The New York Times Misleads Readers in Polio Vaccine Controversy

The newspaper giant was more interested in political skirmishes than upholding the truth.

The New York Times recently found itself in hot water after it published an article, aimed at discrediting Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the incoming head of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

At the core of the controversy is a legal petition filed in August 2022 by attorney Aaron Siri on behalf of his client, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN).

The petition raised serious concerns about the FDA’s approval process for IPOL, a polio vaccine manufactured by Sanofi.

Specifically, it highlighted glaring deficiencies in the clinical trials used to license the vaccine.

The petition stated:

The clinical trials relied upon to license this product, did not include a control group and only assessed safety for up to three days after injection. These trials therefore did not comply with the applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements necessary to prove the product was “safe” prior to licensure.”

The petitioners requested:

The FDA therefore must either withdraw or suspend the approval of this product until an appropriate clinical trial, as required by law, is conducted to determine its safety.

Yet, instead of focusing on the shocking lack of safety data and the absence of a control group in the pivotal trial that underpinned the vaccine’s approval, the New York Times focused on linking Kennedy with Siri, and distorting the petition’s purpose.

Siri was quick to clarify that the petition was the initiative of ICAN and that it had nothing to do with Kennedy.

“I have been Mr. Kennedy’s attorney in several matters, including during his presidential campaign. The attempts to stoke fear are based on legal work I did for a different client, which I never discussed with Mr. Kennedy,” wrote Siri in The Wall Street Journal.

Kennedy also denied involvement with the petition, stating that he was unaware of its existence until it became the subject of media coverage last week.

The New York Times article portrayed Siri - and by association, Kennedy - as men waging a “war” on vaccines and misled readers into believing Kennedy and Siri were on a crusade to deny polio vaccines to American children.

However, Siri explained, "Contrary to the exaggerated media reports suggesting the petition aimed to eliminate all polio vaccines, the scope was actually quite narrow."

He continued, "The petition simply asked the FDA to require a proper trial for the licensure of a novel polio vaccine for children," stressing that it was not calling for a blanket ban on polio vaccines.

Also, the New York Times article conveniently ignored the fact that several other polio vaccines, including the well-known Salk vaccine, remain widely available for use in the US.

In the fallout, many have accused the New York Times of engaging in partisan journalism, prioritising a political attack on Kennedy over presenting the facts with fairness and accuracy.

In response to the criticism, the New York Times weakly defended its position claiming it did not intend to suggest that Kennedy was behind the petition or that “all” polio vaccines were under threat.

However, Siri wasn’t having a bar of it. He accused the newspaper of intentionally distorting the narrative.

“They knew what they were doing,” he said. “It’s impossible to believe the New York Times didn’t understand how their framing would be received by the public.”

Amid the firestorm, Sanofi claimed it had six months of follow-up data for its IPOL vaccine, but as Siri pointed out, the data have never been made publicly available.

Ironically, the New York Times’ attempt to silence Siri and discredit Kennedy ended up amplifying their message.

Siri has since leveraged this platform, appearing on numerous platforms, redirecting the conversation to the substantive issues of vaccine safety and the need for greater transparency in public health.

This incident is just the latest in a series of high-profile missteps by mainstream media.

In an era already marked by scepticism toward legacy news outlets, the New York Times’ actions have only fuelled concerns about bias and accuracy in journalism.

The newspaper must now navigate the repercussions of its embarrassing misstep, particularly at a time when public trust in the legacy media is at historic lows.

---

Dear Readers,

As we wrap up another incredible year, I want to take a moment to thank you for being part of this journey. Your support and engagement make this blog the thriving community it is today.

This season of giving is the perfect time to take things to the next level! Consider signing up as a paid subscriber or gifting a subscription to someone special.

Wishing you and your loved ones a joyful holiday season. I’ll be back early in the new year!

Warm regards,
Maryanne