Originally Posted by 1989Pre

You and Marcus exhibit no desire to find out who is telling the truth in this case, and, in fact, seem hostile to any suggestion that industry/government might not be telling you the complete truth: No intellectual curiosity is apparent, and not even a healthy skepticism. For some individuals, their identity and sense-of-self depends on them consistently and un-questioningly supporting whatever the brokers-of-power say. Without this blind adherence, they would be forced to develop their own ideas. If we were all as naive as that, we would still be using lead in our gas and paint, and mercury in clothing and thermometers.
For a scientist to state that their research "indicates a cor-relation" or "suggests a relationship", or other such qualifications, means that a definite co-incidence has been noticed. For even these qualified statements to appear in the summary, some data that is beyond a normal range of activity must appear. They do not make these statements lightly, and err on the side of caution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991

Excerpt #14: Aluminium is known to have a genotoxic profile, capable of causing both DNA alterations and epigenetic effects, and this would be consistent with a potential role in breast cancer if such effects occurred in breast cells.

Marcus, no qualifications in #'s 5 and 14.