If that was their point, then why did they use the example of nicotine, one of the few frequently lethal chemicals that haven't been linked to various cancers and other long-term health conditions?
I think the point CapstanRoller was making was just that their understanding of toxicology is limited to vague hunches, so they feel comfortable in dismissing any information from anyone who knows more than they do about the subject.
I think the point CapstanRoller was making was just that their understanding of toxicology is limited to vague hunches, so they feel comfortable in dismissing any information from anyone who knows more than they do about the subject.