I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important.
But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.
The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.