I think discussions like these make progress, but very slow progress. I think the root of the issue for many people is more than factual at this point, it's become emotional for both sides. And I think progress will come when both sides can get a handle on their frustrations and then articulate their feelings gracefully.
At the end of the day, I think only a very small percentage of people commenting here care too much about what a new study finds. I don't think it will move many viewpoints.
So I think I'll propose a template for resolving this conflict (a longshot, I know).
Pursuit of agreement:
A) Do I want to understand the feelings of the people I'm talking to? If not, don't expect progress.
B) Do I want to understand my personal feelings? Do I recognize why this topic is emotional to me, why I'm spending my Thursday morning arguing this?
C) Do I see how tangential the connection is between my feelings and the article at hand?
D) Do I care about reaching a point of agreement, or is my motivation more around rewarding myself/punishing others?
E) Am I willing to describe my feelings/worries/motivations without using emotionally charged-words?
To paraphrase Data O'Briain, "zombies are at an all-time low but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high, doesn't mean we should have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs
If we're getting meta, I think that the first thing that should be discussed is: What are we optimizing for, and how do we measure it?