You’re right to point that out, and it was a sloppily made argument.

But maybe when I say “science” I view it as this.

I see science as the sieve, not the pile of sand. Science is the filter, not all empirical claims made ever.

Bad data, mad models, p hacking are eventually rejected and replication and adversarial scrutiny remain.

So to clarify my meaning, when I say data is data, I mean scientific data that has survived scrutiny, not all empirical claims.

Hypothesis > prediction > falsification > replication at the protocol level is what I trust about science, not the human layer error, which is real.

I am also not saying that I am right and you are wrong and my opinions are loosely held until better information arises. I just don’t see the case for anti-vaccine rhetoric being made in a clear scientific manner, and sometimes there is no pushback to certain topics and claims made in bitcoin land.

I do agree it’s a tempting and cohesive counter narrative to lies told by mainstream media, but to my standards it’s unverified as there is not sufficient replicable evidence for it.