You are free to believe whatever you want, but there is no basis in reality. Find some evidence to support your view, oh wait there is ~zero~. I'm a receipts or GTFO person, the only people who get pissed when asked for receipts are liars and bullshitters.
The paper does not say what you allege. They were assessing whether reproductive harm occurred, not stating that it does you absolute retard. Before calling someone illiterate, try reading yourself. You are both ignorant and arrogant.
What possible reproductive harm could occur that would specifically involve a woman of child bearing potential that isn't involved in their study? Why would they even worry about that? Is that a normal protocol for new drug tests? (hint, it's not).
You are free to believe whatever you want, but there is no basis in reality. Find some evidence to support your view, oh wait there is ~zero~. I'm a receipts or GTFO person, the only people who get pissed when asked for receipts are liars and bullshitters.
The receipt is the protocol paper you absolute retard. I guess reading for comprehension is a dying skill these days, eh.
The paper does not say what you allege. They were assessing whether reproductive harm occurred, not stating that it does you absolute retard. Before calling someone illiterate, try reading yourself. You are both ignorant and arrogant.
What possible reproductive harm could occur that would specifically involve a woman of child bearing potential that isn't involved in their study? Why would they even worry about that? Is that a normal protocol for new drug tests? (hint, it's not).
It’s unknown, hence why it’s being studied.