Debunk Script Writer

DEPRECATED - Use youtube-script-master instead

This skill has been merged into youtube-script-master. Location: /.claude/skills/youtube-script-master/SKILL.md Please use the unified skill for all YouTube script writing, including debunk content.

Skill: Debunk Script Writer

Metadata

• Name: debunk-script-writer
• Version: 1.1
• Status: DEPRECATED - merged into youtube-script-master
• Purpose: Write evidence-based correction videos that address patient misinformation without humiliation
• Token Budget: High (use with Opus for nuanced tone)
• Inherits From: youtube-script-hinglish (for Hinglish rules, voice, transitions)

Relationship to youtube-script-hinglish

This skill extends the base youtube-script-hinglish skill. It inherits:

• Hinglish word choice matrix (70% Hindi, 30% English technical)
• Voice DNA and transitions
• Basic script quality standards
• Engagement beat patterns

It adds specialized capabilities for:

• Steelman-then-correct methodology
• Tone calibration for sensitive corrections
• Narrative-specific hooks and structures
• Evidence citation protocol for debunking

When to use which:

The Core Philosophy

"Be the cardiologist who speaks their language without surrendering rigor."

Patients arrive having watched 50+ hours of Dr. Eric Berg, SAAOL, and fasting evangelists. They have absorbed:

• LDL skepticism
• Statin fear
• Insulin-as-sole-cause framing
• Fasting-cures-everything belief
• Supplements-over-medications preference

Your job is NOT to mock, dismiss, or humiliate. Your job is to:

1. Acknowledge what they got RIGHT
2. Gently show where the wheels come off
3. Provide the nuanced truth with evidence
4. Give them a new, more accurate mental model

When to Use This Skill

Invoke this skill when:

• Creating "response to" videos addressing popular misinformation
• Writing myth-busting content about cardiology topics
• Correcting beliefs seeded by high-influence channels
• Addressing common patient concerns about statins, LDL, fasting, etc.

Required Context

Before using:

1. Know which narrative you're correcting (from narrative_monitor.py output)
2. Know which channel(s) promoted this narrative
3. Have specific claims to address (not vague generalizations)
4. Have evidence ready (studies, guidelines, clinical experience)

Debunk Formats

Format A: Direct Response (Use sparingly, for high-stakes misinformation)

When to use: Only for dangerous misinformation from high-influence channels.

Structure:

[HOOK] - The claim that needs correcting
[STEELMAN] - What they got RIGHT, give credit
[PIVOT] - "Lekin yahan problem hai..."
[EVIDENCE] - What studies actually show
[NUANCE] - The complete picture
[TAKEAWAY] - What to actually do

Example title: "Cardiologist Reacts: What Dr. Eric Berg Gets Wrong About LDL"

Tone rules:

• Never use "destroy," "debunk," "expose" language
• Always acknowledge partial truths
• Be respectful even in disagreement
• Your authority comes from evidence, not ridicule

Format B: Gentle Correction (Default format)

When to use: Most misinformation that doesn't require naming sources.

Structure:

[HOOK] - "Aapne yeh suna hoga..." (you've probably heard this)
[VALIDATE] - Why this belief makes sense / is appealing
[COMPLICATE] - "Lekin story itni simple nahi hai..."
[EVIDENCE] - Walk through what we actually know
[CONTEXT] - Indian-specific considerations
[ACTIONABLE] - What to do with this information

Example title: "Kya LDL Really Matters? The Full Truth"

Tone rules:

• Never name specific channels unless absolutely necessary
• Frame as "common misconceptions" not "lies"
• Validate the underlying concern (fear of medications, desire for natural solutions)
• Show you understand why they believed this

Format C: Evidence Synthesis (For complex, nuanced topics)

When to use: When the truth is genuinely complex and both "sides" have partial truths.

Structure:

[HOOK] - The debate/controversy
[SIDES] - What each side claims
[EVIDENCE WALK] - Study by study breakdown
[SYNTHESIS] - What the totality of evidence suggests
[CLINICAL REALITY] - What I see in practice
[FRAMEWORK] - How to think about this

Example title: "The LDL Controversy: 50 Studies Reviewed"

Format D: Indian Context Correction

When to use: When Western advice doesn't translate to Indian population.

Structure:

[HOOK] - Popular advice that doesn't work for Indians
[GLOBAL vs LOCAL] - Why generic advice fails
[INDIAN DATA] - Studies on Indian populations
[RISK FACTORS] - India-specific considerations
[ADAPTED ADVICE] - What Indians should actually do

Example title: "Why American Heart Advice Doesn't Work for Indians"

Steelman-Then-Correct Protocol

This is the most important technique. Before criticizing ANY belief, you MUST:

Step 1: Find the Kernel of Truth

Every popular health belief contains something true or appealing. Find it.

Step 2: Acknowledge It Explicitly

Wrong approach:

"Yeh log galat hain. LDL clearly causes heart disease."

Right approach:

"Yeh belief kahan se aayi? Actually, ek valid point hai. LDL alone se poori picture nahi milti. ApoB, particle count, inflammation - sab matter karta hai. Lekin iska matlab yeh nahi ki LDL matter hi nahi karta..."

Step 3: Show the Logical Error

Common logical errors to expose:

• Oversimplification: "It's not that simple..."
• Cherry-picking studies: "Jab hum ALL studies dekhte hain..."
• Correlation vs causation: "Yeh saath-saath hota hai, iska matlab yeh nahi ki..."
• Anecdote vs evidence: "Kuch logon ka experience aisa hai, but population level pe..."
• False dichotomy: "Yeh either-or nahi hai..."

Evidence Citation Protocol

For Studies

"2023 mein European Heart Journal mein ek meta-analysis aayi - 200 studies, 20 lakh logon pe. Finding? [specific finding]..."

For Guidelines

"ESC guidelines - Europe ke top cardiologists - recommend karte hain ki [specific recommendation]. Kyun? Because evidence shows..."

For Clinical Experience

"Mere practice mein pichhle 15 saal mein, maine [X] cases dekhe hain jahan [observation]..."

For Opposing Evidence

"Ab kuch log kehte hain ki [study name] ne opposite dikhaaya. Sahi baat hai. Lekin us study mein [limitation]..."

Hinglish Hooks for Debunk Content

For LDL Skepticism

• "YouTube pe dekha ki LDL kharab nahi hai? Ek cardiologist ki sachai suniye..."
• "High LDL but 'I feel fine' - yeh kyun khatarnak soch hai..."
• "LDL myth ya reality? 50 studies dekhne ke baad mera jawab..."

For Statin Fear

• "Statin se darr lagta hai? Main aapka darr samajhta hoon. Ab evidence dekhte hain..."
• "Statin ke side effects - kitna real, kitna exaggerated..."
• "Maine statin leni chahiye ya nahi? Honest answer..."

For Insulin Primacy

• "Sirf insulin fix karo, sab theek? Kaash itna simple hota..."
• "Insulin resistance important hai - but story yahan khatam nahi hoti..."
• "Cholesterol vs Insulin - yeh ladai fake hai. Real picture alag hai..."

For Fasting Absolutism

• "Fasting se heart disease reverse? Kuch sach hai, kuch myth..."
• "Autophagy ka magic ya marketing? Evidence check karte hain..."
• "Fasting achha hai - but kiske liye? Yeh important hai..."

Tone Calibration

Never Say:

• "Yeh log galat hain" (These people are wrong)
• "Bakwaas" (Nonsense)
• "Unhe medical degree nahi hai" (They don't have a medical degree)
• "Aap fool ban rahe ho" (You're being fooled)
• "Yeh dangerous misinformation hai" (This is dangerous misinformation)

Instead Say:

• "Is approach mein ek problem hai" (There's a problem with this approach)
• "Story itni simple nahi hai" (The story isn't that simple)
• "Partial truth hai, but..." (There's partial truth, but...)
• "Main samajhta hoon kyun yeh appealing hai" (I understand why this is appealing)
• "Evidence kuch aur kehti hai" (Evidence says something different)

Script Template: Gentle Correction

[HOOK - 0:00]
{Surprising statement that challenges common belief}
"Aapne suna hoga ki {common belief}. Lakhs of people believe this. Aur honestly? Unki baat mein thoda point bhi hai. Lekin poori story alag hai..."

[VALIDATE - 0:30]
{Acknowledge why this belief exists}
"Yeh belief kahan se aayi? {Name source or trend}. Aur dekho, {what they got right}. Yeh sach hai."

[PIVOT - 1:30]
{Introduce the complication}
"Lekin yahan story mein twist hai. {The piece they're missing}. Aur yeh miss karna aapke liye expensive ho sakta hai..."

[EVIDENCE - 2:30]
{Walk through evidence}
"Chalo evidence dekhte hain. {Study 1}. Phir {Study 2}. Aur {meta-analysis or guideline}. Pattern dikh raha hai?"

[NUANCE - 5:30]
{The complete picture}
"Toh sachai kya hai? {Nuanced truth}. Na sirf {extreme A}, na sirf {extreme B}. Reality is..."

[INDIAN CONTEXT - 7:00]
{India-specific considerations}
"Aur specifically Indians ke liye? {India-specific data or risk factors}. Generic advice se kaam nahi chalega..."

[ACTIONABLE - 8:30]
{What to actually do}
"Toh aap kya karein? Simple steps:
1. {Action 1}
2. {Action 2}
3. {Action 3}
Apne doctor se is basis pe baat karein..."

[CLOSE - 9:30]
{Empowering close}
"Ab aapke paas complete picture hai. Na darr, na complacency. Sirf evidence. Apna decision informed lein..."

Response Video Template

For direct "Cardiologist Reacts" format:

[HOOK - 0:00]
"[Channel name] ki yeh video [X million] logon ne dekhi. Aur [specific claim]. Main as a cardiologist, 15 saal ka experience, aapko batata hoon - kya sahi hai, kya galat..."

[CLIP 1 + REACTION]
"{Show claim}"
"Yahan [name] sahi keh rahe hain ki {partial truth}. Credit where due..."

[CLIP 2 + CORRECTION]
"{Show problematic claim}"
"Ab yahan problem hai. {Why this is incomplete/wrong}. Studies show {evidence}..."

[CLIP 3 + NUANCE]
"{Show oversimplification}"
"Yeh oversimplification hai. Real picture? {Nuanced truth}..."

[SUMMARY]
"Toh kya main keh raha hoon ki [channel] galat hai? Nahi. Main keh raha hoon ki {nuanced position}. Aapka health too important hai for incomplete information..."

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing debunk script:

Steelman Check

• Did I acknowledge what they got RIGHT?
• Did I explain why this belief is appealing?
• Did I avoid strawmanning their position?

Evidence Check

• Did I cite specific studies/guidelines?
• Did I address counter-evidence fairly?
• Did I show my reasoning, not just conclusions?

Tone Check

• Would I be comfortable saying this to a patient's face?
• Is this educational, not confrontational?
• Does this build trust or defensiveness?

Actionable Check

• Does viewer know what to DO with this information?
• Is advice realistic for Indian context?
• Does it empower, not just correct?

Narratives Quick Reference

This skill ensures debunk content corrects with authority but without arrogance.