Just my 5 cents on the matter.
by now everybody should know that p-values are questionable at best
There's been books, such as "how to lie with statistics" that should be mandatory reading, at least on entry to adulthood. I am one of maybe 3 people i know personally that knows how to actually parse a scientific paper, so when someone starts throwing a half dozen studies at me to back up their point, i can usually - on the scale of quarter hours - nitpick their understanding of the sources they used.
This doesn't win anyone friends, and something i've said for nearly 3 decades: Religion and science like to point fingers, but religion seems more likely to bend and change than science. Every time i mention this or an analogue i'm shouted at that it's "actually the opposite".
Shut up already, it's science. The science is in. This is science!
"Science is the profession of finding out everything wrong about your assumption first, before finally figuring out what is right."
He wouldn't be too popular with some people today, I can tell ya that much.
Alas everyone knows that the p-values reported in accepted (!) papers are questionable at best - any analysis that uses them is on shaky foundation.
The misuse of p-values in science is well known and an endemic problem - so what do we learn from a re-analysis of made up numbers?