The only comment that remotely resembles your first complaint is a response to a fact-free rant by a Paul C., from the USA, where Paul C.made unsupported charges about the article being "an insult to real science".
Regarding your claim about Lindahl's paper that I cited, note the introductory summary statement to the paper: "The spontaneous decay of DNA is likely to be a major factor in mutagenesis, carcinogenesis and ageing, and also , under the heading "Ancient DNA" (p.713), he comments on what it means for the recovery of DNA from fossils: "Thus, in connection with favourable preservation conditions, it seems feasible that useful DNA sequences tens of thousands of years old could be recovered, particularly if the fossil has been retained at low temperature." He suggests that partial dehydration of DNA, as in bacterial spores, could extend this ("further increased stabilization").
However, he says that air-dried tissues remain partly hydrated and susceptible to decay and that dessicated DNA, where the water in the grooves of the DNA double helix is removed, is susceptible to accelerated damage.
So, I stand by my characterization of this work that it argues against DNA lasting for millions of years.
In response, Dr Sarfati, a physical chemist, pointed out that the author is a real scientist.
Your approach is to 'shoot the messenger' (an informal fallacy), which is commonly done to avoid engaging the actual arguments.