June 2, 1999

E. Ratcliffe Anderson, MD
Chief Executive Officer
American Medical Association
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Dr. Anderson,

I read with great amusement that deposed JAMA editor George Lundberg, MD complained that your firing him was purely political, and represented no less than a dire threat to the sanctity of independent scientific journalism. While his is a pretty wild charge, his experience in these matters is something that cannot be denied. In fact in the techniques of abusing scientific journalism to further personal and political ends, I believe it could be argued Lundberg has firmly established his own estimable credentials. I write to congratulate you, and to share with you an underreported story that exemplifies one of the ways the former editor earned those particular credentials.

In 1992 JAMA published a series of since all but forgotten articles on medical aspects of the JFK assassination that were written by in-house JAMA writer Dennis Breo. Lundberg, whose personal interest and connections had prompted the stories, apparently closely supervised Breo. The articles purported to endorse the Warren Commission by confirming the original findings of JFK's autopsy. This feat was accomplished, amazingly, by asking JFK's original pathologists - James Humes, MD, J. Thornton Boswell, MD and Pierre Finck, MD - if their original conclusions were right. When they said they were, JAMA broadcast their self-confirmations as the "indisputable proof" (Lundberg's understated description, though one, I must admit, I've never seen in the scientific literature before) that JFK's wounds were consistent with Oswald's sole guilt.

As a physician who has seen the still-restricted JFK autopsy materials by permission of the Kennedy family, and who has written and lectured on the subject of the JFK murder, I was disappointed, though fascinated, by what JAMA wrote. Why? For many reasons, including the fact that nowhere in Breo's lengthy articles did Breo/Lundberg find space to explore key background material central to even a rudimentary understanding of their lead article about JFK's autopsy: the scathing critique of JFK's autopsy by the forensic consultants to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The HSCA, which reexamined JFK's death in 1978 and determined a conspiracy was likely, devoted considerable attention to JFK's autopsy. Summarizing the myriad failings and errors in JFK's autopsy, the chairman of the HSCA's panel of forensic consultants, New York coroner Michael Baden, MD - a legitimate peer-reviewer on this subject by anyone's standards - wrote, "Where bungled autopsies are concerned, President Kennedy's is the exemplar."

Though Lundberg had trained under Baden, he was oblivious to the fact that JFK's autopsy was no better than second-rate. He maintained instead an unjustified enthusiasm for the irrefutable findings of JFK's pathologists. He traveled to New York to pose behind an AMA-emblazoned dais to spread the great news at a flashy AMA news conference. (JFK's pathologists, prudently?, declined Lundberg's invitation to attend; or, at least, that's how Lundberg explained their absence.) He appeared on numerous television talk shows. He even, ironically, crowed about what a great contribution Breo's articles were to the "peer-reviewed" literature on the JFK assassination. But they hadn't been peer-reviewed. In fact no one with the least understanding of the case, and certainly no one approaching Baden's caliber, had ever seen Breo's articles before JAMA published them. And Lundberg was clever, too. He held his news conference on May 19, 1992, 8 days before the publication date, and as much as 3 weeks before legitimate JFK authorities would have a chance to examine the articles to give informed comment to any press inquiries. To readers with any background in the case, Lundberg's failure to employ true peer review became immediately apparent in the first article. But it was not the first article that caused the AMA so much grief.

In the second of his three articles, Breo/Lundberg sought to refute the conspiracy claims of then-AMA member, and a treating Dallas physician-witness, Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the best-selling book JFK - Conspiracy of Silence. To refute Crenshaw's claim that JFK's wounds were inconsistent with someone firing from Oswald's position, Breo proffered some Dallas physician-witnesses. Though helpful to Breo/Lundberg, those witnesses had lousy memories. For when the same men testified to the Warren Commission in 1964, their statements, rather than refuting Crenshaw, tended to corroborate him! But that is a side issue, albeit fascinating in its own right. (Testimonies available by request.) Oblivious to his sources' credibility problems, Breo triumphantly declared that Crenshaw couldn't have known about JFK's wounds because he wasn't even in JFK's trauma room. Concluding his attack on Crenshaw with a note of righteous indignation, Breo wrote, "This special report is our attempt to confront the defamers of the truth."

On May 20th and 27th, 1992 Lawrence Altman, MD wrote in the New York Times that JAMA's research on JFK 'wasn't very thorough,' and, among other problems, he pointed out what most Warren critics already knew: Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room. His presence had been sworn to before the Warren Commission by at least one of the very Dallas physicians (Charles Baxter, MD) that JAMA had sourced as proof of his absence! And besides Baxter's sworn statement to Crenshaw's presence in 1964, there were the sworn statements of 4 other witnesses in Warren Commission volume 6 - on pages 32, 40, 60, 80, and 131, as well as other, contemporaneous news accounts.

[Let me hasten to add that I am in no way crediting every assertion of fact in Crenshaw's book, but only arguing that criticizing an author on unchecked, and false, grounds is bad form in a "scientific" journal. Nor is it better form to refuse to set the scientific record strait when error is identified, as happened here. Additionally, as the noted authority, Arthur Plotnik, has observed: "One hopes Σ no editor would sink so low, even to attack the most universally despised public figure. Editors are morally bound Σ to take every precaution imaginable in verifying the facts to assure that truth is being served when any member of society is being publicly kicked in the pants." Whereas Crenshaw admitted there were errors in his book in the New York Times, which he attributed to his co-authors, Lundberg refused to correct his "co-author's" obvious libel against Crenshaw in JAMA. Thus in his unapologetic 'attempt to confront the defamers of the truth,' Lundberg, ironically, ceded the moral high ground to Crenshaw!]

JAMA's (then potential) libel was brought to Lundberg's and the AMA's attention not only by the New York Times, but also by the Columbia Journalism Review, the peer-reviewed journalism journal, by Crenshaw himself in a letter to the editor Lundberg refused to publish, and by a group of then-AMA members who submitted a letter to the AMA protesting Lundberg's substandard, one-sided coverage of the JFK topic. I personally wrote the AMA's president Lonnie Bristow, MD to warn of the possible legal and financial consequences to the AMA membership of Lundberg's actions. There was then still time to do the right thing and, less importantly, avoid a costly and embarrassing legal outcome. But all efforts were to no avail. The AMA foolishly circled its wagons around Lundberg, and Crenshaw's lawyers licked their lips.

The AMA ultimately paid Crenshaw over $200,000.00 to settle out of court. It probably also spent another small fortune in direct and indirect defense costs, what with traveling to Texas for court appointments and so on. A loyal (if naïve) AMA member then myself, I foolishly believed that the AMA would - if not before Crenshaw's successful litigation, then after it - do to Lundberg what only you did recently: the honorable thing. For not only had Lundberg knowingly withheld the truth from JAMA readers, he did so knowing he was putting AMA dues-payers at risk for his folly. (If JAMA were indeed independent of the AMA, as Lundberg and the AMA leadership then argued, why was the AMA forced to pay the Crenshaw settlement? And how could you, from outside JAMA, have recently fired Lundberg?)

Besides the financial costs the AMA bore, the legal depositions also inflicted additional collateral damage to Lundberg's credibility. Dubiously, Lundberg claimed under oath that it was not his idea, but the AMA's, to have him host a New York news conference to introduce the JFK articles. AMA executives swore, quite reasonably, that they knew nothing about the articles until Lundberg mentioned them, and proposed the AMA sponsor him at a news conference. Someone was not telling the whole truth. Common sense suggests it was Lundberg. (I have in my personal possession, and have read, the depositions.)

Lundberg was also forced to admit under oath that the "peer reviewers" who had approved Breo's adventurous pieces were Lundberg himself, Lundberg's AMA underling Richard Glass, MD (the new co-editor and "peer review" authority, right?), and AMA attorney Betty Jane Anderson. Under oath they acknowledged their all but total unfamiliarity with the complexities of the JFK medical/autopsy data. Thus on the JFK topic, they fell short of meeting the criterion Lundberg requires for using the expression "peer-reviewers": "acknowledged experts inside or outside the editorial office." (I believe JAMA may have published this definition, for Lundberg faxed me this definition, apparently from a text of some sort, himself. Copy of his fax to me by request.)

So to confer undeserved authority on poorly researched articles, Lundberg claimed they had been "peer-reviewed." And for what purpose? His published comments, and court documents, prove his agenda was to salvage the Oliver Stone-sullied reputations of JFK's military pathologists who, as luck would have it, just happened to be the former military pathologist-turned JAMA editor's personal friends and acquaintances! Indeed, Lundberg invoked the "non truths" in Oliver Stone's film JFK in his hand-written note of invitation to his friend, "Jim" - James H. Humes, MD, JFK's chief pathologist. And in a debate on the JFK topic in Chicago in 1993, Lundberg explained that he sought to interview JFK's pathologists because he was outraged at how they were depicted in Stone's film JFK: as cowards bending to the will of superiors intent on eliciting certain conclusions from the autopsy of the century. (See Copy of Lundberg's hand-written letter to "Jim," a.k.a. James Humes, MD, JFK's chief autopsy pathologist - enclosed. See also Lundberg's published comments in JAMA. Transcript of Lundberg's comments at the Chicago debate available by request.)

But when word got out that JAMA's famous interviewees happened to be Lundberg's personal friends, and when they no-showed at Lundberg's news conference, and then stonewalled every question put to them in colleague letters JAMA's editors selected and published (including mine, 10/7/92 JAMA issue), it gave cynics reason to snicker that perhaps the AMA had signed on, witting or no, to continue the assassination cover up! (See Professor Wayne Smith's article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct., 1993, p. 49, as well as my published letter, CJR, Nov./Dec., 1993, p.6.) Little has emerged since then to prove the cynics wrong. More, in fact, suggests they might be right, at least as regards Humes, Boswell and Finck.

The timid pathologists, so effusively extolled by Breo/Lundberg as capable, courageous and forthright, quickly exhibited a quite different quality - that of the frightened cowards in Oliver Stone's dark portrait. Despite their bold declarations in JAMA that they had nothing to hide, when the civilian leadership of the US government's Assassinations Records Review Board invited them to appear voluntarily to answer questions (including, they might have feared, about their prior contradictory statements), they refused. (In the published letters they stonewalled in JAMA, you'll find mention of several irrefutable inconsistencies between the pathologists' prior sworn statements and their claims in JAMA.)

But having cut its teeth by forcing seasoned stonewallers - FBI and CIA agents - to comply with the will of the people, the JFK Review Board made quick work of Humes, Boswell and Finck. They slapped them with subpoenas and put them under oath. Though a full discussion of their fascinating testimony is beyond the scope of this letter, they did tell the Board a few things worth mentioning: They claimed, as they had for 34 years, that JFK's fatal bullet entered his skull at a low location in occipital bone, just near the external occipital protuberance. If indeed it had entered that low, according to all the authorities who have ever examined this case, Oswald is "irrefutably" excluded as a possible assassin! While they named the same low location in JAMA, Lundberg was apparently too distracted bashing Oliver Stone and Charles Crenshaw, and bucking-up the Warren Commission and his pathologist friends, to devote a single word to, or perhaps even notice, this glaring scientific discrepancy. (It remains unresolved even today.) The pathologists, who had previously signed a Justice Department-prepared declaration that there were no missing autopsy photographs, admitted under oath what they had told others: autopsy photographs are missing. 5 other, credible witnesses, including both autopsy photographers, independently confirmed that autopsy images are missing. But I digress. The point is that there were important stories, such as these, that should have been in JAMA. But because of Lundberg's agenda, they weren't.

Nevertheless, in the end, was Lundberg's effort worth it? Did the men who Lundberg brandished as heroic sources of 'irrefutable scientific proof' compensate for the editor's failures regarding Crenshaw? They might have, if they had explained the serious discrepancies in their prior statements, if they had explained why the most important autopsy of their careers had been discredited by the legitimate peer-reviewers of the HSCA, if they had had the courage to meet the press at Lundberg's ballyhooed New York news conference, if they had not stonewalled colleague letters in JAMA, and, finally, if they had not been men who embarrassed all physicians by trying to stonewall delegates of the people. But, alas, on all accounts they failed. Lundberg's failure, however, was greater. He failed to protect JAMA readers, and the scientific record, from the self-serving, inconsistent statements of JFK's discredited pathologists. He also failed to protect the AMA from unnecessary costs and embarrassment resulting from his unsound editorial decision-making on Crenshaw.

Since you may not have a good source on Lundberg/Crenshaw affair, [please see the] article from your local Chicago Reader (copies available by request). Though hardly the august pulpit Lundberg had for so long at JAMA, the author of the Reader article, Michael Miner, has done a far better job of clarifying some of the labyrinthine aspects of Lundberg/Crenshaw affair than JAMA did clarifying the medical mysteries of JFK's death. If anything, I think he was too kind to Lundberg - far kinder, and fairer, than Lundberg was to the responsible Warren critics of the HSCA, or Crenshaw. It's a true and important story, though one you'd never find in JAMA, which, until recently, was apparently more interested in getting quick headline coverage of the important fact that 8 years ago a majority of college students didn't think oral sex was sex. I am encouraged to see that, whereas the AMA apparently had no problem with Lundberg's colossal and costly goofs regarding JFK, under your direction, he got a pink slip for aiding and abetting a randy man who has disgraced America with his obsession with pink slips and red thongs.

I hope you enjoy Miner's well-written article, as well as the published follow-up letters David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. (physics) and I wrote. Please feel free to call upon me anytime.

Sincerely,

Gary L. Aguilar, MD
Associate Director, Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco
Head, Division of Ophthalmology, St. Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco
Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco
Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, Stanford University Medical Center
Member, California Medical Association
Former Delegate, California Medical Association

PS. When JAMA's JFK articles first appeared I looked up David Mantik, who, like me, had authored a letter that was published, and stonewalled, in the 10/7/92 JAMA issue. We were both then longstanding, loyal AMA members. After having regularly paid dues to the AMA for over 10 years, we believed that the AMA would answer the only letter we had ever written "our" organization - a letter of protest about the Lundberg/Breo JFK articles, and one that had 10 co-signers besides ourselves, including Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, the coroner of Pittsburgh PA and one of the HSCA's forensic consultants. Inasmuch as Lundberg had brandished the AMA shield during his sales pitch in New York, we believed that the AMA, and we as dues payers, ought to have something to say about what he was selling.

But when the AMA stonewalled all of us to stick by Lundberg's editorial abuses and libel, it altered my view of the AMA as an organization interested in the legitimate, ethical concerns of its members. Mantik and I (and others) have since found other uses for our AMA dues in the aftermath of this episode. (In fairness, nearly a year later, and after several additional inquiries, we finally did get a letter back. It was one that managed, clumsily, to dodge virtually all the substantive issues we raised - available by request.)

Return to Main Page

* * *