Something like that advice would have been good for Ben Franklin too. And Marie Curie. Some people want to survive and some people want to be heroes.
Good thing that's not what the article author has done, ey?
If your experiment is not falsifiable, you are not doing science.
Both parts of the great grandparent's sentence are false. I don't think saying false things for rhetorical effect is good for the health of hackernews discourse.
I do think context and implication do need to be taken into account when evaluating the authors statements. The authors present this article as if they were making an actual vaccine. They talk about how you too can make one. With strong implication that its likely to do something. Admittedly, they do talk about follow up, but its follow up that by their own admission is not likely to show anything, and that's after having an incredibly rosy view of it, to the point where i don't believe anyone could reasonably call it a follow up.
As far as healthy discussions go, i would say that assuming the people you disagree with are arguing in good faith and while they might be mistaken, ultumately believe their premises and not simply intentionally making false statements to further their rhetorical point, is important too :)