>Here’s the link again for anyone else who completely missed it:

Going through the links you provided:

[0] Berry 2025: the in vitro study from OP that I mentioned earlier

[1] Witkowski 2023: the 2023 cohort study that I mentioned earlier

[2] Witkowski 2024: study that found ingesting erythritol "enhances platelet reactivity in healthy volunteers". It doesn't attempt to prove that it actually causes negative health outcomes, but it does speculate that "may enhance thrombosis potential". I'm not sure how reliable that speculation is, given that the study doesn't say (at least in the abstract) whether "platelet reactivity" is an accepted proxy for thrombosis" (eg. similar to cholesterol is an accepted proxy for CVD). It concludes "discussion of whether erythritol should be reevaluated as a food additive with the Generally Recognized as Safe designation is warranted". Again, at best this is consistent with "there's a consensus that we should look into erythritol", not "there's a consensus that erythritol is harmful"

[3] This is just a blog that links to Witkowski 2024.

So in conclusion, you have 1 cohort study, 1 in vitro study, and 1 in-vivo study. I await your "dozens" of studies.

>You’re really leaning hard into the sea-lioning trope.

So what's the implication here? That anyone can make spurious claims about there being a "medical consensus" on some controversial topic, drop a few studies, and then when there's people pushing back denounce them as "sea-lioning"? If we adopted this attitude we'd still be proclaiming that there was a "medical consensus" that ivermectin cured covid, and I can actually turn up more than 3 studies for that[1].

[1] https://c19early.org/imeta.html