Pedantry of little importance:

1. The original link is to a NEWS REPORTING site. While this site has a fairly good reputation, they're not really any more responsible for validating what they publish than other media. ("Aything for a headline" comes to mind.)

2. The publisher of the report, PLOS ONE, is not a peer reviewed journal. While they serve a useful purpose in bringing ideas to the public, many of their "papers" are closer to "undergraduate essays" than to research reports. ... Can't really tell which this one is. They are helpful in presenting "new ideas" to examine, but not fully trustworthy for "confirming consensus on new facts."

3. The report is that this was a "metastudy" using existing data from older researches, with "new statistics" to reach a different conclusion. We all have our own opinions about "statistics." ... (?)

The metastudy method is so strongly deprecated among serious scientists that they seldom publish those results, except under duress, although they may use a reanalysis to choose what to investigate in their own original research. (Unfortunately, the duress is common enough that we see a lot of such reports. TON of salt - not just a pinch - recommended.)

No conclusions here, in my opinion, although the idea is interesting enough to watch for possible followup.

John