I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a 'debunking'.

What it argues is that androstadienone and estratetraenol don't fit strict definition of 'pheromone' as used in animal research (fair enough). It admits androstadienone and estratetraenol have been linked to various behavioral changes (maybe), which could be true regardless of their pheromone status (since lots of chemicals have effects). And then observes that psychology research has a well-earned reputation for not replicating and publication bias (yes), implying that maybe the behavioral effects of androstadienone & estratetraenol are just more of the same although it does not point to anything specific like a meta-analysis establishing this (ehh....).

So if androstadienone & estratetraenol are not 'pheromones' but do influence human behavior, would you call that debunking? I'm not sure I would.

From the article, it doesn't sound like much debunking will occur in Psychology due to structural characteristics:

1. Funding's increasingly earmarked for "new" studies v. debunking old studies.

2. Psychology studies have a disproportionate amount of findings that "conclude" positive results (v. effects of randomness).

No kidding. Nutrition, health, history and psychology seem to be making a lot of course corrections. Unless it's physics or math, I get ticked off any more when I read "now we know..."