well, I'd disagree. If I judged you purely by the limited output I see here, I'd have to conclude that it is far more likely that I'm more thorough and careful in my thinking, and am more likely to be correct when discussing this.
My first example is grammar and spelling; you seem content to type out words that don't mean what you intend, whereas I'm careful and thoughtful in my communication.
My second example is your complete lack of cited research or examples. To simply say someone is ignorant or unaware is easy. Perhaps you'd like to actually engage with what I wrote, and explain your line of thinking.
1. Silly putty is not actually in our food. A very common compound, which is in a large number of organic substances and which we regularly consume, is what she is calling silly putty.
2. The studies she says were never done actually were. You can look them up from my post. The substance was subjected to dozens of peer-reviewed studies.
As she is factually and demonstrably wrong on two of her main points, her point falls flat.
Can you refute either of those points with documented, peer-reviewed studies?