This is not a "study". There's nothing observational or even experimental in this paper to demonstrate a measurable effect (much less calculate the effect size) in people.
This is literally just looking at pathways and saying "yeah that seems possible".
There is an epidemics of people who argue on bad faith on the internet and just google links from pubmed to add to their ""argument"" without ever reading or understanding the articles they link to, expecting others to not go past the title (because most people aren't going to read full articles linked by randoms on comments), giving their ""argument"" credibility and weight solely based on the fact that "it's on pubmed, it's research". It has grown incredibly tiresome.
Not to mention there are tons of published papers that are worth less than toilet paper. This is a huge problem and pubmed is a central database that doesn't exert anywhere near enough curation, it is meant to be used by professionals of targeted interests who can exert proper critical judgement, not by random people.
>Recent reports that PubMed, one of the world’s leading biomedical databases, includes predatory journals and their publications1,2 is cause for concern. PubMed handles millions of queries daily and represents a key source of knowledge for health researchers worldwide. Much medical research that underpins clinical practice relies on the findings generated by peer-reviewed studies that are retrieved via biomedical databases, in particular, those that are free to search such as MEDLINE and PubMed. Thus, it is imperative that these databases are free of contamination by the outputs of predatory journals with their critically flawed peer review procedures.3 We analyze why this is happening and identify some possible solutions to stop the penetration of predatory journals and publishers into biomedical databases.
>Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to inflammation of the colon and to autism, and upon whose illusory foundation the modern anti-vaccine movement rests, is listed on PubMed (though it is marked as “retracted”). There is a journal called Medical Hypotheses whose articles are also discoverable through PubMed. The journal’s purpose is to publish theoretical papers, and its editors will consider “radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas” as long as they are written in a way that makes some kind of sense. One such paper proposes that ejaculation might be a potential treatment for a congested nose. Another argues that this handy intervention is “inconvenient, unreliable and potentially hazardous.” Both are, you guessed it, found on PubMed.
Just because it's on pubmed doesn't mean anything. There are so many terrible studies published and listed there that only a researcher of the studied field can tell whether it's any good or bad.
This is literally just looking at pathways and saying "yeah that seems possible".