Oh yes, you are definitely good for linking both, although we both know nobody (hyperbole) is thinking in relative terms when they read, “reversed direction”.

While the paper is far more clear in interpretation, the article is still sensationalist shit.

Note that I do not ask for less scientific coverage, but a bare minimum in factual representation with what most might understand…

“reverse” vs “slowed down” is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL in communication. Why say something LESS CLEARLY unless the point is to mislead?!