that doesn't mean, as the GP comment said and i'm objecting to, that it implies anything about when the condition is false.

this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition.

the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does not imply he meant anything beyond that either, even if you read it pedantically. it takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every unstated condition might be relevant too.

Using what definition of "implies"? From formal logic, or the rhetorical implies?

both. either.