[dmwallin]

This article's title is disingenuous and is guilty of the same thing it accuses the study of.

The actual content of this article is the following (TLDR)

1) That the study didn't show a reduction in negative health outcomes, rather the control group showed an increase in negative outcomes.

2) The author of the article disagrees that this is equivalent to the stated claim, and offers a number of alternative explanations why you might see this outcome in the data

3) The author offers some critiques around lack of data transparency and the statistical rigor of the study.

In the end the title is a semantic nitpick around the difference between "improved absolute health" and "improved relative health outcomes" and not the smoking gun of bad faith actors it implies.