They "announced" those speculative "results" in a self-serving newsletter. It was a newsletter written to show employees of AFIP what kind of work AFIP is doing and how important that work is. It was NOT a scientific report, even though you endlessly try to make it appear so.
If Professor Meselson is going out of his way to clear up BAD INFORMATION from AFIP, he should be applauded for his efforts. If he goes out of his way to clear up the nonsense published in the media about silica coatings, he should be applauded for doing so.
You can argue that because you do not like Professor Meselson, everything he says is wrong. But such an argument can be seen to be just plain ridiculous by anyone looking at the actual data. Even though you endlessly try to twist and distort things, the FACTS support Professor Meselson.
So cleaning up “bad” information from AFIP involves making misleading statements about it, right?
Like claiming they published a spectrum showing only silicon and not silica, right?
Does Meselson still claim less than 1 g of anthrax was released at Sverdlovsk?