This message was self-deleted by its author

[enki23]

57. Have anything substantive? I have an expertise here that is actually applicable. So fire away.

I'm a PhD candidate in toxicology. My research is in fish, not rodents, and biased toward data-rich metabolism studies in single large animals. But working in the tox world absolutely demands, whether you like it or not, that you see your fair share of rodent data. I also have a passing familiarity with study design and statistics, even though my data tends to be analyzed by compartmental modeling rather than simple statistical treatment like these studies (lord, I wish my data were as easy to analyze as this).

In this subject area, my expertise actually matters. Note that I didn't bring it up initially, because what I have to say is more interesting than my personal reasons for saying it. But, since you ignored it and tried to be cute, I have to assume you are *unable* to respond to it substantively.

TLDR: You're hiding behind the "Princeton" thing because, presumably, the Princeton researchers have to the tools to design and analyze these studies. But science is an open process, and peer review never ends. Like a few other people out there, I too have the tools to analyze these studies. The Princeton researchers failed. It happens. No, what do *you* have?