This wasn't, of course, a RCT. IIUC almost no such nutritional studies are RCTs. It was observational (epidemiological). With RCTs I guess complaint 1 still stands: if you're studying one outcome then you're likely to end up presenting that one outcome and perhaps ignoring others. And the meta-complaint still stands, that the statistics tend to be presented in relative risk terms which (IIUC) are well accepted as being one of the worst ways to communicate such statistics. Complaints 2 and 3 would usually be avoided, presuming everything goes well (the study is effectively blinded, sufficiently large, etc.).