So then you posted an intellectually dishonest sarcastic comment endorsing the reputable well respected paper "Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man", is that it? And you don't really mean what you said? But you actually believe removing lead harms people? And you haven't posted any evidence even after I asked you to, because you obviously don't have any? And you wonder why people downvote you?

Is that it? Are we on the same page? Can you please from now on say what you actually mean instead of being coy and sarcastic and intellectually dishonest, then running away and ghosting me at the first sign of trouble?

So have you read that paper, or not? What does it say that supports or contradicts you point?

Edit 1:

>I didn't ghost you, BTW, my previous account got downvoted so heavily that my posts stopped being visible.

Then the moderation system is working perfectly as designed. In this and other threads of this discussion, and also your comment history, when you're not ghosting, you're sealioning:

>how do you know that lead doesn't belong in the same category as thimerosal, fluoride, or 5G and Wi-Fi?

>What method was used to infer the natural rates?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Don't attempt to sealion me or anyone else again until you've clearly and honestly states your beliefs, and provided evidence for them, as you've been repeatedly asked for, but so far have failed to do.

>It wasn't sarcastic, I tried to make people read it, and see that it's nonsense.

Ok then, if it wasn't sarcastic, it was simply a lie to manipulate people into believing what you do. Well that seems to have had the opposite effect as you intended. So why haven't you replied with any evidence supporting your conspiracy theory yet?

Don't you think that would be easier than trying to dishonestly manipulate people by saying you endorse a paper you don't believe, and calling them names like "irrational madmen"? You need to work on that Trump / RFK Jr. Emulation Game you're playing, you suck at it.

Before "trying to make people read it", when obviously you haven't bothered to read a word I've written, why don't you summarize it and say what you disagree with, to save people time. It's a big paper, and obviously you are quite opinionated and obsessed with it, so I want to hear your opinion, with quotes and citations, please.

Edit 2:

Now that you've discovered how to edit your comments, why don't you finally provide me with some proof of your beliefs? What scientific peer reviewed empirical research papers or random conspiracy theory youtube channel did you get your beliefs from? Links to citations, please. The fact that you quote one paragraph that you can't understand doesn't mean that it's wrong, it means something else, which extremely obvious to everyone, and it's all your own fault.

Here is what the paragraph you quoted means, like you're five:

>Imagine your stomach is like a sponge that soaks up different kinds of ingredients from your food.

>Some ingredients get soaked up a lot, like calcium (from milk), which gets soaked up about half the time.

>Others, like strontium, get soaked up only a little, maybe a quarter of the time.

>Then there's barium, which the sponge barely soaks up — only about 5%.

>Now Mister Scientist is saying:

>“We don’t know exactly how much lead gets soaked up... but if it acts like barium, then people probably only soak up a tiny bit of it too.”

>The scientists are making an estimate based on similar ingredients (calcium, strontium, barium), because they’re in the same “family” on the periodic table (called alkaline earth metals). Lead isn’t exactly the same, but it behaves a bit like them, so he’s using them to guess how much lead the body might absorb from food.

So enough bullshit. If you don't finally provide some solid proof after I've asked you so many times, and you can easily edit your comment for an hour or so, then you'd better give me some evidence right now, or I've proven you're totally full of shit, and you may now ghost me to fulfill my prediction.

Edit 3:

Ok, even after I explained the paragraph you didn't understand to you like you're five, you have just proven that you didn't even bother to read my words, and that you have again totally failed to provide any proof.

Take a step back and look at yourself. Have some self-awareness. The reason you can't provide any proof is because you are wrong, and you know it, and the reason you don't bother to read anything I write is because I am right and I provided you with lots of evidence of that, but you don't want to see it.

Why are you so afraid of admitting that you are wrong, and that you don't have any evidence because there IS no evidence, and your own self-imposed performative ignorance, paranoia, and strategically self serving misunderstanding is proof that you're wrong and you know it. Nobody else believes you. Why do you even pretend to believe yourself, because you don't, otherwise you would have proven what you said long ago.