The Henley and partners analysis isn't very good, but nor is this, both are from biased sources. It seems to amount to "that isn't a large proportion" rather than looking at the trend.
Dan Neidle[1] and the FT[2] have already done much better debunking of it, although that doesn't mean there isn't truth to it, just that Henley and Partners's report doesn't prove anything.
Thank you, I was trying to put a finer point on what I disagreed with in that comment but that's better than I'd have done. It's like saying "just pick the best option"
Spoiler: The science and definitions are... depressingly bad.