 Formally, Wood and Spekkens argue that the following three assumptions form an inconsistent set: (i) the predictions of quantum theory concerning the observed statistical dependences and independences are correct; (ii) the observed statistical dependences and independences can be given a causal explanation; (iii) the faithfulness assumption holds. Wood and Spekkens conclude that, since the faithfulness assumption is an indispensable element of causal discovery, the second assumption must yield. The contrapositive of this is that any purported causal explanation of the observed correlations in an entangled bipartite quantum system falls afoul of the tension between the no-signaling constraint and no fine tuning and, thus, must violate the assumption of faithfulness. Such causal explanations, so the argument goes, including retrocausal explanations, should therefore be ruled out as viable explanations.