It is now unarguable that viral load determines transmissibility, onset of symptoms, and severity of symptoms and outcome.
It is also now unarguable that those who are asymptomatic - they never develop symptoms - are fortunate in possesing an immune system that quickly deals with the virus such that exponential viral amplification does not happen . . . which results in their symptoms viral load threshold never being reached. Common sense, right?
So, because their viral loads will be orders of magnitude smaller than those who are symptomatic or pre-symptomatic - people who have gone through exponential viral amplification or where it is underway - this also means that whatever viral shedding asymptomatic people may demonstrate, the viral concentration they shed will be so low that  it will be below a viable transmissible dose, which means the chances of them infecting others will likely approach . . . ZERO.
So it really does look like both honesty and common sense are missing in this article and in the paper the article addresses.