No. At least, not the deer study.
, but I have my suspicions given the mindset of some and suspect some form of evolution is underway due to over education among other things. 
Why do you say that (I'm almost tempted to ask what evidence you have for that!)? Peer-reviewed paper is pretty high up on a pyramid of evidence and a Cochrane type meta review will be a review of peer reviewed papers.
I looked, found none, gave up after 2 pages of google scholar
As I recall Bateson's study was fairly robust in its conclusions on the physiological differences of shot v chased deer.
And supported by the staghound groups
The actual data are about as conclusive as you could ask for outside of a lab on a large wild animal.
I say it because it is true, both in theory and in practice. If you'd like evidence, a particularly notorious example would be Wakefield's fraudulent nonsense about MMR vaccines and autism - peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journal (Lancet).
retractionwatch.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nobody mentioned a Cochrane type meta review. What my comment addressed was the assertion that a peer-reviewed paper is equivalent to proven fact..Everybody with rhe slightest scientific knowledge, including you, knows that is incorrect.
I say it because it is true, both in theory and in practice. If you'd like evidence, a particularly notorious example would be Wakefield's fraudulent nonsense about MMR vaccines and autism - peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journal (Lancet).
Academia has been rather conspicuously discrediting itself in recent years, which does little to maintain confidence in the integrity of particularly this type of science.
The following links illustrate the problem:
Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers
Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions as of November 12, 2025. Readers will see some famil…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...
Your fear of my stereotypical view of an anti/fieldsports opponent is touching, but I assure you Sir, I was merely using our blue haired friends as an example, ( for brevity's sake naturally) I am more than familiar with the diversity enjoyed by our enemies, as for your first point, which is a little difficult to decipher, but no, of course those fears are not groundless, have you not grasped what is being debated here?
No. Did you read that? No. Because that's competely different to what I wrote. What I wrote is crystal clear. And correct.
Yes. You've made it. I wrote A. You claim I wrote B and that B is wrong.
Which, in effect, is what I said. So why the frick are you disputing it?
It may be debatable, but certainly not hyperbole.
That is a fair question and within the 'safety' of this forum I would suggest every individual has his own moral compass - for example...
It was almost a tongue in cheek question Keith and I can see how some would look at things. A moral compass is a great tool but I have never yet met an "Anti" who was unhappy about poisoning rats and condemning them to a horrendous death. I too attended many coursing meetings, I did hunt terrier work, enjoyed many days staghunting and walked a great many rivers with the otterhounds. I suppose therefore with time spent chasing other things in far off deserts etc I could be classified as devoid of morals rather than having a compass. Strangely though I can honestly say I have enjoyed every minute of it all and still consider I have moral values way above those of our enemies.
Now Otterhunting I missed by a whisker...My childhood best mates father was the master of the Eastern Counties Otterhounds, sadly they disbanded and the sport was banned before I had the opportunity to experience it.It was almost a tongue in cheek question Keith and I can see how some would look at things. A moral compass is a great tool but I have never yet met an "Anti" who was unhappy about poisoning rats and condemning them to a horrendous death. I too attended many coursing meetings, I did hunt terrier work, enjoyed many days staghunting and walked a great many rivers with the otterhounds. I suppose therefore with time spent chasing other things in far off deserts etc I could be classified as devoid of morals rather than having a compass. Strangely though I can honestly say I have enjoyed every minute of it all and still consider I have moral values way above those of our enemies.
I didn’t say you said that. I was asking for clarification of what your point was when you pointed out that peer review can make mistakes. It appeared to be an attempt to use the existence of mistakes in general as a way to discredit specific studies. But I wasn’t sure, hence asking for clarification.
Nope. Didn’t claim anything. Asked what you were arguing.
I’m not.
It rather is. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of studies undergo peer review every year. The huge majority are entirely unremarkable - the day to day process of figuring stuff out and getting that process checked by someone.
The previous poster used the term dogs - I was just replying using the same term - but well caught 
