[Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] [Tag] The confusion surrounding the scientific paper you're referring to is absolutely reasonable. The paper was not written so well well and a quick read through, particularly by someone who isn't entirely familiar, would make most scientists think that what you're saying is the case.