Jiang et al. (2023) was not replicable, is what. I don't see this one retraction proves/disproves causality one way or the other; without looking at all other

Jiang et al. (2023) was not replicable, is what. I don't see this one retraction proves/disproves causality one way or the other; without looking at all other studies on the same thing. It does however prove that The Lancet isn't very scrupulous about forcing authors to retract even when a paper is discredited, or properly crediting third-parties with discovering serious errors (rather than fogging things to suggest the authors voluntarily initiated the retraction, which they didn't).