Yes I did say that.

Firstly. The main cause of concern with depleted uranium is that according to some research it can linger around the area where they were used, and give people depleted uranium poisoning. Note that there hasn't yet been any concrete evidence to prove this is the case.

Secondly. Ukraine themselves asked for these weapons, so they have most likely gone over the risks of using depleted uranium ammunition and have deemed their usefulness to outweigh the potential health down sides that comes from using depleted uranium.

Thirdly. The rounds given to Ukraine are armor piercing rounds, so the chances of them being fired at buildings are minimal, thus minimizing the possibility of them affecting people if they really were as dangerous as some research tells us.

That aligns with their chosen reality. People are simple creatures and any money will turn them into obedient slaves. The only doctor you can trust is the one who isn't going paid because they've been ostracized for speaking the truth.

That's not the same thing at all.

The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they're immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn't bad for the environment. You're citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.

If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a "coalition to ban something."

The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium's effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.