Of course. The study goes back to the 1960’s, so they can’t use classifications that didn’t exist back then. That’s why I said “preliminary” Alternatively, t

Of course. The study goes back to the 1960’s, so they can’t use classifications that didn’t exist back then. That’s why I said “preliminary” Alternatively, they could read more than three abstracts, and find a better definition. Regardless, there’s enough evidence for a ban, and also quantifiable metrics that could be used to define one. I’d expect the regulators and scientific community to do better than my proposal.