Science is a continuing accumulation of knowledge. What is Scientifically correct today may become Scientifically wrong in the future. Example a vaccine had passed Preclinical phase and Phase I of clinical trials. It does not mean that vaccine will pass Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV. Why do you think clinical trials are in multiple phases?
There is so called scientific method. It is not scientific to say I accept this and that because so-called experts and scientists say so. What is scientific is doing further research on the things provided by scientists and to check their scientists' credentials. When a group of Scientists tell something do not just accept them without question. Challenge the hypothesis, theorems, postulates, data, information and statements the Scientists provided. Investigate the connections and possible motives of those Scientists.
It is a fact that Scientists may differ on Scientific things. So How do you determine who is/are correct, To overemphasize, First you make further and independent study of hypothesis, theorems, postulates, data, information and the statements provided by the Scientists, Second, question the Scientists' motive and connections (eg. connections to Pharmaceutical Companies), Third, investigate the procedures the scientists went through in coming up with their statements and information.
Do not blindly believe on certain scientific statements just because overwhelming Scientists agree with them. This is Science do not treat it as politics. Politics is a game of numbers, Science is not a game although numbers are vital in science. The Science numbers refer to results that came after scientific methods were done and not the number of scientists concurring on certain things. It has happened that the Scientists in the minority had turned out to be right and the majority of scientists have turned out to be wrong.
In the Court system, Testimony of an Expert witness is neither automatically admitted in court nor automatically given weight by the Judges, Justice and Jury. It could happen that the opposing party have an expert who has contrary opinions to those given by the first expert. It could happen that the credibility of the expert witness is in doubt.
My point in this post, STOP BIG-TECH TYRANNY, STOP SHAMING THE SKEPTICS, NO TO CENSORSHIP, DO NOT FACT-CHECK OPINIONS, RESPECT THOSE WHO HAVE CONTRARY OPINIONS!!!