Yes, I did read it. That's how people talk about products these days (unfortunately). But we didn't talk about it that much in case of tank-proof audi:
You're not expected to test either one of those claims. They're just there for comparison of what the product is theoretically capable of. (or going the other way, one could complain that anything below 200mph is not ludicrous)
That doesn't seem like just marketing for the Audi. It seems like the car is seriously intended for individuals who may be attacked, politicians, very rich/powerful people in unsafe areas. It's not for your grandparents to drive to church on Sundays. It looks like most people buying it are politicians and diplomats. The security features are also an upgrade that costs like $600k.
It has a built in "patented emergency exit system, a fire extinguishing system and an emergency fresh air system" [0] and the windows on the standard model can't even be opened/closed. And get this, that emergency exit system will blow the freaking doors off the car so you can exit.
"If the doors can no longer be opened normally, an Audi-patented pyrotechnic system simply blows apart the joins between the doors and the vehicle body and you walk out without even grabbing the door latch." [1]
This Tesla is being pushed as helping people deal with air pollution, but "it can withstand a bioweapon attack! For real!". That Audi is literally for people who might drive over an IED, or get pulled over by a jeep full of people with machine guns.
It's class BR7 protection. That means it protects from lead bullets. That's all. Here's a list of examples of what it doesn't protect from: AK47 with hardened or armor-piercing bullets, incendiary bullets, tank fired shells.
There is a subtle but - military cannot use bioweapons due to Geneva. Only in Syria they can, but the market for Teslas there is limited. You cannot charge it, there are barely any roads left to drive it on and you will be dealing with a lot of legal to use military stuff raining on your head that Tesla has no protection from.
So that is a statement that cannot be put to the test.
I'll be incredibly pedantic here - isn't it the same as saying that a car can technically go 180mph? The only place on earth where you can drive that fast legally is the German Autobahn, so for 99% of buyers it's absolutely irrelevant. So is defense against bioweapons - what this tells me, is that the car has REALLY good air filtration system, just like the fact that the max speed is 180mph tells me the car is likely very fast. I don't need to use it in a bioweapon contaminated area, or take it to 180mph to find either of those properties useful. They are both useful even when not taken to their absolute limit.
By that logic, you can test your tesla's bioweapon defense system by putting it inside a controlled environment where the system will be put to the test - just like the car is tested to its limits in a controlled environment - ie racing track. Doesn't change the fact that we are still taking less than 1% of the customers here.
Countries have managed to avoid chemical or biological attacks against each other since WW2 (Vietnam and Iraq-Iran being notable exceptions AFAIK). Laws of war are generally taken more seriously than the speed limit.
Did you even read the article? It literally says this:
"Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. You can literally survive a military grade bio attack by sitting in your car."