I took it as a commentary on relying on scientific methodology when deciding the importance of a paper. Often the fact that there is a RCT study or whatever, a

I took it as a commentary on relying on scientific methodology when deciding the importance of a paper. Often the fact that there is a RCT study or whatever, a peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal, this is seen alone as sufficient reason to believe a finding. Scientists make this assumption, laypeople make this assumption, pop-sci media certainly do their thing; but this is essentially a counterexample, a scientific article that ostensibly checks all the boxes of rigorous science while being pretty obviously nonsense.