Sure you're not. Your statements get less believable the further this drags on.
It is what it is, and if the authors' peers want to find fault with it, fine.
Author's peers? Did you post it for their review? Or for ours?
it wasn't the study I was commenting on - it was your hobby horse issue of risk from repeated shots.
I don't believe you ever commented on the danger of potentially repeated shots, nor did the study address it. Which is why I kept asking.
You throw out an issue
I didn't throw anything out, I only asked some very basic questions about the article you posted for analysis. Or was it meant to be propaganda, that clearly fell flat?
falsely pretend I'm attempting to be some sort of authority
You're the one that hid behind your assertion as only being personal, when you knew it couldn't be supported by evidence.
Grow up and debate honestly.
You've been unable to answer a single question I've posed, despite them being basic.