Good Question, Colin. And I have an answer: Science, and particularly research into health and medicine, typically progresses by investigations that offer incremental insights and allow first speculations and then, later, conclusions that are not always 100% definitive.

Further research, by different means or methods and different groups of researchers, are almost always needed to build a body of work that leads to stronger and stronger conclusions. This is true across the spectrum of health topics, including the effects of various inputs and behaviors and the presumed causes of various conditions and outputs. At any given point in time, we know only what we know, and to ignore the existing science — which in this case is growing increasingly solid — while we wait for elusive "absolute proof" would be irresponsible.

If we followed that logic, we would not write much about the vast majority of diseases and conditions; we'd write almost nothing about nutrition and diet; we might still not be acknowledging the profound damage caused by smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. An example: The old advice that a drink a day is good for you was disproven in 2017. We still can't say conclusively that a drink a day is categorically bad for every individual, but we can state that claim with more than reasonable confidence. Science progresses.

Hope that's helpful!