There is value in studying things that are "settled" science. You can reinforce or deepen the existing understanding, or uncover nuance that wasn't widely understood before.

Note that this link is not the study! The published paper makes much more specific claims.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081

Given the glaring reproducibility crisis in the scientific community, creatine seems the wrong focus at the moment.

Because of this crisis, no one should be allowed to study creatine? What other things shouldn't be studied in order to solve the glaring reproducibility crisis? How does not studying things help?

Is the scientific community "focused" on creatine?

It just doesn't matter. People who use creatine understand how it works and what the purpose it serves. Read the rest of this thread for anecdotes.

Study it to death, I care not. If I had research money, I wouldn't use it to kick a dead horse.

If you read the study, you can see that they controlled for training intensity. All exercises were done to repetition maximum.

Wait, are you saying that they didn't have the creatine arm of the study work as hard as the control arm? I'm really confused by this comment.