To a substantial degree, that is accurate.  However, what's surprising
is that some "rinky-dink" school might want to make a name for itself
and "take on" a major piece of dogma, since they could afford to do
such experiments.  I'm not the first to point out that the "biological
sciences" are much more ideological than physics and chemistry, but
the fact that direct, on-point experiments were done so long ago and
that results were obtained that were as clear and conclusive as
anything one could hope for in a biological field suggests that one
should assume that the "experts" in these fields are wrong, not
correct.  Because so much evidence is now available on the internet,
their ability to convince people of their refuted dogma will likely
continue to diminish.