it's pretty obvious to me which side of the issue you're standing on.

I’m actually not really on a side of this argument. I admit I tend to lead toward mainstream science, because it typically has more evidence to support it and I don’t really subscribe to the “big pharma” conspiracy theory. But I’m certainly open to seeing evidence to the contrary.

you keep reaching like this and you're gonna pull something out of wack. just admit that you are opposed to the site and you don't wanna read any of it.

I’m not reaching for anything - you didn’t provide anything for me to read lol. I’m not opposed to the site, but I also don’t know anything about it.

even when it's a website run by professionals who have come to a definite consensus?

Yes. There is also a “consensus” among a small minority of climate scientists that say climate change is not real, or at least that humans have no part it in. However the general consensus of the scientific community is that that minority group is wrong.

ahhh, the anti-vax comparison. those who suck the dick of big pharma are very fond of pulling that one out. sorry, you can't lump us in with the anti-vaxxers just because it makes you feel good.

Well I just provided another example with climate change so there you go. But the anti-vax example seems perfectly applicable. Why exactly is it that anti-psychiatry can’t be compared to anti-vax? They seem like pretty similar situations. I’m not trying to bait you or be sarcastic on this, I’m genuinely curious.

As the contrarian, the burden of proof is on you in this scenario, not the other way around.