I don't see it like that. Large claims require large proof, that's all I see in the comment. Shocking numbers need more investigation, and need a big grain of salt, but that is still taking the result as weak support of causality, not a counter to it.
I think you're reading "skepticism" as "the opposite is likely" and I'm reading it as "assign low weight".
I think you're reading "skepticism" as "the opposite is likely" and I'm reading it as "assign low weight".