The difference is sources. Sabine shows her sources prominently on screen, with searchable citations to find the original. She makes it clear in her phrasing whether she's paraphrasing a source, or passing her own judgement.

It's easy to know whether to internalize what she says when you view it critically. Ask "does the presented research seem legit, complete, and impartial?" and "is her conclusion logical?". She gives you the receipts to check. This is not the same as deciding whether to put blind faith into a comedian's off-the-cuff anecdotes and opinions.

I often disagree with her conclusions, but at least she makes it very easy to validate her chain of though, find where our views diverge, and only absorb the information I trust.