The problem I have with these papers is that the standard to prove that something works is high and rigorous, while the alternatives are presented with much mor

The problem I have with these papers is that the standard to prove that something works is high and rigorous, while the alternatives are presented with much more flimsy evidentiary standards. For example, the papers on cancer are dismissed, because the studies are inconclusive because they are not large enough or randomized, while the linkage with cancer creation is on the basis of "linked to" cancer. Without that, this is just a opinion piece.