No one alleged anything of the sorts that the claim has no evidence- not in the comments, nor in the article.
I think you misunderstood the original reply to your comment. When you said “… another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity,” you were way off base. Lk-99 was not a completely unfounded claim of superconductivity. It was a misguided (or malintented- who knows), non peer reviewed claim of *room temperature* superconductivity.
We know of plenty superconductive materials- finding and claiming one is not super crazy or subject to any undue scrutiny for the most part. Finding materials that are superconductive at room temperature however, absolutely is subject to extreme scrutiny, because it has literally never been observed before, we’re not sure if it’s possible, and we it would literally change the world as we know it if it were to be discovered.
The commenter was signaling you that comparing lk-99 to this is completely unfounded due to this, because discovering a superconductive property of a new material doesn’t even remotely have the same ramifications as the discovery of a room temperature superconductor.