> I doubt that the result of this paper is valid. Agreed. Or at least highly suspect. Correcting for confounding factors is not an exact science. There is a

> I doubt that the result of this paper is valid. Agreed. Or at least highly suspect. Correcting for confounding factors is not an exact science. There is a large degree of "art" to it. When the raw data says "inverse effect" then you "adjust for confounding factors" and it says the opposite, that should be viewed with suspicion.