alt Hacker NewsMy belief is that for most of those people, no amount of evidence would have ever been enough.
The entire "I looked at the data and found it insufficient" thing is by and large cover for people that lack the tools to evaluate the data. They play that card so they can pretend that they're actually intelligent skeptical adults and not easily manipulated idiots or malicious grifters.
They're the equivalent of a random person that hasn't done algebra in 20 years emailing a physicist at CERN about how they've discovered a perpetual motion machine.
"It was developed in the last 6 months" and "It was developed 50 years ago and millions of people around the world have used it with no ill effects" doesn't really require a degree in biochemistry to evaluate the possible risks.