believe even if the mainstream discredits you; time will tell who was right.
