I agree and respectfully disaree on some points.

I agree that science is an ongoing discussion, but disagree on the notion of peer review and full journals should be disregarded. Yes, there might be some inaccuracies, but i listed those as part of my criteria on giving at least source material a chance to analyze. A chance better than simply having spoke persons hailing "facts" as gospel without backing up their claims.

Pierre Kory's and FLCCC's review on ivermectin just recently is an excellent example. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

I think my idea of science is a little different than yours. For instance, new emerging sources have come out that certain anti-parasites are positive antagonists towards cancer. People are also claiming that they have cured their cancer with these anti-parasites. So, there are literature sources, personal anecdotes, and with the actual price of these anti-parasites being dirt cheap, the repeatability of these experiments is fairly easy to do. This all opens up more discussions about cancer. How is it related to gut health, how much parasites are causing problems for people, what is the relation to sugars or inflammation that causes cancer to proliferate, and many more exciting questions.

If a talking head adamantly tells me that his science is fact and indispensably the truth, then of course, I won't listen. That's just lazy and being willfully ignorant on my part. But if someone says one thing and backs it up with some sources, then I'll at least give them a chance.

I still think there's people out there trying to actually seek noble honors of trying to further knowledge instead of being motivated by nefarious means. If they present mountains of data showing some semblance of plausibility, the best anyone can do is at least give them a chance to hear them out.