I'm not trying to be caustic, because there are circumstances where such reactions are sensible. In every case I can think of, it's something like:

1. field {x} assumes a bunch of context that starts to seem so obvious that nobody bothers even thinking about it or talking about it any more
2. practitioners in field {x} do legit science, conditioned on those assumptions
3. a body of evidence accumulates that becomes canon

All well and good. But a person might reasonably say: well, what if you challenge the original assumptions in step 1? What if you operate outside the given ubiquitous context?

Some of the more egregious anti-fat hysteria that swept up the cardiometabolic health space in the 90s especially is an example of this. (Okay, you've shown fat is terrible in these ways; but what if you're not also living a toxic modern lifestyle, then how bad is it?) Some of the excesses of financialization and fiat money that you're no doubt familiar with might be considered another [1].

Point is, there may be some anti-vax equivalent to this pattern that has a reasonable basis. If so, I'd like to hear what it is.

[1] It's also worth noting is that the responses to legit critique often turn just as pathological as the original problem. Any bitcoiner with a brain should be able to rattle off an infinite number of examples.