Sqad, the Daily Mail may get its stories from medical publications but the complaint is, I think, that they do not understand what those publications show or that they misrepresent what they show. When we, on here, go digging deeper than the Mail's copy writers, we are likely to find that 'a remote possibility' is translated into 'a real threat' or, toning it down a little, a headline of "Could X cause cancer?" followed by "A new study shows..." with no indication of the degree of risk, if any. This goes some way to explaining why the Mail says that one thing will cause Y yet a few weeks later is saying that the same thing will prevent Y.
And a lie will be half way around the world before Truth has got his boots on. A falsehood often appeals, and appearing first, is being accepted long before the truth emerges