Odd article. It simply states that the effect size is too big to be believable (it calls it repeatedly "impossible," but it doesn't seem like it can possibly mean "literally impossible" or "mathematically impossible.") It doesn't give any alternative explanations or specific ways the study is wrong. And it links to a rebuttal by the original authors where the responded to a bunch of the suggestions for data error or confounding factors and found that their results remain.
That is explained in pretty much the section I quoted. The explanation of the effect is given in the article's links.
But the article is written specifically to make the point that it should be enough to observe that it isn't possible for the effect to be real. You aren't making a good point when you cite an effect that is obviously nonsense.
