– “The Russian trials were claimed to be badly flawed”
I linked to the paper right there; you can assess it for yourself, you don’t need anyone to tell you, and you can assess whether the Independent covered it scientifically, or as a political slanging match. If you look at the Independent link, you’ll see it was in the Lifestyle section, not the Science section, and the article makes no consideration of the science.
– “I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do”
Science isn’t about who we “support”. It isn’t football. It’s about whether results support conclusions, and Puztai’s didn’t.
– “Would you eat GMO foods…?”
No, but that’s because I’m boycotting them, not because I’m selfishly scared for my personal health; they’re no more dangerous than other crops, which for decades haven’t had only “natural” DNA either. GM crops deprive farmers of autonomy and thereby place the global food supply at risk, and that’s why I boycott them.
– “Do you have your annual flu jab…?”
I’m not yet old enough to be in the “risk group”. But I’d know how to research my personal choice, whereas you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t know where to start, and refuse to find out.
– “Do you accept that the roll-out of 5G is benign…?”
It’s driven by profit, and the health effects of the higher frequency bands are inadequately tested. But it isn’t a conspiracy to install death rays in every town, and making that claim just loses us credibility with the thousands of engineers, just everyday workers, who design, test and install it.
– “…and would you welcome a Smart Meter?”
I have repeatedly turned down a “smart” meter. But again, that’s because it’s an intrusion into privacy and because it enables remote disconnection of supply, not because there’s some death ray hidden in it. Such claims just lose us credibility, because they are not consistent with evidence.