[ziddoap]

>And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist.

I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it.

The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?".

I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it.

The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.

[kcplate]

To me “scientific consensus” is a wave of the hand response too. It’s generally dropped in these discussions by non-experts without much knowledge of who makes up that consensus or why they disagree with the dissent.

At any rate, I see both sides. I don’t trust big pharma or government, but I trust my doctor. If tomorrow he tells me “don’t get the next booster”, I’m not going to get it.