This comment betrays a serious lack of understanding of human inquiry. I don't know where to begin unpacking it. A few have already addressed some of the issues, so I'll limit myself to two points: 

1. No area of human inquiry is error-free, including science, but when a large body of evidence supports a particular hypothesis, we should give it credence, regardless of what we would prefer to believe, and even if it contradicts current social dogma.
2. Every area of human knowledge and inquiry has been used for ill in the past, so to reject a completely unrelated hypothesis because it comes from "science" is preposterous. We should then reject all conclusions from all disciplines which have been ill-used in the past, therefore rejecting all knowledge.

My guess is you might decry the anti-truth, anti-expertise bias of Trumpism, but you're showing some of the same attitudes yourself.