The news article is very short on details but it seems this "conclusion" is based on a rather odd sort of analysis. I suggest that before jumping onto this topic one should read the article carefully and attempt to describe what they believe it is saying.
That aside and as has been noted: one main message is the replication of results is required. If one actually follows leading edge scienctitic developments one phrase that often prelogues many scientists comments is "If this is replicated...". That is one answer to the analysis discussed here.
With a family member in the medical profession it is not a surprise to me that there are many poorly done studies with utterly nonsensical statistics. It is no big news at all. (Of course, a significant part in this problem is played by the drug companies).
The ability to read with comprehension, understanding and a critical mind is required whatever the source of information. The advantage of using scientific materials is that there is usually enough information to allow for a critical analysis (sample sizes for example).
However, I think the conclusions draw here may be off the mark and/or not applicable to ALL published papers (they are not all of a single type).
™ Version 4.2
