This is interesting because my skin says otherwise.
Literally grew up on the beach in Huntington Beach - no sunscreen
I’ve lived in Arizona for 25 years now, and did home repairs having to work in the summertime - no sunscreen
Live in Kauai part time - I literally live in the water - no sunscreen
I have perfectly healthy skin, and no skin cancer.
It’s almost as if the people who were doing all these studies about skin cancer, are the same people who are doing studies on regular cancer, I’ve never solved any problem.
Literally, ivermectin and fenbendazole cure cancer. But that’s not what makes money, so the studies will continue.
That’s kinda been my point with those two pro-sorcery shills. Not only are they not addressing any counterexamples or explaining their case, but the best they’re doing is throwing me 10 cases off AI to parse through myself, compare methodologies, punch holes in, learn the biochemistry BS behind it.
I better donate to the pink ribbon society and take some preventative chemo now! Drink more fluoride and mercury, they’re good for you!
Replication is a key part of proving a hypothesis. You are being so dense.
One study and you’re done? Are you serious? You don’t think it’s a good idea for other scientists to conduct the same experiment you did in different settings to see if the outcome is the same? You’ve actually got me laughing at how stupid you are being.
Again, I asked for proof, not for a bunch of citations for me to go dig through myself. I could have made the same 30 second search and got the same results as you.
You’re laughing, I’m laughing too, as you don’t seem to understand what “proof” means. Plenty of fools laugh at others as if the other is the fool.
I don’t need a bunch of people repeating the same crap, and as the person making the positive claim, you still haven’t answered my request,
Proof in science isn’t absolute but a high degree of confidence based on converging evidence. For sun exposure and skin cancer, this threshold is met by decades of robust data.
Nice AI response. I’d better go dig hard and wear myself out trying to read all those now.
I did start reading up from the bottom. “Debooooonkeed” by Reuters. Who owns Reuters, again? Kek.
The above does NOT answer what I asked for. If I wanted a bunch of studies claiming they’ve proved it, I could have googled the same 10.
“Prove” does not mean “cite studies”. This is not what I asked for, and YES, I WILL be difficult about this.
Isn’t it strange how they have so many studies seeking to prove to claim the exact same thing?
You’d think they only needed to prove it once. Weird!
This is interesting because my skin says otherwise.
Literally grew up on the beach in Huntington Beach - no sunscreen
I’ve lived in Arizona for 25 years now, and did home repairs having to work in the summertime - no sunscreen
Live in Kauai part time - I literally live in the water - no sunscreen
I have perfectly healthy skin, and no skin cancer.
It’s almost as if the people who were doing all these studies about skin cancer, are the same people who are doing studies on regular cancer, I’ve never solved any problem.
Literally, ivermectin and fenbendazole cure cancer. But that’s not what makes money, so the studies will continue.
That’s kinda been my point with those two pro-sorcery shills. Not only are they not addressing any counterexamples or explaining their case, but the best they’re doing is throwing me 10 cases off AI to parse through myself, compare methodologies, punch holes in, learn the biochemistry BS behind it.
I better donate to the pink ribbon society and take some preventative chemo now! Drink more fluoride and mercury, they’re good for you!
😂😂😂
Replication is a key part of proving a hypothesis. You are being so dense.
One study and you’re done? Are you serious? You don’t think it’s a good idea for other scientists to conduct the same experiment you did in different settings to see if the outcome is the same? You’ve actually got me laughing at how stupid you are being.
Nice deflection.
Again, I asked for proof, not for a bunch of citations for me to go dig through myself. I could have made the same 30 second search and got the same results as you.
You’re laughing, I’m laughing too, as you don’t seem to understand what “proof” means. Plenty of fools laugh at others as if the other is the fool.
I don’t need a bunch of people repeating the same crap, and as the person making the positive claim, you still haven’t answered my request,
You’re the one deflecting.
Proof in science isn’t absolute but a high degree of confidence based on converging evidence. For sun exposure and skin cancer, this threshold is met by decades of robust data.
All hail The Science™!!