Once any theory becomes "consensus," it can be very hard to change or ever challenge it, and in some cases, even dangerous and risky to the person who does.

Human beings are pack animals, so they are wired to trust others, follow the herd, and oppose (through censoring, canceling, capturing, or even killing)  any "outliers" who question or contradict the herd's "consensus" on topics, especially as it relates to "science," as defined by the herd "leaders."

This video is an excerpt from a Del Bigtree interview with scientists Neil DeGrass Tyson on the subject of consensus, where you can see this phenomenon on display, almost to the point of panic, as Neil desperately defends the concept while his views are threatened by dissenting opinions from highly esteemed physicians and scientists. 

As you can see Del was merely trying to point out that none of these highly esteemed physicians and scientists were invited to the table to contribute to the "consensus" (and were, in fact, canceled, censored, and some even stripped of their credentials for questioning the consensus).

Neil's only reply/deflection was to tell Del to bring them to his table, which Neil obviously didn't realize Del already had (but even in doing so, doesn't help include them in the "consensus"). If the "consensus" is only allowing "yes men" to contribute to it, and no one to question or challenge it, that makes it anti-science because real science loves being questioned (the basis of the scientific theory) and invites challenges, no matter who is challenging or where it is coming from. Period. Full stop.

Otherwise, it's called a controlled narrative, coming from an agenda, created by a source benefiting from that agenda. Period. Full Stop. 

See my full comments and a brief history of other significant "consensus" examples on: https://beegeandpeege.com/the-dangers-of-consensus/