Whilst I'm reluctant to play the "genetic fallacy" = (dismissing something on the source rather than the content itself) it's worth pointing out that Pink News is unashamedly partisan.
However, the most important thing is to point out the general way scientific studies get reported on by the media and then waved around/dismissed depending on whether they support/debunk your opinion.
The most obvious example would be studies relating to weight loss - because weight loss is extremely tribal, for the simple reason that if someone loses a lot of weight on diet A then they become religious about diet A, likewise if Diet B didn't work for them then they become just as religious that diet B doesn't work.
Hence why a lot of people believe that "carbs make you fat" and that "counting calories" or "calories in, calories out" doesn't work.
Now let's say a study comes out that says Diet A doesn't work:
Supporters of Diet A will say:
"the study wasn't long enough!"
"the study didn't have enough participants!"
"the study didn't monitor closely enough what the participants ate!"
"this wasn't a proper Diet A"
"the study was funded by people who make Diet B foods!"
And then all of the supporters of Diet B will say that the study was exceptional, flawless etc.
Then when a study of Diet B comes out, then the roles are reversed.
This is what we are seeing with the Cass report, and why it's important to make sure we do not fall into the same trap with fallacious logic and clinging to our existing opinions/biases
