Looks like Stans dove fields are lead poisoning Bald and Golden Eagles.

The Feds have some bOgus reports claiming "Eagles are suffering from lead poisoning in half of the Eagles they sampled in 38 states".

According to the study "this lead comes from the bullets of hunters".

Yep. Crows, Ravens, and Magpies just must be immune to the lead. Amazing. Not to mention all the dead coyotes just laying around in the grass that croaked from munching on all those lead saturated carcasses. Again, amazing.
Not seeing any of that here out west. Matter of fact….we’re seeing bald eagles out here in numbers we haven’t seen in decades. Places that never used to have them have them now.
The Feds are full of caca.

I once shot an obscene number of eared doves in a field some where in Argentina with a case (500) of lead shells. Instead of picking the the birds up my bird boy was waiting for the flight to end. It didn't end until suppertime. All afternoon I had about 38 eagles tamely walking around in front of me eating doves. I was shooting lead, of course. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the eagles first time. They looked healthy to me...Geo

Right.
The masses of red-tailed and Cooper’s hawks, crows, and vultures here must have some magical immunity.

Clowns.

The original study “Demographic Implications of Lead Poisoning for Eagles Across North America,” was published in the journal Science https://www.science.org/
The abstract
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj3068
Click on Authors Info & Affiliations, primarily U.S. Geological Survey, Conservation Science Global, Inc. ( https://consciglobal.org/ ) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The short version
https://www.science.org/content/article/nearly-half-bald-eagles-have-lead-poisoning

Not too long ago I watched a Bald Eagle eating a dead Prude chicken which had died when they were being picked up and tossed out into a field with the cake manure, at clean out, for the next flock. It was an ovenstuffer and the Eagle seemed to be very happy. Vulture with a good paint job is what they can be. These correlation studies all need to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Eagles have lead levels, so it must be lead shot. "Smokers, with lung cancer, all carried Bic lighter so cancer must be caused by Bic lighters". Circular login is not always right, just very neat.

I saw two mature bald eagles sitting on a wild hog carcass in the middle of the highway near my house. Evidently the hog had been hit by a car and killed during the night.

There are more eagles around here than there have ever been in my lifetime. I have no idea what to attribute the increase in the population to, but I welcome it. Especially if a mature one will take a newborn fawn. Way too many deer here.

Stan they are all over Ontario now. When I lived in Winnipeg 15 years ago, I mean the centre of the city of 800,000 people, I had bald eagles sitting in trees in my back yard. My cat didn’t like them at all. Lol.

A study can extrapolate that 50% of a population of 300,000 birds has lead poisoning from a sample of 1200?

Anyway, eagles of all types have digestive systems that feature powerful digestive acid and enzymes, which, will lead to the lead being broken down, as opposed to owls and corvids, that typically pass eaten lead pellets. Eagles would show signs first. But, I have a hard time believing there is a population issue, especially with Bald Eagles. They hang around my suburban neighborhood now days. I have three nests within two miles of my home, those are just the three I have found. We see Golden Eagles less frequently, but, this isn’t typically considered Golden Eagle country. Never has been.

Best,
Ted

Thanks Doc Drew, for citing the report, and also noting the background of the authors.

I believe many Golden eagles are killed in wind turbine strikes, so I took a look at one of the references for the paper, Quantifying the demographic cost of human-related mortality of a raptor population, by Hunt, et al 2017. Forty-one percent of the confirmed death causes was wind turbine strikes, next highest confirmed cause was powerline electrocution.

The study was conducted in California. Under three and a half percent of the deaths were attributed to lead poisioning, but that state is considered a model for the nation at the forefront of the lead projectile ban. The study also concluded that their turbine strike data also projected to the entire loss of all Golden eagle production in the study area, so they justified it by brushing it off, and again the Hunt paper was cited as supporting documentation for a lead ammunition ban.

I also believe there is an observable increase eagles. It seems to coincide with less summer nest observation projects, and more agenda driven literature review studies, like this subject piece. Yup, the glorious symbol doing the work of vultures.

Thanks Craig for the reference to that Golden Eagle study by Hunt. Very interesting.

58 % of deaths were by turbine/wire hit/electrocution. 3.5% of deaths were attributed to lead poisoning. I guess lead poisoning wins with the editors of the NYT when it comes to “attention getting article subjects that further our anti hunter anti gun agenda”.

Cats, wind turbines and birds. 11 year old NYT article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/science/21birds.html#:~:text=By%20contrast%2C%20440%2C000%20birds%20are,grows%20to%20meet%20increased%20demand.

Damn you Gil. You caused me to subscribe to the NYT.

In the good news department at $2 a month for a year, I'd say I'm just about getting value for my money.

I believe the increase in eagle sightings is due to transplanting (but I don't know). We see them off and on close to the Georgia line in Alabama. The backwater lakes (West Point, Eufaula, Harding) provide pretty good habitat for them. Maybe we need bigger rifles if the bullets don't exit.
Mike

Hummmm,

Those darn flying fish! Tuff to follow up on cripples! Which makes a quick meal for eagles!

As it can't be our perfect unpolluted waters

Political agendas to attack gun owners is 100% out of control. Not sure where I saw this latest attack to make it illegal to own military ammo. To mirror Mexico illegal ownership of 45 cal ammo as a military cartridge. The article targeted 9mm ammo.

I'll see if I can find the article

Rich

I think the info is out there, I just found it interesting that a reference used by fed employees for policy agenda, cannot conclude if lead poisioning is a problem or confirm where it comes from, but the closing conclusion is to link lead to hunters. I thought that minimizing a cause, wind turbines, that should have eliminated, according to the authors, the Golden eagle population in that particular California habitat range, show what it means to, follow the science. Oh, well.

We have seen a big increase in breeding Bald Eagles here also. There is a pair that nests in a big cottonwood a mile from my house. We see them most often on roadkilled mammals, especially deer, where they compete with coyotes. Further west, the Golden's compete with other raptors and scavenging mammals at prairie dog shooting sites. The Bald's here are notorious for following big flocks of migrant waterfowl, especially in the fall, so I have always wondered if the big increase might be partially attributable to the adoption of non-toxic shot, sort of like the return of swans to the Thames River in England when lead sinkers were banned. For rifles and big bore pistols, I would not mind a switch to solids for high-speed big game and varmint loads. Shotguns on upland game is a whole different situation, and I don't know if non-toxic dove loads are available. I'm still shooting an ounce of lead 8's at doves with my 16ga. We have steel shot only for all birds on our state wildlife management areas and refuges.

Non-toxic dove loads are steel #7 and #6. Texas Game Commission did a study around 2008 (managed by Tom Roster) that found an ounce of steel in either size killed the same percentage of doves per shot fired as 1 1/8 oz of lead 7 1/2, the most popular load. The study was double blind, which means neither the shooters nor the observers knew what they were shooting. The cartridges were identical in appearance.

I bought a flat of steel #7 from Bass Pro Shop for $100 last summer, to use in a public dove shoot area in which non-toxic shot is required. I don't shoot them in old doubles, of course. I have a modern gun with fixed IC choke for such occasions.

There's a 500 acre reservoir within our city limits. I travel across the bridge daily that traverses it. For decades, there have been large rafts of wintering coots on it. A few years ago, we had a nesting pair of bald eagles setup shop there. Today, there are zero coots here. None.
JR

Banning lead shot hasn't helped the duck populations.

Carl, I'm not being argumentative and I understand that you are merely quoting the results of a survey done but ......... after 62 years of shooting doves from here to Cordoba, and some 30 years of shooting ducks with steel (after the previous 25 years shooting them with lead), there's no way I can accept Texas' results as being the "whole story". I shoot ducks with bismuth and can darn well tell the difference in how my bismuth kills as compared to steel. I know we're talking doves here but I'm extrapolating a bit. Hell, I can even see the difference in my nickel plated lead dove loads as compered to regular lead loads, same payload weight. The difference isn't always in the number bagged to number of shots fired. It's sometimes in the difference between doves hitting the ground graveyard dead, or being wounded and having to be chased down and dispatched. Surveys don't always indicate differences like that. If I can see the difference between nickel plated lead and unplated lead, I can't accept that I wouldn't see a difference between unplated lead and steel. JMOBOE.

Another question comes to my mind concerning their survey. If they didn't let the shooters know what loads they were shooting, then the shooters wouldn't have been able to compensate for the (much) tighter patterns that the steel shot would have yielded out of their guns, because they wouldn't have known to "open up" their choke. So, with the steel shot shooters shooting considerable tighter choked guns than the lead shooters, are we to understand from that, that tightening the choke doesn't cause more misses on a dove field? This makes me wonder if the "officials" asked everyone to use the same choke in their guns, or what?

Simply wrong. Again.

But you knew that.

It's worse than that Stan.

Anybody standing off to the side can hear the difference.

Steel and lead loads sound distinctly different.

Roster has been known to dabble in alternative facts.

These studies are nothing more than yet another tactic to greatly curtail and even ban hunting. Like others have posted the whole "Killing the Eagles" argument is nonsense.

I am 62 and have seen far more eagles in recent years than I ever did as a kid in the 1970's. The same can be said for hawks, buzzards, owls, and other predators. I can't say the same for ducks, however.

Bills were introduced last year in both Maine and New York to ban lead ammunition, and both were defeated. One of the arguments that the anti's were using in both bills was that non-toxic alternatives were both readily available and on-par cost wise with lead ammunition. This is partially true.

While steel shot has come a long way, is readily available, and reasonably priced the other non-toxic alternatives such as Bismuth and Tungsten-Matrix are not. As we all know, steel shot is not suitable for many or our vintage and or tightly-choked guns.

While also true that many manufacturers are producing non-toxic projectile rifle cartridges, they tend to be in the most popular or best-selling calibers. Not everyone hunts with a .270, .30-06, or 7mm. The guy who hunts with a .32 Special, .35 Remington, or say a .348 Winchester is out of luck with any ban on lead ammunition. It is doubtful that the major manufacturers will eventually load these older calibers with non-toxic projectiles.

What about the traditional muzzleloading hunter? And what I mean by traditional are those who use a flintlock or percussion muzzleloader using loose powder and a patched roundball. A lead ban puts them out of business as well. Yes, they produce a non-toxic projectile for the modern in-line type of rifles, but they are not suitable for the traditional rifles.

Factor in this crazy ammunition shortage and a lead ban puts a whole lot of hunters on the sidelines. Some outdoor writers have even jumped on the non-toxic bandwagon promoting it as "the right thing to do." It may be, but they are not thinking about some of the scenarios I mention.

Never give the anti's any sort of little victory. They will never stop. If it is not a ban on lead ammunition it will be something else. And if they get a ban on lead ammunition it will be something else.

We as hunters and conservationist have always done more for wildlife and habitat than the anti's ever have. We are also far more efficient at policing ourselves.

Eventually we will wean ourselves off of lead ammunition. It is inevitable. However, it should be gradual and voluntary, never mandated.

Even if we disregard the controversial bullet and shot toxicity problem, I think wildlife deserves that we handicap ourselves a bit, especially since nearly all humans now hunt for sport or occasional table fare, not for commerce or survival. After all, wild animal escape mechanisms are unchanged, while our ability to kill them has steadily increased.

On the other hand, keeping traditional muzzleloaders legal with lead balls seems justified as they seldom lose weight on impact. I don't know if saboted solids are available, but they could be the answer for people who wish to keep hunting with calibers for which solids are not currently manufactured.

I did not intend to say steel is or is not as good as lead, although the study would suggest that. I am saying that is what we will use when (not if) lead shot is banned and quoting a study that indicates we will still be able to shoot doves when it happens. Lead shot is banned now in California, and any cancer that starts there seems to spread across the country. The anti-lead (not necessarily anti-hunting) people consider the use of lead shot a process of mining heavy metals and distributing them evenly across the surface of the Earth. While I consider things like single-use plastics to be far greater factors in our poisoning of the planet, they are not entirely wrong.

We manage to drive cars without leaded gasoline, and we will manage to shoot without lead ammunition.

Rick Bin, the moderator of 24-Hour Campfire, is a California quail hunter. He is loading steel/TSS duplex cartridges (steel shot with a sprinkling of TSS, like a sundae) and reporting more effective, longer-range kills than with lead. Maybe that's what the future holds. Rick is, of course, not shooting Damascus barreled antiques.

Maybe we will shoot doves with TM. I started out scraping up the cash for a few boxes of cartridges when I was a teenager, maybe I'll be doing it again. If I can find any to buy.

Hal, sabot copper bullets have been sold for at least 20 years. Barnes is one maker. The rifle needs a faster rate of twist than the 1:66 roundball rifle, but they work.

What would you recommend be shot through the barrel of an original 1800's rifle, sabots? I don't have many of them, but they all get shot, and none of them will ever have a non full lead original approximation bullet run down them while I take care of them. My enthusiasm wanes, but I plan to cast up at least a few thousand matching lead bullets to the rifles, no touch for me, to pass along to the next person, if somehow they stay together. And, gobran donain't gonna stick 'em onhisregistry. I have come to appreciate that while I don't like some things that others do, the grabbers do not care. I doubt the round ball justification will hold up very well.

The Anti's don't care.

They don't care that a blanket ban on lead ammunition would mean retiring your grandfather's Savage Model 99, or maybe your Remington Model 8. Both of which still see plenty of use around the country.

They don't care about the guys who reject the modern in-line "muzzleloaders" and continue to shoot their traditional percussion and flintlock guns.

They could care less about Parker, L.C. Smith, Fox, or Lefever.

They also don't care about the sporting camps and guide services who would also be impacted by a blanket lead ban.

I'm all for non-toxic alternatives provided that they are compatible, truly readily available and affordable.

Remember and always realize that their real agenda is no hunting period. Like I said, help them achieve a little victory and it will be onto another ban.

Why would a lead ban mean retiring an M99 M8?

OMW gets it.

The "bullets of hunters" are killing doves, and then the Eagles are polishing off the lead-laden doves?? Silly me, but my excuse is I live in a state that has banned dove hunting, so I am a tad ignorant of the rules and regs-- but I am 99% certain shotguns are used, with birdshot leaden loads, and not rifle cartridges. RWTF

So ........ is there a difference in lead toxicity to a "body" when it is implanted into tissue, as compared to it being ingested? Many people have been shot and have lived long lives with lead in their tissues, me included.

Absolutely! And even more so, for birds with a gizzard. Acidic digestive enzymes coupled with very fine mechanical grinding that hugely increases the surface area to interact with those acids makes a real one-two punch.

We have discussed this many times here.

Check out the "reports", as always, they are claiming that gut piles left by big game hunters, are the major source of lead poisoning in Bald Eagles. It can't possibly be any other reason, that's why the balds numbers are on the rise.

Sadly, it seems like every time there is any discussion here concerning lead ammunition bans, there are always a couple guys who either buy into the junk science, or act as if it is inevitable, so therefore we should just give up the fight. They think we should either retire our vintage guns, or switch to very expensive non-lead ammo that is ballistically inferior to lead. And when they start quoting Tom Roster, and become convinced that steel shot is as good or better than lead, there is no hope of changing their minds. It's the same mentality of those who think Biden is doing a great job.

In the past, we had guys like Ben Deeble posting large numbers of links to studies that supported lead ammunition bans. Virtually none of those studies were peer reviewed, and most were done with a very obvious anti-lead bias. It didn't take much reading or intelligence to see that many contained easily refuted 100% unadulterated bullshit. It quickly became apparent that those who were swallowing this crap were not really reading them, or were simply too dumb to understand what they were reading.

For example, in the 2016 "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread, there were numerous very questionable and inconsistent statements made based upon these false studies. Some of our internet anti-lead experts were clinging to studies that contained very conflicting data concerning just what constituted a lethal blood lead level in eagles or waterfowl. One that was particularly amusing concerned an eagle that was recovered with a blood lead level that was off the charts, well beyond what was considered lethal. Yet that bird was found perched in a tree. The experts here couldn't explain how an eagle with such a high blood lead level was able to still be healthy enough to fly... and perch on a tree limb.

The simple answer is that it was a big fat lie... an impossible fabrication intended to advance an anti-lead ammunition agenda.

The wild stories about all of these poor bald eagles feasting upon zillions of deer gut piles which are supposedly laced with thousands of lead bullet fragments are simply more unproven fiction. Even more disturbing is the fact that most of theses junk science studies totally ignore the many sources of lead that are much more bio-available than lead bullets, shot, or fishing sinkers. And you all should be very suspicious of any study that claims to use lead isotope analysis to determine that lead bullets are the major source of lead poisoning in eagles, raptors, or other birds. A large percentage of lead is recycled from various sources, which makes lead isotope analysis virtually useless. Lead has been mined, smelted, and transported all over the planet. And even with virgin lead, it would have to be known with 100% certainty that all of that lead containing a particular isotope analysis went solely to the manufacture of lead ammunition, and that no other source in the world contained that particular isotope from the natural decay of uranium into lead... a virtual impossibility. Remember, there are only four relatively stable isotopes of lead. The anti-lead ammo folks feeding you junk science won't tell you that.

To me, the issue is the numbers involved.
The relatively small amount of lead-bearing carrion doesn’t translate into a large number of affected birds. Wind turbines are a significant killer, but the lack of concern from the Greenies in favor of lead bans shows their bias.

Neither are significant eagle killers, on a national scale. As noted, the birds are increasing spectacularly, and undeniably. Trying to shift the argument to wind turbines is no more logical than claiming lead bullets, as currently used, is an eagle problem.

It's effected your brAin....your entire day is spent on some forum.

Good recent review of toxicity of lead salts here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961898/

The original study has 29 contributors
The lead author has also published in the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

The CV of the second author
James T. (Jim) Anderson, Ph.D. is the Davis-Michael Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources, a professor of wildlife ecology and management, and the director of the Environmental Research Center at West Virginia University (WVU). He earned a B.S. in wildlife from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, an M.S. in range and wildlife management through the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, and a Ph.D. in wildlife science from Texas Tech University. He has been at WVU since 1999 and has been a Certified Wildlife Biologist since 2003.

In academics, anything published is immediately peer reviewed, and the peers establish their reputation by proving you are wrong.
Studies later shown to be in error, after additional work, can be forgiven.
Poor investigative techniques, or even worse, faking it, destroys the author's academic career.
The careers of 29 smart folks were on the line, and if someone was making stuff up, someone would have fessed up.

We may certainly, and should, evaluate the numbers derived from the investigation, knowing that the interpretation thereof is always influenced by preconceived opinions/agendas.
And we certainly need to express our opinions as to decisions made by regulatory bodies based on the numbers.
Number we don't like however aren't necessarily "junk science".

BrentD:

Savage Model 99 or Remington Model 8/81 in these calibers, I guess. These few come to mind: .250 Savage, .300 Savage, .30 Remington, .303 Savage, .32 Remington, .35 Remington, .358 Winchester. I know I missed a couple, these just come to mind.

I'm not aware of any commercially available lead-free ammunition in those calibers. And I doubt that the major manufacturers would load it. It's hard enough finding ANY ammunition in some of those calibers. I know that there are boutique companies out there that may load some, but they are pricey.

I have seen lead-free .30-30 and .308 Winchester. I may have seen .250 Savage? And I know that they work. But you are not going to find them as easily.

Not everyone reloads, and not everyone has an interest in doing so.

I know that it is easy to just say hang it over the mantle and buy a new rifle. Not everyone can do that or want to.

As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to lead-free ammunition. I am opposed to a blanket ban without these considerations or giving sportsman time to make a transition. I also don't buy into the whole "Save our Eagles" campaign that the anti's are using to push a ban. It is another tactic to curtail, discourage, and in the end ban hunting.

And I simply feel that if they win that battle, it will be on to the next type of ban. Just like they are constantly trying to ban Bear hunting with Hounds. Or Trapping, or whatever else they don't like or are offended by.

I stopped believing in these "over-educated P.H. D''s (Piled high and deep- as in Kimshe) after Aldo Leopold died-he was an actual hunter, and knew of which he spoke and wrote- Today, these schmucks study and publish to keep their over paid salaries coming in by grants--No, not the Grant that destroyed Dixie, but a "freebie" chunk of dinero from the taxpayers. RWTF

It's a good thing that the bald eagle population is at an all time high, and is increasing every year. If you didn't know that, you might actually think this was a problem. The higher a species population, the higher the likelihood of human interaction of any kind.

i.e. more eagles=higher probability for one to find a gut pile, fly into a turbine/powerlines/building/plane, have an Acme safe fall on one, etc.

Thank you for your insight Francis. I assume you are personally acquainted with a PhD Wildlife Biologist? Could you please share their name, or at least place of employment or academic affiliation? Did you spend time with them afield? Are they hunters or participate in the shooting sports? Seem like decent sorts? Did you discuss their research interest?
Do you know anything about the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M?
I can't recall meeting a PhD Wildlife Biologist, but met several Wildlife Biologists that were employees of Kansas Game & Fish. All happened to be Kansas born and raised, active hunters, committed to the preservation of wildlife and hunting and fishing opportunities. Good guys. Maybe it was a Kansas thing?

29 Contributors?! The question of padding the curriculum vitae becomes problematic once you get past three or four authors on a study. Some academic journals have been clamping down, but everybody who was at the department Christmas party got listed on this one, no doubt boosting their hopes for tenure and/or future grants. I seriously doubt numbers 28 or 29 could tell you much about the study other than they loaded the stats program or fetched donuts for the crew. Having done my share of academic peer review, I can tell you that the number of authors does not correlate with increased validity and reliability of the study's findings.

I can tell you Bluestem that at the UM-KC SOM starting in the 90s the rule was if you did not substantial contribute to the paper, your name didn't appear on it.
Are you saying that the authors of a study that is proved to be junk suffer no professional repercussions?

You guys have obviously never seen a high energy physics paper. Sometimes the author list takes up half of the title page. Any researcher that does experimental work or field work requiring a large support staff that writes a paper as a sole author will likely get no help from their peers in the future. Data isn't free. I review papers from some journals that require the authors to list their contributions.

If anyone is interested, click on Authors Info & Affiliations for the locations of the authors on the link below
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj3068
I might have missed a couple, but the repetitions were 2 contributors from Missoula, 2 from Chyenne, and 2 from the Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz ie. they are (almost) all at different institutions and no doubt the lead researcher from that institution. Only ONE was from Washington D.C., and BTW one from the American Eagle Research Institute in Apache Junction, AZ
Francis - do you know John Buchweitz in the Department of Pathobiology and Diagnostic Investigation, Michigan State University? You might look him up and share your thoughts regarding PhDs.

It would require a long walk fetching donuts for everyone if that's the author's contribution

This is a pre-publication abstract released today from the NEJM; there are 12 authors listed (and et al ) from 12 different institutions
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115998

I am reminded of when my daughter co-authored a paper that went on to be published in Nature. (High impact Science rag for the unfamiliar)
She was savaged world wide because US spreadsheet software places comma’s differently that EU spreadsheet software.

Watching 15 years of 12 hr days go up in electronic smoke over commas and decimal software defaults really opened my eyes on how competitive the professional science world is.

I am well aware of the term "substantial contributions" to a paper. Care to operationalize that term, however? Good luck. As Bruce notes, support staff, grad students, etc. have expectations that their names are included, regardless of whatever "substantial" means for that particular department and that particular university. Tenure and grant money depend on being published, which introduces its own form of scientific bias. If by "junk" you mean ultimately incorrect, well that depends. As you are aware, science is not linear. It is full of dead-ends and false starts. There are plenty of famous scientists who have been dead wrong on occasion and their reputation suffered little for it. If by "junk" you include falsifying data, then yes, we are in total agreement. (See Andrew Wakefield, his autism "research," and the multiple authors on the fraudulent article in The Lancet ). One of my experimental design classes in grad school included critiquing the methodology and statistical analysis of various studies. We would dismantle the studies and feel pretty superior until our professor would ultimately say in his Russian accent, "Yes, but it got published." One study is one study, no matter how many authors. Replication is vital. But few academic journals publish pure replication studies, and no one is getting tenure or multi-million dollar grants based on a CV full of replication studies. Such is science.

I have a colleague who was one of the pioneers in functional MRI development and is widely published. He had a goal of being published in Science or Nature at some point in his career. He's resigned himself to the likelihood that it will never happen. Congratulations to your daughter; it is a huge achievement.

Yes I know.

It’s only when ignorant racist dumbasses that don’t know open their pie holes that I put both of my boots on.

My son in law discovered and published the mechanism that leads to stroke in COVID patients.
The mechanism for why a COVID patient is 1000 times more likely to have a stroke at the end of the disease cycle when their immune systems goes nuts.

He did it for salary. And because he can.

There are probably people here that are alive because of it. He had an idea, intellect, and he ground out the science to prove the mechanism.

For Foxie, He’s a Jap.

Of anyone Doc Drew, I'd think you would know we are in an era that publications such as Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association are putting out "peer reviewed" articles, concluding that healthcare should be allocated and denied based on race.

Of the twenty-nine whose careers are at risk, did any of them conclude as BrentD did, that lead poisoning of bald eagles is insignificant? Haven't we learned just last week that the CDC has only released a small percentage of their covid research, because it doesn't support political messaging? The answer is no to the twenty-nine, and there does not seem to be any backlash against them. Isn't that the truth of science in today's world?

craigd, you are an idiot. You really have no idea what you are talking about.