Yes, the point you made that I was arguing with was that it was not second-hand reports that challenged scientific consensus. I to argued that first-hand reports were not required. The born-murder example is an example where the latter thing is key and the former is trivial to the issue at hand. A heart attack/cellular asphyxiation example could easily be one were the former thing is key and latter is largely ignored as a simple consequence if our interest is why did death occur. In the case of challenging scientific consensus both experiments and reports of/discussions of those experiments are terribly important and I don’t see how either can be said to be lesser than the other.
As for consciousness being an illusion, time to use the “reply as new topic” button! I’ll see you and presumably no one else there (Okay, maybe Medievalist).
