Hard disagree. There's so much junk science that articles need to be treated skeptically, particularly if they have strong headline claims that reinforce some

Hard disagree. There's so much junk science that articles need to be treated skeptically, particularly if they have strong headline claims that reinforce some common belief combined with details which are hazy and unexplained. Being totally open minded is actually not a virtue, you can be so open minded that you'll start to believe any sort of drivel you pour into your head because it sounds persuasive rather than being correct. I will happily flip my impression of this paper on a dime if someone who is actually qualified to review the actual lab methods and procedures (and if adequate controls were used, etc) pops up to defend it and to explain how cells that don't express ACE2 could possibly be important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, but until then my default setting is to be critical since the paper "smells" bad. It is not a particularly "great" theory, its a very fishy smelling theory.