Obviously it requires further study, but why is it invalid to infer that from the results for the time being?
Politely, that is the difference between a Darwinian and a non-Darwinian, ontogeny repeating phylogeny as a premise.
Because there is no evidence to support in his research the claim that ontogeny follows phylogeny that's why. When he finds such proof he (and you, and others) can make that claim, not before. Let's remember that this claim was first made by evolutionists based solely on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings.