> Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging i

> Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific." That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.