besides working in mice only being a “probably works in humans”: it’s very recent and is a research paper. only facts that hold true by the time they’re included in a review paper are considered certain. maybe instead of viable mice, they measured a vial of meth. however, because this is published in an accredited journal, any mistake would probably be much more subtle than that, and having many co-authors lowers the odds even further. of anything wrong that affects the conclusion, i mean. meth is overrated