Pro vaxxers out there, when you first looked at the debate, maybe over vaccines and autism or something like that, did you ever try to consider the possibility that the consensus and the data was forced/illegitimate by looking for possible tricks? Or did you just assume that they have to be legit?

Did you ever like, go "i should consider the possibility that these studies are manipulated or bought or biased or an attempt to settle science inorganically through authoritatively flooding the journals to create an illusion of established truth"?

And then have a good look and scrutinize the studies to see if you could find ways in which they may be setting out to fail or not actualy proving anything they claim to prove or for flaws and limitations and anomalies and suspicious methods and choices?

Or was it just a case of reading it, taking it at face value and just liking the fact it supported what you were already comfortable believing?