I don't understand any of the points you're trying to convey. Let me respond to each of your paragraphs individually: #2 - you're arguing against a point neit

I don't understand any of the points you're trying to convey. Let me respond to each of your paragraphs individually: #2 - you're arguing against a point neither I nor (IMO) the article are trying to make. The cause of the anomalous mass die-offs is of interest, but there's no concert it's an existential threat for the Atlantic dolphin population. #3 - irrelevant. Unless you can tell me more about the nature of the lung disease [edit: allegedly] from oil & from the virus, I'll assume the researches can distinguish between the two. That also doesn't address the hormonal abnormalities or the other symptoms they didn't enumerate. #4 - again, irrelevant. Same comments from #1 apply. You are arguing against a point that is not being made. #5 - If you have some sort of disagreements with the data, or the methodology of their interpretation, then by all means be specific about it. Otherwise it's hard to see how this is on topic.