Even they hedged their bets with statements like " it is possible to eat a low-quality diet even when choosing mostly minimally processed foods,"  In other words, if you compare the absolutely best processed foods to the absolutely worst unprocessed foods it is possible that they are almost the same in health benefit.  That, of course, doesn't mean that a normal unprocessed diet compared to a normal highly processed diet are similar for health.  Also, because they compared "nutrition" and not "health", that doesn't mean the worst unprocessed is equivalent to the best highly processed.  It doesn't sound like they were looking at any of the harmful effects of the toxic ingredients in the processed food.  They just counted things like vitamins and minerals.  That would mean they ignore the benefits of phytonutrients and equate natural vitamins with chemical vitamins and naturally chelated minerals with sterile chemical minerals that are not easily absorbed.

Since most people aren't logical thinkers, it is possible for these people to write something that is at least mostly factually true while being 100% misleading.