Richard, the article did give factual information about infrasound. I suggest reading it as you would eat lobster: discard whatever you find indigestible and enjoy the rest.
No, because it's a useless article. It shows absolutely no understanding of cause and effect. Read it more carefully: the sole scientific bit - ignoring what ultrasound is, because that's functionally irrelevant on its own, just as it would be if it were lasers or genetically modified cress - involves a supposedly famous expert
who refuses to be named! What? That's the best she can come up with?
Simply mentioning scientific words and terms doesn't make what you're saying in anyway scientific, and this is miles away from it. Hell, she flat-out states that the whole thing is based on an old vets' adage that
hasn't been tested, but has still been assumed to be accurate - a whole ton of gibberish on how much effort has been spent trying to find out if cats' purrs hit the necessary level and not
one single word on whether she's tried to prove that buzzing that sound has any impact at all.
Instead, we get reams of rubbish willingly trying to link her theory to both established cat knowledge (they purr in labour as well, not just in run-of-the-mill physical pain) and wishy-washy wishing about magical animal senses.
Hell, the whole basis for her thesis isn't the healing properties of ultrasound - it's a quick chat about a guy who vibrated chickens, followed up by a test on whether or not the cats could fit evidence to the phenomena. There's not one word in there about any form of scientific trial - even when it would be doing pretty much the one thing you can guarantee being able to get a cat to do willingly: sitting on a comfy bed, being made a fuss of for extended periods of time. Until there's evidence that that's been done, and with proper controls and research, the whole thing's no more worthwhile than me saying that flashing lights into your eyes while you sleep will make you more adapt at windsurfing.
There is nothing to like about this article - it's a piece of junk. Whatever the merits of her theory, which may very well have been tested to actual scientific standards that weren't mentioned in the article (in which case, fair enough), this whole story's just the whole cracked shell of the lobster that you throw away afterwards, with absolutely no meat in it.