It is polluting the info-sphere - because people expect it to mean much more than it actually does. If the newspaper articles mentioned that the result has like

It is polluting the info-sphere - because people expect it to mean much more than it actually does. If the newspaper articles mentioned that the result has like 90% chance of being just a random fluke [1] - then nobody would care to read them. 1. It is of course much more complex it has 90% probability in the high end of the Confidence Interval. After some more thinking - I have made here a similar manipulation to the authors - they take the low end of CI - I take the high end. The study does have some information value - but it is way overstated in the media - and that requires a correction.