No response. You don't want to take back the bad faith accusation at least? I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all th

No response. You don't want to take back the bad faith accusation at least? I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all that? Honest take, you're angry that you didn't know that the FDA relied on research that wasn't peer reviewed, that they are still hiding the results from that study (ongoing lawsuits), and that your news channel lied to you. But you're directing that anger at me because that's hard to swallow and, well, that same news channel told you that I'm a bad person if I know more about science than their editors who went to a trade school for marketing and graphic design. It's insane what's happening. You're convinced so much that your first reaction (read above) was to claim that the research didn't say anything close to what I'm saying. But it's the exact opposite, isn't it? It doesn't say anything close to what you thought it says. I think many of us are in a place where editors at a media and marketing company command many people's religious belief so much that we can't even read research without stopping in the middle to go "Aha! I knew it. You're a bad guy for being a scientist!" And that's really what I am trying to say. Science is not that. Think about it.