When we get to "experiment with large double-blind randomized sample shows that..." , then this will be interesting.<p>"study finds" means very little. You can quite easily make a "study" in all sorts of ways to "find" basically anything you want. It's so easy it often happens just by accident. Particularly in meta-studies like this article references. But that didn't stop them from coming up with a biochemical mechanism. Note to scientists - the theory comes before the conclusion. Otherwise we have Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.<p>But then why is an unlikely, unverified result put into an article? Who would do this?<p>"South China Morning Post" ... "For Centuries, Chinese Medicine Practitioners have used mushrooms...."<p>This article can be safely thrown away.