The article seems quite happy to jump in and call these claims "false" rather than "unproven" or "unscientific". Additionally, neither the abstract, nor the a

The article seems quite happy to jump in and call these claims "false" rather than "unproven" or "unscientific". Additionally, neither the abstract, nor the article bother to actually name the strength or statistical certainty of the effect. Neither of these serve to give this article much credibility when talking about how to responsibly talk about science.