But the abstract does not make any "just right" claims, unlike the summary on science daily. Which is what you where complaining about.
The abstract reads - we did an incremental test, and even at the lowest dosage we found an effect. This suggest that low dosages could be effective. I don't see anything wrong with that reasoning.
The science daily summary is simply misrepresenting it. So, the original commenter isn't missing something in the science news, it is science daily who made the error.
The news article was not based on the abstract. It was based on the journal article (which is available with a subscription) that the abstract summarized. It is not reasonable to expect that every point in the news article be supported by the abstract.
I declare this Open Thread open for discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts.