The date is very very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. As others in the thread have pointed out, the data doesn't make much sense, it lacks consistency, they d

The date is very very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. As others in the thread have pointed out, the data doesn't make much sense, it lacks consistency, they don't show their statistics, and it's very very likely to be a false positive finding that for some reason the authors decided to go ahead and use as the basis for a very out-there claim. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's generally good enough to at least catch something as sloppy as this paper. I'd be very very surprised if it stood up to scrutiny.