This post has little to do with science. You're talking about healthy media consumption with a misunderstanding on what being a published paper means. There's

This post has little to do with science. You're talking about healthy media consumption with a misunderstanding on what being a published paper means. There's this huge disconnect among laypeople, which is probably the cause of the antiscience movement, that subscribes to the idea that once something is written down it becomes SCIENCE LAW. When infact all a peer reviewed article means is a group of qualifed folks couldn't see anything immediately wrong with your experimental setup that would color your results and so enter it into the total body of work. Then, when the next group wants to study in that field, they'll compare their results to yours, and either add credence to the established lexicon, or provide a competing hypothesis and body of evidence. With the exception of blatantly fraudulent studies (vaccines link to autism, early cold reports, etc) the idea that "science isn't always real" doesn't make much sense. Experiments can be flawed, conclusions can be faulty or incorrect, but the process behind them is still the same. There's neither anything stopping you from presenting a counter experiment; infact the community wants that. Just because the ideas behind good science doesn't sell papers, doesn't mean that it's not near 100% of the science being done.