Or do you trust scientists?
There's a pretty big difference. I can illustrate it fairly simply: What percentage of research is replicable?
Less than half. As little as 30%, according to some of Bayer's research.
What percentage of research is downright falsified in follow-up research?
Perhaps 33%, according to the same research.
Given that 5% statistical significance (that is, 5% of all studies -should- be false, according to the statistics used) is the bare minimum for most fields, this means somewhere around 27% of all published research is not only false, but unaccountably false. Either there's a systematic bias that promotes publishing false papers, -or- scientists are consistently mishandling data in a manner than promotes false positives over false negatives.
Incompetence is one explanation. The other is that a quarter of all scientific research involves some deliberate fabrication or mishandling of data.
Either way, the odds of something being published in a scientific journal being true is less than 50%. The best bet is always to disbelieve what you read in a scientific journal; you'll be right more often than wrong. Meaning that anti-scientific nutjobs are right about research, on average, more often than pro-science nutjobs.
Pretty sad state of affairs, that.