If you were read in on the actual literature you wouldn’t be making claims based on debunked forty year old studies, so you got a casual article written by a PhD for the casual audience, aka people like you who get their science from social media.
From what I currently can infer you are not willing to discuss anything just to flame others. It starts with you being insulting in claiming others are addicts you proceed in using an intentional week souce that just copied wikipedia and changed one word basically and then start to use a hominem when called out on it. Further you use basically the same pattern than any other conspiracy theorist.
For me you just seem like a bad faith actor and not interested in discussion now.
If you were read in on the actual literature you wouldn’t be making claims based on debunked forty year old studies, so you got a casual article written by a PhD for the casual audience, aka people like you who get their science from social media.
Feel free to prove your own claims btw.
From what I currently can infer you are not willing to discuss anything just to flame others. It starts with you being insulting in claiming others are addicts you proceed in using an intentional week souce that just copied wikipedia and changed one word basically and then start to use a hominem when called out on it. Further you use basically the same pattern than any other conspiracy theorist.
For me you just seem like a bad faith actor and not interested in discussion now.