[JayGalt]

You are clearly off base. The explanations you give are not c/w being a biochemist. As a physician with a husband with a PhD in biochemistry I am appalled by your pseudoscience.

[Tellurian]

My inclination is to pigeon hole exDemMom as sophomoric. A "wise fool". She's learned a catechism of biologic knowledge, and is smart enough to have integrated its elements to make sense of them within their own confines (a skill just beyond sophomoric, I suppose).

However, there is a world of science beyond her expertise that she won't entertain, no matter how compelling. She's accepted her level of proficiency as unassailable (It was in a book, it must be true!!) by anyone who's learned a different approach to the subject. She is blind to the possibility that what she accepts as fact are just models in need of a greater depth of understanding, models waiting to be reworked once research that conflicts with the model seems to explain the real world more accurately. She seems to hold that her conclusions are superlative to any suggestions by mere mortals.

[exDemMom]

As a physician with a husband with a PhD in biochemistry

If you are really a physician and your husband has a PhD in biochemistry, then why do I have to explain to you the nuances of feline injection site sarcoma causation, especially when I'm using the information in the articles YOU linked to do so?

While I recognize that the majority of physicians are not trained in research methodology, you still ought to be able to read and understand the medical literature. I'm pretty sure they teach that much in medical school. Plus, isn't there an ongoing CE requirement which includes reading medical literature in order to keep your license?

When the articles YOU linked state that feline injection site sarcoma is related to the injection injury, not the syringe contents, I am not engaging in pseudoscience when I point that out.