[cfgauss2718]

I think are overstating the strength of the No Communication Theorem. It does not state that communication via quantum entanglement is impossible in all cases; the theorem is weaker. From the article you linked:

“Being only a sufficient condition there can be extra cases where communication is not allowed and there can be also cases where is still possible to communicate through the quantum channel encoding more than the classical information.”

Consider the quoted assumption (again from the article you shared)

“An important assumption going into the theorem is that neither Alice nor Bob is allowed, in any way, to affect the preparation of the initial state. If Alice were allowed to take part in the preparation of the initial state, it would be trivially easy for her to encode a message into it; thus neither Alice nor Bob participates in the preparation of the initial state.”

Now it’s not clear to me how to correctly map this assumption onto the papers context. Who are the observers? Are they a pair of neurons on the ends of the axon? Are they neighboring myelin sheaths? Is it fair to assert that these observers have no role in preparation of the initial quantum state? Seeing as the entangled photons in the paper are produced as the result of chemical reactions occurring within the confines of the myelin sheaths causing excitation of carbon atoms and subsequent radiation of infrared photons, do the particular assumptions of the No Communication Theorem (a thought experiment that translates those assumptions into definite mathematical propositions) make sense?

Where are we drawing the boundary between these classical observers and the quantum system? Are there even any classical observers at all?

Your yawning dismissal strikes me as an overconfident conclusion.