As asked before, what verifiable information do you offer in place of published scientific research?
You seem to omitting the effect of ‘peer review’ from your attempt at disparagement of scientific research (and government statistics).
I would have been very surprised (we’ll never know now) if research sponsored by Epstein would have been published in a recognised scientific journal.
Peer review culls most of the ‘not proven‘/‘not verifiable‘/‘not repeatable’ from publication and is independent of the money. If you’ve been through academic ‘peer review’ you’ll understand just what a blood sport it can be.
There is generally more to be gained by proving some research has issues than the actual research itself.
I am not arguing that. Just saying things need to be read in balance and taken with a grain of salt. Not everything is black and white and not all scientific research or government data is 100% honest.