>Attacks against researchers are always anti-science.

that's blatantly untrue. If a researcher is malicious, attacking their person is not anti-science.

I don't think this is true. If a scientist follows the methodology correctly, they are not malicious. And if they are not following the scientific method, then they are not scientists. The trick is to figure out which self-proclaimed scientists, aren't.

Andrew Wakefield?

My point is that he stopped being a scientist the moment he stopped using scientific method, it just took a while for the rest of the world to realize that.

Ah, so they're only a researcher as long as you want them to be? My point stands, attacking a researcher is not inherently anti-scientific, and attacking their research is... well, it's good science.

No, they are not being researchers the moment they stopped doing research (e.g. by manipulating the results). They can call themselves however they want, until someone calls out their BS. There's a reason why we want to see the methodology used and that the results are reproduced. Questioning a scientist is not an attack, you're actually doing them a favor (I'd like to be told if I'm wrong).

I realize you don't want to follow the site guidelines, but it's also not in your self-interest to post like this. The effect you're having is to drive people further away from whatever you believe is true. That weakens you.