The articles concerned have now been pulled and the original URLs take you to the apology instead, but you can read some of what was said in screen grabs that I published here.
The articles disappearing will also come as a relief to Cancer Research UK because the journalist claimed that it was they who "condemned scientists who accepted tens of thousands of pounds from tobacco companies". I'm sure that The Times would also publish a retraction of that claim, but for some reason CRUK don't seem to be demanding one. How odd?
I wonder, also, if The Times will be asking their reporter to pay back her travel expenses considering her lazy hackneyed approach to the subject led to embarrassment for the paper and resulted in nothing but empty URLs for their cash. What a mess, eh? Perhaps there is a lesson in the whole palaver for a few people, don't you think?