Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Pix From My (Almost) 50th Birthday Party!

It's been nearly a week since lots of friends came to my party and showered with love, friendship, and the sweat of Gino, the simply adorable-enough-to-eat erotic dancer, and I'm finally getting some pix posted. Thanks Tate for organizing the party, and a big hug of gratitude to all who turned out to help me celebrate.

Here are the images:


The ever-lovely Pam Blankenheim, in a stunning red poncho.


I can't recall this handsome man's name.


From the left, Clinton Fein, Richard Carrazza and Jeff.


This fine man's name is Todd.


Getting some love from Josh.


Handsome bear-about-town John Silverman.


A grinning Nadia, my social justice activist pal, who should launch a blog.


My lesbian girlfriend, Emily Nahmanson, formerly of ACT UP/NYC.


Gino, the erotic dancer, on the left, with his handsome hubby.


Wearing the stunning green dress, Missy and her vamp gal pal.


On the right, my pal Danny Nicoletta smiling for the camera.


Little Sistar giving me a great hug.


My buddy Gino performing his erotic dance.


Longtime friend Edna Victoria.


Marc Salomon, a friend from the Green Party, smiling.


Joe, a member of the pot dispensary, enjoying himself.


Mike MacIntee on the left, and two of his buddies.


On the left, my Sunshine pal Joe Lynn, and my partner Mike Merrigan on the right.


Here is my chiropractor Topher and his gal pal.


This is my friend Vern.




My neighbor Russell, leaning into the photo w/photograher Rick Gerharter.


Dennis Peron, the American Pope of Pot.
NYT AIDS Quilt Story Quotes Diverse Array of Activists and Executives

Today's New York Times features an article on the latest skirmishes in the battle over the AIDS quilt, and if I do say so myself, a diverse array of folks are quoted! :-)

A Changing Battle on AIDS is Reflected in a Quilt
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: January 31, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 30 — It has been 20 years since Cleve Jones started the AIDS Memorial Quilt here, painting the name of a friend who had died from the disease on a simple piece of fabric.

During the next two decades the quilt became the largest piece of community folk art in the world, a 54-ton collage affixed with the names of 91,000 victims of AIDS, a tapestry of grief that was one of the earliest and most effective tools in raising awareness of the disease.

Now Mr. Jones is locked in a legal tug of war with the quilt’s caretaker, the Names Project Foundation, over custody of 35 of its 6,000 panels. The dispute is not just about the relatively small swatch of the quilt, or even the simmering personality clash between Mr. Jones, a founder of the group, and his successors. More broadly, the battle reflects the changing symbolism and purpose of one of the most recognizable symbols of the AIDS crisis as the crisis itself has changed.

The confrontation has touched on issues percolating through the AIDS community, including the new racial, social and international demographics of the disease; changes in philanthropic trends; and the question of whether memorials are appropriate at a time when other major problems, including a rebound in unsafe sex and the emergence of new drug-resistant strains, persist.

“The quilt was very effective in the late ’80s and early ’90s for AIDS awareness,” said Michael Petrelis, a writer in San Francisco who has been active in the AIDS movement. “On the other hand, there’s hundreds and thousands of people that need a housing subsidy, just trying to keep a roof over their head. Should we be putting our time and money into another vigil? I don’t know.” [...]


Click here
and read the full NYT story.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007



Catholic World News: Sullivan, Tatchell & Barney Frank Want a Weakened Church

What a triad! Three gay men, political advocates and friends I like and mostly admire; Sullivan on the right, Frank in the middle and Tatchell on the left -- all lumped together by the Catholic World News site today. (I say mostly admire because there are times I object to Andrew's conservatism or Barney's Democratic Party positions, but that's besides the point today.)

From the Catholic World News posting this morning on a move in the UK over gays adopting kids:

Trade places with the other team for a moment and imagine how -- if you were an Andrew Sullivan or a Peter Tatchell or the editor of the Tablet -- you'd want the dominoes to fall. In their position, you want a weakened Church, you want a Church cut off from her own teaching, you want a purely ceremonial association of off-duty social workers presided over by moral geldings. The adoption discrimination ruse is a gambit too good to pass up. If you understood progress the way Barney Frank understands it, you realize the Catholic Church is your prime obstacle in the path forward.


This Catholic news service sure comes across as hysterical and desperate to put thoughts and words into the mouths of Sullivan, Tatchell and Frank, and that desperation does much to undermine the news service's arguments.

Sunday, January 28, 2007



FEC '06 Files: ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox, NBC News Media People Who Contributed to Candidates & PACs

The November 2006 election is almost a full three months behind us now, so I thought that was enough time for the campaigns and the Federal Election Commission to process the paperwork on who donated and to whom, and, for the information to be made available on the PoliticalMoneyLine.

Using these search terms; ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC News, and Rupert Murdoch, quite a number of relevant donations turned up for people at those networks, on both the editorial and business sides. I've included only donations made by folks on the editorial side, even if they're technical or engineering workers.

I can't say if any of the contributions led to either favorable or biased reporting in any way, and it is certainly legal for people who work for the mainstream media to exercise their First Amendment rights and give money to candidates and causes.

I just think there must be increased transparency about these sort of donations, and it should be just bloggers such as myself providing the transparency.

The news networks themselves, along with the print media and wire services, should be disclosing these donations, and all past political donations, on their own web sites. Let the news consumer decide if the donations reveal any slants or somehow color the news.

What was most surprising to me in looking at these 2006 donations is how many people, okay, anyone, from Fox News gave money to a Democrat, Harold Ford of Tennessee in his Senate bid. Heck, even the boss of media bosses, Rupert Murdoch, coughed up some dough for Ford!

Donations by ABC News employees:

ALDRIDGE, DIANA D
7/13/2005
$1,000.00
ASPEN, CO 81612
ABC NEWS/PRODUCER
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

ALDRIDGE, DIANA D
7/8/2006
$200.00
ASPEN, CO 81612
ABC NEWS/EDITORIAL CONSULTANT
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

BURLOCK, LESLIE W
6/7/2006
$500.00
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118
ABC NEWS/ASSOCIATE PRODUCER
WHITE HOUSE 06

Burlock, Leslie W
8/18/2006
$5,000.00
San Francisco, CA 94118
ABC NEWS/Associate Producer
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

Farrell, Hilary
3/26/2006
$500.00
New York, NY 10128
ABC News Productions/Production Asst
FARRELL FOR CONGRESS

McDermott, Michele M
10/14/2006
$250.00
Ashburn, VA 20147
ABC News/Studio/ Field Engineer
JUDY FEDER FOR CONGRESS

Walters, Lou Ann Mrs.
7/21/2006
$250.00
Brooklyn, NY 11226
ABC News/VP Finance
CHRIS OWENS FOR CONGRESS


Donations made by CBS News employees:

Forgotson, Edward H Jr.
6/26/2006
$1,000.00
Brooklyn, NY 11215
CBS News/TV Producer
FRIENDS OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY INC.

ROSEN, JACQUELINE
4/10/2006
$1,900.00
NEW YORK, NY 10021
CBS NEWSPRONET/PRODUCER
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

DAVIS, SETH
4/26/2005
$250.00
RIDGEFIELD, CT 06877
CBS, INC./JOURNALIST
BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE

DAVIS, SETH
3/31/2006
$500.00
RIDGEFIELD, CT 06877
CBS, INC./JOURNALIST
FRIENDS OF JOE LIEBERMAN

DAVIS, SETH
3/13/2006
$250.00
RIDGEFIELD, CT 06877
CBS, INC./JOURNALIST
BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE

WALKER, ELIZABETH
12/13/2005
$1,000.00
BROOKLINE, MA 02445
CBS-VIACOM/TELEVISION JOURNALIST
WOMEN SENATE 2006

WALKER, ELIZABETH A
1/27/2005
$2,000.00
BROOKLINE, MA 02445
CBS-VIACOM
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

WALKER, ELIZABETH A
1/27/2005
$500.00
BROOKLINE, MA 02445
CBS-VIACOM
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

LOEB, MARSHALL
5/20/2005
$1,000.00
SCARSDALE, NY 10583
CBS INC
FRIENDS OF JOE LIEBERMAN

Loeb, Marshall
9/30/2006
$250.00
New York, NY 10017
CBS Market Watch/Media
STEM CELL ACTION FUND


Contributions from a CNN employee:

Roberts, Suzanne Ms.
9/12/2005
$1,000.00
Coatesville, PA 19320
CNN's Headline News/Actress/
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE


Donations from Fox News employees and executives:


Banker, Ann Stewart
6/26/2006
$5,000.00
New York, NY 10012
Fox News Channel/Assistant Producer
VOLUNTEER PAC

BROOKS, CODIE
3/31/2006
$300.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910
FOX NEWS CHANNEL/RESEARCHER
HAROLD FORD JR FOR TENNESSEE

BROOKS, CODIE
6/28/2006
$200.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910
FOX NEWS/RESEARCHER
HAROLD FORD JR FOR TENNESSEE

BROOKS, CODLE E
9/8/2006
$2,100.00
FORT WORTH, TX 76112
FOX NEWS/RESEARCHER
HAROLD FORD JR FOR TENNESSEE

CADDELL, P H
11/12/2006
$1,000.00
CHARLESTON, SC 29406
FOX NEWS NETWORK/FOX CONTRIBUTOR
CARTER FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

CARRY, TIMOTHY S
4/25/2006
$300.00
SUFFERN, NY 10901
FOX NEWS CHANNEL/EXECUTIVE
HAROLD FORD JR FOR TENNESSEE

CHEMIN, PETER
6/23/2005
$1,000.00
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
FOX NEWS CORPORATION
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

CHERNIN, PETER A
7/20/2006
$10,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
FOX NEWS CORPORATION/PRESIDENT & CO
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

Elder, John
2/11/2006
$500.00
New York, NY 10036
Fox News Channel/Program Director
SKINNER FOR CONGRESS 06

Elder, John
8/17/2006
$200.00
New York, NY 10036
Fox News Channel/Program Director
SKINNER FOR CONGRESS 06

REGAN, MICHAEL JR
6/6/2005
$1,000.00
ARLINGTON, VA 22207
FOX NEWS CORPORATION
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

REGAN, R M MR JR
11/3/2006
$1,000.00
ARLINGTON, VA 22207
FOX NEWS CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT REL
STEELE FOR MARYLAND INC

VAN SUSTEREN, GRETA
9/17/2005
$2,100.00
CLEARWATER, FL 33755
FOX NEWS/JOURNALIST
VAN SUSTEREN FOR SENATE INC

VAN SUSTEREN, GRETA
3/31/2006
$2,100.00
CLEARWATER, FL 33755
FOX NEWS CHANNEL/JOURNALIST
VAN SUSTEREN FOR SENATE INC


Contributions from an NBC News/MSNBC employee:

Scarborough, Joe
3/31/2006
$2,100.00
Pensacola, FL 32503
MSNBC/Host
FRIENDS OF DERRICK KITTS


And finally, in his own category, Rupert Murdoch and the donations he made:

MURDOCH, RUPERT
6/14/2006
$5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
FOX, INC./CHAIRMAN AND CEO
SANTORUM MAJORITY COMMITTEE

MURDOCH, RUPERT
4/25/2006
$300.00
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
NEWS CORPORATION/MEDIA EXEC.
HAROLD FORD JR FOR TENNESSEE

Murdoch, Rupert
11/6/2006
$2,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/CEO
TALENT VICTORY COMMITTEE

Murdoch, Rupert
6/14/2005
$1,000.00
New York, NY 10043
News Corporation/Chairman and CEO
LONGHORN PAC

MURDOCH, RUPERT
12/13/2005
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS AMERICA INCORPORATED/CHAIRMAN
TEAM SUNUNU

MURDOCH, RUPERT
7/26/2006
$2,100.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN/CEO
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

MURDOCH, RUPERT
7/26/2006
$2,100.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN/CEO
FRIENDS OF HILLARY

Murdoch, Rupert
5/22/2006
$1,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/CEO
REYNOLDS FOR CONGRESS

Murdoch, Rupert
11/1/2006
$1,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/CEO
REYNOLDS FOR CONGRESS

Murdoch, Rupert
11/7/2006
$1,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/CEO
PRYCE FOR CONGRESS

MURDOCH, RUPERT
6/20/2005
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION
MCCONNELL SENATE COMMITTEE '08

Murdoch, Rupert
6/12/2006
$2,100.00
New York, NY 10022
Media/Chairman
DREIER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE

MURDOCH, RUPERT
12/20/2005
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

MURDOCH, RUPERT
12/20/2005
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

MURDOCH, K R
11/1/2006
$2,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90035
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
FRIENDS OF GEORGE ALLEN

MURDOCH, K R
10/26/2006
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/DIRECTOR
BOB CORKER FOR SENATE

MURDOCH, K R MR
11/7/2006
$2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN & CHIEF E
STEELE FOR MARYLAND INC

MURDOCH, K RUPERT
11/1/2006
$2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
NEW CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
FRIENDS OF CONRAD BURNS - 2006

MURDOCH, K RUPERT
7/28/2006
$5,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE

Murdoch, K Rupert
10/25/2006
$5,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/Chairman & Chief E
NEWS AMERICA HOLDINGS INC-FOX POL ACTION COMMITTEE (AKA NEWS AMERICA-FOX POL ACTION CMTE

MURDOCH, K RUPERT
6/21/2006
$2,500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE

MURDOCH, K RUPERT MR
11/8/2005
$2,100.00
NEW YORK, NY 10012
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN & C.E.O.
SANTORUM 2006

MURDOCH, K RUPERT MR
11/8/2005
$2,100.00
NEW YORK, NY 10012
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN & C.E.O.
SANTORUM 2006

Murdoch, K. R Mr.
6/23/2006
$2,500.00
Washington, DC 20001
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE

Murdoch, K. R Mr.
3/24/2005
$5,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/Chairman & C.e.o.
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE

Murdoch, K. Rupert
10/27/2006
$2,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/Chairman and CEO
FRIENDS OF WEINER

Murdoch, K.R.
6/29/2006
$2,000.00
Washington, DC 20001
News Corporation/CEO/Chairman
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS

Murdoch, K.R.
11/6/2006
$1,000.00
New York, NY 10036
News Corporation/CEO
JOY PADGETT FOR CONGRESS

Friday, January 26, 2007


New York Times Omits Drug Company Role in HIV Trial; NEJM Doesn't

January 26, 2007

Byron Calame
Public Editor
The NY Times

Dear Mr. Calame,

I wish to inquire as to why the NY Times in a January 11 story about a drug trial related to AIDS didn't provide full transparency in regards to the involvement of two pharmaceutical companies.

The Times duly reported on a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine about nevirapine's apparent benefit of preventing a fetus from contracting HIV from an infected mother. AIDS experts were quoted, findings were cited and a breakthrough seems to be on the horizon, and I don't have a problem with any of that.

However, I do have a qualm over the Times omitting the fact that the maker of nevirapine, Boehringer Ingelheim, donated doses of the drug to the researchers, which was noted in the footnotes of the NEJM article:

Supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD44391 and R01 HD37793) and the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW00004), by UNICEF, by Boehringer Ingelheim (which provided the single doses of nevirapine and placebo for the parent Mashi Study), and by GlaxoSmithKline (which provided zidovudine prophylaxis for the parent Mashi Study).


On the one side, I'm not saying the study or the findings are necessarily suspect just because Boehringer Ingelheim provided its drug to the research effort.

But on another side, I do think Times readers should have been informed of the pharmaceutical giant's involvement with the study, which I imagine will be used to prescribe vast amounts of the drug to hundreds of thousands of pregnant women, and those prescriptions in turn will equal increased profit for the drug company.

Obviously the NEJM knows the importance of disclosing any competing interests on the part of investigators and authors, along with any funding or support from a pharmaceutical company or diagnostics firm, which why such information is disclosed in NEJM articles.

But my question for you is, What is the responsibility of Times reporters to report on competing interests or donations from drug companies when the paper runs stories on clinical trials and their impact on public health?

Is there a standard way the Times handles such matters? Maybe the reporters and editor decide to include or omit competing interests or donations made on a case-by-case basis.

I would hope the Times does maintain a policy of including that information, and if the paper lacks a hard rule requiring such information make it into the story, then I will ask the science editors to revisit this policy with an eye open to putting the information in future articles.

A prompt reply is requested and would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

Excerpts from the article in question:

AIDS Drug to Protect Fetus Is Safe for Infected Mothers, Study Finds

By DONALD G. MCNEIL JR.
Published: January 11, 2007

Women can take the anti-AIDS drug nevirapine to protect their unborn children without endangering their ability to undergo life-saving antiretroviral treatment later on, a new study has found.

The results are good news for poor women in Africa, Asia and Latin America who must take nevirapine, an inexpensive first-line drug that often prevents the transmission of H.I.V. from mother to child.

The drug lingers in the blood up to three weeks, and if the mother has the virus that causes AIDS, its presence encourages the growth of nevirapine-resistant strains. That has led to fears that any antiretroviral drug cocktail containing nevirapine would be useless.

But the new study, published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, finds that such a cocktail is still effective if women simply delay it for six months after taking the protective dose of nevirapine.

The study was done by Harvard researchers working in Botswana but has implications for poor women everywhere. Early reports of data gathered in the study, along with evidence from similar ones, influenced the World Health Organization's new AIDS treatment guidelines last year, helping to keep nevirapine in the arsenal of first-line AIDS drugs.

''This is a real glimmer of hope,'' said Dr. Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser for Unaids, the United Nations AIDS agency. ''There was real concern that single-dose nevirapine was blowing the use of that whole class of drugs.'' [...]

The Botswana study concludes that waiting six months after single-dose nevirapine allows the nevirapine-resistant strains to disappear from the body.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

BAR: Is AHF's Viagra Lawsuit Extortion?


The editor of the Bay Area Reporter, Cynthia Laird, and her writer Bob Roehr have performed a very necessary function for the community, one that is all too lacking in the mainstream media.

They approached the filing of a lawsuit this week by an AIDS service provider against the maker of Pfizer with proper balance to all sides of the story, and, perhaps more importantly, a degree of skepticism to the claims made in the suit.

It also is good to see the BAR questioning the role of SF DPH's STD control chief Jeffrey Klausner in the lawsuit and how he contributes to the stigmatizing of gay men and PWAs. We would be wise in San Francisco to demand accountability from Klausner's boss, Dr. Mitch Katz, about his many statements and proposals that have needlessly divided the community.

Who will ever forget Klausner floating the idea in 2001 to quarantine HIV poz people? That is just one of his crazy ideas during his tenure that have inflamed the community and increased stigma.

From the Washington Monthly:

[Klausner] has suggested a number of measures, some coercive,which he thinks would slow the increase of new HIV infections among gay men. Among them: closing sex clubs and adult bookstores; enforcing no-sex ordinances in bars and clubs; enforcing no-drug policies in bars and clubs; and Internet-based outreach and education, particularly in chat rooms where many gay men meet new sexual partners.
Putting aside political realities when brainstorming on this subject, Klausner also raised the possibility of quarantining those who cannot control their infectivity---e.g., those barebackers who've infected 20 different people and still refuse to use condoms.


But I digress. Let's come back to today's concerns.

I highly recommend you compare a lame story from the AP about the lawsuit, a story that could have been written by the PR department of the AIDS agency that filed it, with the BAR article, which gives a much-needed larger frame to the story among other good journalistic attributes. The Roehr story for the BAR is head and shoulders above the AP's, which closely resembles a recycled news release from the AIDS group.

From the BAR news article today:

[AIDS Healthcare Foundation executive director Michael] Weinstein said, "We estimate that a majority of new infections in this country are related to the use of crystal meth, and the majority of crystal meth users are also using Viagra." He called AHF "a victim of Pfizer's irresponsibility." [...]

When pressed during a telephone conference call Monday to back up his assertion with data, Weinstein mentioned recently speaking with a group of black youth who said crystal meth "use is rampant" within their community.

Pfizer spokeswoman Shreya Prudlo said that AHF recently approached the Pfizer marketing team "with a multimillion-dollar funding request for a crystal meth educational program." [...]

Also participating in the news conference was Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, who was introduced as director of STD prevention and control services for the city of San Francisco. However, when asked, Klausner said that while his superiors knew of his participation, he was speaking only as an individual and not as a representative of any city agency.

Health department spokeswoman Eileen Shields said in an e-mail to the B.A.R. that Health Director Dr. Mitch Katz was on vacation this week and unavailable to comment on the department's position regarding the AHF lawsuit. She said that no one else at the department was in a position to comment. [...]

Klausner has long been a critic of Viagra, and at one time filed a citizens complaint with the FDA to have erectile dysfunction drugs classified as a controlled substance.

Former San Francisco AIDS policy adviser Jeff Sheehy was highly critical of Klausner when that happened; this week, he questioned AHF's decision to file the lawsuit against Pfizer.

"The idea that people on speed are having wild sex with Viagra because they saw a halftime commercial during the Super Bowl is ridiculous," Sheehy told the B.A.R. "I don't like direct to consumer TV ads, but the rest [of the suit] is just extortion." [...]


I would wager money that the leaders at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are very displeased with the BAR story and may even need to take an aspirin or two to deal with the headache of the BAR's forthright editorial, which squarely calls into question Klausner using his perch at SF DPH to advance what is probably a personal agenda:

An excerpt from the editorial:

For his part, Klausner's participation in Monday's call is questionable. He was identified by his health department job title in AHF's media materials, yet when pressed on the conference call, he said he was taking part as an individual. We tried to find out whether Health Director Dr. Mitch Katz was aware beforehand that Klausner would be participating in the call, but coincidentally, Katz is on vacation this week. We were told that not one single person in the sprawling DPH would be able to comment on the AHF lawsuit or Klausner's connection with it.

Also, Klausner's claim that he was taking part as an individual is problematic – for over a year he has waged a one-man war against Pfizer, even going so far as to petition the federal Food and Drug Administration to make ED drugs controlled substances.

Many gay AIDS activists have major issues with Klausner's repeated attempts to stigmatize gay men with leading irresponsible sex lives. And by extension, AHF and Klausner's position is patronizing to gay men by implying – incorrectly – that gay men who use Viagra somehow can't put on a condom.

What's most disturbing about AHF's lawsuit is the complete lack of hard data to support its contention. In fact, a recent review of published studies showed no convincing evidence to support Klausner's claims that use of Viagra leads to HIV infections.


In conclusion, I want to say Roehr's story shows the importance of having reporters covering a beat over an extended period of time, and Laird's editorial will go far in launching a valuable public debate about Klausner's STD control agenda and his relationship with the gay male and AIDS communities.

Good job, Bob and Cynthia!

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

You're Invited to My (Almost) 50th Birthday Party!


The big Five-O. No, I'm not hitting that milestone this year, but close enough to throw a big bash for my birthday.

Your presence is requested, and gifts are not necessary. I just want friends to attend the party and have a good time.

DATE: Friday, January 26 (My actual birthday)

TIME: 8pm - 10pm

PLACE: Act Up Marijuana Dispensary, 1884 Market Street at Laguna


Light refreshments and medicinal edibles will be available, but bring your own booze.

(Famous people born on January 26 include: Ellen Degeneres, Gene Siskel, Paul Newman, Angela Davis and General Douglas MacArthur.)

Please RSVP so we can plan to have plenty of food and medicine on hand. Hope to see you at my birthday party!

Monday, January 22, 2007


POZ.com: Viagra Maker Sued by AIDS Group, Activist Responds

The leaders at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation have nothing better to do today than file a lawsuit against Pfizer over its supposedly dangerous marketing of Viagra. Of course, the AHF folks are being aided and abetted in their effort by America's self-appointed nanny for STD and Viagra -- SF DPH's Dr. Jeff Klausner.

I guess the lack of evidence from an NIH panel about a link of Viagra and increased HIV infections means nothing to Klausner and AHF. Click here for some background on all of this.

You may recall that Mayor Gavin Newsom's former AIDS Czar, gay PWA Jeff Sheehy had this to say to the Bay Area Reporter in 2005 when Klausner petitioned the FDA over his concerns:

"Jeff Klausner wants the dicks of people with HIV in his back pocket and he wants us to ask him permission to use it. And I am not giving him my dick. Jeff Klausner is specifically targeting gay men with HIV. This is not what city funds should be used for. There is no science to justify this."


Well, my colleagues at Poz.com have taken my comments about today's move by AHF and Klausner and posted them on the magazine's web site. A snippet from the Poz.com post:

Considering that Pfizer is already responsibly including the message that Viagra does not stop HIV or other STDs in their bus shelter ads and on the package insert, which also stresses the need for safer sex, I suspect that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is campaigning against the company in order to squeeze an educational grant out of them.


Click here to read my full comments.

SF Chron = Bondage/S&M Paper: Why is The Hunky Reporter Smiling?


Even though consensual bondage is not my scene, I support my friends and others who enjoy this form of sexual role-playing. Having said that, I can only image the glee with which bondage aficionados experienced on seeing this photo on the front-page today:



And for some reason, the Chronicle editors decided to share this pic of their intrepid reporter, who seems to have very much liked the rigors and endurance drill he was put through to get his story:


Say, he's very handsome! Anyone know if Matthew Stannard is gay? Maybe he could set up a booth to demonstrate and talk about his bondage experiences at next year's Folsom Street Fair. I'd sure stop by his booth.

Friday, January 19, 2007

SF DPH: New HIV Stats Continue "Plateau/Down" Phase

(Lawrence K. Altman, sometimes known as the CDC's stenographer for the NY Times.)

Epigraph No. 1
"These are sub-Saharan African levels of transmission."

Dr. Willi McFarland, SF Chronicle, Page 1, June 30, 2000


Epigraph No. 2
Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, an AIDS expert at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said his agency had not reviewed the San Francisco findings. But, if confirmed, the findings "are very serious and important," Dr. Valdiserri said in an interview.

Dr. Valdiserri said he did not "want to be alarmist about a national resurgence" of H.I.V. But, he went on, "we have been trying to sound the alarm about the misperception that the AIDS epidemic is over and not an issue any more."

Lawrence K. Altman writing on the front-page of the NY Times, July 1, 2000.


* * *



Back on November 29, 2006, Dr. Willi McFarland, HIV epidemiologist for the San Francisco health department, presented his latest research and findings at a Grand Rounds forum at the SF General Hospital, but his forty-four PowerPoint slides were not made publicly available on the web until this week.

What is the HIV stats news today from the USA's AIDS Model City? New HIV infections for 2007 are projected to continue in a "plateau/down" phase.

(Sounds like medical news to me, maybe even from the mainstream press and the reporters who so breathlessly, and unquestioningly a few years ago were reporting an alarming surge of out-of-control HIV transmissions in SF's gay community. Hello, Dr. Altman, are you no longer interested in HIV stats from SF, or, is it you're only going to write about them when they're supposedly up and your pals at CDC need you to serve as mouthpiece for the agency, your former employer? But I disgress.)



This slide shows a slight resurgence of infections, a surge that ever since it was first alleged I have been extremely skeptical of, largely because of previous instances of HIV/AIDS/STD statistical manipulation by the SF DPH, but now, if only for argument's sake, I want to accept the proposition that there was a genuine, essentially marginal, rise of new HIV infections in 2000/2001.

Assuming that the rise occurred, why did it happen, given that so many gay men with AIDS were on drug cocktails, hence a reduced viral load and less likely to transmit HIV to an uninfected partner, and that a vast number of gay PWAs were serosorting, only sexually active with other PWAs, why did infections increase?

The answer appears to be that because drug cocktails were extending the lives of large numbers of PWAs, many of them sexually active again, the blip of a rise in 2000/2001 took hold.



This slide says that the success of drug cocktails, leading to longer lives, meant more positives out there engaging in sex. Also, if you listen to the RealPlayer audio portion of McFarland's presentation, at about 24:00 minutes into his talk, he explains this line of reasoning.



In 2000, when the "sub-Saharan African levels of transmission" claim was made, a UCSF researcher said the following to the SF Chronicle:

"This is a harbinger of what is going to happen all over the country," warned Tom Coates, director of the University of California at San Francisco AIDS Research Institute. `"What happens in the HIV epidemic usually happens here first."


When SF DPH officials were first publicly recognizing a plateau and drop in new infections after 2000/2001, they and UCSF and CDC experts never said if the decrease was also occurring all over the nation, like they claimed when the numbers were surging.

McFarland broaches in his talk the question of is San Francisco the first city to see a plateau/down phase, and he answers with a "maybe" response. He speaks about this question starting at the 34:45 minute mark.




Interesting conclusions drawn by McFarland, wouldn't you say? Of keen interest to me is his hypothesis that serosorting, which he accurately describes as community-organized, plays a key role in stopping HIV in San Francisco.

It amazes me that SF DPH and AIDS Inc are finally getting around to formally proclaiming how the sexual practice of serosorting, which they have not created or fully endorsed, is a crucial component to HIV prevention because this acknowledgement is something of a condemnation about official prevention programs and messages.

In other words, without the assistance of the millions in federal and local prevention dollars and community groups, gay PWAs through serosorting have contained an epidemic. Maybe if there less interference in the sex lives of gays and PWAs, especially a reduction in hysterical and violent social marketing campaigns and fewer alarmist claims about second- and third-waves, and were we left alone to own devices of loving and not infecting others, we might do even better at reducing HIV infections even further.

Also, since it doesn't seem to have crossed anyone's mind at SF DPH or working for AIDS Inc to congratulate gay men and PWAs for the remarkable HIV control, or anyway offer us a pat on the collective or give positive reinforcement to behaviors clearly shown on our part, I'd like to suggest the experts consider finding the strength to give gay men the credit we deserve on this.

So where is the NY Times story by Lawrence K. Altman on all this good news, particularly the SF DPH projection that 2007 will see the continued phase of plateau/down HIV infections here? I hope it is not necessary for Altman and the science desk at the NY Times to be spoon-fed HIV stats from either SF DPH or CDC in order for the paper to give readers a sense of current rates in San Francisco.

###




HIV Information

If you need HIV information or help with AIDS questions, visit this great site. You can also find what you need at Tuft's for HIV health.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Kramer, Bellman to Fauci, NIH: Release HIV Drug Panel Agendas & Minutes -- At No-Cost

(NIAID chief, Dr. Anthony Fauci.)

Here's the latest scoop on my continuing battle with the NIH/NIAID FOIA offices to pry loose almost 6,000-pages of agendas and minutes from the federal HIV drug advisory panel.
Click here for the letter I sent to NIH asking fees to be waived.

The NIH has rejected my request for a fee waiver and is asking me to pay $600 to obtain records that should already be in the public domain, money I don't have and if I did, I would still appeal to the NIH, with its multibillion dollar budget in taxpayer dollars, to release the 6,000-pages for free. The issue here is much larger than the search and copy fees NIH wants me to pay, and that issue is the damn lack of full transparency of the NIH HIV drug advisory panel.

In its decade-plus years of existence, the panel has not held a single meeting open to the public, and PWAs, nor has it shared any agendas or deliberations. It's so secret it makes the old Soviet politburo conclaves seem like New England town meetings. And just like Soviet rulers, all the NIH HIV drug panel wants you to know only what their recommendations are for treating HIV, and they're not interested in not letting you know what clinical information, scientific arguments and decision-making were utilized to arrive at their guidelines.

Want to know when the HIV drug panel meets this year? It's not public information, comrade.

No public meetings, no transparency, no agendas and minutes already on the web, after more than a decade? Sorry, no $600 from me, if it were just lying around my bank account.

The HIV/AIDS leaders at the NIH, from top to bottom, must examine their policies on transparency for the entire AIDS research structure us taxpayers are paying for, with particular attention on the HIV drug panel.

Toward that end, I now share with you a letter from Larry Kramer to Tony Fauci, and another from Dr. Paul Bellman of NYC to NIH FOIA. Both advocate on my behalf to have the 6,000-pages released, at no cost, and I want to thank them again for doing this. You really learn who your friends are when you're demanding thousands of public records on HIV from the NIH.

Following the letters from Kramer and Bellman is the NIH FOIA officer's rejection letter to me.

Kramer's letter:

Date: 1/16/2007 8:17:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Ned Weeks@aol.com
To: AFAUCI@niaid.nih.gov

tony, ms. cornell is evidently not aware how much additional time and energy and cost her turn-down of michael's request is eventually going to cost the US govt. michael is going to get those papers one way or another without paying for them and she could save america a lot of aggravation by just consenting to his request and stop making such picayune distinctions. honestly, that a mature woman, excuse me, person spent the amount of time dictating and writing this letter is remarkable. but just wait until michael will manage to usurp even more time of the bureaucrats down there until he gets this harmless stuff she appears to be defending so feverishly.

dont you just love bureaucracy! all this sounds like soviet russia. did you ever see or hear a menotti opera called the consul? it is a harrowing tragic story about helpless people in a communist country at the mercy of the susan cornells of this world.

we are shortly to be celebrating the 20th anniversary of ACT UP and the 25th anniversary of GMHC. amazing! i am going to make a speech at the gay center for the ACT UP anniversary. that is where we started. do you remember that room where we grilled you years ago when we were young?

xxxx
larry


This is Dr. Paul Bellman's letter to the NIH FOIA officer:

Susan Cornell
NIH FOIA Officer

Dear Ms. Cornell,

I feel it is important for me at the end of a long and busy day in my medical practice of HIV Medicine to let you know how I feel about the legal letter that you sent Michael Petrelis. In your letter you justified the DHHS's denial of his request for a waiver of a $600 fee which he cannot afford in order to obtain access to documents vital to his work as an HIV activist and journalist.

Michael is a leading and important activist for my HIV infected patient population in New York City. I don't think you understand, based upon my reading of your reply to Michaels FOIA request, the issues involved. I don't think you understand why he wants these documents and why he should be granted easy, speedy access to them.

Michael wants to know how clinical practice and research is shaped behind closed doors by government officials. He is worried that a possible lack of accountability, transparency and performance standards in the operations of government panels may be hindering the national and global fight against AIDS.

As a clinician and researcher in one of the epidemic's first epicenters in Greenwich Village, NYC, priveleged to care for many HIV infected individuals, I share what I believe to be his concern.

You may or may not know that many individuals serving in the DHHS including the DHHS guidelines people (who appear to have lifetime appointments) and the folks who serve on the AIDS Clinical Trials Optimization of Antiretrovirals Committee (OP ART) also receive outside consulting income from the very drug companies whose drugs they endorse to the medical profession and the public.

The powerful OP ART committee specifically decides what drugs to study in clinical research potentially leading to such endorsements. Although, the fees to these consultants may measure in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars (the public doesn't know since the amounts are not disclosed) the amount of money drug companies spend on these consultants can be leveraged into literally hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue.

When questioned about these financial relationships these folks say that their disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is consistent with standard approved practices. I for one would like to know if there are such documents that make potential conflicts of interest okay as long as they are disclosed. The interest public certainly desrves to know if these potential conflicts of interest are ACTUALLY impairing the performance of these publicly funded panels.

Michael Petrelis, given his long history as an AIDS activist is uniquely equipped to be able to use the materials he requested and question whether the needs of the HIV infected community are being met and to report on his findings as a journalist and blogger.

I can disclose to you my belief here. The needs of the HIV community could be better met if there was more transparency, accountability and performance standards. Much of the critical progress made in the late 80's and early to mid 90's was due to a vibrant activist community including Michael Petrelis and a government, industry, and medical community that was interested and responsive to their needs and demands.

I questioned in a recent letter published in the Lancet why the head of the OPART committee (also a paid consultant to Glaxo Smith Kline), Dr. Joseph Eron, was also the principal investigator of a GSK sponsored study called of all things "The KLEAN study". The Klean study showed that GSK's drug Lexiva when boosted with Norvir was not inferior to Kaletra, which had received the DHHS guidelines panel's endorsement as a preferred treatment.

As a result of this expensive study that also utilized some of the infrastructure of the AACTG, GSK won an endorsement for its protease inhibitor Lexiva from the DHHS guidelines panel as a first-line treatment along with Kaletra. By placing GSK's drug into the elite preferred category, GSK stands to boost sales and profits by up to a hundred million dollars per year. Of note Lexiva/Norvir was not better than Kaletra just non inferior.

In my opinion, (not shared by Dr. Eron or GSK) this was a wasteful study that yielded results exactly in line with previously done studies. Of great importance is that Dr. Eron neglected to mention in his Lancet article, his presentation at the International AIDS Meeting in Toronto or even in his interview on AIDSmeds.com (a patient education website) that there was one key difference between GSK's treatment and its competitors. Lexiva when boosted with Norvir is $5400 dollars more per year than Kaletra.

My interpretation of this example is that our government supported research that increased its costs of care without improving its quality.

In his response letter to my Lancet letter, co-written with a GSK employee, Dr. Eron defended his work both for the NIH and GSK as properly disclosed according to current standards of disclosure for potential conflicts of interest.

At a time in which HIV patients on state ADAPS are dying on waiting lists while the same ADAP pays $5000 dollars more per year for GSK's non inferior drug, Michael Petrelis needs more info on the workings of these panels so that he can inform the public if there is something that needs investigation and real disclosure.

You should also know that many leaders in the medical and scientific profession including the current Editors in Chiefs of Nature and JAMA have taken a strong stand against expert panel members receiving consulting income from drug companies.

In addition two prestigious former Editors in Chiefs of the New England Journal of Medicine Doctors Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell have written books citing numerous examples of how this practice has led to tainted medical advice and inferior research. Because the HIV medical professionals who serve on the OP ART Committee and DHHS Panel have continued to reject the call by senior colleagues such as Doctors Angell and Kassirer, to stop the practice of outside consulting it is that much more important that the public get access to the workings of these panels.

I can't tell you how narrow the segment (your term) of the population that is be concerned about potential conflicts of interest, and transparency, accountability and performance of DHHS/NIH panels. I can tell you, however it includes my HIV infected patients in NYC and their families, employers, community organizations and friends.

Finally given what's at stake for the public health, the obstruction of Michael's efforts. because as a disabled HIV infected patient he can't afford the FOIA fee, is both ludicrous and cruel. It is also symbolic of an unfeeling and arrogant mentality, hardly I am sure what anyone involved in HIV work in the DHHS or NIH wants to convey to the HIV infected population. I hope you reverse your decision without creating more hoops for Mr. Petrelis to jump through.

Sincerely,
Dr. Paul Curtis Bellman
St. Vincents Hospital- Department of Medicine
Cornell Weill Medical College- Department of Immunology
99 University Place
New York NY 10003


And here is the rejection letter from the NIH FOIA officer:

January 4, 2007

Mr. Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

RE: NIH FOI Case No. 32469

Dear Mr. Petrelis:

This is regarding your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated April 3, 2006, addressed to the FOIA Office, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and your follow-up letter dated December 18, 2006, addressed to Ms. Karin Lohman, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). In your FOIA request you requested various records related to the Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV infection, which operates under the auspices of the NIH’s Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council. In both letters you asked that you be characterized as a member of the media for purposes of assessing FOIA fees and also that all fees associated with your request be waived. Your request for a fee waiver will be addressed first.

Department of Health and Human Services’s (DHHS) FOIA Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 5, set forth the standard for waiving fees associated with processing and responding to FOIA requests. It is the policy of DHHS to waive or reduce fees if disclosure of the requested information meets both of the following tests: 1) it is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government; and 2) it is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

In analyzing the public interest, we consider the following factors:

1. How, if at all, do the records to be disclosed pertain to the operations or activities of the Federal government;

2. Would disclosure of the records reveal meaningful information about government operations or activities? Can one learn from these records anything about such operations that is not already public knowledge?

3. Will the disclosure advance the understanding of the general public as distinguished from a narrow segment of interested persons?

4. Will the contribution to public understanding be a significant one? Will the public’s understanding of the government’s operations be substantially greater as a result of the disclosure?

You have not demonstrated that disclosure of the requested information to you at no cost is in the public interest. You make a blanket statement that disclosure of the information will be of assistance to people with AIDS and their caregivers, but do not provide any further support for that statement. You further state that you should be awarded a fee waiver because you seek these records to share with your own physician and others regarding your personal situation. Such use is not the basis upon which a fee waiver can be granted.

Further, other than state that you maintain a blog and contribute to a monthly magazine, you have not demonstrated how you intend to disseminate the requested information to the public at large.

Finally, NIH and NIAID publish a great deal of information regarding AIDS and treatment options and you have not demonstrated how release of the requested information will add to the information already in the public domain or contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations.

Because you have not provided sufficient information to satisfy factors 1-4 above, I have determined that you are not entitled to a waiver of fees. Regarding your request to be characterized as a member of the media, you have not presented sufficient information to change our initial determination that you be charged for FOIA fees as a Category III or “other” requester. Simply maintaining a website or blog or writing opinion pieces does not qualify one as a representative of the news media. Rather, representatives of the news media use their editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work. In addition, the language of your letter reveals that your primary purpose for requesting this information is to share it with your physician and others in order to make more informed decisions regarding your own health.

In conclusion, you have not demonstrated that you are entitled to a waiver of fees associated with responding to your request nor have you demonstrated that you should be characterized as a member of the news media. Therefore, we shall charge you for FOIA fees as a Category III requester. As such, you will be charged for duplication at 10-cents per page although the first 100 pages are free; 2 hours of search time are free and thereafter search time is charged at the hourly rate ($19.00, $38.00, $69.00) of the searcher; there is no charge for review time. At this time NIAID estimates the fee for responding to your request to be approximately $600.00. That estimate includes search time and duplication costs. If you agree to pay the fees associated with our response, please confirm that in writing to Ms. Karin Lohman, NIAID.

It is my understanding that you have amended your request, by breaking it into several requests each seeking two or three years of records. Please be assured that we are diligently processing -your request and will focus on making a response for documents from 1995-1997 as soon as possible after we resolve the fee issue.

You have a right to appeal this decision to deny you a waiver of fees and the determination that you are not a representative of the news media. Should you wish to do so, you must send your appeal within 30 days of receipt of this letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Parklawn Building, Room 17A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, following the procedures outlined in Subpart C of the enclosed DHHS FOIA regulation, 45 CFR Part 5. Please mark both the envelope and appeal letter “FOIA Appeal.”

Sincerely,
Susan R. Cornell, J.D.
FOIA Officer, NIH
Building 31, Room 5B35
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892



Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Two Reports From ACT UP/NYC's 20th Anniversary Action Planning Meeting

(Members of ACT UP/Philly.)

I recently traveled back to New Jersey to visit my family, and coincidentally during that time, ACT UP/NYC held its first organizing meeting for the group's twentieth anniversary in March, which I attended. Here's my report.

The meeting was held at the gay community center in second floor meeting room that was well heated. I expected to find about a dozen folks sitting around ready to organize and instead walked into a crowded room with chairs quickly being claimed. There was practically no room for standees, except out in the hallway.

I felt extremely happy seeing the veterans and survivors from the truly bad old days, when our friends and lovers were dropping like flies, and sharing hugs with them. Many faces were new to me and the crowd over all was extremely diverse -- white folks, people with AIDS, African Americans, youth and the more mature, Latinos and Asians, skinnies and chubbies -- a real mix of people.

(Standing center, wearing glasses, Eric Sawyer. Seated center, taking notes, Andy Humm. Standing right, John Riley.)

Eric Sawyer laid out a brief agenda and facilitated the meeting, with many taking notes. He read a touching note from Tom Viola, executive director of Broadway Cares, wishing good will and reminding us of the immortal and totally apt words of Arthur Miller from "Death of A Salesman." The message: "Attention must be paid." Eric waved around the $20,000 check from Broadway Cares, which received a few snaps up.

Everyone was asked for their ideas about how best to commemorate the founding of ACT UP, and to keep their comments to 3 minutes.

Some of the ideas proposed included the following, in no particular order of importance:

1. Stage a big die-in, with the theme of "Money for AIDS, not for war;"

2. Focus attention on the needs of prisoners with AIDS;

3. Reissue old t-shirts, posters and stickers and raise some funds;

4. Organize actions at high schools in NYC to educate youth about safe sex;

5. Coordinate an action with immigrant rights' advocacy groups and shed light on America's HIV immigration policies;

6. Whatever is planned, keep celebrities out of the picture and pay attention to regular people;

7. Work with groups demanding national health care for all citizens;

8. Create an enormous female condom, which is also suitable as an anal condom, putting the focus on effective prevention;

9. Ask surviving members of other ACT UP chapters around the country and across the world to hold speak outs and remembrances;

10. Make sure that whatever action is planned in NYC in March that people who don't live in the area can participate somehow through the web;

11. Put energy into increasing funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and the programs it supports;

12. Attack AIDS denialist rhetoric;

13. Collaborate with peace groups organizing demonstrations in mid March to mark the start of Bush's war in Iraq;

14. Choose one HIV issue, organize one massive action on a single day, to better generate national media attention;

15. Hold a remembrance meeting on a Monday night in March, just like the meetings of yore, to recall deceased friends and renew our spirits.

(From the right, Peter Staley, Sean Strub, two members of Housing Works.)

Needless to say, no agreement was reached on actions during March, except to definitely do the Monday night meeting remembrance. Very glad I was able to make the meeting and give suggestions to the NYC group, and if I were living in the NYC area again, I'd definitely be at the next organizing meeting. Information on that meeting is below.

And mark your calendar! On March 13, Larry Kramer will be making an anniversary speech at the gay community center. Let's hope some tech and web savvy NYC folks get it together to broadcast Larry's talk on the web.

Finally, the report below is from John Riley and I'm sharing it in the spirit of old ACT UP/NYC, to give a few perspectives on a given event or topic. By the way, I disagree with John's count. I believe more than 70 people were at the January 11th meeting at it height.

John Riley's report:

Notes: January 11th meeting 2007 planning meeting for ACT UP Anniversary Action

Attendance: 53 people

Donation: Tom Viola, Executive Director of Broadway Cares generously sent a check for $20,000 to cover expenses during the anniversary year for education and outreach to revitalize the ACT UP to be administered thru a 501c3 conduit (African Services).

Decision: To create one main action with the bulk of the energy going into developing it. Then perhaps have one or more actions that are announced at that main action. (either verbally or in writing). We would attempt to have an action that we would reach out to and hopefully draw non-AIDS groups as well as AIDS groups. (This passed overwhelmingly.)

Brainstorming: The notes which follows are the general ideas, if you proposed them and they are mangled let me know specific wording changes and I'll adjust them. These notes are mainly to give an indication of the general issues that we might
want to work on.

Infection and prevention for young people are extremely important topics, as is the continuing HIV immigration ban. Now may be the time to do something to take advantage of the Bush administration moving slightly on the issue.

Ken Bing: We need a fundraising committee to raise money for beyond this year. Proposed a demonstration at a main location but also satellite actions with people holding placards with pictures of PWAs who have died. This could be associated with mini die-ins at simultaneous locations. These actions could be a part of a day of action and might include civil disobedience.

Michael Petrelis: Wants an event where people talk about what ACT UP meant to them, broadcast also on web. Also pick one day in March for global remembrance. ACT UP/Paris and other ACT UP chapters would be invited to participate. Need to honor Mark Kostapoulis of ACT UP/LA and Danny Satomayor of ACT UP/Chicago.

Jon Winkleman: T-shirts could be re-issued.

Elizabeth Meixell: The issue could be Money for AIDS not War.

Other ideas: Focus on the travel ban Clinton signed it into law after passing both Democratically-controlled houses.

Prisoner health is also something we might make headway on. Spitzer is on the record for that. The Prison Committee of ACT UP has worked on getting the Dept. of Health to have the power of oversight over prison health rather than the Department of Corrections.

John Riley: We could connect Money for AIDS not War directly to the lack of funding of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria as well as national health care.

Waheedah Shabazz-El from ACT UP Philadelphia: We need to check in with other chapters about demo ideas and would preferably be on some issue we are currently doing work around, preferably something with a national angle.

Emmaia Gelman: We need to work with immigrants and youth of color. We need to consider using part of the money to hire a full time organizer to help prepare for the March demo.

Jeanne Bergman: AIDS denialists are doing tremendous damage not only in South
Africa but also in parts of the US including New York.

Drug Pricing and Global Prevention

For every one person in treatment, there are 7 new infections. Here in New York they'll give out condoms but don't give condom lesions in schools. With the new Democratic Congress we could make some headway with drug prices and the testing with consent issue.

One thing that has happened in the last 10 years since more effective treatment appeared is the disappearance of the face of PWAs. PWAs just blend in now.

Glen: ACT UP could be useful to help with Ryan White reauthorization.

The HIV system is run better than most health systems and could lead us to national health care

Complacency regarding education of young people.

Ellen Bay: There are many fantastic ideas. Health care for all is a great idea. We need to be outrageous and confrontational. We may want to consider Abbott as a target because of their outrageous pricing policies and making Norvir taste like vomit so people would have to use Kaletra, their protease inhibitor cocktail. We need to go after the companies we know best.

Peter Staley: Concentrate on one event one issue we can have an impact on like immigration, or laws that discriminate on HIV/AIDS status or national health care.

Sean Strub: Do one issue. Have an anniversary meeting. Create an activist agenda for congress that includes drug pricing and immigration ban. How much ground has been lost? ACT UP asserted the right of a disease group; we had a voice, now we've lost it. There is only one PWA/HIV on Amfar's board, and none with the AIDS Project Los Angeles board. Increasingly PWAs aren't even being give choices they have a right to like those regarding treatment choice and it is turning into a Tuskegee-like experiment. People don't know they have other options.

Event: Focus on Prevention and treatment

Kendall Morrison: We should have the action at Ground Zero.

Jose from ACT UP/Philadelphia: African Americans are the most impacted with the disease now. We need to reach out and incorporate the African American community in the process and recruit.

Ann Northrop: Denver Principles: Main goal make goal needs to be making an action that is effective. We'll have to make hard choices. Maybe need to be naked in front of Bush and Clinton. We could also do an action with dildoes and condoms where we surround the schools with condom demonstrations.

Brian: I'd like to see focus on Bush. Love to see the googley-eyed Bush with "Murderer" on the sign. The Denver Principles were key in our organizing; they asserted our right to express our voice. Now we've been made a permanent and inferior subclass that is criminalized. We have to disclose. We need to realize the gravity of this.

James Wentzy proposed that we used the theme we are losing the war against AIDS as the theme, saying what no other organization in the community wants to say.

Next Meeting: Thursday, January 18th at 7pm at Housing Works Day Treatment Center, Conference Room B, located at 320 West 13th Street on the 4th floor.

(James Wentzy after he spoke.)

Monday, January 15, 2007

SF Chronicle: Pelosi's AIDS Dilemma



I nearly spilled my organic latte on my Birkenstock's this morning reading the lead editorial in today's SF Chronicle, all about the latest wrinkle in the effort to make AIDS drugs available around the globe, and how none other than Rep. Pelosi, of all people who should know better than to play budgetary politics with ill-people's live, is standing in the way of ironing out the problem.

Such a welcome surprise, the Speaker's hometown paper, which over the years has given her a free ride on AIDS accountability matters, using its editorial bully pulpit to goad her into doing the right thing.

From the SF Chronicle editorial:

An AIDS Dilemma

It sounds implausible: a Democratic-led Congress is holding up overseas-bound AIDS money. Yet this outcome is very real, unless party leaders relent on spending plans.

What's happened is a political car crash. A scheduled increase in AIDS money is smacking into a Democratic pledge for thrift and reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco's own, stands at the center of this stalemate and could settle it with nod.

Will she? Despite her strong record on the disease, AIDS groups aren't sure and have sounded the alarm. Unless the mess ends, life-extending drugs for 350,000 new patients won't be dispensed. [...]

This risk shouldn't be run. Since 2003, Democrats and Republicans have united by backing a White House five-year plan to spend $15 billion on AIDS. For 2007, the sum was due to rise from $3.2 billion to $4 billion, and programs expanded operations in expectation of the increase. [...]

Without new tax money, Pelosi has pledged to block extra spending. For now, that means no increase in AIDS money, affecting thousands in 15 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America taking part in the U.S. plan. [...]

The United States is, by far, the biggest funder of AIDS care worldwide. This praiseworthy record is at stake now. Cheaper drugs, better treatment and expanded prevention need the extra money to do the job.

It's a turning point not lost on many House members, including Oakland Democrat Barbara Lee, a longtime battler for increased AIDS money. She has lined up 87 other representatives in asking that the health program be expanded as expected.

Pelosi should heed this message from her troops. AIDS care shouldn't be caught up in a budget wrangle.

One place where Pelosi might cut some budget fat is her $1.5 million earmark for a pilot study by S.F. DPH. Pelosi's HIV/AIDS earmark would pay executives at the DPH money to duplicate some of the work they're already performing on prevention and treatment collaborations within the department.

Having seen details on Pelosi's $1.5 million HIV earmark, I know it would be a waste of money, and I suggest she direct that money, and more, to pay for the AIDS drug programs. Click here for some history on the earmark.

After that, Pelosi and her legion of supporters and donors from AIDS groups in her district and around the country, must address the obscene profiteering by Big Pharma for their HIV/AIDS meds.

For too long, nonprofit AIDS service and advocacy organizations have put more resources and staff time into getting federal and local governments to pay for the high priced drugs, while accepting large donations from Big Pharma, which pleases the companies because of an increased profit due to programs such as ADAP, and the exorbitant cost of the drugs, developed with funding from the NIH and the feds, is not addressed at all by AIDS Inc executive directors.

When was the last time you heard about AmFAR, GMHC, SF AIDS Foundation, NAPWA, APLA, the ADAP Working Group, or any other members of the AIDS Inc establishment pooling their staffs and public policy budgets to mobilize town hall meetings about the drug prices and availability, grass roots lobbying on Big Pharma or the feds to force lower prices, or in any way challenge the system in which our community groups receive huge cash infusions from drug manufacturers, and wage no battle on the Big Pharma donors?

AIDS Inc, Big Pharma and Mrs. Pelosi are all a little too cozy with each other, in my estimation, and I fully expect a solution to the problems mentioned in the Chronicle would soon be announced. Then, it will be back to business as usual for them all, meaning, no serious effort to demand price concessions on AIDS drug costs.

Read the full SF Chron editorial here.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

S.F. Gay Paper Files Sunshine Complaint Against CDC HIV Panel

The struggle to keep public health panels transparent and always strictly adhering to sunshine principles is a constant one.

The latest skirmish in this ongoing struggle took place recently against the CDC's mandated and funded HIV advisory prevent council in San Francisco, which is administered by SF DPH employees, and I hope the prevention project officers at the CDC are paying close attention to how its SF panel deals with the local gay press. CDC officials should weigh on this complaint from the editor of our leading gay paper.

From the January 11 BAR:

The Bay Area Reporter is challenging a rule initiated by an HIV policy panel that restricts the ability of photojournalists to take photos at its meetings as a violation of the city's open meetings laws.

A committee of the city's Sunshine Ordinance Task Force voted Tuesday, January 9 to send the B.A.R.'s complaint to the full task force for review. The task force will determine if the HIV Prevention Planning Council, which sets policy on how the city allocates federal HIV prevention funds, must change its photography and videotaping rules.

At its September 14 meeting, HPPC officials informed B.A.R. photographer Rick Gerharter he could not take photographs because he had not requested permission to do so prior to the afternoon meeting. [...]

HPPC co-chair Tracey Packer, the health department's interim HIV prevention director, told the task force's complaint committee this week that the HPPC adopted its restriction on photography years ago after AIDS dissidents harassed HPPC members by using their photos on Web sites and fliers.

"We want to be able to tell our members a photographer is in the room and will be taking photos. Some of our people are HIV-positive, are drug users, or are homeless. We want them to be comfortable and safe at our meetings," said Packer. [...]

B.A.R. news editor Cynthia Laird filed the complaint with the task force late last year. At Tuesday's meeting she said public policy bodies such as the HPPC must allow unrestricted access to news media professionals covering its meetings as required under the sunshine ordinance.

Laird said members of such bodies should expect to be photographed and should not be "coddled and protected" by city officials.

"I feel as a newspaper our photographer should be able to go into a public meeting and take photos. They are a public body," she said. [...]

Hey, Cynthia Laird -- thanks much for filing this complaint and standing up for the rights of photojournalists to do their work, as protected by the First Amendment, at CDC HIV panels. Click here to read the full BAR news article.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

One N.I.H. HIV/AIDS Panel is Transparent; Another is Cloaked in Secrecy



The day after Xmas, I wrote to executive secretary of NIAID's HIV drug advisory panel, asking for their 2007 meeting schedule. I thought it would be a no-brainer for her to simply reply with the schedule and I could start to make plans to attend the panel's meetings and offer my advice to the panel members.

I apparently asked a tough question because the reply from the executive secretary didn't provide me the schedule and informed me that my very basic questions would be addressed by higher ups in the NIH chain of command:

In a message dated 1/10/2007 6:26:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, apau@niaid.nih.gov writes:

Dear Mr. Petrelis:

Thanks you for your inquiry. Your request has been forwarded to the NIH Committee Management Office. You will receive a response to your query from a representative of that office.

Sincerely,
Alice Pau


This reply is one more glaring example of the heavy secrecy cloak surrounding this drug advisory panel and should be of deep concern to all people with HIV or AIDS, our doctors and advocates, because the recommendations it makes have a direct and daily influence over our lives, personal health and HIV treatment choices. There's no reason to keep out the prying eyes of the public and PWAs from the work of the panel. Do the community reps on the panel understand this, and if they do, why aren't they insisting on opening the panel's proceedings?

You will not find any information about the deliberations and meetings of the panel on its web site.
Sunshine seems to be an anathema to the panel and I don't know why.

Also bear in mind that this is the same NIAID HIV panel that until I came along with my FOIA request, had never been asked to make public its meeting minutes and all documents used to arrive at treatment recommendations.

In response to my request, the NIAID FOIA office has located thousands of pages of records, for which they want me to pay nearly $600 in searching and copying fees. My appeal for a fee waiver is pending and I hope to soon hear from NIAID FOIA that the waiver has been granted.

The drug panel's secrecy (and weakness) stands in stark contrast to the glorious transparency of another NIH AIDS related advisory body, the Office of AIDS Research's Advisory Council, OARAC. Check out their web site here.

At the time when I was asking the drug panel's secretary for their 2007 meeting plans, I simultaneously made the same request for meeting info from the OARAC's coordinator. Her response is a wealth of info, compared to the buck-passing and no info from her drug panel counterpart:

In a message dated 1/3/2007 1:31:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BracknaC@od.nih.gov writes:

Mr. Petrelis:

I understand that you called my office to request information about the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council (OARAC) meeting that will be held in April 2007.

The notice of meeting will appear in the Federal Register approximately 30 days before the meeting (currently scheduled for April 19 - 20, 2007). There is time provided at every OARAC meeting for public comments at the end of the meeting.

Sincerely,
Christina Brackna
Coordinator, Program Planning and Analysis
Office of AIDS Research
National Institutes of Health


Very much unlike the drug panel, the OARAC has a web page of minutes from previous meetings, four years' worth actually, located here. And they also have a page about their 2007 meeting schedule. Click here to read it.

Is the drug panel totally averse to explaining publicly some of its responsibilities? No, not really, but to locate even the most basic stuff on it one has to go Down Under.

On October 14, 2006, in Melbourne, Australia, at an HIV treatment consensus conference organized by the Australian Society for HIV Medicine, Dr. Alice Pau, of the NIH drug panel, made a presentation about the panel using 19 PowerPoint slides full of useful basics, such as:

- rules of governance and structure;
- panel membership terms of 1-, 2- or 3-year durations, with an option to renew the 3-year term memberships;
- self-perpetuating panel with a membership committee that identifies new members;
- members expected to attend at least 50% of meetings and/or monthly teleconference calls, and to serve on a subcommittee or a working group;
- confidentiality and financial disclosures;
- funding support matters.


With this public presentation by Dr. Pau to Australian PWAs, their caregivers and government health authorities, she has done more to educate and engage Australians than U.S. citizens on the inner workings of her panel, and that is something the panel should quickly rectify. Click here to read her nineteen slides.

Why can't I find on the web any URLs to reports about Dr. Pau making similar efforts on American soil regarding the drug panel? Probably because she has not done so. The transparency she gave to the Australians should and must be duplicated at home.

The Proceedings Report put out by the Australian HIV group contains a section on comments and questions from the audience, with replies from the experts. This was of keen interest to me:

Question: Does the US rely on NIH's Panel member's voluntary disclosureof conflict of interest and is there a cap on the percent of Panel members who have declared a conflict of interest?

Answer: Voluntary and no cap.


I've no clue why the NIH HIV drug panel is so secretive, but it should change its ways, adopt transparency as a way of better meeting the needs of PWAs, and follow the example of openness set by OARAC, without forcing American PWAs to scour Australian HIV web sites.