If you’d like to play the science game, start with your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, to wit:

1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;

2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).

What you seem to be playing is the “scientism” game, where any argument made by someone in a lab coat must be considered superior to arguments made by others.

I challenge you to separate your political passion from the scientific method, and help expand the knowledge of humanity, rather than think of ways on how to control it to your satisfaction.