That would be a strange rumour hear.

What I'm saying is, if some rando on HN can see see that the trial size is too small to be statistically significant how did it pass peer review?

The trial size is not too small to be statistically significant. It may warrant further investigation by scientists in the field of clinical nutrition.

However, it is too small and insignificant for Hacker News readers to make meaningful use of, and it would be incorrect for them to read anything into the results presented. That is the difference.

So it's a practically baseless conjecture within the field of clinical nutrition, clinical nutritionists now publish such in peer reviewed journals, and the wider scientifically literate public have no business ease dropping on all this. Got it.