Selective info. Five investigations uncovered no basis for the accusations. The peeps that made the false accusations never got past it either. Misinterpreted reads of e-mails, nothing more.
IMO, you'd do better attempting to discount the investigations that exonerated the accused, not the stale accusations that were rebuked.
Your arguments are cyclical. When you run out of excuses they come back around a second and third time. In the old days, h3ad led your and others' every post to water but you're convinced a sidewalk perspective rules.
90% of your arguments discount science but you'll throw out a layman pretending to use science to discount science even further.
I'm sure you're a great grape grower and I hope your micro climate doesn't suffer. IMO, your perspective is just as micro.
Show me 1 investigation that was not done "in house".
LOL