They didn't isolate possible confounding variables, father's health and mother's health, which I guess are more important than age, and probably also heavily correlated. Also, as I understand it a lot of studies show that epigenetics has a larger effect than we previously thought. That means those two variables are even more likely to effect infant health.

edit: removed "mother's age", since they do account for that

> "“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,”."

> But Eisenberg stressed that the increased risks for individuals were small. After adjusting for the mother’s age and other factors such as education and whether she smoked, he found that children born to men aged 45 and over were born less than a day earlier on average, and weighed only 20g lighter (just over half an ounce) than those with younger fathers.

It seems like there's a lot more data there that could be interesting showing how education, smoking, and age interact, but all we're not getting that out of this article.

So that leads me to wonder, what agenda does this website have by publishing this clickbait title?