only one of them* is peer-reviewed. it doesn't actually support the claim that you're using it to support. The others are of dubious validity, but they also don't make the same very strong claim that you have.
edit: "them" was in reference to the comment a few back in the thread. the gish gallop of links that appeared after i wrote this comment all appear to be peer reviewed.
no, I'm examining your position, and the evidence provided, and found that they are insufficient.
turns out, everything is political, so, yes, it's all propaganda.
I haven't seen them, but I do know they work with the pentagon, so my guess is they aim to legitimize American hegemony and military spending
it shows that the evidence you've provided doesn't actually support your claim
it's not useless if it describes something.
it doesn't need to be misconstrued. the best propaganda imho is totally true and in context. spreading it with some kind of political goal is still propaganda.
the only peer reviewed source you provided spends as much time detailing risks as it does explaining potential benefits, and it's based on a single case study.
I got some polarized yellow lenses. makes a huge difference for me
The reason why PETA gets a lot of negative media attention is
there is more than one reason.
You’re on the block list now.
oh thank God.
calling me names won't change the facts.