Sorry. Didn't mean to exasperate you. Really.Sigh...
Red wine in moderation health benefits are simple enough to Google. I don't need to list them. We can even skip the red wine argument if you want that's fine. Call it a wash.
I never said eggs weren't replaceable nutritionally, I said they provide health benefits where smoking does not and I am 100% correct. Eggs provide nutrients. Smoking provides nothing. The fact that you can't acknowledge that is incredible.
I thought we were getting somewhere with our discussion here...I was wrong. I've made a mistake coming back to this thread. You are just going to bonehead argue with me and say whatever you want. So go ahead. I won't be back.
Yeah, smoking provides no nutrients. Eating eggs provides nutrients. Totally agree.
But in my mind, Americans are not suffering from a lack of nutrients. They are eating too much of many things that are technically nutrients.
So I want to know how do we distinguish between 'Eggs provide nutrients' as a rationale for eating them, or saying that is different from smoking, and statements like 'CO2 is plant food' or 'higher CO2 levels boost plant growth' when we are trying to talk about global warming being a problem (bc of too much of something like CO2 that has real benefits as well)?
We both get the concept of relative risk (which can be small risk or big risk) and making an informed decision based on that risk.
One point in this thread is that others in society have been up to no good with muddying the waters (the science) using a variety of familiar tactics. Tactics that were used to deny tobacco causing cancer and fossil fuels causing global warming.
And that sadly sound like 'eggs have benefits too', or 'moderate smoking is not dangerous'.