Survival probability greatly reduced study finds

[wobblegobble]

And hes just as close as 90% of the flawed data used in most "studies". You can make a study fit what ever narrative you have if thats your goal.

Sure studies are peer reviewed meaning others replicate the findings and see if they get similar results. No conspiracy theories

 

[lol]

And hes just as close as 90% of the flawed data used in most "studies". You can make a study fit what ever narrative you have if thats your goal.

Most folks, especially journalists, have no clue how to read a study and tend to misrepresent the conclusions.

 

[knightrider]

Most folks, especially journalists, have no clue how to read a study and tend to misrepresent the conclusions.

By mistake ofcourse

 

[hammer33]

Hmmm the article makes some gigantic leaps of logic.
So they are saying that about x% of cwd infected deer that they caught and collared didn't survive to the next year?
1. How old were the deer? What % of each group were near the natural end of their expected lifespan?
2. WHAT exactly caused death? Hunting? Cars? Weather? anything location specific? Other factors than CWD?
3. How does the data compare by age/sex/location to the natural mortality of the wild deer herd?

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[MickThompson]

Hmmm the article makes some gigantic leaps of logic.
So they are saying that about x% of cwd infected deer that they caught and collared didn't survive to the next year?
1. How old were the deer? What % of each group were near the natural end of their expected lifespan?
2. WHAT exactly caused death? Hunting? Cars? Weather? anything location specific? Other factors than CWD?
3. How does the data compare by age/sex/location to the natural mortality of the wild deer herd?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Go read the literature and I imagine they'd answer your questions