IANAS, but science Twitter seems to think 1) authors aren't clowns but 2) there's a non-zero chance they've misinterpreted non-SC effects because 3) there's mis

IANAS, but science Twitter seems to think 1) authors aren't clowns but 2) there's a non-zero chance they've misinterpreted non-SC effects because 3) there's missing or inconsistent data that would conclusively prove SC