[dofm]

I am not at all suggesting the first study is good, or that I believe its conclusions.

(Or that the failure of the second study validates the conclusions of the first.)

I am just saying that people here who think the second study overturned, debunked or corrected the findings of the first are explicitly wrong, because even its authors admit it is a broken study.

It would take a non-broken study to do that, and it may not actually be possible anymore, which is perhaps the most useful finding of the second study.