While I agree that this conversation is a valid one that should continue, I have reservations about the OP's approach and methodology. This is way too large of a conversation to be had without qualifiers in place, such as species. The studies should pertain to the species at hand. The counter points should be considered and spoken to. Admission of areas of weakness in existing bodies of research should be brought to light and examined, such as how we interpret reptile behavior. Having a bias and admiting it is helpful so that others may interpret what you are bringing to the table through a more complete lens.
I am concerned that although you may have wanted to use studies and Youtube videos to propose a shift in animal husbandry to the masses, those that may well benefit from your points may shy away from this discussion based on your delivery and incorrect use of evidence. For what it is worth, scientific studies make up a vast body of information, and if you look hard enough (and it exists, etc.) you can hand-pick and back up a point most points, but doing so poses a real risk to the communities we aim to serve. Look at American "healthy/unhealthy" food recommendations across time if you need a concrete example of this.
Invite people into a discussion to help build the community (which also allows room for dissent) and please use data correctly by not extropolating beyond obvious limitations. Thank you for considering.
Reply With Quote