I have proof that Meselson lied about Sverdlovsk, and eyewitnesses who would testify that he ignored pathology reports he was shown (at great risk to the courageous Soviet doctors who concealed them from the KGB). Let me know when Meselson wants to pursue this in court.
And if you someday have proof he is a Russophile and was dramatically wrong about Sverdlovsk, all you’ve succeeded in doing is alienating those that have fondly known Matt for decades. As Buckaroo Bonzai said, don’t be mean because wherever you go, there you are.
Time is better spent asking: what Russian might be a tad defensive that silica was used, particularly given that many people then seize on that to point to a state sponsored program. Ken knew the silica patent was in the pipeline and would be published.
The more fruitful approach would be to one day out of the blue say: “Yo, Ken, how ya doing? So did you used to pal around with the guy who was the protege of Bin Laden’s sheik and lecturing on the signs of the coming day of judgment and saying that Western civilization would hoperfully fall into the dustbin of history? Then he’ll start talking more to the point of what he knows is going on.
Now we can ask: why did Ali Al-Timimi have a high security clearance? Why did the Center for Biodefense and ATCC work there given they knew he was a hardliner? And if they didn’t, why didn’t they? Why didn’t DIA or DARPA? What did the letter of recommendation to Ali from the White House say? What work did he do for Andrew Card while Card was at DOT? There are lots of questions more interesting than whether Professor Meselson got it right or wrong in a letter to the editor.
Personally, I think you made a compelling argument on the historical record. Even the DIA and CIA, according to a declassified document, show that after a meeting he had called, after he left, they all agreed he wasn’t asking the Russians the hard questions.
It’s just quicker to get to the part of asking the Russian the hard questions. If you had been nice, you could have corresponded with Dr. A and Dr. M directly and we could have had you and Ken agree on this “encapsulation” as the reason silica was used (what I sometimes describe as a functionalized polymer).
Absent surreptitious interception of communications, the best source of intelligence is to engage the person.