[OutOfHere]

To the reader, I strongly and vehemently urge not listening to some rando on the internet (as opposed to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage. The rando will not be around to look after you after you get brain damage.

[IAmBroom]

I also urge the reader to not assume a lab experiment produces solid nutritional guidance.

Lots of things kill cancer cells in petri dishes that have proven to be useless as medicines.

And your repeated ad hominim "rando on the internet" is counter to good dialectic.

[OutOfHere]

The stroke risk alone is sufficient to not take it.

Unlike with treating cancer, there is no meaningful reward here. As I noted, the risk-reward favors not taking it.

The possible truth is less important here than the possible consequence.