Wikipedia isn't the source of the scientific information -- as is immediately apparent from the quoted sentence -- and I think basic media literacy requires that you not participate in the conversation if you can't parse that from the quote.

The sources are this expensive review: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975

And this related letter by the authors summarizing the review: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.7b00139

High impact factor journal, at a basic scan the quote is accurate to the article, and the article uses standard methods. Authors all seem appropriately credentialled and working out of real institutions. Article itself has a high record of citation, and the constituent studies are all properly cited for you to proceed.

Why is that?