Just, like, one of it. The issue isn't that its been studied, as you seem to think. The issue is that you made a claim and are now vaguely gesturing at literature to back it up :)

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That's how this works.

You can't say there's science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.

If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there's science out there that backs up my assertion, they'd tell me to get bent.

Don't be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you're making this up.

Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.

This is why it's important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying "just google it" are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it's important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can't stand up to that, then it's likely incorrect and we can put that in the "failed hypothesis" bin.

Which is where your hypothesis would go.

And that's science. Kinda.