This isn’t a medication it’s a mechanism study.

I would expect not many and certainly far less than the number of medications that worked in animals but did not work or harmed humans.

And a condition we can induce in another animal. If we can't cause it in another animal then we can't test a drug against it. There are a lot of diseases that can make no progress under this model which we can not induce in animals or humans.

Aspirin is famous for having teratogenic effects on rabbits and would never have been approved for humans if it were to be tested nowadays

I misread your comment as "meth" the first time and I was like... well I guess that could theoretically help. You know, aside from the neurotoxicity of meth.

I take dextroamphetamine for ADHD, and even though it's a lot less toxic than meth is, I still have to take frequent magnesium supplements or else my magnesium levels totally dive (confirmed by blood tests).

so "scientists baffled and confused" would have been more accurate :)

edit: I'm overthinking this, but the word "scientists" does a lot of heavy lifting in the headline. The number of things the human race in general and scientists especially are unsure about is vast. Putting a person in a white overcoat, spectacles, and pen in their pockets to lead the sentence with authority doesn't give them a chance of not looking dumb. Scientists in media language are 100% of the time more clownish than even politicians or any other profession.

Even the content in itself is garbage, in which case the headline does justice, or there was in fact something news-worthy but the meta-analysis by this article has missed it.

While this is true, the same protein, even the same gene, often serve different purposes in different species. So even if we figure a problem out in mice down to the gene level it might not yield any results in humans. That's also the reason why the majority of drugs that have a positive outcome when trialed on mice don't yield positive results in human trials.