It took them 6 paragraphs to mention mice. Thats astonishing how much they oversell this kind of stuff.

Is it really such a big deal for them to build hype around a potentially promising medical advancement? What's the downside of this kind of reporting? Even if the drug fails, maybe it will spur more research into similar candidates

This type of reporting contributes to announcement fatigue. What use is all this hype now for something that is probably 5 years out from the market, if it even works (which past results suggest is unlikely).

Has that actually been demonstrated? I don't personally feel fatigued by medical advancements which ended up not panning out. In fact they make me feel hopeful about the future and glad to exist in a society where such research is even possible.

Maybe you are still young? When you have seen 30 years of such revolutionary tech in pharma every other week with 0.001 % actual outcomes on the market, yes, you get tired of it.

I am approximately 30 if that's what you meant. I think a 0.001% success rate is pretty good for revolutionary technologies and I'm glad to have those successes. I think it is wrong to downplay the importance of the failed attempts just to increase that success rate. More absolute successes is strictly better than a higher success rate.

getting clicks for overhyping stuff that in 99.99% of the case does not even make it to human trials. Shoving ads in your face at the same time.

Admittedly I'm using an adblocker and didn't notice the latter problem, which sounds annoying. But I don't see why the former is a problem on its own.