That is persistence hunting, you nincompoop.

Lol, you know what name-calling as a form of argument means, don't you? And no, that isn't persistence hunting, that's hunting with poison. Your own link includes injury as a reason this might work, and being poisoned could be considered as an injury, but tracking an injured animal is a form of scavenging and is nothing special or unique in the animal world. What is special and unique (or would be if it were true) is the ability to pick out a healthy animal and simply walk or jog after it until it drops, and that is what makes the endurance hunting claim such a "popular opinion" -- and by opinion I mean something not supported by any facts.

I don’t know what’s stopping you from opening links on the page I provided.

Your link is to a very brief Wikipedia page, and I cannot read this "2024 study" without paying a subscription, which I'm not going to do. Since you've obviously actually read that study, you must know that that's an obstacle. If you actually have a copy, I'd love to see it instead of just the abstract which I was able to read. That being said, as a former Anthropologist I'm reasonably certain the authors used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample for their work. Having read nearly all of the ethnographies that the sample draws from (there's really not much else for Anthropology students to do other than actually going places) I can assure you that there is no mention in them of anything like persistence hunting. Plenty of mentions of stalking and concealment and the use of spears and bows and arrows and poison, but there was never any controversy over these human activities.