Yes. but it's one reference that has literally no relevance to any other part. Every other thing mentioned has to do with medicine, and then one random point relating to agricultural science? It's like they threw in a bit relating to his views on the Keystone XL pipeline, why would you bring that up? It certainly has no bearing on his appointment, and it makes them look as though they have an another unspoken agenda.
If it wasn't important to their argument, it shouldn't have been brought up.
The statistics you use are a little suspect, as the first ambassador killed in the line of duty was in 1950. Given that, using the founding as the total time for your average isn't really sensible.
Your major point still stands, however, that embassy attacks are not unusual - since 1971 there has been on average a little less than one a year, it's just usually the casualties are absorbed by civilians and the security of the host nation so we don't pay as much attention.