I found the article hard to read with the constant switch from very assertive summaries and very nuanced quotes, so I might be missing something. Is it actually

I found the article hard to read with the constant switch from very assertive summaries and very nuanced quotes, so I might be missing something. Is it actually finding the opposite ? For instance: > Our findings indicate that inaccurate measurement of sodium intake could be an important contributor to the paradoxical J-shaped findings reported in some cohort studies. Epidemiological studies should not associate health outcomes with unreliable estimates of sodium intake Basically, this seems to me to argue that the error range in the methods used would be bigger than the relevant range of results discussed, so to draw any conclusion measurements need to be redone. That would be a bit different from a denial of a specific thesis, although I am sure the researcher must have an opinion on the matter.