You are right, Dolores. The key point is the faux science. I called it faux instead of the harsher 'fake' because the authors didn't make up the data (that would qualify as a fake, and there are lots of those studies around). They used publicly available data sets, the UK Biobank being one of them, and ran their statistics. But blindly applying statistics to some data isn't science, and it will only generate questionable results. And, yes, the extent of unusable science papers is frustrating.