I didn't say that at all: what I said is right there in my post.
What I did say is that citation counts are a bad and noisy metric, one that is a side-effect of measuring a tool that has a very different purpose, and which researchers can use (usefully) for a variety of reasons that don't require them to validate the technical correctness of all cited works. Nor would it even make sense for citations to be used that way.
The author's criticism in TFA (which he delivers in the strongest and most explicitly moralistic terms) is that based on using this citation count metric, which he selected, the field is broken because bad work gets cited. That's his criticism and his choice of measures to make it. But since it is quite normal for people to cite work that they haven't carefully reviewed for technical correctness, this criticism is essentially bunk.
At a deeper level, the criticism fails to appreciate how people use citations as a measure for academic promotion. In most cases tenure committees care about aggregate statistics like total citations, h-index or i10-index. If a researcher publishes a work that receives hundreds citations for ten years and then fails to replicate, then it basically doesn't matter if the work stops receiving future citations. A retraction might matter. Reports of the failed replication might matter. But nobody is going to lose out on a promotion specifically because some random paper receives 8,000 citations in the first ten years and then zero citations after the failed replication.