His analysis deeply flawed so far (at about 1 minute in).
Urethra length is not the reason that more men than women report candiru attacks. Rather, more men than women expose themselves to candiru attacks in the first place because more men than women pee outdoors.
And then at about 6 minutes, he notes that fish removed from a man's urethra by Dr. Samad in 1997 had a diameter of 11.5 mm in diameter, but an average man's urethra is only about 6mm.
This fish, however, was not removed from the urethra of some random "average man", but from that of a specific patient.
What was the actual diameter of this patient's urethra above and below the fish? Had it ever been measured before the candiru attack? Could he have had a naturally oversized urethra, making him an attractive target for the candiru?
Could it be that the man had a normal-sized urethra and the candiru was small enough to enter, but the candiru then grew in thickness as it fed on the urinary nutrients and stopped exercising?
Further research is needed.
And the candiru is a blood-sucking parasite, so ick.
stream. 🤷