Even if you ignore the first paragraph about the poster's history, the other two points highlighted in this comment are important for context. Yes there is a risk, but the risk associated with infection is greater, and more studies are needed to establish causation. A "zealot" would be unlikely to highlight either of those points; this smacks of someone who just wants people to have the right takeaways from the study.

>This is a legitimate publishing company.

Just because the publishing company is legitimate doesn't inform on the legitimacy of the study.

​

>His past posts have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of regarding this current article.

No but it informs what kind of things they will post. We wont see any positive studies, and only those that are negative. They are also more likely to post flawed studies. So you should look at any studies posted by them with extreme skepticism.