It was never even published. Also people vastly misunderstand the replication crisis. "Soft" sciences are harder to actually do science with. It's harder to me

It was never even published. Also people vastly misunderstand the replication crisis. "Soft" sciences are harder to actually do science with. It's harder to measure things of humans vs an electron for example. But even in chemistry, there's a very high chance that if you take a random paper, even from the 60s say, and try to do it yourself you do not get the result from the paper, but that doesn't mean the paper is wrong, it can just as easily mean that the paper did not include some important environmental condition or procedure or whatever. NileRed and the guy from Explosions and Fire have both had difficulty reproducing random chemistry papers. Does that mean chemistry is this big lie and narrative propped up by lying academics? No, it means science is freaking hard. Every paper has a nonzero "failed replication" rate. Realms of science where it is harder to measure things and control the experiment have vastly higher expected rates of replication failure. People who do science every day understand this and work with it, and it is not a problem. Consider this; China has a HUGE replication problem with their science, with significantly more actual fraud than we have in the US. Has it hampered their advancement? Science is usually self correcting in that, if you put out fraud, anyone trying to build off your work will fail. This is what happened with several past famous fraudsters in science. Scientists do not even consider "peer review" to be a real quality signal of any sort. It basically wasn't a formal system until the 60s. They just read the paper.