OK, let's presume that this particular bio is correct, and she has got it correct.
My question is just why is she correct? Any data that would back up her allegations? Or are we to believe that just because she says it's true, then it must be true.
I'm going to need a little more information please, biological hear say just isn't enough.
Your accusation is the deciding data on the health of these stocks is flawed, I'm saying show me where they are wrong.
If your going to attack the accepted science, you need to be able to prove where it's wrong, otherwise it's called a rumor.