I used to enjoy reading bizarre scientific publications when I did my PhD. Sometimes tricky to identify the good stuff from the various chancers, even though they'd all been peer-reviewed. Trouble is, news reporters pick up on the dross as well as the outstanding pieces of work.
I'm not going to dissect this too much, but:
- there is no connection with the tobacco industry, but one of the declared funders appears to have a financial interest in this result being found
- there are statistical problems with the analysis
- the similarity between mouse and human metabolism is exaggerated
- the participants intake of fat (33%) is 3x the intake of protein (11%), but the authors chose to criticise the protein intake not the fat intake
- the summary conclusion is erroneous and positively dangerous
Anyway, getting back to the funnies, there must surely be humour in dodgy science, or inaccurate reporting of it by the press (surely not)
Also, didn't someone do a series of comedy sketches about the University of Southern California (where this research took place) ?