Is it really true that the worst bullet to be shot with is a 22 caliber LR.?

No, I'm sure a 30 caliber expanding would take more flesh. Like an arm & shoulder.

I think that is false, but don't underestimate that measly .22 LR

Trust me, you don't want to get shot by one.

I would move you to refer to the source that you guarantee to have perused. All you needed to do was utilize your little dark cells and ask yourself that if the .22 LR is the "most noticeably awful" projectile and can accomplish such a great deal harm, why doesn't the military and police use .22 LR.

No, that's a myth. Do you really believe a.22 LR would be worst than a 50 BMG?

I've heard the same thing for years...Like you said, the 22 will hit a bone and ricochet or follow along the bone rather than breaking it and continuing on. I guess it all depends on how and where it enters your body? But...if I had to pick between getting shot with a 22 or a 44, I'd go with the 22. I varmint hunt with a 22-250, which is a 22 on steroids. It travels about 4 times as fast as the average 22LR at a little over 4,000 feet per second. The average 22LR shot from a rifle is about 1,200 FPS, and even less than that when shot from a handgun. The 22-250 will turn whatever flesh it hits into Jello.

False my big calibre shell is 40mm bofors 

that could be true

From what I understand, 22s are only really bad at close range because they tend to bounce around inside you rather than go through and through like other calibers. I suppose, in it's own way, that could be considered a lot worse.

Yes that's not the question here I'm not asking which is more intimidating.

I'm asking which bullet actually causes more damage to the human body according to reputable surgeons.

I would challenge you to cite the source that you claim to have read.  All you had to do was use your little grey cells and ask yourself that if the .22 LR is the "worst" bullet and can do so much damage, then why doesn't the military and police use .22 LR.