trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Absinthe has not been demonstrated to be any more dangerous than ordinary spirits.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Absinthe has not been demonstrated to be any more dangerous than ordinary spirits?

Yes. Chemical and historical analyses of pre-ban and modern absinthe indicate that thujone levels are generally low and within legal limits, showing that absinthe is no more dangerous than ordinary alcoholic beverages.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved papers examining the chemical composition of vintage pre-ban absinthe (such as paper 2 and paper 8) conclusively demonstrate that historical fears regarding toxic thujone levels in absinthe were unfounded and that its composition does not pose unique dangers beyond the alcohol content itself. Consequently, the claim is supported by the scientific evidence.

Evidence for · 2
2008
Chemical analyses of historic pre-ban absinthes demonstrate that thujone concentrations were generally low and comparable to modern limits, indicating no fundamental toxicological difference from ordinary spirits beyond ethanol.
Get citation
DW, L., D, N., TA, B., EM, S., K, S., & T, K. (2008). Chemical composition of vintage preban absinthe with special reference to thujone, fenchone, pinocamphone, methanol, copper, and antimony concentrations.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf703568f

See more details
More for · 1
2009
Historical claims that absinthe caused unique epileptic seizures or toxic syndromes were based on flawed experiments using pure wormwood oil rather than actual absinthe, attributing effects to wormwood rather than ordinary alcohol.
Get citation
Jean-Pierre, L. & W, L. D. (2009). THE CONCENTRATION OF THUJONE IN ABSINTHE FROM VALENTIN MAGNAN’S TIME. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715200939030221

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work