[wkrause]

This article is about a study done on mice. Having not read the underlying study, and it not being my field, I can't speak to how well the article articulates the study's findings, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it with the "correlation does not imply causation" argument.

[fortythirteen]

> on mice

And the article automatically relates it to humans, when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.

[ksk]

>And the article automatically relates it to humans,

From the article:

"Of course, this study involved mice and not men and cannot tell us whether the same processes occur in people."

> when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.

It is unethical to run certain studies on humans, which is why the mice models are used (also pigs, fish, flies, worms, etc) initially. And such models have been fantastically successful. It seems like you are rather unfamiliar with the scientific process...