When logic fallacy is when a Conspiracy theorist implies Peer reviewed, double blind Studies with huge sample sizes are forged to an agenda ?

"For one to hold a rational and justified conspiratorial view, one needs more evidence in support of the conspiracy than against it."

I don't agree. You're suggesting that we somehow measure the "amount" of pro-evidence versus con-evidence and support whichever amount is greater. In some cases, a single piece of evidence or logic can speak volumes.

In plain English, someone can give me a truckload of alleged evidence, but if I can find one piece of evidence or logic that shoots the whole thing down, then I'll shoot it down.

"There is nothing 'strange' about companies making money off their work."

There's nothing strange about corporate corruption, either; in fact, it appears to be the norm. And conspiracy is the handmaiden of corruption.

"Nothing is wrong with distrust, especially when certain figures' and institutions' histories warrant distrust, but creating a conspiratorial narrative that counters well-established scientific findings is a different level that is certainly fallacious."

Who decides what qualifies as "well-established scientific findings"?

Propagandists have certainly infiltrated the scientific community; there are probably lots of marine mammal biologists working for Exxon. (I've met one of them.)

I especially love the media's claim that there's a "scientific consensus" that genetically modified food is perfectly harmless. Isn't it amazing that the details of that "scientific consensus" are so hard to track down?

As for Johns Hopkins, just type "Johns Hopkins" + "scandal" into a search engine, and you'll find plenty of evidence that the folks who run that operation have dabbled in corruption/conspiracy. For example...

John Hopkins: $1 Billion Syphilis Lawsuit

Your question is a little hard to unravel. However, it sounds like you're criticizing people who think there's something conspiratorial about the coronavirus pandemic, particularly the vaccines.

In fact, there are lots of things about the pandemic that are awfully strange, and the major players are hardly trustworthy. Who are we supposed to trust - Donald Trump? Facebook? Bill Gates? Big pharmaceutical companies that have paid out billions of dollars in criminal penalties?

A couple other notes:

Einstein is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Do some research about him. He is widely accused of effectively plagiarizing most of his work. He had a daughter who mysteriously disappeared. His personal life was quite messy.

As for falsification, here's a question I've repeatedly asked on philosophy forums, without getting a single answer:

Can you give some specific examples of scientists using falsification?

In fact, there are certain scientific disciplines where falsification has no merit whatsoever, including historical science - and that's exactly what conspiracy theory is.

"You do agree. Evidence isn't measured in number. 'More evidence' refers to greater evidence."

That sounds like a circular argument. ;) Who decides which evidence is "greater"? The media swear by their evidence, even if it can't be disclosed because it might jeopardize national security. The 9/11 truthers swear by a commercial airliner that was supposedly flown into the Pentagon without being photographed.

Me: "Who decides what qualifies as 'well-established scientific findings'?"

You: "Scientists."

Another circular argument. Who decides who is qualified as a "scientist"? And who decides which scientists get to give their stamp of approval to "well-established scientific findings"? When I worked as a wildlife biologist in Alaska, we were constantly shocked by the higher ranking, invisible scientists who made decisions that flew in the face of what we observed in the field.

"There are essentially two propositions: accept published, peer-reviewed, strong consensus-based scientific findings or reject them."

That's a textbook example of a false dilemma, eerily similar to George W. Bush's challenge, "Either you're with us or you're against us." (I don't recall if those were his exact words.)

"You appear to be rejecting them. What are your sources for providing the evidence for rejecting? Are these sources free from 'scandal'? If not, why the double standard? Who are you trusting here?"

I use a combination of evidence and logic. The government, corporate sector and media have a track record for corruption (e.g. conspiracy) and lying. I have far more respect for scientists, and, like I said, even "scientists" can't always be trusted.

So I'm not going to automatically swallow their BS, just because they claim it's backed up with a peer-reviewed paper or world famous authority.

In fact, the mainstream pandemic account is studded with red flags. For example, the media endlessly rant about the evil Chinese covering up something sinister that allegedly happened at Wuhan. Yet they scarcely mention Fort Detrick, which is kind of weird, considering the amazing events that happened there the summer before the pandemic officially began.

Then we have the censorship campaign spearheaded by - get ready for it - Google, Facebook and Twitter. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously?

Like they say, where there's smoke, there's fire, and when the entire Internet is saturated with claims, counter-claims, respectable conspiracy theories, preposterous conspiracy theories and sheer idiocy, only a fool would volunteer to be used as a guinea pig for not just one vaccination but as many as four vaccinations, after which they may still get COVID, and they may still be required to wear a mask.

Frankly, I don't think it's worth it when the death toll works out to approximately one person for every 2,000 people. And if you do a little research on mortality rates, you'll discover more interesting things.