One of the issues is when posts are backed up by sound clear references to respected scientific papers, research documents, these are automatically rejected and branded as fake, without any attempts to even read the content.
The ONLY message that counts is that one promoted by whoever wants to push an agenda. The slightest deviation to offer an alternative leads to a virtually automatic personal attack on the person posting it.
As an example:
The new Pfizer drug soon to be approved for use against Covid 19.
1. There are ONLY internal trials to back up the efficacy, effectiveness and safety.
2. The trials have been terminated because Pfizer declares "they" have learnt enough.
3. The research has NOT been peer-reviewed.
4. The claims that the new drug is a Protease Inhibitor is ONLY backed up by ONE "in silico" study in the public domain.
Yet it is is hailed as the saviour drug with a "press release" by Pfizer to back it up.
Now there are other drugs that have been shown to be equally effective, backed up by the same in silico methods. Yet they will be rejected with the claims that it is "only" supported by in silico research.
Those drugs are unilaterally rejected, even when the results are supported by a peer review process done by many different researchers.
Where is the logic?