I really want to take this new article at face value, but the source is highly questionable. Add to that the perfectly reasonable academic refutation that you yourself cited, and the source loses all credibility, and we're back to square one.
If we've reached the point where you have to resort to personal attacks to try to convince others (you certainly can't convince the other side with personal attacks) that your viewpoints are valid, you're already in trouble. You raised a point. I refuted it with what should be very worrying data, as well as a reasoned argument for why your objections don't amount to a great deal, in the real world. You responded with flawed studies and personal attacks. I think we're done here.