> The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable. I'm curious

> The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable. I'm curious how you draw this conclusion. While many substances may not, with 100% reproduction rates, cause a particular response there can be a majority that happens when excessive or improper exposure happens. If you're saying the question is unanswerable because it's not 100% guaranteed you'll get cancer, but say 67% chance then that's proof it did cause cancer in the subset. In this case it appears there has been suppressed study data which points directly to the outcome which brings into question, for the jury, the morality of the organization selling the product which are likely influencing reference points for a jury.