It seems to be just the editorial that's erroneously claiming that "Erik Hoel proposes a novel hypothesis". The actual review article appears to be a perfectly

It seems to be just the editorial that's erroneously claiming that "Erik Hoel proposes a novel hypothesis". The actual review article appears to be a perfectly serviceable review of the topic. https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(21)00064-7 https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(21)00064-7