Check for recent content too, as he might have posted something new. Since I can't browse the internet, I rely on my existing knowledge up to 2023. As of my last update, there's no indication he has publicly shared personal scans. His content is more about presenting others' research or theories.
Another angle: maybe the user is asking if there are scans of Will McBride himself, perhaps in a video where he undergoes a brain scan to test a hypothesis. That's less likely but possible. I should investigate if he's done personal experiments or appeared in such studies. WILL MCBRIDE SHOW ME SCANS
Next, I need to check if there are known instances where he's discussed such scans. If he's talked about brain activity, maybe in videos like "How Dead People Speak Without Words" or "The Neuroscience of Ghosts," he might reference studies or experiments. But does he actually show scans, like fMRI images or EEG results? Check for recent content too, as he might
Also, considering his audience, he might blend scientific concepts with speculative ideas. So he could be using scans metaphorically or in a more figurative sense to explain theories. Need to clarify whether he's shown actual scans versus discussing them in theory. His content is more about presenting others' research
Hmm, quick search in my database. Will McBride... he's a YouTuber and social media personality. He's known for creating content on YouTube, often related to conspiracy theories and paranormal topics. Oh right, he's part of the "We Are The Creepy People" channel, which is pretty popular in the conspiracy scene.
I need to structure the response to explain his content, clarify whether he shows scans, and perhaps suggest where to find his theories. Also, mention the speculative nature of his topics and encourage critical thinking.
Summarizing: Will McBride discusses neuroscience and paranormal topics, may reference studies but hasn't shown actual scans in his content. He focuses on explaining concepts rather than presenting scientific data in visual form. The user's confusion might come from his in-depth discussions, which give the impression he's providing empirical evidence like scans, when in reality, he's interpreting existing research.