I don't know what any of this means, but it sounds very much like https://xkcd.com/882/
That is the minimum threshold. This study found that peak was at p < 1e-37 or so. But that is where the biological analysis begins. Unlike social scientists, we don't stop with the statistical correlation, we then go on to look at what we know about that gene, the type of mutation, if it's a loss or gain of function, what role that gene has in various tissues, etc. And mendelian randomization is another way to unpick the causal direction of effect.
Not to say this is the truth or causal, but it's a lot closer to causal than what you are implying.
In more casual sciences p < 0.05 is considered the limit of significance, i.e. less than 1/20 likelihood of statistical testing favoring the tested hypothesis over the null hypothesis due to random chance
If true, this would be cause for someone to read through the study to check there are no maths errors, and if it holds up then to take action immediately.
This isn't a "wait for more science to come in and confirm" type thing.
This is many orders of magnitudes better confidence than any physics experiment, it feels unlikely a biological result can even be this strong, so it makes it sound like a statistical error.
Also, things like gut microbiome and depression are linked through what some people call the _crud factor_, which are weak correlations between nearly all social aspects. For example, probably depressed people eat differently from non-depressed people, causing changes in their gut microbiome. Probably, there are variations in human population's depression rates and obesity rates (correlated with gut microbiome) that somewhat correlate. When you have enough statistical power, you see the crud factor everywhere.
Out of curiosity, what is your perspective on gnotobiotic systems? I distinctly recall an example of a gnotobiotic mouse that, upon being provided a microbial sample from an obese mouse, started to have substantial increases in body fat despite a simultaneous reduction in feed. Would that type of experimental approach still run into the statistical difficulties you mentioned?
So, a specific SNP mutation being predictive of a gene expression / protein is basically a p-value of 0.
Can't speak for physics experiments, but this is almost certainly not a statistical error
It used to be called the gut feeling column, but once the Alzheimer's links were confirmed more strongly i felt it needed to be addressed with more gravitas.
I will read the papers tomorrow but this should be easy to test, I think? Immediately cease use of any product that contains dea or analogs.
And since it's lipidinous, maintain weight? Ia this heretical?