It's a refusal to engage with the reported information, not an argument.

Note that the general sentiment on HN when it comes to other topics is that every slight simplification in reporting on science is unforgivable, Gell-Mann-amnesia-effect, bla bla...

For example, it is clickbait to say "cancer" instead of "some types of cancer which we further need to specify" in headline.

But it is of course impossible to take scientists seriously when their results are reported as "they observed X, and are there are indications that it could mean Y".

Who says "could"? It's way too risky to engage with people who don't tell me exactly what to think!