Everything I don't agree with is flat earth

It's a weak argument. What's crazy is that the majority of people believe without question that things no one can see with their own eyes, alive or dead, are understood with a high degree of certainty. The medical industry / big pharma thrive on the appearance of certainty and it's monopoly on biological knowledge.

The more I've looked into things though, the more I've found that the "certainty" and "knowledge" is often established through quite arbitrary choices, often made out of ignorance or for political or financial reasons, and which were fraught with bias and assumption. Since this may have been done by someone who was highly esteemed, say, like someone who wins a Nobel prize for their work, that then gets taught as incontrovertible fact to the next gen of students. The entire field of virology appears to be exactly like that.

Medical doctors and scientists are exceptionally well trained, but they are not trained to critically assess prior (now profitable) discoveries, or theories now accepted as fact, and find flaws in them. The medical and scientific establishment abhors that. They are more often taught the exact opposite - you do not do that, and if you do you'll lose your job or funding. I saw someone else say that it's better to think of them as exceptionally well-trained technicians rather than highly intelligent critical thinkers.

This is a quote from Dr. Harold Hillman:

There is a widespread belief that medical and biological research is very successful and, therefore, more resources should be put into it... Since the 1940's, many new drugs have been discovered and developed empirically, intensive care units for dying patients have been set up in most large towns, new antibiotics have been found empirically and modified, transplantation of skin, kidneys and other organs has become routine, cardiac surgery has become a major specialty, steroids have been used for skin diseases, all these have been highly successful applications of simple technologies.

However, we must ask what has been discovered about the genesis of cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia. The answer is remarkably little which has helped us to understand the mechanism of the diseases, so that we can design rational treatments for them.

The same may be said about the understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which drugs act; a large amount is known about what they do, but remarkably little about how they act in the living person or animal.

If we leave aside my hypothesis that basic medical, biological and pharmacological research has not been successful because it has not addressed the fundamental problems and assumptions inherent in most of the techniques, the current situation is dangerous because it suppresses free thought, without which the advance of knowledge can only be slow.

Hillman - a biological scientist, expert microscopist, researcher and MD - spent many years trying to tell people that the electron microscope and sub-cellular fractination (among other things) - two core and essential things in virology and microbiology in general - are completely unsuitable for examining or preparing cells, since they are so destructive and altering of biological matter. He was around precisely when the electron microscope first started being used for microbiological examination so he was not brainwashed into believing it was the be all and end all like a student even one generation later would be. He never got round to talking about viruses since his focus was on the diseases he had been studying mentioned above which are not claimed to be caused by viral infection.... yet. But it's rational to make the leap given virology's heavy reliance on those things.