While both of these claims are potentially true and I won't dismiss them out-of-hand despite the seemingly barely-veiled fanatical tone of the article, there were no references provided at all, either print or online, for me to check them.
Mind, I'm not even looking for medical journals - I'm just looking for evidence that you, Unconvincing Writer, have done your research and aren't just spouting off claims on hearsay and things you "know". Providing references to something that's so common and well-documented shouldn't be difficult to do, should it?
And before you say anything, O Best Beloved, I could indeed go look it up myself. The point is not that I could, but that I shouldn't have to. I should be able to examine the exact source of her information first-hand if I choose to and draw my own conclusions about its validity. Otherwise, I'm being asked to accept and independently verify second-hand information as if it were from an indisputable source.