I've read this article already (you didn't need to post the whole thing), and in fact that's what I was referring to in my last post to you. The assertion is ridiculous. As I said before, it shows correlation, but not causation.
Unless you're predisposed to believe the author's conclusion, that seems pretty obvious.
Are you perhaps predisposed to disbelieve the author's conclusion?
At least I have history on my side. I think, since you will not accept my arguments, that it is really your job, the one who hasn't thousands of years of history to back his theory up, to PROVE YOUR SIDE.