No. I know Eric Lerner proposed a plasma cosmology, but not everything unexpected in astronomy is a shot at the big bang. The actual new data is that we can see the arrangement of galaxies further away in our light cone, that are younger, and their state isn’t exactly what was simulated from current understanding of star formation. This says next-to-nothing about the big bang.
Now plasma cosmology is interesting, in that it also describes some of the observational data just as well, but in order to undermine the big-bang in popular science you’ve gotta have a testable assertion about how the universe today would be observably different versus big bang. Until then, the redshift of galaxies is pretty sizable evidence of an expanding universe, and that can be extrapolated backwards to the big bang, which lives as a de-facto standing theory as a result.