Because when I listened to him speak with enough time to give as much context as he wanted, it was clear that's not a claim he makes. He may have said something to the effect that he did a lot of early research in the field, possibly something that, if interpreted uncharitably, could imply he was taking more credit than was due him. But falsely attributing an untrue statement to someone and then calling him a liar for the thing he didn't say is precisely the kind of skillful misinformation I've come to expect from corporate journalists since the Iraq war. How someone can say 'trust the experts' in the morning and trust the New York Times over a widely-cited scientist in the evening is beyond me.

And please, tell me where in this account's relatively short history I've ever agreed with a corporate journalist on anything. While you're at it, tell me whether you're for or against informed consent for medical procedures.