Yah, or maybe because it smells like bullshit. All data is based on surveys from "normal" people (non-scientists), on a topic that is highly politicized, and by practitioners of one side often followed with what looks like religious fervor. The participants distribution is neither 50/50 for the compared options nor representative for the general populace of cat owners. It is pretty safe to assume bias in the reporting. Not a single cat was actually examined by the "researchers". This has almost all the hallmarks of bad science. That it is published in a purportedly peer reviewed magazine, does not reflect well on that magazine.