[REVU] Seth Mnookin's 'The Vaccine Autism Controversy and ...

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Mnookin ,

In your 5 Jan 2012 blog at

http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/2012/01/05/has-the-huffington-post-embra

ced-science-closed-the-door-on-anti-vaccine-quackery/,

you posted the following remarks, " … so today, I have a

new piece titled, 'The Autism-Vaccine Controversy and

the Need for Responsible Science Journalism.' In it, I

talk about 'the legacy of years of dispatches that created

a false equivalency between verifiable facts and …

outlandish allegations, …'. "

Having read your " new piece " , posted on 5 January 2012

in Huffington Post carefully, I found that it was lacking

in several aspects:

1. The statements you made were, in some instances,

unreliable.

2. In at least one instance, you fabricated a statement

you attributed to a linked WHO article - this alone

indicates that you appear to be a less than responsible

journalist.

3. Based on your continual focus on attacking individuals

rather than providing sound science that refutes their

" science " or their understanding of issues that the

persons you chose to attack have espoused, you are also

a stranger to both " science journalism " , a peculiar

phrasing to say the least, and " science-based journalism " .

On 'balance', your 5 January piece in Huffington Post

appears to be but another example of pro-vaccine misrepresentation,

prevarication, and opaque rhetoric, which, were he still alive,

Orwell would recognize as being replete with Doublethink

and New Speak.

An in-depth, passage by passage, review that provides the

evidence that supports the preceding assertions can be found at

http://dr-king.com/docs/120127_FnlDrft_RevuOfAutsmVaccneContrvrsyTheNeedForR

espnsbleScienceJournlsm_b.pdf.

As with all of my in-depth reviews, the " Introductory Remarks "

include the following passage,

" Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in

this review for which they have independent [a], scientifically

sound, peer-reviewed published substantiating documents, please

submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve

his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate,

revise his views and this review.

[a] To qualify, the study should be published by researchers

who have no conflicts of interest from their ties to

either those commercial entities who profit from the sale

of vaccines or those entities, academic, commercial or

governmental, who actively promote inoculation programs

using vaccines. "

Hopefully, you will provide an in-depth fact- and science-

based rebuttal to those statements for which you or your

colleagues and supporters have and can provide qualified

documents (see footnote " [a] " ), which support the assertions

in your cited article and/or correct any significant factual

error in my review so that you may improve my understanding

of factual reality and help me to revise my views and my

review of your article in the Huffington Post.

Failing that, if, as you claim in your Huffington Post piece,

you truly do have a passion for " reliable, responsible science

journalism " , I would hope that you would apologize for your

failure to present reliable information and for your fabrication

of a WHO statement as any responsible journalist would.

However, I do not plan to hold my breath waiting for a cogent

response from you.

Respectfully,

G. King, PhD

http://www.dr-king.com

PS: If you want a " .doc " copy to more easily copy out

elements in amanner that preseres their fidelity,

then you need only send an e-mail with:

REUMNOOKIN_PGK

in the subject line.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++