It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link".
This sort of intellectual looseness is not free. People are learning to treat claims by scientists as untrue, and it's partly because of this sort of press release/paper hacking.
Finding a correlation between two random medical data sets does not mean there is a "link" in any English that normal people would use it. It definitely does not mean there's an "effect" or that one thing "reduces" the other. It might mean there's something worth a followup investigation there, though given the prevalence of non-reproducible p-hacked results in science, also maybe not.
Regardless, before doing press releases and going to the public with such a claim there is a large amount of work needing to be done to actually prove causality. Moreover you'd then want to ask why does such a thing happen when there is no prior reason to suspect such an impact.
This sort of intellectual looseness is not free. People are learning to treat claims by scientists as untrue, and it's partly because of this sort of press release/paper hacking.
Finding a correlation between two random medical data sets does not mean there is a "link" in any English that normal people would use it. It definitely does not mean there's an "effect" or that one thing "reduces" the other. It might mean there's something worth a followup investigation there, though given the prevalence of non-reproducible p-hacked results in science, also maybe not.
Regardless, before doing press releases and going to the public with such a claim there is a large amount of work needing to be done to actually prove causality. Moreover you'd then want to ask why does such a thing happen when there is no prior reason to suspect such an impact.