Yes, I did. It does indeed "reference" the research, with a whole lot of editorializing/rationalizing on top. An anti-firearms writer could play the same game, noting (for example) the increased complexity of firearms operation (which played a role in the last fatal bear attack here in WY) and likelihood of a misfire. But these rationalizations all
explain the baseline data on outcomes, they don't change it.
It occurs to me that while I've been in 90+ MPH winds in the high country, down below the treeline where a bear encounter is much more likely, and at a closer range, the wind is muted by the foliage.