You're ignoring the second part of science, which is once the hypothesis is validated you accept it and move on.
For example, one guy published a single paper that thiomersal in vaccines causes autism. So taking that hypothesis, a bunch of other scientists independently tested that and found that it wasn't true. But to assuage fears, vaccine makers stopped putting thiomersal in vaccines. Turns out that not using thiomersal as a preservative makes vaccines much less stable and requires more equipment to keep them so, which just makes it harder to get vaccines into third world countries that need them most.
But then the anti-vaccine crown didn't accept the science that said vaccines don't cause autism. Even after countless studies said otherwise. And even after the original paper was retracted and the guy lost his license to practice medicine. So maybe it was never about the science in the first place.
The data is the data. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it.