Read danso's post again, the problem isn't with Prof. Sweeney's research, the problem is with the Reuters story that jumped the gun and came to a conclusion that Sweeney hadn't. As a result, the correction note was attached to the Reuters article not Sweeney's research.

(I had the same reaction you did when first reading the post, but when I re-read it, I realized what it was saying. The post could have been clearer though.)