Not for me to provide anyone a defense. Not doing that in this case at any rate. Instead it is seeing a question and wondering for myself.
Think I found the
surveys which are referenced. It was a case of a few surveys factually.
Seems that there is roughly one third of oncologists which do not want to use chemotherapy.
Suppose I could find one third of devout Christians who do not believe Christ walked on water, too. Could also speculate I may find one third Hindu who don't believe Krishna and Shiva are the same being. What do any of these cases prove? What I have been saying all along regarding opinions.
People will believe what they choose, and there's no convincing them otherwise once they've made up their minds. People also have a right to a degree to speak their opinions, ideas, thoughts, beliefs. That degree usually falls under such speech not inciting violence, harm to others.
Not a lawyer myself so I'll not get any further into the degree of which one is free to speak. Suffice it to say that such a freedom seems capable of being narrowly defined. For example I can not go around suggesting gerbil enemas as a cure for having a corn cob up one's a**.
Now, let me address your signature line. You keep right on saying what you want. I'll gladly support your right to say it. Will also gladly support my right to not hear it.
That is not against freedom of speech. No, that rather is all for freedom of speech. My choosing to not hear what someone says is my action of speech, as much as their speech.
To support both means I defend both equally. That doesn't mean not hearing something designates one as lying. It simply means they can choose their own right to speech through the action of not hearing.
Again it boils down to what I've said of opinions. Everyone has one and most are aware theirs stinks just like anal orifices. So please do believe, think, opine, speak as you choose, all you choose.
Not everyone wants to bother confronting you. (You used in the general case here to mean anyone.) Not everyone is dumb enough to debate opinion, knowing there's never a winner. Instead some of us are content to simply not listen to you. (Same general case you, used again. Matter of fact that's intended through this whole post, a general case you to mean anyone.)
Why do I address your signature line? It's germane to the whole of the subject matter discussed. It seemed fitting to address it, in my opinion of course.
Have a good one. And come to think of it, not sure why I can not suggest gerbil enemas. Know a few what might benefit from the vitality evoked from such an affair.