They've disproved the strong Sapir-Whorf. At least according to Wikipedia there's some evidence for the the so-called weak version.

In any event, languages at the extreme ends of the spectrum, like Toki Pona and Ithkuil, seem to show rather clearly how language can shape thought. Here's a fascinating point from an The Atlantic article, linked from the Toki Pona website:

   One student of the language [Ithkuil] claimed that it
   allowed her to “see things that exist but don’t have names,
   in the same way that Mendeleyev’s periodic table showed
   gaps where we knew elements should be that had yet to be
   discovered.” Tweak a single phoneme and arrive at a strange
   new variation of a thought. Tweak by tweak, a speaker could
   wander forever through an endless landscape of unique
   thoughts in a kind of linguistic dérive.

   -- https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/toki-pona-smallest-language/398363/

Perhaps a better, more obvious example is simply the languages of mathematics. There are many concepts that simply cannot be expressed with any substantial accuracy in vernacular language. No amount of metaphor suffices to convey quantum mechanical concepts in a useful, utilitarian way. Heck, didn't Richard Feynman literally invent a new language, Feynman Diagrams, to teach quantum mechanics? (I understand that mathematical languages are perhaps better described as notation, but notation doesn't convey the fact that the concepts often can't be translated into the vernacular.)

I'd argue that a corollary of Sapir-Whorf is that no language can express every possible concept. That, I think, is a far more agreeable claim.