Tag Archives: Arthur Allen

Arthur Allen, David Gorski and Marge Talbot Admit They Hate Freedom

Imagine you wrote about mercury in childhood vaccines with some seriousness in The New York Times Magazine. Then imagine a couple years later changing tune and writing a pharma talking point-filled screed at the request of your dominatrix wife, who was funded by vaccine groups. Finally, you learn many more years after that that The New York Times “journalist” she made you emulate was forced out of journalism following his humiliatingly one-sided reporting and became a pharma PR agent. What would you do?

If you were POLITICO editor Arthur Allen, you would shoot the messenger by blocking the person who told you all that on your social media. That’s exactly what Allen did.

It’s natural to hate someone for something you don’t have, as Arthur Allen clearly feels he doesn’t have freedom. At the end of his forgettable book Vaccines, he acknowledges his wife this way:

Finally, I can’t properly express the gratitude and admiration I have for my wife, Margaret Talbot, a kind person who has never thought to discourage my dreams.

“who has never thought to discourage my dreams.” -Thou doth protest too much, Art.

Someone who actually went to interview him, however, gave the real scoop, “She wears the pants in that relationship.”

Boy does she. Who mentions his wife in his journalism bio, especially when she does not reciprocate the favor in her bio? Clearly, it’s a man who features a quote like this at the top of one of his articles:

“Appeals to freedom are like the gateway drug to pseudoscience.”

That was said by none other than evicted “Science”Blogger David Gorski. In 2010, Autism Investigated’s future editor revealed that he was working on a clinical trial for a drug by a big vaccine maker that was in partnership with his employer. Readers complained to his employer, leading Gorski into a victimhood frenzy begging for “free speech” and “academic freedom” he clearly wants for himself but not for others. The trial was since terminated after Gorski failed to enroll patients. He also really didn’t take well to videotaped questioning by Autism Investigated’s future editor in 2013, which led to Gorski blocking the editor on Twitter in 2017.

David Gorski, Arthur Allen and Margaret Talbot might all come from different backgrounds and have different personalities. If there’s one thing they have in common, however, it’s this: they all hate freedom and are not afraid to say so.

Gardiner Harris is Now a Pharmaceutical Public Relations Agent

According to ex-New York Times’ disgraced vaccine propagandist Gardiner Harris on LinkedIn, he is now “Director of Communications” for Foresite Capital:

Bringing my 25 years of experience at the highest levels of journalism to the venture capital industry, where I am charged with raising the visibility of this premier healthcare-focused investment firm.

Its investments include vaccines, including the development of one that is being led by GlaxoSmithKline’s former vaccine chief. Nine years ago, Autism Investigated’s editor complained to The New York Times about Gardiner Harris’ conflict of interest and abusive conduct. Then-public editor Clark Hoyt responded at the time:

You charged that Gardiner Harris has a conflict of interest in covering the issue because his brother works for a company that includes pharmaceutical firms among its customers. His brother works for a company that sells genetic testing equipment to academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies. Gardiner Harris said he does not know if any of the customers are makers of vaccines but assumes some are. I find your notion that this constitutes a conflict of interest to be too much of a stretch. The brother is not himself involved in vaccine production or sales. The connection you are trying to make is too tenuous to be credible.

Now Gardiner Harris is running PR for those who invest in vaccine production and sales. Harris’ reporting was cited in fellow vaccine propagandist Arthur Allen’s 2005  flip-flop in favor of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. Allen wrote a major 2002 piece in The New York Times Magazine that featured early concerns about the toxin. He blocked Autism Investigated on Twitter after being reminded that the journalist his wife made him emulate is now a pharma PR agent.

The pharma PR firms are hiring Pee-Wee Allen.

REVENGE OF LARGE MARGE TALBOT: Dividing Robert Kennedy’s Family

From “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure”: “Be sure tell ’em Large Marge sent cha!”

David Talbot is the founder of Salon.com, which published Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s landmark article Deadly Immunity. When the site pulled Kennedy’s article, Talbot rightfully slammed the move as editorial cowardice and caving to pharma pressure. Talbot is also the brother and brother-in-law of longtime pro-vaccine media power couple: Margaret Talbot of The New Yorker and Arthur Allen of POLITICO. Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s brother, sister and niece just published a screed in POLITICO Magazine attacking his criticism of vaccines. What a coincidence…

Allen began spreading vaccine propaganda in direct response to Kennedy’s Deadly Immunity, a 2005 article about the government’s cover-up of injury from the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. It was published in both Salon.com and Rolling Stone, although Salon.com would delete it years later. Allen’s wife Margaret Talbot meanwhile was a senior fellow of the New America think tank, funded by Gates, Soros and the pharmaceutical industry. She could not have been thrilled that the website her brother founded published Kennedy’s piece. According to one journalist who visited her and Allen’s house to interview him and was promptly kicked out by her to do the interview elsewhere, “She wears the pants in that relationship.”

She must’ve gotten some flak when her brother’s website published Kennedy’s article. As her own husband admitted when he flip-flopped, he had previously written about thimerosal with some honesty:

As the writer who first told the thimerosal story in depth in the New York Times Magazine two and a half years ago, I have been astonished to see how badly it has been handled since.

He didn’t write that sentence.

Hey Pee-Wee Allen, be sure tell ’em Large Marge sent cha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HHS Secretary Stumbles on President Trump’s Past Vaccine Skepticism

Donald Trump and Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 2016

Following President Trump’s recent vaccine-pushing remarks, his HHS Secretary Alex Azar has been desperately trying to downplay the significance of Trump’s vaccine skepticism during the 2016 election. According to Breitbart, Secretary Azar told the media:

“As you know, some years ago there was a debate about this issue that was partly fueled by data that has since been discredited.”

Undoubtedly, Azar was referring to the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He met with Donald Trump during the election cycle.

Curiously, according to paraphrasing by Arthur Allen of POLITICO:

Azar said Trump’s statements during the 2016 campaign linking vaccination to autism were based on a “debate about this issue but it’s been settled.” 

So Azar’s way out is to say that there was still a debate in 2016, even though it was partly based on Dr. Wakefield’s “discredited” work. That doesn’t work when Donald Trump actually met with Dr. Wakefield during the 2016 election cycle specifically to discuss the autism-vaccine link. Both President Trump and Secretary Azar would not respond to Autism Investigated’s inquiries on Twitter.

That is because they both know the truth of what happened. The president has backed down from his campaign promises about doing something to address toxic vaccinations. Meanwhile, his 2020 opponents in the Democratic Party have doubled down on their support for them.

CDC Cover-up’s Ivan Oransky Conceals BMC Violation

ivan-oransky

By Jake Crosby

 

Some journalists are just ignorant; Ivan Oransky is not. He is Vice President of the “Association of Health Care Journalists” (AHCJ) – an organization of “journalists” funded by vaccine industry-tied groups dedicated to helping the CDC carry out its cover-up into the media. He also co-edits the blog “Retraction Watch,” which gleefully reported on the withdrawal of Dr. Brian Hooker’s paper that reported the very relationship between MMR and autism that CDC omitted from its original study. Oransky knows full well BioMed Central (BMC) breached policy when it pulled Dr. Hooker’s paper, but did Oransky report that, even though his blog reported on the removal of Dr. Hooker’s paper? Of course not, but he inadvertently revealed his knowledge of it in the email exchange I had with him after he vehemently defended the article’s deletion. Oransky also defended drastically altering my comment on his blog, grossly distorting what I said. (See full email exchange below)

After Oransky’s blog wrote about the pulling of Dr. Hooker’s paper without reporting about the BMC violation, CNN wrote an article from the same perspective as Oransky’s blog the very next day. CNN also added that Dr. Hooker’s paper was removed in a note above every relevant CNN iReport – without noting the BMC violation – disabled editing on the iReport CNN linked to from its article. What more can you expect when, as written elsewhere, Oransky’s wife is a writer/producer for none other than CNN?

Earlier this year, millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit – who advised CDC’s immunization program while the fraud the whistleblower described was taking place – announced at AHCJ’s annual meeting that there should be “journalism jail” for journalists who write stories about debate on vaccines i.e. who try to report on the cover-up honestly. AHCJ gave pharma PR agent Trine Tsouderos an award for her hit pieces against notable scientists opposed to adverse vaccine side-effects like Dr. Boyd Haley. Over the years AHCJ has invited other co-conspirators such as Brian Deer, Walter Orenstein, Alison Singer, Diana SchendelArthur Allen and Seth Mnookin to its annual conference. Mnookin and Oransky were old college friends; they also have dishonesty in common. Additionally, AHCJ has even teamed up with CDC to train reporters to disseminate its propaganda – no doubt in line with former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ statement about telling media outlets not to report on vaccine dangers.

As Congress investigates the CDC for fraud like that revealed by the whistleblower William Thompson, Congress should also investigate CDC’s collusion with “journalists” like Ivan Oransky, AHCJ and related people and groups who don’t abide by journalistic standards and therefore do not deserve any press freedom protections. Such people should be fully investigated as co-conspirators and any investigation that leaves them out or fails to recognize them as such will be wholly inadequate.

The below email exchange demonstrates that all the more:

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Hi,

The text of my comment was altered to make it look like I said something I didn’t:

“How come no one is reporting that I believe BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal?”

This is what I really said:

“How come no one is reporting that BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is clearly a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal, which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of threatened legal claims”

I don’t want anyone to report what “I believe,” I want journalists to report what actually happened. It is clear from BioMed Central’s policies that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article was a violation of them. Reporting on the take-down without reporting on the violation lends undue legitimacy to the censorship of a scientific paper.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 7:29 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

 

What you said left out most of BMC’s actual policy, and that leaves it as your belief that they violated said policy. Your choice is to have it as is, which conforms to our comment policy, particularly the part about unverified allegations, or have it deleted altogether. You’re welcome to post whatever version you want elsewhere.

 

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

It’s not my “belief,” you can view the entire policy on BMC’s website and see for yourself that it contradicts the excuse for pulling the paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/permanency 

I also said I wanted others to report on this – not on my opinion of it. So the wording still misrepresents what I said, even without taking verification into account.

 

Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 8:18 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” adam.marcus1@gmail.com
We included the entire policy, which you neglected to do and which contradicts what you wrote, along with both statements about why the paper was removed, which you also neglected to do. Your choice is still to have it as is, or simply deleted. Just let us know which you would like.

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:46 AM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

No, it backs up what I wrote, and I explain that fully. You neglect to explain how it’s contradicted at all. I included the entire policy in a screenshot on the webpage I linked to along with the statement that was more specific, contrary to your claim that I didn’t. You chopped the second half of my first sentence, making it less immediately clear how the policy was violated. It’s also misleading to portray me as asking why nobody is reporting that I believe a certain way about this issue, as opposed to simply asking why nobody is reporting on the issue itself.

By mangling my comment this way, are you trying to make me want you to delete my comment?

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 3:56 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” <info@autisminvestigated.com>, Adam
Marcus <>

The second half of that sentence, “which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of “threatened legal claims,” is incorrect and misrepresents BMC’s policy. The part of the policy in question: “…in the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory we may have no option but to remove that material from our site and those sites on which we have deposited the material in question.

BioMed Central therefore reserves the right to cease to make available articles that it has been advised are potentially defamatory or that infringe any intellectual property right, or are otherwise unlawful.”

The two relevant notices also make it clear that your original comment’s claim that “However, Dr. Hooker’s paper was only taken down on the excuse of ‘possible undeclared competing interests'” is also incorrect.

You continue to have two choices: Leaving the comment as is, or have it deleted.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:52 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Actually, it is correct and is an accurate representation. The reason of “threatened legal claims” is the reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles, that was not the reason it gave for striking Dr. Hooker’s article. That’s clear in this “open access” publisher’s policy you partially quoted.

The more specific notice made it clear that “undeclared possible competing interests” was the reason for the paper’s removal and that “validity” and “public interest” were concerns supposedly stemming from that. Regardless, none of these are “threatened legal claims” – the actual reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles according to policy. Since this was not the reason given for striking Dr. Hooker’s article, his article was therefore deleted in violation of that policy.

One of my readers – ironically the one who told me to contact you – said your misrepresentation of my comment as asking why no one is reporting “that I believe” a certain way about an issue makes me look “unhinged.”

Is that your intent? Either censoring me or making me look unhinged, but giving me a choice between the two so you can then claim you did one or the other with my approval? Sure looks like it.

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 7:22 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

You wrote that removal “is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: “that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.” That makes “only” incorrect, and a misrepresentation of the policy.

Our only intent is to verify claims in our comments, and the claim your comment made is incorrect. You continue to have two choices: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Well given that “threatened legal claims” are what the publisher says it hopes to avoid when taking down articles for either of those reasons, “threatened legal claims” are essentially the publisher’s only reason for taking down articles. Since none of what you quote was given in the publisher’s excuse for pulling Dr. Hooker’s article, will you at least finally acknowledge its deletion was in violation of the publisher’s policy for article removal?

Well you’re not acting like that’s your intent by treating verified facts as unverified claims. Nor are you acting like that’s your intent by giving me this ultimatum of either allowing you to keep my butchered comment up as is or having it deleted altogether without replacing it with a corrected version. As you can see from my comment submission (attached), your representation me as asking why others aren’t reporting “that I believe” a certain way is not only “unverified,” but plainly false.

commenttoretractionwatch 

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 10:51 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

Your two choices for this comment remain: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it. If you want to submit future comments, you’re more than welcome to do so, but they too will be subject to our comments policy.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Why the silence on BMC’s violation of its own policy?

You clearly did not follow your own comments policy in the way you edited my comment, which I do not approve of. That said, I won’t approve of you deleting it without putting up a corrected version either.

Looks like you and BMC both have trouble following your own rules.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 5:55 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

To repeat: You misrepresented BMC’s policy, and you misrepresented the reasons they stated for the removal. You then based the “violation” allegation on your misrepresentations, which made the allegations inaccurate. We then edited your comment so that it no longer included those misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

You are free to post a new comment, as has also been mentioned in this thread, that will also be subject to our comments policy. If that is what you mean by “corrected version,” you’re welcome to submit one. Your choices for the already-posted comment, however, remain the same as they’ve been throughout this exchange.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

Finally, I responded:

Here’s what you said:

“You wrote that removal ‘is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: ‘that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.'”

In your priggish and failed attempt to correct me on BMC’s policy for removing articles, you inadvertently showed that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article did violate BMC’s policy. BMC provided no such reasons for deleting Dr. Hooker’s article in either statement, even if you count whatever possible concerns that were raised from the reason of “possible undeclared competing interests” as reasons as well.

Don’t expect any more comment submissions from me.

 

I’ve never heard anything back since.

 

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology

NAA Has “Respect” for Pharma Blasting its Fundraising Efforts with Chili’s

bazookapaul

Above: Business Insider’s Paul Szoldra – the actual “journalist” who led the smear campaign for the vaccine industry against the NAA fundraising event.

By Jake Crosby

After the vaccine industry bullied Chili’s into canceling its fundraising event for the National Autism Association’s (NAA’s) Big Red Safety Box Program to prevent children with autism from wandering off and drowning, NAA put out a statement expressing “respect” for the decision:

“Because of guest feedback about these views, Chili’s has opted to cancel today’s event. We respect their decision and ask everyone to please speak words of love and kindness.”

NAA also reiterated Chili’s statement, which concluded:

“As you know, Chili’s wants to make every Guest feel special and that includes listening to feedback from their Guests about this event.”

NAA even invoked a quote from Martin Luther King:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Somehow I don’t think the type of response from NAA was what Dr. King had in mind. So I responded on the thread underneath NAA’s Facebook post to point out the obvious:

“Chili’s obviously capitulated to a typical, orchestrated campaign by the vaccine industry, not ‘Guests’ as you say. But go ahead, pretend that’s all it was – ‘Guests’. Pharma is happy to know you respect its killing of your fundraising events, and I’m sure is feeling very encouraged to do the same again and again.”

Reportedly, NAA President Wendy Fournier told CNNMoney:

“It was obvious that the comments [Chili’s was] getting were a fight about vaccines. Everybody was all heated up and wanting to boycott. It was bullying. It was orchestrated by a small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program.”

In other words, NAA knowingly respects a decision that was based on “bullying” and deems this “small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program” Chili’s “Guests.”

Fournier knows bullying, having been called “full of shit” by the vaccine industry’s original media go-to guy Arthur Allen at the 2008 “Green Our Vaccines” rally in Washington, DC. That, however, did not stop Dan Olmsted of the NAA-sponsored Age of Autism blog from defending him:

“In the past I haven’t agreed with rally moms at the Green Our Vaccines march in D.C. booting writer Arthur Allen from covering the event…”

Yet NAA still has no problem keeping its hyperlink logo underneath Age of Autism’s “SPONSORS” list. Interestingly, the president of NAA told the Associated Press:

“It hasn’t been answered whether or not vaccines can cause autism.”

Really? 15 years ago an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer with the CDC said he would conclude the vaccine preservative thimerosal has done “harm,” meaning a broad array of disorders that included autism. And the US Government has compensated many children like Hannah Poling who have developed autism after their vaccinations since the early 1990’s.

Yet Wendy Fournier is still not sure. So what was she even doing at the 2008 “Green Our Vaccines” rally? For that matter, what was she doing on CNN in 2011 giving a totally unprepared defense of Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Whatever the reasons, NAA is now in full retreat as pharma advances.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Forbes’ Matt Herper Cites Misleading Gardasil Press Release

articleabstract

Editor’s Note: Above is the abstract of a study which was misrepresented by the drug company press release that Herper cited to endorse the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil; click to enlarge.

By Jake Crosby

Mainstream media’s coverage of the disputed safety and effectiveness of human pappilloma virus (HPV) vaccination is a shameful repeat of its coverage of the vaccine-autism cover-up.

Following Katie Couric’s recent investigative report on the safety and efficacy of vaccination against HPV, many familiar media mouthpieces of the vaccine industry came out of the woodwork to chastise Couric for her journalism. Included among those was Matt Herper, senior editor of Forbes Magazine. Using Twitter to cite a press release from Gardasil’s manufacturer, Herper challenged HPV expert Dr. Diane Harper’s contention to Katie Couric that HPV vaccine Gardasil only provides protection for five years. His tweet:

It appears that the claim on @katiecouric that vaccine efficacy wanes at 5 years is incorrect. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/studies-demonstrate-gardasil-has-long-duration-of-protection-from-hpv-disease-182323031.html …

Herper’s tweet was retweeted dozens of times, including by vaccine industry media go-to guy Seth Mnookin. Herper also cited and linked to the drug company press release from his Forbes article attacking Couric for her program on Gardasil. According to the press release:

“The interim data, presented at the 28th International Papillomavirus Conference (IPV) in Puerto Rico, showed that young women[1] and adolescent girls and boys[2] vaccinated with Gardasil were protected from HPV-related diseases for up to eight years following vaccination.”

The press release also included quotes from Professor Susanne Krüger Kjær, lead investigator of one of the studies:

“These latest data show an encouraging trend of continued protection with Gardasil against HPV-related cervical, vaginal and vulvar disease in women through eight years,” said Professor Susanne Krüger Kjær, Danish Cancer Society. “These studies provide further evidence for the ongoing efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of Gardasil.”

Absent from Sanofi Pasteur MSD’s press release, however, is the conclusion from Professor Kjær’s own study which reads:

“The qHPV vaccine shows a trend of continued protection in women, although there is as yet insufficient data to confirm that protection is maintained.”

If Matt Herper can go to the trouble of digging up a drug company press release from a year ago on research presented at a conference, then why couldn’t he go to the extra trouble to dig up the abstract of the actual research the press release was about? Why did he instead settle for the misleading press release written by a PR person employed by Gardasil’s manufacturer to second-guess the statements of Dr. Diane Harper – an international authority on HPV who was involved in clinical trials of Gardasil? Perhaps because the abstract would prove that the press release Herper cited is a misleading representation of research.

Herper’s use of a misleading drug company press release over actual research to push Gardasil is minor in comparison to his record of reporting on the vaccine-autism cover-up. He has endorsed Salon’s removal of “Deadly Immunity” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (which exposed CDC’s cover-up of the dangers of mercury in vaccines) prompted by a bogus rumor spread by Seth Mnookin that Rolling Stone Magazine secretly retracted Kennedy’s article. Salon is run by the brother-in-law of Arthur Allen, Mnookin’s predecessor as vaccine industry media go-to guy who vetted and ultimately approved of Mnookin’s since-dispelled rumor. So Matt Herper has a history of promoting scientific fraud to protect the vaccine industry. Even worse, such apologists now appear to dominate mainstream media’s coverage of vaccine safety issues, Katie Couric notwithstanding. Not surprisingly, Herper has not responded when informed on Twitter of what the actual research said.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.