Thanks for responding here.

(denial is similar but its more the ignorance of consensus in my understanding

Denial is the avoidance, blocking out and non-use / non-examination of any phenomena or idea that does truly exist. It is possible to also deny denial itself, which is a process present in the actual state of being of many humans today - thus they are unable to locate the light of truth. Once we deny that we are denying things, we can be utterly convinced that what we think is true - despite any evidence to the contrary.

If the theory is still standing after a barrage of attackes (argues in the scientific liturature), then what you are left with is a strong foundation of knowledge that you can build on

Part of the problem, well known by now, is that the world of scientists does not always allow for all possibilities to be considered, tested and researched thoroughly. What about the biases inherent within being a 'scientist'? What if some truth can only arise from non scientists due to the nature of the state of being that scientists embody? For example, if scientific research requires significant funding and also invites intense public examination of self, then these are two key barriers that will influence the thought processes and options involved. It is well understood by now that what is and what is not researched (plus the conclusions drawn) are being heavily skewed by money. I refer you to Dr. Peter Rost, who was the Vice President for Marketing at a major pharmaceutical company and was at the center of one of the largest ever whistleblowing cases in world history - he sums it up neatly in a few sentances:

Then we have the extremely dysfunctional over reliance on science known as scientism.

My point here is that while it is certainly possible to reach truth and knowledge through the scientific process, blindly relying on scientific process being carried out reliably and honestly because.. we have a peer review process, is a huge denial of the reality of the situation and the reality of human dishonesty. Ultimately, it is all too common an occurrence for people who reject scientific consensus to be labelled as 'deniers' and 'dishonest' without it being considered that maybe, just maybe - the scientific consensus is itself based on dishonesty. Interestingly, I have just been reading the recent posts on climate science and since I actually attended the University of East Anglia and literally lived 20m away from the climatology dept. that got caught in a scandal a few years ago when emails were leaked showing they were consciosly manipulating data to continue the message of support for global warming, I have been paying attention to this for a while even when I might not have otherwise. I just watched this from @corbettreport wherein he highlights the huge contradictions involved with reporting on climate science in recent years too:

https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/

Yet, 'the science is settled' is a statement we hear regularly - despite so many dissenting voices never being fully silenced.

Open mindedness is great for the development of new theory, however, it doesn’t mean that all ideas are equal. Each needs to be rigorously tested first.

Sure, yes - my point is that many people who go along with the consensus are NOT open minded and often that is part of why there is a consensus.

To more forward from this point (and prevent more suffering, thats all that I care about) I have to trust that other scientists, and the work that they create, have gone through the same rigorous process as I have

No, you absolutely don't. Reliable engineers, who by definition use science in practical ways on a daily basis - and who do so knowing that errors might directly cause death - will never knowingly just 'trust' the output of scientific claims. What you are describing is essentially the origin of a huge number of causes of suffering and is largely motivated by unconscious (denied) fear that says that 'we don't have time to understand everything, so filling in the gaps with best guesses i ok'. Basing understanding of reality on judgements is not the way to get to the truth, I suggest learning computer programming to improve the rigor of your logic here.

Any expert worth their salt should never make the argument that they’re an expert so they’re right!

When it comes to vaccine science, you only need look on the CDC website to find numerous claims made by 'experts' in 'positions of authority' that state one thing about vaccines, which are not backed up by science and which other experts totally reject. It is largely for this and related reasons that 'average people' are highly questioning of the 'experts' on this topic.