You have argued for why we shouldn't be suppressing alternative hypotheses. But you haven't provided good evidence that this hasn't happened. However a series

You have argued for why we shouldn't be suppressing alternative hypotheses. But you haven't provided good evidence that this hasn't happened. However a series of high profile articles and editorials have said that we have. For the latest example, read https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alzheimers-inc-when-a-hypothesis-becomes-too-big-to-fail/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alzheimers-inc-wh.... Given that, I will continue to believe that this area of science absolutely have acted in a non-scientific way.