I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know ho

I'm not trying to make an argument, I was just passing on a single data point. I made it pretty clear that I don't know and it's not my field. I don't know how you get from what I said to "somehow I have more knowledge than oncologists". If I said that then I'm 100% wrong. My dad was a physicist and when he got cancer he started looking around to try and figure out why. He found that the only thing that made sense to him was roundup, I think he just went through all the stuff he had been exposed to in his life and that was the only thing that had any possibility of giving him cancer. Maybe that's a bad argument but he was pretty baffled about it until he found roundup. There was literally no cancer in his family and his relatives tended to live well into their 90's. He was 75 and very fit, I went canoing with him 2 weeks before he died. He had a lot of roundup exposure because he was very active in wetlands preservation and they fought off invasive species with roundup. At the time, there was very little noise about roundup being possibly cancer causing. Again, that's just background, I'm not trying to make an argument that it is or is not cancer causing, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that he thought that was the cause, California seems to think there is something there, the EU seems to think there is something there, and the lawyers seem to think there is something there. That's a lot of people, in my opinion too many people, for it to be a conspiracy. So it's fine if people want to say my dad's case is not evidence or useful or whatever. That's really not the point. The point is there is enough smoke there to think there is a fire and I don't get why people would argue about my smoke being nonsense; that seems to miss the bigger picture.