Holy shit sometimes I can get caught up in the circlejerk myself guys but please try to look at this objectively.

1. He makes a video criticizing WSJ for stirring up shit where there doesn't seem to be any for a story. Keep in mind, he's defending his main source of income which is under threat. You would probably do the same if you thought someone was attacking your main source of income.
2. He believes he's found evidence which proves the WSJ story (that he had been been talking about in the previous video and the one which supposedly caused a bunch of innocent YouTubers' videos to be demonitized) to be bullshit. He makes a video to illustrate this new evidence.
3. - and this is the most important point. He finds new evidence which leads him to believe he may be wrong and he - wait for it - ISSUES A STATEMENT ON HIS TWITTER THAT HE'S INVESTIGATING - and PRIVATIZES THE VIDEO UNTIL HE CAN VERIFY.

Which is the correct thing to do when new evidence surfaces. Holy shit, it's the same thing any media org would do, but you guys want to sit here and attack him because he's saying things you don't necessarily agree with. At least try to see where someone is coming from before you start shitting on them.