The authors are telling us what they know and then they go on and discuss some of the more global implications of their findings, which are, of course, mostly speculative at such an early stage and that's why they use words like: might, could, et al .
Unlike the examples that you provided, the glycoconjugate studied here is non-native and, presumably, can only be acquired by comsuming certain (non-human) animals and some of their by-products. This raises some obvious questions and also makes future studies nice in that there's less to control for.
So, what are you saying? That only the actual findings ought to be published, but lay off on the conjecture? No, the public needs to know where their tax monies are going and what the outcome of taxpayer-sponsored research is. Moreover, from the scientific side, having a grasp of the "big picture" is necessary for designing future studies.
So, Dood, ya going to make the next PDX Beer-fest? I'm itching for a cheeseburger.