Tag Archives: Retraction

PLANNED OBITUARY for Senior Turncoat John Walker-Smith

John Walker-Smith, Telegraph

Autism Investigated is scooping its planned obituary for senior turncoat author John Walker-Smith when he dies. He turns 82 this year.

Gastroenterologist and senior Wakefield turncoat author John Walker-Smith has just died. Before retiring in 2000, he was a colleague of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s at the Royal Free Hospital where they published a number of papers on autism and bowel disease. One of those was their seminal 1998 paper that first described a connection between autism, bowel disease and vaccination. Walker-Smith would later infamously retract the possibility of a vaccine link with nine other coauthors in 2004.

Despite his betrayal of vaccine-injured children in doing so, many of their parents continued to support him. When he was practicing medicine, he had treated and helped many children with autism whose gastrointestinal symptoms were dismissed by other doctors. Had his medical contributions ended there, he would be rightly seen as a hero. But that was not to happen, as he would betray the very children he helped.

The year after Walker-Smith retired from medicine, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was run out of the Royal Free Hospital for their research. Following his dismissal, the hospital’s GlaxoSmithKline-backed Head of Medicine Mark Pepys launched an aggressive campaign to discredit the work Walker-Smith and Wakefield conducted and obstruct vaccine injury litigation. Wakefield never wavered, but Walker-Smith eventually did.

Pepys started his attacks first by intimidating the 1998 paper’s coauthors still employed at Royal Free. Then through leaking medical records to a freelance opposition researcher, Pepys targeted Wakefield and Walker-Smith directly. Within weeks of allegations of unethical research publicized against them both, Walker-Smith signed his name to the infamous retraction.

Although he would successfully appeal the allegations and strike them down in court, he kept his name on the retraction. Not once did he demand the journal reinstate the 1998 paper nor demand his medical board reinstate Dr. Wakefield’s license.

Yet Walker-Smith still enjoys considerable support in the autism community which he does not deserve. No one has done more to make censorship of vaccine injury more publicly acceptable than John Walker-Smith. His betrayal of vaccine-injured children will be his everlasting legacy.

Sir Mark Pepys – GlaxoSmithKline’s Medical Record-Leaking “Superstar”

“ARGUABLY THE FINEST PRIVATE COLLECTION OF CHILDRENS MEDICAL RECORDS..” -Cartoon satirizing a photo of freelance writer Brian Deer, http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.” – Brian Deer on children seen at London’s Royal Free Hospital, BMJ, 2010

“Brian Deer has done an excellent job.” – Royal Free’s Head of Medicine Dr. Mark Pepys, BBC Radio, 2011

The GlaxoSmithKline puppet who bullied coauthors of the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper into signing a fraudulent retraction also leaked the medical records of children in that paper.

As you would expect from a doctor who cares nothing for patient safety, Dr. Mark Pepys does not care about patient confidentiality either. He has praised the freelance writer who obtained confidential medical information about patients seen at Pepys’ own hospital. Dr. Pepys even allowed that writer to quote him divulging information he had promised to keep secret.

The writer Pepys praised, Brian Deer, had no right to the names or family backgrounds of any of those children. That didn’t phase Mark Pepys who agreed to be interviewed by him.

Even worse, Pepys was the Head of Medicine at the Royal Free Hospital when Deer obtained confidential information on patients seen there. No investigation as to how that happened was ever launched. Instead, the Royal Free “investigated” doctors who saw the children including Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Mark Pepys is 100% responsible for all leaks of patient information to the media, given his position at Royal Free. In his interview with Brian Deer, Pepys revealed he had no respect for confidentiality by leaking conditions for the departure of Dr. Wakefield from the hospital staff:

“one of the conditions of him going away was that I wasn’t supposed to say anything critical of him to anybody, for ever after.”

That condition wasn’t kept by GlaxoSmithKline’s designated “superstar.”

Any patient who enrolls in Sir Mark Pepys’ GlaxoSmithKline trials should know that Sir Leaksalot will sell out both their safety and their privacy for commercial gain.

Pharma Puppet Who Ejected Wakefield Was Behind Murch Retraction


“I said I wouldn’t transfer my unit if he was there.” “We paid him to leave.” – Sir Mark Pepys on autism-vaccine scientist Dr. Andrew Wakefield

A doctor heavily backed by GlaxoSmithKline who took credit for Dr. Andrew Wakefield leaving the Royal Free Hospital made his coauthors fraudulently retract the interpretation in his paper. Seven of the 10 coauthors were working for Royal Free when they signed their names to the statement, including lead turncoat Simon Murch. Wakefield even predicted the Royal Free hierarchy would force Murch’s retraction months before.

Years after Pepys orchestrated the fraudulent retraction, he tried to orchestrate an “investigation” against Wakefield’s research. In response, Wakefield wrote a letter to University College London later published in his book Waging War on the Autistic Child that revealed a history of Pepys’ dishonesty and bribery (boldface mine):

I understand from his statements on BBC Radio 4, that Professor Mark Pepys is to conduct an investigation of my research while at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine. May I suggest that he is not a good choice for this task, for the following reasons:

1. He has a real conflict of interest-having initially declined his appointment at the Royal Free until I had been removed. The following are extracts from Professor Pepys’ attendance note with Kate Emmerson of Field Fisher Waterhouse, the GMC’s lawyers, on 12th April 2005. 

“He [Pepys] accepted the job on the condition that Wakefield was removed (this didn’t happen).”

“MP would have dismissed W but others at the Royal Free were unwilling to do so. MP was really the only person at the Free who was putting forward anti-W views.”

2. Having taken up this appointment, (his above condition having been rejected [Pepys’ bluff had been called]), in the company of the Dean and the School Secretary, he confirmed to me that, despite having strong negative opinions about my research, he had never actually read any of it.

3. A book is due to be published later this year covering Professor Pepys’ activities in relation to my work. It will allege, supported by documentary evidence, conspiracy to execute a bribe with a senior academic from another institution in order to destroy peer-reviewed grant-awarded research looking at vaccine safety. This book will unfortunately be a source of major embarrassment for UCL and The Royal Free. May I suggest you ask Professor Pepys to provide you with his email traffic from the relevant period October 1999 to 2002? This traffic has already been examined by third parties. 

4. Professor Pepys’ extreme bias against me has been evident throughout my dealings with him. He expressed this in public in his Harverian oration, as well as on the BBC.

5. He is deeply conflicted due to his relationship with vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline. He is totally unsuited to lead any investigation of my research.

Pepys is now leading GlaxoSmithKline vaccine trials. How could any patient possibly enroll in a vaccine trial led by this guy when he promotes covering up vaccine side-effects?

Any decent human being should demand that any drug trial led by Sir Mark Pepys be shut down.

Andrew Wakefield Predicted Ex-Employer Would Force Murch Retraction

The Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead and Highgate Express

“His laboratory is under threat. He has failed to gain due promotion. He has been strongly advised to withdraw from scientific publications that involve any mention of my name or association with MMR and bowel disease.” – Dr. Andrew Wakefield on Turncoat Simon Murch, The Guardian, November 1, 2003

10 coauthors fraudulently retracted the interpretation from the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper. Seven were still working for the hospital that fired him when they signed their names to the retraction. They include lead turncoat author Simon Murch, who used his hospital email address in the retraction. His retraction was predicted by lead author Andrew Wakefield in the above quote to a British newspaper four months prior. That was when Murch began campaigning for vaccines.

Who was pressuring Murch according to Wakefield? “the hierarchy of the Royal Free and the medical school,” which already fired Wakefield for his research two years prior. At the time, the medical school denied influencing Murch’s opinion on vaccines:

“The school believes that Dr Murch’s rejection of any association between MMR and autism is his considered professional judgement as a paediatrician and a researcher.”

Curiously, however, the school did not respond to the allegation that Murch was being pressured to withdraw his name from Wakefield papers. The medical school denied that it was withdrawing treatment from sick children instead:

“In addition, the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust completely refutes the suggestion that the trust is considering withdrawing treatment from children. The trust intends to continue to provide this important service and has no plans to reduce or withhold treatment from these children.”

That’s because its real plans were withdrawing its employees names from the interpretation of the landmark autism-vaccine paper. Four months later, that’s exactly what happened.

Turncoat Simon Murch Defended Vaccines Months Before “Retraction”

Turncoat Coauthor Simon Murch, ITN

Before the 10 coauthors’ retraction, the letter by Peter Harvey shared on Autism Investigated defended the Wakefield paper from earlier attacks from lead turncoat Simon Murch. Murch’s attacks were made in a series of letters to The Lancet, the first of which was published in November 2003.

His first letter was a response to a September letter by doctors unconnected to the Wakefield paper describing two children who developed measles encephalitis. Both had been vaccinated.

Among the garbage in Murch’s November letter was this:

many epidemiological studies have been undertaken, the results of which indicate no causal relation. No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth, and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive.

They’re trash.

There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism—this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis. By any rational standards of risk/benefit calculation, it is an illogical and potentially dangerous mistake for parents to be prepared to take their children in a car on the motorway or in an aeroplane on holiday, but not to protect them with the MMR vaccine. An unprotected child is not only at personal danger, but represents a potential hazard to others, including unborn children. Unless vaccine uptake improves rapidly, major measles epidemics are likely in the UK this winter.

It was that letter that Dr. Harvey would later respond to, as would autism parent David Thrower. Their responses would be published in the February 14th issue of The Lancet. That was the week before the journal’s editor stated that he wished he censored vaccination from the Wakefield paper and two weeks before the interpretation retraction. A follow-up letter by Murch responding to Thrower and Dr. Harvey was published in the same issue as their letters.

In Murch’s letter, he doubled down on his previous stupidity. His biggest problem with the government’s attack on autism research was not because of the threat to said research, but because of its bolstering the “anti-MMR [vaccine] lobby”:

That some regulatory authorities ridiculed all aspects of these studies is unfortunate because it has allowed confirmation of the intestinal lesion to be appropriated by the anti-MMR lobby.

Then in a truly Orwellian move, Murch compares criticizing the tobacco science of the vaccine industry to tobacco industry science!

Thrower’s suggested tactic, in which every study that shows an unwanted outcome is destruction-tested from a hostile viewpoint, is essentially that used for years by the tobacco industry.

Measles in the gut? No big deal!

If traces of measles virus indeed prove to be detectable in 90% of cases, it surely cannot be causal, since such numbers of children would show up on the crudest epidemiological assessment.

They have.

Finally, Murch justifies use of the MMR vaccine with no alternative:

I see families in my clinic almost every week who have given their children single measles vaccine. Those who have gone on to give rubella and mumps vaccines are in the minority, months and sometimes years later. That is the heart of the issue. Personal choice cannot extend to compromising the safety of other people’s children.

The day before Murch’s 2003 letter was published, he scooped his support of the MMR vaccine to a major UK television network.

Throughout this same period, Murch also claimed he had no financial interest. As you will all see, that wasn’t true either.

FDA Chief: Expert Witnesses of Vaccine Injury Shouldn’t Publish Papers

Dr. Scott Gottlieb is seen in this American Enterprise Institute photo released in Washington, DC, U.S., March 10, 2017. Courtesy The American Enterprise Institute/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVE. – RTS12CMQ

Despite claiming to have “empathy” for autism families, FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb has none. The FDA chief who gave false testimony to Congress about vaccines believes vaccine injury experts should be summarily censored. He also believes expert witnesses to vaccine injury should not be allowed to publish their findings.

In 2009, Gottlieb wrote that the vaccine-autism link should be summarily dismissed to protect vaccines:

Fears about autism have been a growing impediment to higher vaccination rates – and thus a growing public-health danger. 

In that same article, Gottlieb also supported the campaign to censor publications by expert witnesses to vaccine injury:

[Andrew Wakefield’s] original research on this issue was already controversial – 10 of the 13 authors retracted some of the findings in 2004, but Wakefield, its lead author, has not.

The “retraction” happened when the editor of The Lancet decided that expert witnesses to vaccine injury should not be allowed to publish on vaccines. That editor Richard Horton then bullied those 10 coauthors into signing a statement supporting combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Gottlieb cites this “retraction” as evidence against the paper.

Now he has barred his senior staff from meeting with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other proponents of a vaccine safety commission.

Regardless, Scott Gottlieb should not be FDA chief because he should play no role in promoting products his agency regulates.

He is also one of the doctors who lies about vaccine dangers.

Holtzbrink Systematically Retracts Science Critical of Vaccines

The Nazi-built Holtzbrinck Publishing Group systematically scrubs any paper that casts vaccines in a negative light. Look at the case of a 2016 animal study of HPV vaccine from Japan.

Like many animal studies in medicine, the purpose is to learn more about a disease in humans by replicating its symptoms in animals. That is what scientists sought to do in this study published in Scientific Reports:

In the case of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, an unexpectedly novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome (HANS), has been reported and remains to be carefully verified. To elucidate the mechanism of HANS, we applied a strategy similar to the active experimental autoimmune encephalitis (EAE) model – one of the most popular animal models used to induce maximum immunological change in the central nervous system.

Then suddenly in 2018, the Publisher retracted the paper by totally lying about the study’s purpose:

The Publisher is retracting this Article because the experimental approach does not support the objectives of the study. The study was designed to elucidate the maximum implication of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil) in the central nervous system. However, the co-administration of pertussis toxin with high-levels of HPV vaccine is not an appropriate approach to determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone. The Authors do not agree with the retraction.

The study never said its objective was to “determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone,” but to “elucidate the mechanism of HANS [novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome].” This retraction totally lied about the study’s objectives; no wonder the authors don’t agree with it!

The publisher, not the journal, retracted the post. The publisher of Scientific Reports is Nature Publishing Group, which also retracted this 2000 paper on developmentally impaired children. It did so simply because it included children in the 1998 vaccine-autism paper retracted by The Lancet. The retractions cited a medical circus hearing that punished the lead author of both papers for the following:

 b. You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

Nature Publishing Group is owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which also owns BioMedCentral. That publisher retracted a 2014 study for linking measles-mumps-rubella vaccination to autism and for the author’s opinion being that vaccination causes autism:

A reader flagged that there were undeclared competing interests related to the article: the author, Dr Hooker, was on the Board of Directors for Focus Autism which supports the belief that MMR vaccine causes autism.  We were concerned enough about the allegations and the content to remove it from the public domain immediately because of the potential harm to public health

Holtzbrinck also owns Frontiers. When the first vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism was accepted for publication by Frontiers in Public Health, the vaccine troll army responded. Frontiers took down the study abstract and cancelled publication explicitly in response to vaccine crybabies on the internet.

The study was since published elsewhere, but there is an ongoing theme. Whether it’s the HPV vaccine, the MMR vaccine, or vaccinations in general, Holtzbrinck censors vaccine risk papers. Avoid publishing in its journals like the plague.

BREAKING: AI Demands Daily Beast Retract Paul Offit Post on Vaccine-Miscarriage Study

Paul Offit has written a post for The Daily Beast arguing that a CDC study of miscarriage and influenza vaccination should have never been published. He bases his argument on his own misrepresentations of the study’s results. Read Autism Investigated’s below letter to The Daily Beast’s editorial team demanding they retract Offit’s post.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Paul Offit’s Article Misrepresents Study Findings, Should be
Retracted
From: <info@autisminvestigated.com>
Date: Sun, September 24, 2017 3:33 pm
To: editorial@thedailybeast.com

Dear Daily Beast,

Your contributor Paul Offit’s latest article “The Pregnancy Vaccine Scare That Should Have Never Been” makes multiple misrepresentations of a recent CDC study on influenza vaccination and miscarriage. Since these misrepresentations form the basis of his central argument that the study should never have been published, Offit’s article is fatally flawed and should be retracted by your publication.

Offit states about a recent study of miscarriage and flu vaccination that the study authors found no overall association with miscarriage and flu vaccination when they had:

“The CDC’s question prior to this study was “Does influenza vaccine cause spontaneous abortions?” The answer to that question was no. It was only after investigators sub-stratified their data to include those who had or hadn’t received a vaccine the previous year that they could find statistical significance.”

This is directly from the study, contradicting Offit’s claim:

“The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6)”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308666

As someone who holds a degree in epidemiology (unlike Offit) and has analyzed the database used in this study (also unlike Offit), I can assure you that that is a significant association. The “95% CI” (confidence interval) excludes the number 1.0. Therefore, the answer to their study question would point in the “yes” direction.

This also demolishes his next point about the study, that the association was based on small numbers:

“After the CDC researchers had finished sub-stratifying their data, the numbers were small”, concluding the results due to “the curse of small numbers gleaned from a large database.” But even before the authors had computed their next association from a smaller sample, the association from their full study sample was already significant. But because Offit misrepresented the association as being insignificant, his point about the study’s findings being based solely on small numbers is also wrong.

His very first point was also wrong, too:

“Researchers had studied two influenza-vaccine seasons: 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The problem of first-trimester spontaneous abortions occurred during the first season but not the second.”

The study itself makes clear this happened in both seasons: “This effect modification was observed in each season”

Because the majority of Offit’s points are based on his own misrepresentations – including all those that discussed the study findings directly – simple corrections are too mild. The entire post should be retracted by The Daily Beast, especially since the purpose of the post was to make the case for why the study should have never been published. In reality, The Daily Beast should have never posted this fatally flawed article by Paul Offit and should now retract it.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part II: The Ghostwriter Behind The Kennedy Retraction

static2.politico

Scott Rosenberg, ghostwriter behind Kennedy retraction

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunitywhere he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of Deadly Immunity didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on Salon.com. The first part of the series provided proof that he didn’t, this second part reveals who did.

That person is the MediaShift blogger whom the editor-in-chief misrepresented Kennedy’s article to in Part I: former Salon.com managing editor Scott Rosenberg. Rosenberg attended theScience Online 2011 annual conference with the Rolling Stone rumor-starter Seth Mnookin. The event ran from January 13-15 right before the article was retracted on the 16th. Both Mnookin and Rosenberg had books of theirs featured at the conference:

Scott Rosenberg – Not Kerry Lauerman – Interviewed Seth Mnookin

Rosenberg was also still contributing to Salon through 2011 when Kennedy’s piece was retracted. Yet Rosenberg would never disclose that in his MediaShift blog about Salon’s retraction of Kennedy’s article weeks later. Seth Mnookin’s first tweet about Salon’s interview used Science Online 2011 hashtag #scio11 – specifically for tweets Science Online meeting commentary and follow-up discussions – even though Lauerman was never at the conference while Rosenberg was:

 That was the first and last tweet by Mnookin about Salon’s coverage of his book and the removal of Kennedy’s article using the #scio11 hashtag. The purpose of the #scio11 hashtag according to a conference attendee was to denote tweets about Science Online 2011 “meeting commentary and follow-up discussions” by conference participants:”One goal of the conference was to be as inclusive as possible by livestreaming several of the sessions online and encouraging liberal use of the Twitter hashtag, #scio11, for meeting commentary and follow-up discussions.” Mnookin was also trying to score interviews at Science Online 2011 to pitch his book prior to the conference:

A Twitter search for both Mnookin and Rosenberg’s Twitter handles reveals substantial interaction between them at Science Online 2011, as well as Rosenberg tweeting about Salon’s retraction of his piece almost immediately after it happened. In contrast – Lauerman had no participation in Science Online 2011; a search with the #scio11 hashtag and his twitter handle yields nothing. Lauerman was not even in virtual attendance, despite it being an option for conference participants who could not physically be at the conference. He simply was not there at all.

Lauerman’s Motive For Retraction: Payback to Rosenberg in Exchange for Career Advancement

Kerry Lauerman had quite a rapport with Scott Rosenberg going back many years, specifically concerning the project Lauerman launched that was Rosenberg’s idea. This is what Rosenberg said about Lauerman in 2008:

“The Open Salon that opens its doors today — it’s been in private beta for a while — is an outgrowth of the work I did back then, but of course over the past year the project has evolved much further…It’s the work of Kerry Lauerman and his team — and, now that the participants are using it, it’s in the hands of Salon’s readers the people formerly known as Salon’s readers, to make of it something new and exciting.”

The implementation of Rosenberg’s idea by Lauerman was followed by his rapid accession to editor-in-chief just two years later. So naturally, Lauerman would feel indebted to Rosenberg which would in turn be a motive for Lauerman having Kennedy’s article retracted to please Rosenberg if Lauerman felt Rosenberg’s idea got him the highest editorial position. Lauerman not having personally interviewed Mnookin, read Kennedy’s piece or wrote Salon.com‘s retraction statement would also explain why Lauerman refused to even take Kennedy’s calls the night Lauerman told Kennedy via email that Salon.com would retract his piece on the night of the 15th – the last night of the conference attended by Mnookin and Rosenberg. 

Interestingly – following the retraction – Rosenberg went on to run the annual Science Online conferences regularly attended by Mnookin until the organization became insolvent and shut down in 2014. Lauerman did not read Kennedy’s article when it was pulled, did not interview Mnookin and likely yanked “Deadly Immunity” as a favor for a friend with strong Mnookin connections. Yet now years later, the result of this crooked behavior is used as justification to block Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from becoming chair of a badly needed commission to stop the ongoing harm being committed against innocent infants. Fortunately, the president-elect and the vice president-elect both seem pretty happy to have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on their team.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part I: Salon Editor Who “Retracted” Kennedy’s Article Didn’t Even Read It

KerryLauerman_writer

Kerry Lauerman, Salon.com editor-in-chief who deleted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s article without even reading it, is now executive “news” editor of Mic.

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunity”where he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of “Deadly Immunity” didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on the site. This first part of the series provides proof that he didn’t, the second part will reveal who did.

That editor, Kerry Lauerman, has since made quite a career out of running outlets that delivered fake news. In 2014 he was hired by The Washington Post and in 2015 was made the newspaper’s National Projects Editor. Among Lauerman’s roles, according to the newspaper, would be “the planning, execution and coverage of some critically important events during the political year, such as the presidential debate and forum we’re co-sponsoring with Univision, and in guiding our preparations for the political conventions.” During that stint of Lauerman’s at WaPo, the now-president-elect stripped the newspaper of its press credentials because of its dishonest reporting.

Then the month before the election, Lauerman left the newspaper to become executive “news” editor of Mic – a creepy far-left site aimed at millennials that makes sensationalized stories out of the way men sit in subways. He still edits Micwhere he now pushes garbage rumors about the president-elect while he still attacks Kennedy.

Proof Lauerman Didn’t Read “Deadly Immunity”

A blog post for MediaShift dated January 24, 2011 provided a quote of Lauerman’s following the retraction. It proves Lauerman’s basic grasp of both the article and the context of the Kennedy quote he provided was so poor, Lauerman could not have read the article he censored:  

“It’s a seriously flawed story we feared could do real harm. People who have bought into the anti-vaccine panic have created a health crisis, and a flawed report that feeds that hysteria poses a real threat. With this particular story, the unproven logic that animates the piece — as when Kennedy says the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real’ — is not easily excisable, and no matter how many editor’s notes or Drudge-like, red-flashing sirens you place on a story to warn readers, there will be those who will take a well-known, respected American at his word. We simply didn’t think it was worth that risk.” (boldface mine) 

How Lauerman quoted Kennedy’s article to justify its retraction completely contradicts how the retraction statement quoted that same sentence in his article on Salon.com:   

In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.” (boldface mine)

The intro to Salon.com’s interview with Seth Mnookin – news fabricator extraordinaire who started the rumor that Rolling Stone canned Kennedy’s article – also contradicts the context in which Lauerman quoted Kennedy:  

In 2005, we published a report, “Deadly Immunity,” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (Salon had a co-publishing arrangement with the magazine at the time), in which Kennedy wrote that he became convinced that the link between thimerosal [a mercury-based compound once used in vaccines] and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real” (boldface mine)

The only apparent place that misleadingly quoted Kennedy’s article the same way Lauerman did in 2011 was a CBS Moneywatch piece that also helped spread the false rumor that Rolling Stone pulled Kennedy’s article. That would mean Lauerman only read that piece instead of actually reading Deadly Immunity”.  And as one can see from a search result, there do not appear to be any other January 2011 sources that chopped the quote from Kennedy’s article to look like an absolute statement the way Lauerman did. The only way for Lauerman to have reasonably misrepresented Kennedy’s piece and quoted it out of context the way he did would have been for Lauerman not to have read his article and to have only read the CBS Moneywatch article with the chopped quote from Kennedy’s piece. Had Lauerman even bothered to read “Deadly Immunity”, he would know that his whole claimed pretense for retracting it was totally false. But the facts didn’t matter to him, as they continue to not matter to Salon.com. 

Since his reasoning is contradicted by both the retraction statement and the Salon.com interview as well, that would mean Lauerman did not write or conduct them either. But if he didn’t do either for Salon.com, who did? That will be revealed in Part II of this series, where the ghostwriter will be outed.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*