|
DOCUMENTS IN THE GALLO CASE
Here's what's available now. As always, your comments are most welcome! I would especially appreciate information on broken links!.
Here is what the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, John Dingell, had to say to Harold Varmus, Director of the NIH, about the report. The letters of ours to which Mr. Dingell referred can be found here and here.
The Richards Report is new to this server. It is an interesting document you will not find elsewhere!
The draft Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Energy and Commerce is now available. It was the subject of an article by John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune on 1 January 1995. See also an article that appeared in The Cancer Letter on 6 January 1995. On 23 January 1995 Serge Lang mailed it to his cc-list for the Gallo file, together with a letter titled "Re: THE DINGELL SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF REPORT." and a document containing extracts from the draft Staff Report and the Executive Summary.
The draft report and accompanying materials are made available here to the scientific community in response to the urgings of a number of senior scientists (see, for example, the letter of John Edsall, the letter of Charles Park, and the letter of Elliot Lieb, all written to Congressman Dingell).
On 4 February 1995, Robert Gallo phoned Ned Feder and had an extensive discussion with him and, later in the day, with Walter Stewart. He said that he had only very recently received the draft Staff Report and that he had not yet read it. He said that he thought that of available documents, those that best pointed out the deficiencies of the draft Staff Report were Bernadine Healy's letter of 19 January 1995 to the Chicago Tribune and Joseph Onek's letter of 3 February 1995 to The Cancer Letter. He urged us to obtain and read these letters. We said that we would, and that we would make them available on the Web (which we did the next day).
Ned and I both urged Dr. Gallo to read the draft Staff Report and to document any deficiencies he found in it. We offered to make his response widely available and to disseminate it on the Web at this site and wherever else the draft report was available. We offered to convert his response to the proper format for the Web. He thanked me for my advice and said he would consider it carefully over the next few days. He stated that he had never had any quarrel or problems with either Ned or myself, and that he enjoyed talking with me.
Ned and I subsequently reiterated our strong suggestion to Dr. Gallo that he respond to the draft staff report and our offer to disseminate it for him on the Web in a letter of 5 February 1995. We subsequently received from Dr. Gallo a letter of 18 February 1995 addressed to both of us.
On 26 January 1995, William Hagins wrote a letter to Serge Lang suggesting steps that should be taken in the Gallo case. Subsequently, Robert Gallo called William Hagins to discuss the Gallo case with him. Hagins urged Gallo to put his reply to the draft Dingell Staff Report in writing. Subsequently Hagins received a letter dated 21 February 1995 stating his position on the matter.
Note that the Bernadine Healy's letter of 19 January 1995 to the Chicago Tribune was replied to by Peter Stockton and Suzanne Hadley in a letter submitted to the Tribune on 2 February 1995.
On 23 January 1995, Ned and I wrote a letter to Kenneth Ryan (head of the Ryan commission) and a letter to Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health. These letters are mentioned prominently in John Dingell's letter of 3 February 1995 to Harold Varmus.
On 15 February 1995, Ned and I were each handed an Official Letter of Reprimand from Mr. L. Earl Laurence, Executive Officer for NIDDK, for communicating with the Ryan Commission using NIDDK letterhead. We were astonished, since we had previously received written approval from Mr. Laurence to present material to the Ryan Commission as an official duty activity. In forwarding the draft Dingell Gallo Report, we were responding to a request from a Commissioner for further written materials. Further, we had received a 28 November 1994 letter from Henrietta Hyatt-Knorr, the Executive Secretary for the Ryan Commission, explicitly requesting "Any other materials that you referred to or promised to send to the Commission." We also received a 28 November 1994 letter from Commissioner Tom Devine requesting that we "prepare and submit written testimony, as previously arranged with the Commission" and adding "If there is any problem with your obtaining the necessary permission of official time to perform this work, please contact me immediately."
We summarized the reasons why it appeared correct to use letterhead in a memorandum of 26 February 1995 and an accompanying memorandum of 25 February to Mr. Laurence. The incident was covered in an article in the 1 March 1995 issue of Science & Government Report.
The draft Staff Report itself is a massive document consisting of 3 pieces: source...
keywords: aids critic(s) # aids controversy # dr gallo critic(s) # azt critics # aids lawsuits # aids court case(s) # aids censorship # robert gallo critic # hiv aids censorship # aids hiv critic(s) # hiv critic(s) # dr gallo lawsuit(s) # azt toxicity # haart toxicity # interferon toxicity # dr gallo court case(s) # hiv test false positive # aids lie(s) # hep-c critic(s) # hiv-hcv critic(s) # hiv test critic(s) # aids war(s) # aids keywords # critical virology # critical virologists # aids critics keywords campaign #
|
