"A sample of 250 kids isn't that accurate... And anecdotally..."
A sample of 250 could be wrong but at least it's a study, and so much better than an anecdote.
It's also much better than the original article, which says, as justification for teaching children to read early, "I will wait for the results of empirical studies before insisting on definitive claims, but my guesses are as follows.... Again, I know this is just speculation, but it seems very reasonable to me, and in the absence of better evidence, I feel justified in acting on what seems very reasonable."
So, to sum up: the best evidence we have says this does not work.
And anecdotally I learnt to read at 4 and half and buy they time I was 11 I have a reading age several years higher than the adult population average.