When people point this out (which they do on every single human-related study that makes the front page), it implies that the article is suggesting causation somewhere. I don't see this article suggesting that anywhere; what I find toward the end is this:
>The studies from the United States and Australia do little to answer these critical questions — but they do open a new avenue for research.
Did I miss where the article suggests causation?
Sure, they use "apparent" as a weasel-word but "protection" is clearly suggesting causation.
There is no ambiguity in the statement "The studies...do little to answer these critical questions," it means the studies are inconclusive and shouldn't be treated otherwise.
The reason a comment is always necessary is because other comments always jump to assuming causation.
I do think my comment was weak, because I think there are much more likely root causes than testosterone. Such as the unsatisfying reproducibility crisis https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis conceived by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/