Actually, when the spreadsheet was corrected, their conclusion was even stronger than it had been before.
The author of this article is the one who should be embarrassed about his sloppiness.
Do you have any data that backs that statement up? In any event, the spreadsheet error was the least of paper's problems. At http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-there-debtgdp-threshold-at-90_4.html, I've posted all 71 data points that Reinhart and Rogoff used plus 39 that were excluded (25 from Belgium due to the infamous Excel error and 14 others). The R&R weighting gave equal weighting to 7 countries. One of those countries, the U.S., had only 4 data points and one, New Zealand, had only one data point! As can be seen, the -7.6% growth in New Zealand in 1951 was preceded in 1950 by 14.7% growth and followed in 1952 by 4.3% growth. Did R&R do anything to correct for this obviously unrepresentative outlier or even mention it in their paper? No.
This is why we need to demand that all of the calculations (i.e. the spreadsheets) be released to the public. To my knowledge, R&R STILL have not posted or released their spreadsheet publicly (they only released it to HAP). I suspect that one reason for that is that they don't want any more number crunchers looking at their work. Peer review is good for catching some things but public release is invaluable for catching many other things, especially basic mathematical errors. If we consumers of economic studies start to ignore those studies for which the calculations are not made public, I suspect that economists will be more than happy to "show their work".