>It would be good to replicate it, just to put down some of the naysayers that quibble over a point or two saying it was staged or influenced.

No, that is not why it would be good to attempt to replicate. Shutting people down isn't the helpful part, but rather shedding light on the truth with evidence is the positive.

There's many strong reasons to consider the study was flawed (mentioned in the article and readily discoverable online), for the record, and the author of the paper's got all the classic signs of a crank, so skepticism would be healthy in this case, and shutting down skeptics would be very foolish.