The UBC paper being discussed is not reporting a clinical study; it is a review of the analysis of the clinical and safety trial results, calling into question their conclusions.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full paper nor the background to validate the authors' claims. However, the claims made in the abstract are such that they deserve objective review by those who have the ability to do so. It is rather disconcerting to see someone with a doctorate level medical degree blindly dismissing the paper because it challenges the status quo.
A review of a clinical trial and safety trials IS a report on a clinical study!
Reading the abstract is nothing. The abstract merely tells the potential reader what is discussed and covered by THE FULL REPORT. Reading the abstract is like reading the dust jacket of a novel and then saying you have read the book.
Read the report before commenting on it not just the abstract