Wow, there's a lot of "you're wrong!"s being thrown back and forth here which is pretty ballsy for a bunch of people who weren't there and don't know what he said.
First of all this isn't a year-old story, this is a SEVEN-year-old story. And it was taken wildly out of context. See here and here.
The last sentence from that first source: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."
In short, anyone arguing about this one way or the other is dumb and checkity check yo'self and your sources, dumbasses.