Can someone help me make sense of a study I found?

It was my theory. I used many different sources to form that theory. I did not get that paper till after I made that post. I did not have full access to papers back then, so I had to use abstracts. Once I made the post, a guy messaged me asking if I needed him to get the full studies for me. Then he used his university access to download the ones I asked for, and gave them to me in a zip file. There might even be a comment of mine on that thread stating that a guy just got me the full studies, and I was reading through them. Obviously the full studies he got allowed me to get a lot more in depth, and confirmed a lot of my theory. Using what I found in those studies, I edited a lot of the specific compounds in the thread. I did not have the full story till that guy got me the studies. I thought it was a metabolite of MDA leading to the primary damage. I just did not know the exact compound.

So I am not sure what you are trying to get at. I am not the one doing the rat and primate studies, so I have to get that information from published research that is. There were multiple studies alluding to the metabolites being the cause, which is what set me off on the path I went on to form my theory. Then I was able to confirm a lot of it, using the full studies I was given after I made the post. I now have my own access to published research, so I can go straight there. But a couple years ago, when I was forming my theory, I did not. You can even read through a lot of the comments on that thread, and see me forming the connections as I found new information.