Yeah, this highlights yet again the importance of meta-analyses (i.e. a study that takes all the available data from all the studies published on the topic in the past to reanalyze this data and obtain better statistical significance from it).
The author actually mentions this.
For my part, I've tried to report new studies in context, and use systematic reviews — meta-analyses of all the best studies on clinical questions — wherever possible. When scientists or other members of the media prematurely blow up a novel breakthrough, I've tried to convey the reality that it's probably not a breakthrough at all. The more I do this, the more I realize the truth in what Harvard's Oreskes, Stanford's John Ioannidis, and many other respected researchers have reiterated over the years: we need to look past the newest science to where knowledge has accumulated. There, we'll find insights that will help us have healthier lives and societies.
(emphasis mine)
Similarly, in particle physics people are very careful about anomalies in the data that might hint at a new particle. Only if the statistical significance is large enough (how many sigmas) will they report on it.