Based on what you come to this conclusion? Scientific consensus reached after removing all the dissenting voices? Sorry, but I cannot take this kind of scientific consensus serious: we need scientists to be able to openly object, or it becomes junk science.

For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. And we have not yet faced the terrible consequences of that junk-science: on a societal level (MSM, most govt agencies) we just act as if it did not happen.