But my opinion is backed up with well-corroborated scientific findings, and you should probably trust those.
What are the well-corroborated scientific findings? The mere fact that you can link to articles is not very convincing to me, for a few reasons:
The articles draw very specific technical conclusions, which your plain-English paraphrasing glosses over in potentially important ways
Especially in health-related fields, for any article that claims “X”, I can find an article that claims “not X” or even the opposite of X. The only potentially stable signal I can think of is field-wide consensus, and even that is dubious in some areas.
Is there corroboration beyond this? If not, why should I believe you to any greater extent than the previous post?
What are the well-corroborated scientific findings? The mere fact that you can link to articles is not very convincing to me, for a few reasons:
The articles draw very specific technical conclusions, which your plain-English paraphrasing glosses over in potentially important ways
Especially in health-related fields, for any article that claims “X”, I can find an article that claims “not X” or even the opposite of X. The only potentially stable signal I can think of is field-wide consensus, and even that is dubious in some areas.
Is there corroboration beyond this? If not, why should I believe you to any greater extent than the previous post?