FROM: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623 TO: Anthony Marsh (MA), 72127,2301 DATE: 11/14/94 12:29 AM Re: Drummond Rennie Next letter: Raymond Scalettar, MD Chairman, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association 730 24th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20037 20, May, 1993 Dear Dr Scalettar, As individuals with an interest in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, we are concerned about what appears to be extremely one-sided coverage given the subject in JAMA. We are especially distressed by the public pronouncements made on this topic by JAMA's editor, George D. Lundberg, MD, which have been advanced as though they were conclusive and definitive. They are particularly perplexing in view of his recent admission that he is no authority on the matter. In a debate on the medical evidence in this case in which Lundberg participated on April 3, 1993, in Chicago, he volunteered, "I'm really not much of an expert in this thing at all. Its never been all that interesting to me until the last year or so. My role in this whole thing is that of a journalist...". Most of us are members of the American Medical Association who laud JAMA's strict medical-scientific standards, and we are bewildered by what seems to be a shameless abrogation of those principles in this case. Before taking our concerns to the public, which seems to be our only recourse, we want to state our case to you. In three separate issues spanning 10 months, JAMA has devoted approximately 40 pages to coverage of the medical aspects of JFK's death. Physicians with views differing from Lundberg's have been allowed only 3 pages to state their views , which consisted exclusively of letters to the editor. Even those "dissenting" letters that JAMA chose to publish went virtually ignored by the physicians to whom they were directed, which is a contravention of the canons of scientific discourse. Such response as was provided consisted largely of an article written by Robert Artwohl, MD, which is seriously flawed both logically and factually. (See Appendix A) It misrepresents, only to condemn, the views of critics. This type of response seems mean-spirited and inappropriate for a scientific journal. Moreover, since the questions were largely directed to Humes, Boswell and Finck, it is inexplicable that JAMA would rest content with a response from a third party, who has neither the authority nor knowledge to answer for the pathologists. No one should be enthusiastic about the way JAMA gathered its "irrefutable" autopsy evidence. The "revelations" of former military pathologists Humes, Boswell and Finck were made exclusively to another former military pathologist, and personal friend, Lundberg, or to his surrogate, Dennis Breo. Very little "new" information was presented by the pathologists. Astonishingly, no supporting documentation or corroboration to their claims was provided. Nor were their many previous claims made under oath which contradicted their assertions in JAMA even acknowledged. This is a serious omission reflecting inadequate scholarship or purposeful negligence. Moreover the autopsists have behaved "unscientifically" by refusing to answer questions before the press, by refusing to answer physician letters selected by JAMA's own editors , and now by insisting that they will answer no further questions. Yet these interviews and articles have nevertheless been referred to by Lundberg as "open JAMA presentations"! For an admitted non-expert, Lundberg has behaved in a peculiar way, especially for a scientific journalist. Inexplicably abandoning his own published policy "... that the information (about an article) not be released to the public...until the article appears in print..." . Lundberg called a press conference on May 19,1992, to announce that the forthcoming May 27, 1992 issue of JAMA would contain definitive evidence concerning Kennedy's autopsy findings. Those among us with knowledge of the case, however, could not read the issue in question for up to two weeks after this news conference. The press, meanwhile, had advance access to the articles, as the New York Times coverage for May 20, 1992 makes unmistakably clear. We were therefore unable to assess the enthusiasm displayed by Lundberg's assertion in JAMA, "I completely believe that this information, as personally given by Jim (Humes) and 'J' (Boswell), is scientifically sound and, in my judgment, provides irrefutable evidence that President Kennedy was killed by only two bullets that struck him from above and behind and that caused fatal high-velocity wounds." We were taken aback by seeing the expression "irrefutable evidence" in a scientific medical journal uttered by someone not known to be competent to judge the evidence. What "irrefutable evidence" did the autopsy pathologists provide? Without citing any documentation or reference, they claimed that Kennedy's all-important fatal wound was located "to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance" in occipital bone. (V267:2798) This claim was challenged in 1968 by the Clark Panel, in 1978 by the House Select Committee on Assassination's panel of forensic pathologists (Appendix B), and even by two of Lundberg's own debate team members in the Chicago debate, John Lattimer, MD, and Robert Artwohl, MD. The "single-assassin" loyalists have all endorsed controversial radiographic and photographic data that show the wound to be at least 10 cm higher in parietal bone. A 10 cm "error" in the localization of a fatal head wound--if in fact it was an error--would undermine the confidence anyone would have in his source, and should have restrained the encomiums of Lundberg, a nationally prominent medical-scientific editor, in particular. Humes' contradictory statements on this wound's location are well known to everyone in the JFK medical-research community, but not, apparently, to Lundberg: Before the Warren Commission, Humes described the entrance of the skull wound as to the right and just above the EOP. (Appendix B) Before the HSCA he (and Boswell) initially stated it was to the right and just below the EOP. (Appendix B) But later he capitulated to the HSCA's panel of pathologists and agreed to a 10 cm higher location at their insistence. Now in JAMA Humes claims that the wound is once again to the right and just above the EOP! Humes ignored a question about this in a letter to JAMA.. If the autopsists erred so egregiously on the location of the fatal skull wound, however, as current Warren Commission loyalists insist, what "complete belief" can anyone have on their proof of bullet directionality, which was based on far subtler determinations of beveling from skull fragments, whose precise origins and proper orientations have always been in doubt? Humes' memory, alas, has had other lapses. In JAMA, Humes insists his findings "proved" a shot from above and behind. But to the HSCA's forensic pathologists, he admitted that the anatomic findings would not support a shot from above and behind, but only from behind. Humes, again, ignored a question about this in another letter to JAMA. Humes also refused to answer a question on how he could have measured Kennedy's brain weight at 1500 gms, the upper limit of normal for an undamaged, whole brain, when, as he claimed in JAMA, "2/3's of the right cerebrum had been blown away". In JAMA, Humes said, "The only high-ranking officer (at the autopsy) was Admiral Burkley...". FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill, however, listed all persons known to have been present. Their list includes Brigadier-General McHugh, Admiral Galloway, Major General Wehle, Capt. Stover, Capt. Osborne, and Lt. Cdr. Cross. (See Appendix B) These are points of great controversy that bear on the reliability of the autopsy pathologists as well as Lundberg's proclaimed confidence in them. None of these questions were satisfactorily addressed in JAMA. Humes, Boswell and Finck's refusal to answer JAMA-selected physician letters, let alone questions from the free press, raises serious doubts about their credibility. The crucial question for us as physicians and scientists who want to protect the reputation of the AMA and its official journal is this: Did Lundberg's personal friendship with Humes and Boswell combine with his ignorance of the Kennedy case to cause him to suspend the normal and rigorous peer-review scrutiny he, singularly, has long championed? How else is one to understand JAMA's publishing false statements about fellow AMA member, Charles Crenshaw,MD? Without endorsing every statement in Conspiracy of Silence, we critics believe that JAMA's and Lundberg's comments about its author, Crenshaw, have injured the AMA, its journal and its editor. Lundberg's smug assertion that Crenshaw's book was "a sad fabrication" was imprudent given JAMA's own errors. Crenshaw made no claim to peer-review scientific reliability. Lundberg did. We critics are constrained to believe that no peer-review scrutiny was done to reconfirm the hearsay reported in JAMA that Crenshaw was not in Kennedy's trauma room at Parkland. And we believe that none reconfirmed JAMA's denial that Crenshaw had taken a call from President Johnson while caring for Oswald. If we are in error, then let Lundberg share his data with us, because we are unaware of reliable information that supports JAMA's position on Crenshaw. (Neither of Breo's lengthy articles is helpful in this regard: not a single supporting reference is given.) Indeed, why has no retraction or correction ever been published? Did Breo ever attempt to interview Crenshaw? Lundberg resolutely refused to comment on Crenshaw at the debate in Chicago, fueling speculation that Crenshaw has instituted legal proceedings. Any such legal proceedings that we, as AMA members, may be funding might have been easily avoided had JAMA's normal peer-review process been functioning or had a simple correction been published by JAMA. Should the AMA membership be burdened with legal costs incurred by the improper actions of individuals who act in opposition to published JAMA policies--even when they happen to include its editor? We believe that no unbiased observer of the debate in Chicago on April 3, 1993, could conclude that Lundberg's side "won". If anything, the opinion most widely circulating was that Lundberg's side was embarrassed. We can make available to the Board copies of videos of the debate at our expense so you can judge for yourselves. Furthermore, we stand ready to 're-debate' Lundberg at any mutually agreeable time and place, and we promise to appear at our own expense. That Lundberg would have presented his debate team on CNBC the week after the debate without inviting an opposing side, moreover, seems grossly unfair. Did Lundberg even suggest to his viewers that there was any other side? We are offended that our dissent has been cynically misrepresented by Lundberg and Artwohl both on the pages of JAMA and in public. Artwohl suggested in JAMA, for example, that, "...many physicians are still sympathetic to a key proconspiracy tenet regarding the Kennedy assassination: that the autopsy physicians conspired with the military, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service, and other agencies of government to disguise and suppress medical evidence that would show President Kennedy was publicly executed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, by multiple gunmen." . We do not believe Artwohl can name a single physician who holds this opinion. We have never seen a better example of the "straw man" fallacy in print and we emphatically reject Artwohl's self-serving distortion of our views. In fact, most of us think it quite likely that simple and understandable errors on the parts of the autopsists may have led to mistaken conclusions. Not one of us believes in the grand collusion implied by Artwohl. Lundberg has written, "The most likely explanations for the motivations of the myriad conspiracy theorists are excessive suspiciousness, desire for personal recognition and public visibility, and monetary profit." Lundberg leaves no room for honest scientific differences of opinion. He ridicules the vast majority of Americans who believe that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy's death, and he disregards the central conclusion of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations that, in fact, there was a conspiracy! Should not the American Medical Association membership be concerned that Lundberg has often appeared behind a dais bearing the "AMA" logo while speaking to the press on a subject he admits to knowing poorly? Few who see Lundberg behind that dais will realize that he is not speaking for the AMA or for its members-- unless, unbeknownst to us, he has been directed by you, the Board of Trustees, to speak for the entire AMA. Lundberg most decidedly does not represent our views on this subject. Accepting his self-description as "no expert", we view his pontifications on the "plain truth" of the Kennedy autopsy as scientifically embarrassing, professionally irresponsible, and obviously unhelpful in pursuing the truth. We fear JAMA's poor analysis of Kennedy's death and Lundberg's behavior will only encourage speculation that there was a conspiracy and that the AMA and its journal have joined to aid the cover-up. Rather than emphasizing the motivations of those who do or do not believe that there was a conspiracy in John Kennedy's death, we firmly believe that additional scientific work needs to be done. As Lundberg correctly notes, "When historians look back at the autopsy they will look to JAMA to find out what happened at the autopsy and these ... pages will stand out as the definitive history of what happened." Unfortunately, JAMA's "definitive history" is anything but, and as responsible scientists we must demand more. We strongly urge the Board of Trustees to formally direct Lundberg solicit and publish well-researched and well-reasoned articles to resolve the disputes that JAMA's previous articles have raised and left unanswered. (Appendix C) We further request that the peer review be balanced and public to preclude JAMA's relying only upon only those reviewers who share Lundberg's conclusions. We also request that the board direct Lundberg to allow the debate team that opposed his in Chicago be given an opportunity to make a presentation on CNBC to balance his one-sided exposition. We respectfully request a formal written response to our letter which includes a statement that Lundberg does not speak for the American Medical Association, its Board of Trustees, or its membership on the matter of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Very truly yours, Gary L Aguilar, MD Anthony White, MD Cyril H Wecht, MD, JD Duane Stephens, MD David W Mantik, MD, PhD (Physics) Paul Langer, MD Patricia L. James, MD Wayne Smith, PhD Randolph Robertson, MD Douglas DeSalles, MD James H Fetzer, PhD Roger Bruce Feinman, Esq. Anthony B Iton, MD, JD 1.JAMA: 5-27-92, JAMA10-7-92, and JAMA3-24/31-93. 2.JAMA. 1992; 268:1681-1686. 3. Artwohl, RR. JFK's Assassination--Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and Common Sense. JAMA. 1993; 269:1540-1543. 4. Humes, JJ, Boswell JT. Letter "In reply". JAMA. 1992; 268:1685. 5. Lundberg GD. Closing the case in JAMA on the John F Kennedy Autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 268: 1736-1738. 6. Lundberg GD, Glass RM, Joyce LE. Policy of AMA journals regarding release of information to the public. JAMA. 1991; 265:400. 7. New York Times, 5-20-92, P. A-1. 8. Lundberg GD. quoted in: Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267:2803. 9.IBID, p2798. 10. Lattimer FK. Observations based on a review of the autopsy photographs, X-Rays, and related materials of the late John F Kennedy. Resident and Staff Physician. May, 1972; p33-64. 11 Ref.# 3. p.1540-1541. 12. Warren Commission-Exhibits and Hearings. Volume2:351 See Appendix B. 13. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Washington, DC; US Gevernment printing Office; 1979; Vol 7:246-see Appendix B. 14. HSCA. US Government Printing Office; 1979; 1:323-332, and V7:115. See Appendix A. 15. Ref #4. p1685. 16. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MD's who did the autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267: 2794. 17. HSCA. V7:263. 18. James PL. Letter to the editor. JAMA. 1992; 268:1682. 19. Mantik DW. Letter to the editor. JAMA. 1992; 268:1683. 20. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA. 1992: 267: 2798. 21.IBID. 22. New York Times, May 20, 1992. 23. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267:2803. Lundberg's states, "I am extremely pleased that, finally, we are able to have published in the peer-reviewed literature the actual findings (emphasis added) of what took place at the autopsy table on November 22, 1963. I completely believe that this information, as personally given by Jim (Humes) and 'J' (Boswell), is scientifically sound (emphasis added) and, in my judgement, provides irrefutable evidence (emphasis added) that President Kennedy was killed by only two bullets that struck him from above and behind and that caused fatal high-velocity wounds." 24. Breo DL. JFK's death, part II--Dallas MDs recall their memories. JAMA. 1992; 267:2804. 25. IBID. p. 2805. 26. Artwohl RR. JFK's assassination--conspiracy, forensic science and common sense. JAMA. 1993; 269:1540-1543. 27. Lundberg GD. Closing the case in JAMA on the John F Kennedy autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 268:1738. WHAT FOLLOWS WAS PASSED OUT AT THE DEBATE IN CHICAGO APRIL, ‘93 THERE ARE SOME USEFUL QUESTIONS IN IT, I THINK. QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE LUNDBERG, MD 1) Can you honestly and scientifically characterize JAMA's coverage of JFK's death as an "open presentation" (JAMA. 1992; 268:1738) when: (1) No one other than you, a former military pathologist yourself, or your emissary, Dennis Breo, were given the opportunity to ask any questions of the three military autopsists, (2) Humes, Boswell and Finck have refused to answer any specific questions put to them in letters by other physicians in your own Journal in the "Letters to the Editor" section on 10-7-92, (3) Humes, Boswell and Finck have refused to appear publicly with you at news conferences to answer any "open" questioning from the press, and (4) Through you Humes, Boswell and Finck categorically state they will answer no further questions to anyone even to clarify previously contradictory testimony? 2) Can you fairly insist (Lundberg in JAMA V268:1738)that the motivations of the myriad conspiracy theorists are paranoia, need of personal recognition, public visibility and profit in view of the well documented military-intelligence deceits of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of Tonkin incident , the falsified casualty figures and battle reports from the Vietnam war, as well as the lies regarding the Cambodian incursion, the lies of the Watergate coverup, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vincennes incident, the Iraq-gate deception and many others? In JFK's death are we readers to ignore your admonition that "It is the reader's responsibility, no matter whether an investigator, a physicion, a medical reporter, or any member of the public, to read all with a skeptical eye"(Lundberg, JAMA V262:945)? In view of the above numerous examples of military misconduct and deceit, it would seem that suspicion of any military claims is justified--even those of military physicians. (3) On Larry King Live you stated, "I've studied the Ramsy Clark Panel Report fully personally. They (sic) supported Humes and Boswell and provided additional forensic evidence that supported Humes and Boswell...". Are you unaware that the Clark Panel did not support Humes and Boswell but determined that the autopsists "missed" the location of the fatal skull wound by 4-5 inches--that the wound they saw in photos and confirmed in X-rays was 4-5 inches higher than claimed by Humes and Boswell in JAMA and to the Warren Commission? If even the Clark Panel determined the autopsists to be wildly inaccurate in the simple matter of determing a skull wound, how can anyone rely on their other claims including the bone beveling that determined bullet directionality? (After all, determination of the bone beveling requires a far subtler observation than the gross localization of the head wound.) (4) If, as you claim, "These first hand accounts of the autopsy and the scientific forencic evidence are indisputable." (JAMA. '92; 268:1738) can you possibly be aware that the X-rays and photos don't support the claims of Humes and Boswell? If Humes and Boswell are right about the location of the skull wound it implies that the photos and X-rays are forged as claimed by the technicians who took them. Is that JAMA's intent? (5) Humes and Boswell claimed that the skull entrance wound was to the right and just above the EOP to the Warren Commission and to you. To the HSCA they claimed it was to the right and just below the EOP and labelled a skull specimen to show the location. In a second interview Humes caved in and decided that the HSCA's pathologists were right and that he, Boswell and Finck were wrong and that the wound was 4 inches higher in the area of the cowlick! You state: "I completely believe that this information, as personally given by Jim (Humes) and "J" (Boswell) is scientifically sound and, in my judgement, provides irrefutable evidence that president Kennedy was killed by only two bullets that struck him from above and behind...".(JAMA. '92; 267:2803) Why should anyone believe what Humes, Boswell and Finck say when, not only do they change their claims, but the photos and X-rays "prove" their JAMA claims wrong? (6) If JAMA's policy is to "prefer that information not be released to the public...until the article appears in print in (the) journal" (JAMA. '91; 265:400), why did you appear publicly and announce the upcoming JFK interviews on 5-19-92 (before anyone would have had the opportunity to study the data) and not wait until 5-27-92, the publication date of the issue in question? (7) You have stated: "...Rigorous peer reveiw prevents the publication of poor science by applying the most stringent standards when evaluating the validity of research..." (JAMA. '87; 258:87).You also claimed: "I am extremely pleased that, finally, we are able to have published in the peer reviewed literature the actual findings of what took place at the autopsy table on 11-23-63...."(JAMA '92; 267:2803) Can we infer from your statement that outside, "peer review" experts were consulted to corroborate the information provided by the autopsy pathologists? If so, how could these consultants have failed to point out the previously contradictory testimonies of Humes, Boswell and Finck? How could JAMA have failed to mention it? How can you categorically state that the information is "scientifically sound"? If the autopsy pathologists were wrong about the location of the wound, something measured in inches, can you rely upon them to accurately determine "beveling" a feature measured in mm? As I think about it, some other thoughts should come to mind. The first one, however, would be to contact the people “debating” Rennie and ask them if they’d like any of this. MOST IMPORTANT: LUNDBERG DESCRIBED JAMA’S ARTICLES ON JFK, THOSE BY BREO, AS “PEER-REVIEWED”. PEER-REVIEWED MEANS, BY THE AMA’S “MANUAL OF STYLE” THAT THE ARTICLES WERE PEER REVIEWED BY AN “ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT”. I WROTE DENNY MYSELF AND ASKED HIM AND HE TOLD ME THAT BREO’S ARTICLES WERE, IN FACT, “PEER-REVIEWED”, BUT NOT IN THE ‘USUAL’ MANNER. HE DID NOT EXPLAIN OR ELABORATE WHAT THAT MEANT, BUT I’M UNAWARE OF ANOTHER STANDARD FOR PEER REVIEW. THE PEER REVIEWERS, AS KIZZIA’S LETTER WHICH FOLLOWS SHOWS, WERE: 1) LUNDBERG HIMSELF 2) AMA-EMPLOYEE, RICHARD GLASS, MD 3) AMA-ATTORNEY MARY JANE ANDERSON (?-EN) NOT ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD, BY ANY STANDARD, BE CONSIDERED AN ‘ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT’. KIZZIA’S COPA ABSTRACT Disturbing Revelations Uncovered in the Suit brought by Charles Crenshaw,MD against the AMA/JAMA, The Dallas Morning News, David Belin, George D. Lundberg, MD, et al. by D. Bradley Kizzia, J.D. COPA - 1994 Recent information uncovered during the lawsuit brought by Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of Conspiracy of Silence, against The American Medical Association (AMA), The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Dallas Morning News, JAMA editor, George D. Lundberg, MD, JAMA staff writer, Dennis Breo and David Belin, reveals the surprising depths to which some Warren Commission loyalists were willing to descend to quell opposition to the ‘official’ 'truth' of the Warren Commission. Among the troubling revelations it has emerged that: 1) While Dennis Breo’s AMA/JAMA articles were described as "objective", and "peer reviewed" by JAMA editor, Lundberg, they were neither. Lundberg acted as instigator, supervisor and consultant in the preparation of Breo's interview articles. As he is a personal friend of controversial interviewees, James, H. Humes, MD and J. Thornton Boswell, MD, he could hardly be considered objective. As he has admitted that he is not knowledgeable on the JFK subject, Lundberg's interpretations are not authoritative. Moreover, Lundberg, a much published authority on the subject of scientific "peer review" , directed that Breo's articles be 'peer reviewed' by himself, AMA attorney Betty Jane Anderson, and JAMA employee, Richard Glass, MD. Not one of these individuals was even moderately knowledgeable on the subject of JFK's death; nor for that matter was author Breo. Lundberg has thus mocked the very standards of peer review scientific journalism he himself has labored to establish and defend - authoritative factual content and objective, knowledgeable prepublication review and certification. 2) Lundberg coordinated and planned the splashy AMA-sponsored New York news conference that announced the publication of Dennis Breo’s seriously factually flawed and defamatory AMA/JAMA articles. He sent Breo to New York on 5/18/92 to prepare for the 5/20/92 news conference/media blitz. He later misleadingly claimed in sworn depositions that he was merely invited by the AMA to give a news conference, when in fact, the news conference was instigated by him and driven by him. 3) Lundberg sought to impugn Crenshaw's book describing it as "a sad fabrication based on unsubstantiated allegations" for Crenshaw's descriptions of JFK's wounds which suggested a shot from the front. Parkland physician witnesses were presented in JAMA to refute Crenshaw's conspiracy-supporting wound descriptions. JAMA failed to acknowledge, however, that the very witnesses Breo used to disprove Crenshaw's assertions, Drs. Perry, Baxter, McClelland and Jenkins gave eerily similar wound descriptions to those of Crenshaw in 1963 and 1964 - when, presumably, their recollections were fresher and more reliable, and, when they were not being pressured by the AMA/JAMA to give the 'correct' wound descriptions. 4) The AMA/JAMA falsely suggested that Crenshaw's observations were worthless as he was not even in JFK's trauma room. That Crenshaw was present was sworn to by two of JAMA's own interviewees, Drs. Baxter and McClelland, before the Warren Commission, and is also confirmed by the Warren testimonies of three other witnesses (6H32, 40, 60, 80 & 131). AMA/JAMA interviewee Robert McClelland, MD even told Breo that Crenshaw was in JFK's trauma room, yet JAMA printed the false slander anyhow, and apparently without further pursuing the easily found truth. Had a legitimate "peer reviewer" been used by JAMA this error, and myriad others, would have never appeared on its pages. The AMA/JAMA's libelous error against AMA-member, Crenshaw, was critically noted on the pages of the New York Times on 5/20/92 and again on 5/27/92, and, it has been learned, these issues were immediately available, and seen, in the offices of AMA/JAMA. No correction or retraction was printed. Discovery during the suit has also uncovered the fact that Breo and Lundberg even researched and confirmed that the New York Times’ criticisms were valid on the slanderous errors about Crenshaw and still printed no retraction or correction. AMA/JAMA even reprinted and distributed the false slanders well after the truth was well known to Breo and Lundberg. Crenshaw sent JAMA an article to correct the scientific record and defend his name. JAMA refused to publish it, but suggested he write a letter to the editor of no longer than 500 words. Crenshaw wrote the letter, and JAMA also refused to publish it. It is now 2 1/2 years since these slanderous errors appeared and JAMA has not printed a correction, even if only for the factual, scientific record. In depositions neither Breo nor Lundberg could identify a single other article published in JAMA where any other physician was attacked and treated in a manner similar to that perpetrated against Crenshaw in Breo's articles. 5) The Dallas Morning News and AMA/JAMA derided Crenshaw's claim that he'd picked up a call from LBJ while caring for the mortally wounded Oswald. The New York Times pointed out, however, that Charles R. Baxter, MD, the JAMA-cited physician who denied Crenshaw's claim, was not even in the operating room when the call he disputed came in. Moreover, The New York Times also noted that another Parkland physician who was there, Philip Williams, MD, did remember such a call and had mentioned it to others for years. Moreover the former chief Parkland hospital operator claimed in a letter to the Dallas Morning News that she clearly recalled LBJ's call. “The News” refused to publish her letter and no retraction or correction of this error was ever made by AMA/JAMA. For some journalists loyal to the Warren Commission it seems that to achieve the goal of convicting Oswald of JFK's murder in the eyes of the public, no slander, deception or misrepresentation is too much - even for the medical-scientific literature. While it is easy to condemn the writer, certainly the editor bears far greater responsibility. As Arthur Plotnik has observed, "The best editors become troubleshooters not to hold on to their jobs, however, but because they are decent human beings who don't want to hurt people by publishing false and damaging material...". (emphasis in original and added) "One hopes...that no editor would sink so low, even to attack the most universally despised public figure. Editors are morally bound...to take every precaution imaginable in verifying facts to assure that truth is being served when any member of society is being publicly kicked in the pants." (emphasis added) It would appear that by Plotnik's reckoning, the editors of both JAMA and The Dallas Morning News have sunk quite low. It is also clear that they had little interest giving the truth to their readers when that truth was embarrassing or inconvenient. How ironic it is that the last sentence of Breo's JAMA article reads, "This special report is our attempt to confront the defamers of the truth." -------------------------------------------------- refs: "Peer review" is the prepublication scrutiny of submitted manuscripts to a scientific journal by persons who are acknowledged expert(s) in the relevant subject area. Thus only reviewers with expertise in the subject of JFK's death would have been legitimate "peer reviewers" for Breo's articles. New York Times, 5/27/92. Plotnik A. The Elements of Editing--A Modern Guide for Editors and Journalists. 1982, New York, Macmillan. p50-51. IBID, p. 54. Breo, D. JAMA. Vol.267:2807.