sorry, but “the washington times,” a site whose design and name seems suspiciously chosen to mirror that of the more well known and respected washington post, is not a reputable source by any metric that is not in bad faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

it was founded in 1982 by a cult leader. try again

My original comment a few up included a peer reviewed paper in science direct with similar findings across multiple years.

Turn your brain on and critique the data, not the source