These rumors aren't vague in Indian Country. All of the NDNs I've asked (even a few who are badmouthing Churchill) say that they've always believed these stories about smallpox blankets were true. You are right that this very much predates Churchill. Oral history can be accurate and it might also be seen that the Army might not wish to keep around any incriminating evidence.
>Which of Wiener's examples is worse than faking a genocide?
Isn't it a rather long leap to say that a mistake or omission in footnoting means the author fabricated genocide?
> And why
> should I keep quiet about Churchill's research misconduct,
Perhaps because you don't have all the facts and are doing more than simply pointing out a mistake in footnoting?
--tully