It’s an editorial, so it’s an argument, not evidence. But on the question itself it’s roughly right, and this thread is missing the study it’s arguing against.

The clickbait traces back to a 2025 paper in Communications Medicine: “Influence of geomagnetic disturbances on myocardial infarctions in women and men from Brazil” (doi 10.1038/s43856-025-00887-7). It’s a correlation study: one Brazilian city, 1998-2005, 1,340 heart-attack admissions compared against the Kp geomagnetic index. It reports a ~3x higher relative frequency on “disturbed” days, stronger in women. Its own abstract hedges: the health role of space weather “is unclear,” and women “may” be more susceptible. One city, no mechanism.

The wider field agrees there’s no consensus. A 2018 study of MI in Lithuania concludes that “there is no consensus” and the effects “require further work.” Two recent scoping reviews (Cureus 2025; Int J Biometeorol 2026) are still trying to settle it.

So the claim isn’t established. But “not established” isn’t “proven false.” The editorial’s title (“do not pose a health risk”) overshoots in the opposite direction from the clickbait. Two fair criticisms of it, both already noted above: it cites no sources, and it uses gauss/milligauss, a deprecated CGS unit (SI is tesla).

Net: a reasonable position piece, not a debunking. Honest read is “evidence is weak and mixed,” not “fraud.”