I didn't claim that his praise of scientific secrecy was questionable because of his motives (that would have been an ad hominem circumstantial ) or that his claims were dishonest because of his motives.

I claimed that his praise of scientific secrecy was questionable for the points I mentioned, AND, that I could likely see where it was coming from.

the attacks on the SI were off-topic.

Well, he specifically mentioned the SI mission, complete with a link to the SI homepage. Anyway, that wasn't an attack, it was a (critical) suggestion.