This article is a pop sci editorial. But it's drawing a "may cause" causation from correlations found in "observational studies" rather than "experimental studies". Junior researchers, pressured to publish or die, shovel them out because it's the easiest thing to publish. No experiments, no scientific method, no controls. Just manipulate old data and cherry pick something that looks like it might be related to another thing. Then a year later we get the opposite headline, from another grad student looking for an easy paper to publish. Then the general public confuses it for science.

So…you’re spouting crap not relevant to this paper?