Not yet Larry. We still haven't determined whether you can read with comprehension or even know the difference between my observation of 90% of your comments within this thread and 100% of what you actually believe. That was the last installment, and now you are attempting to skirt the issue. What good is beef if you think it's something else? You like to change the subject when the alternative would be admitting you are wrong. That reminds me very much of King Brown. The possible family resemblance is getting stronger.
After we get that resolved, we're going to revisit some of the other things you couldn't comprehend. And we're going to correct more of the things you misattributed to me. I'm sick of people like you who can't win with facts so they turn to fictional accounts of what was said. When I tried to go over it all at once, you showed us that it was too much for you to handle. This could take a while Larry.
I know a lot more about the scientific method and what goes into a proper research study than you do Mr. Professional Writer. That much is quite obvious. It was pounded into our heads in college freshman biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It is more than just cherry-picking things you like and ignoring those things you don't like. It is much more than looking at some circumstantial evidence and jumping to conclusions based upon preconceived notions. Many of the things that pass for science or accredited studies for you would get an F in any undergraduate biology class. I'm a little tired of your attempts to discredit me or craigd because we lack whatever credentials you desire. I never felt one had to have so-called experts credentials just to be able to connect some fairly obvious dots. There's a lot to be said for just not being stupid, but maybe you wouldn't know about that. Let's not forget about the many court cases where two "accredited experts" give totally different testimony for the defense and prosecution. They are both considered experts, but only one can be right. Just because you are incapable of reading with comprehension and critical analysis, and can be easily fooled, doesn't mean everybody else is.
EDIT: I just answered a PM from someone who ridiculed the silly notions about your precious study that found lead fragments in 50% of ground venison samples. I agreed completely, and said this:
"Yes, I've eaten a helluva lot of ground venison, my own and other peoples, and never once bit into a piece of lead or bullet jacket. It could happen I guess, but most people and most meat processors cut away the shot-up meat. When a butcher cuts up your deer for you, they typically charge by the deer, not by the pound. So taking the chance of feeding a customer shot-up meat with bullet fragments isn't going to make them any more money, and it will damage their reputation as a meat-cutter. Larry will look for any ridiculous excuse to defend his position."
Simple common sense is all that's needed to refute a lot of the garbage that you willingly accept. Nothing more. Which means you'll probably never get it.
