Those people tested their theories, did experiments. They didn't just stick something up their nose and assumed it worked with no further investigation.
But it is. The author has made no attempt to test whether he is immune to covid as of this writing. He talks vaugely about future blood tests, but its unclear what test specificly, if a positive result would actually mean he is immune, if a Negative test would mean he is not, so its basically a test that tells us nothing, and he hasn't even done it yet.
If your experiment is not falsifiable, you are not doing science.
He explicitly has not "assumed it worked", nor has there been "no further investigation" (there has been some and will be more).
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 maintain my statements are neither false nor are they being made purely for rhetorical effect.
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 :)
