It's ironic that the paper has a correction. The title and abstract sound highly editorial, especially given that "false" is never defined. They talk about pre

It's ironic that the paper has a correction. The title and abstract sound highly editorial, especially given that "false" is never defined. They talk about pre study odds being an enhancement but I didn't see them include those in their own paper. The fact that a study is small or the impact is minor doesn't make the results false, especially when these limitations are called out and further research is requested. You could even have a case study n=1 be valid if the conclusion is properly defined. The main problem is people generalizing from things that don't have that level of support.