I don't see how that disagrees with what I said? 
He basically agrees with what I said about ideology /he calls it "beliefs" and he seems to encourage debate also
"In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications—typically in biomedical research—may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs."
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
And he continues:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
This consensus science seems to be what we see in mainstream media at the moment with only that Pro-vacc view discussed and others who have different conclusions and studies re the novel vaccines being shunned and not participating in TV etc debates.
That is why I said I would welcome this open forum debate.
Maybe it is just semantics because I said "sides" (I am a foreigner and I am not a scientist of course) but what else would you call scientists coming to different conclusions? and yeah verifiable results - if Dr Malone says that some nanoparticles are being found in different body parts according to studies being made - what is the result going to be? is there going to be a result? maybe 4 years later? how is the body going to react to it and when ? who knows at that point exactly since all this is novel
He basically agrees with what I said about ideology /he calls it "beliefs" and he seems to encourage debate also
"In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications—typically in biomedical research—may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs."
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
And he continues:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
This consensus science seems to be what we see in mainstream media at the moment with only that Pro-vacc view discussed and others who have different conclusions and studies re the novel vaccines being shunned and not participating in TV etc debates.
That is why I said I would welcome this open forum debate.
Maybe it is just semantics because I said "sides" (I am a foreigner and I am not a scientist of course) but what else would you call scientists coming to different conclusions? and yeah verifiable results - if Dr Malone says that some nanoparticles are being found in different body parts according to studies being made - what is the result going to be? is there going to be a result? maybe 4 years later? how is the body going to react to it and when ? who knows at that point exactly since all this is novel