I suppose, if that's what you got out of the article . .
The guy tested oils for their lubricity under stress and temperature extremes. Then gave an honest report on those he tested.
Out of all of that he gave several choices that are good and some not so . . .
He also dis-proved several ideas or theories.
But, again, it's up to each individual to take what was written for whatever they think it's worth. I tend to favor the writer's results because he wasn't supported by any oil or aftermarket parts company in his testing, so had no axe to grind with anyone or anything . .
In every case, in this forum or any other, when someone asks a group of correspondents a question, he/she will probably get a whole range of answers because of the range of experience of those responding to the questions. In the case of the oil tests, it's nothing more than a qualified engineer conducting objective testing and reporting the results of those tests.
In my own case, after using more than six or seven oils over the years and never having an engine failure that I could trace back to failure of the Lubricant (other than not being where it was supposed to be) I welcome a report like that. It makes a lot of claims and explanations look a lot like they really are, just semi-logical explanations in order to market and sell a product.
Kinda like "Global Warming" . . Unless you are presented with the hard science you'll tend to believe the guy with the loudest bullhorn . . .