I agree that it makes sense for cryptographers to be jumpy around papers claiming improvements in quantum factoring, even if those papers are low quality and likely to be wrong. But that doesn't mean you stop calling the papers low quality and likely to be wrong.

I guess I'd also be a lot more sympathetic if the paper had a paragraph in the abstract, or at least the intro and conclusion, where they explicitly positioned the paper as a wild idea that could work but probably won't but is still worth considering because of the risks.