No one who seriously studies wound ballistics gives any merit at all to Marshall and Sanow. No one at IWBA. No one at FBI. Fackler doesn't. Roberts doesn't. You're free to believe what you wish, but M&S are not respected in their field.
First of all, I am no expert on ballistics. I read the popular gun magazines and use their advice to select my defensive ammo.
However, anytime someone uses such all inclusive terms as NO ONE or ALL I begin to question their how really knowledgeable they are on a subject. How do you know everyone one at IWBA or the FBI disrespects the complete conclusions put forth by M&S? Stated differently, are you saying the entire document or portions thereof? That is an amazing amount of knowledge. I commend you for being so knowledgeable. If you have documentation of this, I certainly would like to see it. I fully understand from various articles that the M&S findings have many critics but I have see portions of their work cited in respectable gun magazines and certainly, in my opinion, portions of their conclusions are somewhat consistent with controlled lab results relative to ammo effectiveness. For example their stopping power analysis compares somewhat with an article published last fall in The American Rifleman magazine.