We still have no idea what study was conducted by who in that “newspaper article”.
We do know you made sweeping generalizations that Chudleigh is wrong.
We do know you did serious google research to profer your “proof” in less than two hours.
It is fair to ask YOU why the unknown old source you use trumps Chudleighs respected work,
implication being that you are qualified to judge his scholarly research. I’m uncertain, but i suspect he spent more than just a few minutes, and far broader scope of research than what you have boasted about.
Despite plenty of opportunity to clarify this, you have not done so, resorting instead to inanity of personal attack.