There are two reasonable posts about this, but the other one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8827949) seems slightly more informative, so we're treating this one as the dupe.
I couldn't agree more with:
'This article seems to be the product of lax peer review and pressure to over-interpret data to boost public interest. Both of these provide short-term gain to those involved but in the long run corrupt the scientific literature and erode public trust in science. Don't do it!'