Knowledge usually lives in three stages:

1) Some premise is, obviously, the reason for a conclusion.

• Cold weather gives you a cold, duh!

2) Turns out the premise isn't really the cause for the conclusion.

• Cold weather doesn't carry the virus of cold, what are you, like dumb or something?!?!?!?

3) The premise is somewhat correlated to the conclusions, but isn't the direct cause. Some additional counter-intuitive premise was necessary to reach the conclusion.

• Extreme cold weather, under specific circumstances, might weaken your immune system and give you a cold if the virus is somewhere in the air.

This pattern seems to repeat pretty much everywhere (red meat causes cancer, fasting makes you fat, walking 10 minutes a day delays premature aging, watching porn lowers your testosterone, etc). What's more annoying is the horde of smartass DQNs who kind of reached the third phase but didn't read the reddit article in its entirety, blessing us with "Aspartame Actually Causes Cancer, But Not For The Reasons You Think!" clickbait articles and insufferable atheists in Internet forums.

Nowadays I don't care about "petty" scientific findings anymore, I always assume the premise is a bit related to the conclusion for unknown counter-intuitive reasons and try not to say anything when someone brings up a "well-known fact" that never made it past the first stage in mainstream media.