nah, those are examples about how you can justify every believe with "science" if you are just cherry picking and unscientific enough.

You can also use it as an example about how "scientists" can be biased. The IPCC, the UN scientists who make prognoses about climate change, still exist and still believe the very same thing, they just postpone the apocalypse every 10 years by 10 years. You will never hear the IPCC say "ok, we were wrong 10 years ago and adjusted our methods and will analyse how we could be so wrong" - which would be the scientific approach. They have a systematic bias, because if they wouldn't have a most-recent apocalypse to run after, they would lose funding. You can argue if they are right now or not, but you can't argue their bias away.

Same with the WHO. When they made their statement about CoVid not being able to be transmitted from human to human, it was their reaction to counter scientists who said that CoVid should be taken serious and is a threat. The statement itself was politically motivated. They could have just NOT said anything as long as they don't know.

If you want to spread fake news and disinformations about CoVid, look no further, the WHO has statements according to every bias you want. i.e. the latest information by the WHO is that asymptomatic transmission is rare and unlikely, which means that face masks useless. If you want to be an anti-masker, use the statements of the "scientists" of the WHO.

Every "science denier" movement is based on a biased scientist or organisation that they blindly believe in. NEVER believe a study without knowing it's methods and possible bias.