While many on this forum may understand why what this analysis shows is not good science, the article does a poor job of explaining why finding positive results one wasn't originally looking for may not be reliable.

I can imagine a non-statistically minded person thinking "So what it's not what they were looking for originally? We're missing positive findings now. This is a terrible regulation." When in reality these "positive" findings were p-hacked to meet minimum criteria for statistical significance and likely arose by chance since luck would have it that in any study there will be some set of data that by chance is a statistical aberration.