I'm not sure what you mean about that article saying the exact opposite. Opposite of what?
I do think it's full of misleading information, though. For example:
Since it is just tiny line of code that makes these links nofollow (“rel=”nofollow”) it doesn’t hold back search engine bots to visit these websites.
If you read Google's guidelines, it's quite clear that they - at least - don't follow such links. Which makes sense, given that's the purpose of adding the nofollow attribute.
This tag works as reminders for search engines that websites is not responsible about where these links are pointing.
Nonsense. I use nofollow on some of my own links, where I have full responsibility of where these links lead, but I don't want the page indexed, for example.
One of the major problems with SEO, as I'm sure you are aware, is that there is an awful lot of misinformation spread about as gospel truth. At the end of the day, I'm afraid it's up to the individual to decide for themselves whether a source is reliable or not, but in my opinion, that one isn't.