And that sounds a lot like a false equivalence based on pure speculation with zero evidence to back it up.
And there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke that tobacco industries simply paid politicians to ignore. Hell, all you had to do was look at the walls and curtains of a smoker to see the tar and smoke stains. It was clear as day.
For decades studies from all sorts of institutions, both big and small and independently-funded have failed to find any evidence at all that aspartame is unsafe for human consumption as a food additive.
All of these studies are extensively peer reviewed. What source do you have that proves they are unreliable? Let’s pretend that it’s true, what purpose is served by fabricating this data?
Sounds a lot like claims about second hand tobacco smoke.
Lots of data reviews cherry picking source data to plot a correlation with a large enough population, but no demonstration of causation.
And that sounds a lot like a false equivalence based on pure speculation with zero evidence to back it up.
And there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke that tobacco industries simply paid politicians to ignore. Hell, all you had to do was look at the walls and curtains of a smoker to see the tar and smoke stains. It was clear as day.
For decades studies from all sorts of institutions, both big and small and independently-funded have failed to find any evidence at all that aspartame is unsafe for human consumption as a food additive.
Show me the causation.
I can’t prove a negative.
I can go and learn exactly peer reviewed causation between mesothelioma and asbestos.
“Second hand smoke causes cancer” has no biological evidence. It has mountains of data reviews and a behemoth of propaganda aired daily.
“there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke”
Produce the landmark peer reviewed biological study that proved this.
You can’t. Because it’s War on Drugs, it’s propaganda, and it is an absolute ocean of spurious correlation manuscripts and absolutely no proof.
You got lung cancer from sucking up burnt dinosaur goo during rush hour, not because a dude had a smoke in your general viscinity.
Lmao
lmao you can’t be serious. Smoking affects everyone around you
So does B.O.
Body odor doesn’t increase the likelihood of cancer for the people around you.
Neither does second hand tobacco smoke.
Again, cite that landmark study that ever proved that.
Trillions of dollars into a carpet bomb of MTV commercials and data studies.
Still no solid science that can make tobacco more of a cancer causer than refined sugar.
Only cherry picked data reviews that claim tenuous correlation.
Let’s trade sources. Here are mine.
Secondhand smoking may increase the overall risk of cancer for never smokers, particularly lung and breast cancer, and especially in women.
Does secondhand smoke cause cancer? Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 7, 9)
Twenty years after secondhand smoke was first classified as a cause of lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers, the evidence supporting causation continues to mount (USDHHS 1986).
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmokers increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent. Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause approximately 53,800 deaths annually in the United States. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home is also a risk factor for asthma in children.
Every source from the propaganda machine, the US Government. None peer reviewed scholarly research.
All of these studies are extensively peer reviewed. What source do you have that proves they are unreliable? Let’s pretend that it’s true, what purpose is served by fabricating this data?