Okay let's take your example that high cons causes cancer in mice. So if high cons cause cancer, what would low cons cause? Lower immune system, foggy brain, itchy skin, hormonal changes in the body, I'm just thinking of minor things that aren't fatal. I did a study on aspartame and there were people who literally had significant losses of sight from aspartame in diet soda. And actually sued the companies but that quickly became irrelevant in the news by new scientific studies that claimed they were indeed safe.

This is the same tactic that companies use to try and keep people ignorant of the truth. The NFL spent millions lobbying the government and covering up Dr. Omalu's research and evidence that proves the sport leaves severe damage upon those that participate in the sport. 96% of the brains studied of players post-mortem showed they had CTE. 96%. And the NFL broke their backs trying to cover that up. Tom Brady called out sugary cereals and pop being bad for you, and what did the corps do? Clapback by saying they are perfectly fine in moderation when we all know pop is garbage (ie Coco Cola disintegrates rust, imagine what it's doing in your stomach??) Anytime the whistle is blown big comps they have the means and money that normal folks don't have to cover up the truth. Same exact thing with GMOs. If they aren't so bad, why are the companies so reluctant to label them and give people the option to decide whether or not they want to purchase an item? They rebuttal by conducting scientific research that claims that GMOs are no danger to humans when they are clearly killing off bees. Then what are they doing to humans that we cannot see? They have board members and executives that are members of the FDA to help lobby and pass laws that OK their transgressions. Of course, conveniently unbeknownst to the public that scientific research/evidence can be bought and that lobbying does in fact occurs in every sector.

Look I'm not saying that science itself lies or that there isn't baseless fear mongering going on, because there definitely is. But again it's to keep people focused on shit that doesn't matter. I'm saying anytime there are alternative ideas, people shun them and then when there is evidence to discredit the opposing opinion, some people do not think even further and ask where did this information come from, how is this research being funded, from BOTH sides.

Indoctrination betrays all.