I've debunked corbett's stuff before, most recently his attempt at claiming Bill Gates is evil and trying to spread mosquitoes with mind-controlling vaccines around the world. He doesn't directly say that because like you say he's a little more careful, but the viewers easily extrapolate to such a conclusion and spread this far and wide.
Though I respect him for trying hard and providing all sources in sometimes huge lists, I still find he is misdirected. Sifting truth from 'truth' is a lifelong journey and I genuinely believe this should be some kind of formal curriculum in school, a fight against indoctrination from an early age.
For me, I started digging in when I was about 20 when things started to sound vague and biased and I've been refining those skills ever since, and it's really tricky. Sometimes I have to learn a bunch of scientific lingo just to properly understand a research paper that turns out to be nothing related to what I was talking about. Sometimes I set out to prove a point and write about it, only to find I was wrong, and thus, don't write about it.
(Survivorship bias in this scenario is another topic entirely)
And, if you take the wrong direction in years of refining skills, it's pretty hard or impossible to turn back. Corbett and I presumably forked off in our own directions many years ago but possibly went down the same general path of truth or 'truth' finding.
And hey, I use nutcase/nutjob in a rather light-hearted tone, but calling me a normie is outright offensive and now I'm going to find your twitter and get you fired for something a decade ago.
It’s easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t believe Corbett has ever implied that mosquitoes will be used to vaccinate us though I could be wrong. sometimes it can be beneficial to point out connections that may turn out to be unrelated. It can encourage more people to take up the thread and do the research, thus either expanding on or debunking that idea. Dyor is not just a sound investment advice and the truth community is open source and decentralized.
If you take any researcher, scientist etc who is doing groundbreaking work and put everything they say to the microscope test you are bound to find inconsistencies and mistakes. It takes a brave human to do that work while constantly under the microscope and still follow any lead that seems promising. I believe if someone were to judge everything you have ever said or written on “that one thing they debunked once” you would find that a bit ridiculous.
I tried twitter once. Like most social media I found there to be too many twits ;)