Sadly, most scientific studies aren't worth the paper they're written on. One of the harsh realities of life is that experimental design & proper statistical techniques aren't taught properly (or at all....) in PhD courses. Post-docs learn in an ad-hoc way and often pass their entire careers churning out garbage. I speak as someone who worked for a few years at an NIH-funded research institute. Moreover, as long ago as 2006 Nature and Science (the top journals) admitted that more than 50% of what they publish is garbage. Later studies have shown that at least 90% of all papers published in reputable journals turn out to be non-repeatable (e.g. garbage). The reasons for such terrible outcomes are a complex mix of incompetence, data "cleansing" (let's get rid of these unrepresentative data points before we use our statistical test to assess validity....), inept experimental design, and the pressure to publish something, anything, in order to qualify for the next R01 submission.

In the study you cite it's clear that cause-and-effect correlations have not been properly analyzed. Moreover, a "70% increase in risk" is meaningless. Here's why: let's assume your present risk is 1:10,000. OK, so now a 70% increase in risk means your risk is now 1.7:10,000 (e.g. no meaningful increase at all). So while I am personally all in favor of sex-positivity, the research you cite is just another sad example of totally worthless pseudo-scientific garbage.