I'm quite happy to accept basic stuff like that the conference happened. Less willing to take at face value things you consider "obvious" such as that it being presented at a conference proves that it was peer-reviewed, when my experience suggests otherwise, and the evidence you provided that papers presented at academic conferences have been peer-reviewed didn't actually prove that (it didn't even make that claim!) Just to come back to another point you ignored, the circular argument that academic conferences are defined as ones where the papers are peer-reviewed (even if that was universally true), therefore a paper at an academic conference must have been peer-reviewed, still leaves the issue of whether that conference was an "academic-conference" within that definition. Not when I have personal evidence of scientific conferences where that isn't the case (don't get the idea they were mickey mouse ones either - nice official sounding titles, and numerous people who were world-leaders in their field presenting and attending).
I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn't mean you're right.
I'd suggest the fact you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP, yet have commented on it also tells a tale.