> Not one of those other papers dug into the content (or understood it) enough to question it, and/or raise the alarm bells.
Quite the opposite, the article itself found out that many of them did question it (and quotes three such researchers), however, "raising the alarm bells" and disputing such claims requires exceptional diligence (more than the original article did) and lots of thankless work (like Nick Brown and his two collaborators did) that's not likely to be rewarded (you'd be lucky if you can even get it published in an appropriate venue); so they quite reasonably went on with their own research agendas instead of letting their actual work languish while doing a debunking campaign.
Quite the opposite, the article itself found out that many of them did question it (and quotes three such researchers), however, "raising the alarm bells" and disputing such claims requires exceptional diligence (more than the original article did) and lots of thankless work (like Nick Brown and his two collaborators did) that's not likely to be rewarded (you'd be lucky if you can even get it published in an appropriate venue); so they quite reasonably went on with their own research agendas instead of letting their actual work languish while doing a debunking campaign.