If I am not mistaken, discoveries like this one are calling the entire Big Bang hypothesis in question.
Unlikely, since the "Big Bang" theory has been confirmed in many ways already, and as far as I know doesn't depend on what quasars may or may not be anyway.
Not likely. Probably it's just the nature of quasars that's the real issue. The BB is supported by other evidence than just the redshifts.
The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology.
"If I am not mistaken, discoveries like this one are calling the entire Big Bang hypothesis in question."
This and Dark Matter do put some wrenches in the system. I still think the Earth is a tad older than 6,000 years though.
It's the redshifts of galaxies that are used as a yardstick.
Quasars have always been mysterious. For a long time, people
suggested that their redshifts were due to something other
than cosmological redshift, just because the distance
implied by a cosmological redshift meant they were insanely
bright, small objects - "QUASi-stellAR radio objects."
Finally, the cosmological redshift became a consensus
on the "preponderance of evidence."
So it would seem this finding is stirring a pot that's
been on the back burner for a while.
( This is the view of an interested amateur. )