Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.
In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.
Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.
And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true:
This is one open access article the world does not need right now.
(Heck, she's not even right when she mouths 'correlation != causation', because if you used the PGS to compare siblings, their PGS differences are randomized at conception and the correlation = causation! As far as I can tell, OP didn't do this, just scoring unrelated individuals, but they could have, many other studies have, and she doesn't seem to've checked herself.)
But what is in the thread is that such a study should not have been published because it violates ethics, without pointing out the scientific flaws in such a study.