And the virtual mountain of data derived from studies capable of showing causal effects, along with the overwhelming consensus among my peers, and the regulatory agencies.

I also have over a decade of primary molecular research, and evaluating the merit of such studies is literally part of my job.

You're the one who decided to comment on a topic you know next to nothing about on a subreddit dedicated to science, and you got called out on it.

Rather than take the information provided in the earlier replies, you doubled down, relying on studies that you didn't bother to place in context with their power of analysis, and yet again, you were called out on it.

That's willful ignorance on your part, and not something I have any desire to coddle.

The truth is that scientists are very easy to convince about something. You just need to show us the data. We examine the methods used, how it was collected, how it was analyzed, and then how it was supports the conclusions reached.

To date, the data from the strongest studies (as determined by the statistical power of their design) does not support your position, and until this is why the overall consensus among us will not change until the data indicates otherwise.