Didn't mean to leave this STILL unanswered. You can't use the absence of dissenting views (my point) to prove a massive conspiracy to suppress all the dissenting views (your point).
You don't have dissenting views within science. You just have an excuse, the massive conspiracy, to explain why you don't have the controversy in the scientific literature where it should be if the main article of this thread were accurate. But you have no evidence for your massive conspiracy, either, only the lack of dissenting views.
Pathetic. The lack of dissenting views is evidence for the lack of dissenting views. It's what I said. The controversy is not in science. If forty percent of scientists were being suppressed, they would not passively suffer this. Another thirty percent would protest even if the suppression was not targeted at them. That leaves only about 30 percent to suppress seventy, in my model.
Pathetic.
Finally you admit it!
Oh, if you wanna see an example of plagiarism, check out this shameless example. The plagiarism is exposed as early as post 4, and it goes downhill for the plagiarist from there.