We're discussing roadkill bear. Meaning a bear that was killed on the road (by a vehicle).
It's technically true that it still could have any of the scary afflictions you mention, but that's no different than any hunted game, or any industrially farmed animal.
Barring prions or poisoning (incredibly and quite rare, respectively), all of those issues can and would be evaluated by someone who intended to consume the animal.
I'm curious if you consume meat, and if you've ever been involved in the slaughter or processing of animals.
> No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roadkill
Your interpretation is wrong, and potentially disingenuous.
Animals killed by vehicles on the road are pretty easy to distinguish from animals that coincidentally died on the road.
> He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat"
So your argument is that there's something wrong with roadkill because it might be afflicted with something that would make it detrimental for human consumption; now you admit that he was able to evaluate its fitness for consumption, and avoided consuming something that wasn't "good meat"?
What point are you making exactly?
Yours is the same argument as right wingers screaming "ewwww insect derived protein is gross, don't you know insects can cause ____".
Eating roadkill isn’t much different from eating wild game you hunted — except with roadkill, it was someone else and their car that killed it accidentally, rather you and a gun intentionally.
No offense, but you're simply ignorant on this topic.
https://scispace.com/pdf/a-guide-to-time-of-death-in-selecte...
This is just one of literally thousands of resources answering this exact question. There are other resources to help evaluate other potential consumption risks. There's no need to pretend that the only animals people can eat are the ones they witnessed being killed; people do otherwise, and have for millennia.