Yes, that would have been somewhat more accurate. The way you phrased it gave it a spurious purely political implication, and I don't think that was an oversight on your part. Even your revision hints at a political aspect. As was clear from the article in The Lancet, the decision was made by scientists based on scientific considerations. It had nothing to do with politics. If you dispute that, bring a reputable source which shows political interference with the decision. If you got that political colouring from your source, you might consider whether it's a source you can rely on to give you accurate information.
If you don't want nit-picking arseholes like me pointing out bullshit in your posts, you could post less bullshit.
