> “Despite decades of investigation and myriad epidemiological and laboratory studies, no scientist or doctor — whether or not affiliated with Syngenta — has ever concluded in a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that paraquat causes Parkinson’s,” the company’s chief communications officer, Saswato Das, wrote in an email.
This has many qualifiers, it must be:
* 'Concluded', so an 'extremely strong link between' would not be sufficient for them
* 'causes Parkinson's' -> so if it 'triggers' Parkinson's, or is 'strongly linked to' the onset of Parkinson's, that wouldn't be sufficient
Effectively they're saying unless you can show me video evidence of this bullet killing not just one person, but multiple people and can prove that the bullet is what did it.. then we don't believe it.
That doesn't surprise me at all, money is money. But why are companies /allowed/ to make such deceptively worded statements like this? If it later turns out someone /can/ prove this, will they pay for such deceptive statements, let alone return the lives of those they have taken? Doubtful