The citation linked is flagged as "editorial", and the abstract says "may be". Anyone got a link to the full pub?
These are scenarios where I really want an expert to summarize the current state of what's known rather than trying to figure it out from a PubMed search, especially when there seem to be competing opinions.
This is exactly why we need a more in-depth approach when explaining things to the general population. The whole chain of deductions should be presented and easily verifiable, otherwise it's quite easy for a layman like me to get into a situation where I see two opposite but equally-plausible-sounding claims made by "experts", but no way to figure out who's right, because nobody is presenting any proof, just relying on their own "I'm an expert" authority.
I'm tired of everyone being an "expert". A true expert should have no problem presenting proof to their claims.
These are scenarios where I really want an expert to summarize the current state of what's known rather than trying to figure it out from a PubMed search, especially when there seem to be competing opinions.