it's important to know what you're trusting. in, say, the thiomersal controversy, the hypothesis was that thiomersal causes autism. many studies were done. there's no link to autism. you either trust the science, or assert a conspiracy between dozens of independent groups to straight-up falsify data, and to what end? so yes, I trust the science on thiomersal. the same way I trust the science on covid vaccines.
you shouldn't "trust the science" when a single paper makes extraordinary claims and that haven't been replicated (e.g. the original vaccines-cause-autism paper itself, which seems to have been outright fraud.)
you also shouldn't trust the science beyond what the study can show. I trust that amyloid shows up in Alzheimer's brains, that neurofibrillary tangles disrupt neuronal function, that APP mutations lead to early-onset Alzheimer's. but beyond that, the science is only suggestive, not conclusive.
no experiment has proven the amyloid hypothesis, only pieces of the patchwork. smart, reasonable people can disagree on how those pieces fit together. all while trusting the same science.
you shouldn't "trust the science" when a single paper makes extraordinary claims and that haven't been replicated (e.g. the original vaccines-cause-autism paper itself, which seems to have been outright fraud.)
you also shouldn't trust the science beyond what the study can show. I trust that amyloid shows up in Alzheimer's brains, that neurofibrillary tangles disrupt neuronal function, that APP mutations lead to early-onset Alzheimer's. but beyond that, the science is only suggestive, not conclusive.
no experiment has proven the amyloid hypothesis, only pieces of the patchwork. smart, reasonable people can disagree on how those pieces fit together. all while trusting the same science.