The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enoug

The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enough reason to believe that he's not arguing in good faith. Scientists make plenty of controversial claims and aren't afraid to be vocal about it - see climate change, or the harmful effects of many products like tobacco, which used to be (and in many cases, still are) largely ignored by the general population.