As a professional statistician, I know your comment is nonsense. Statistical significance has to do with how sure you are that an effect exists, not how large the effect is. With a large sample, small effects can be identified and found significant.
The sample sizes in the studies described in the article are easily large enough for effects of the size described to be statistically significant; therefore there is high confidence the effect is real, assuming the researchers did their jobs competently and honestly.
My comment is not nonsense insofar as this study is going to be ignored but the statistically manipulated “study” about second hand smoke is considered gospel and has actually put people out of work and out of business.
It is all about political correctness and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the study.