The writer is not an entrepreneur (according to his bio), and didn't back his "analysis" with any form of data (beyond some anecdotal telltales) — yet his conclusion is stated without any sliver of doubt: "it *will* destroy your company"!
I think the conclusion is justifiable, but it relies on the author's definition of "destroy".
"If you want to run a company that looks like X, then taking VC money will prevent that from happening" is a pretty easy conclusion to make, though the only value in it is in the description of potentially surprising parts of what not-X looks like, to allow readers to judge whether they care.
