Btw many people (even trained) fail to reproduce legitimate work. It may not actually be fake or falsified, typically not being able to reproduce an experiment is insufficient evidence for retraction. I didn't watch the YouTube video.
People outside academia seem to believe that reproducibility is an explicit goal when publishing papers. Perhaps it should be, but generally speaking it isn't. Instead a paper is a record of the things the authors found interesting and novel when doing the work.
If they are wrong then you publish a paper with conflicting results. If there is fraud (which is different to "I can't replicate the results") then you deal with the publisher of the paper.
Well there's two problems, first is journals refusing to publish anything that conflicts with previous publications (a despicable practice that goes against the most fundamental principles of science that include curiosity and the willingness to be wrong and change, see also [1]), second is a reasonable expectation to get a response from the original authors when asked about a failure to replicate (even in the mode of "you're stupid and did it wrong").
Btw many people (even trained) fail to reproduce legitimate work. It may not actually be fake or falsified, typically not being able to reproduce an experiment is insufficient evidence for retraction. I didn't watch the YouTube video.