I read the comment you refer to, and it does have a lot of useful context. That said (and here I'm quoting a reply to that comment), the commenter claims that Lesné was "not that highly cited", though his main fraudulent paper was cited 2,300 times, making it the fifth most highly cited Alzheimer's paper since 2006. That seems bogus on its face.
Separately, I think it's legitimate for calls for scientific fraudsters to go to jail to rise to the top. There's no contradiction between wanting this, and wanting a more nuanced understanding of the field.
Separately, I think it's legitimate for calls for scientific fraudsters to go to jail to rise to the top. There's no contradiction between wanting this, and wanting a more nuanced understanding of the field.