Petrelis Files

QUESTIONS ABOUT NIH'S HIV VACCINE AWARENESS AD


Secretary Tommy Thompson
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave. S.W., Room 615-F
Washington, D.C. 20201


Dear Secretary Thompson:

The latest issue of the Bay Area Reporter, a weekly gay newspaper in San Francisco, is running a full-page ad from the National Institutes of Health to call attention to the need for an HIV vaccine. [1]

I had to wade through dozens of pages of sexy HIV prevention ads with nearly nude models, provocative personal ads from men who want to engage in drugged out sexual liaisons, glamorous ads for rent boys and escorts, some of whom promise condomless sex and no aversion to speed use before the NIH advertisement caught my eye.

This letter serves as my formal Freedom of Information Act request for the following information:

1. How much federal money was spent to design the NIH ads?

2. What was the cost for placing the ad in the Bay Area Reporter?

3. Which ad agency was employed by the NIH to create the ad?

4. What is the breakdown for all costs associated with producing and inserting the ad in all gay newspapers across the country?

5. Which community review panel of NIH approved the ad?

6. Who are the members of the NIH panel that gave a thumbs up for the ad?

7. Please provide with a list of the publications and web sites that were paid by NIH to run the ad.

I was greatly disappointed NIH's HIV vaccine ad didn't mention a thing about safe sex, or the need to always practice safe sex. Would have been nice if the NIH ad campaigns included something along the lines of, "Absent a vaccine, safe sex is the surest way to avoid contracting HIV," or "Using a condom during sex prevents HIV."

As you may recall, in May 2001 www.diversityinc.com ran a story about an "advertisement for a new AIDS vaccine trial featuring a man alleged to be a porn star is infuriating activists in the San Francisco area who say the ad portrays the disease in a seductive light.

"The ad, which appears on bus shelters throughout San Francisco, features the image of a muscular male performer from the Titan Media video-company, which is widely known in the gay community as a porn distributor. The words, 'Some things are worth taking your shirt off for. Come get a shot in the arm,' accompany the image, along with a logo for Titan Men," said the diversity web site's news article.

The story also stated "AIDS vaccine trial ad is funded by the San Francisco Department of Health, which is using $3,000 in federal money that comes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH has no direct involvement in the development of the ad, according to James Hadley, NIH spokesperson."

While the NIH funded HIV vaccine awareness campaign no longer uses porn models, I still must question the wisdom of spending federal taxpayer dollars to, as the current ad states, "[t]hank . . . [the] thousands of researchers" who are working to development an effective vaccine. What is the point of allocating funds asking the general public to thank government employees for doing their jobs?

You should be made aware that the Bay Area Reporter has never run it's own series of safe sex informational ads to help prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

At a time when HIV prevention groups no longer spend their federal dollars on ad campaigns in the gay press promoting safe sex information and practices, I believe it is more important than ever that the BAR, the gay paper with the largest circulation and readership levels in America's gay Mecca and AIDS model city, provide free ads full of safe sex suggestions, as a community service. 

You'd think the publisher, Bob Ross, a longtime donor to Democratic candidates and the national and state Democratic Party machines, would want to use his publication to stop new HIV infections and in the process save gay lives. But, that is not the case with him. 

Federal Election Commission records show that since 1983, Ross' total amount donated to Democratic Party candidates and political action committees was $56,000. [2]

For editor Friday, his FEC file reveals since 1997 he has contributed $1,250 to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's campaigns. [3]

In buying ad space in the BAR, the NIH has provided the owner and political editor with profits they can use in the future to donate to their Democratic Party pals.

With this information in mind, Ross and Friday are most assuredly saddled with bias against the current administration and its policies.

Same goes for the news coverage and political opinions expressed in the paper, which forces me to wonder why NIH feels this publication, with its refusal to run pro bono safe sex ads and which serves as the Democratic Party mouthpiece for gay voters, received federal funds so the NIH HIV vaccines ad could prominently appear in the BAR.

It doesn't sit well with me that by placing the NIH ad in the BAR, HHS is, in essence, tacitly endorsing the lack of consistent safe sex messages in the paper.

As an AIDS patient and an activist, I need funding available for vital necessary medical care and services; blood tests, HIV medicines, doctor visits, etc. I don't need NIH wasting taxpayer dollars on such ads, asking me and the public to express gratitude to government workers.

Better that the taxpayer money spent on the HIV vaccine awareness ad be used for direct health care costs for AIDS patients, or ads that at least say something about the need to practice safe sex.

I look forward to a prompt reply from your office regarding my concerns.

Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Ph: 415-621-6267

Sources:
1. http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/other/vaccineday.asp
2. www.tray.com
3. www.tray.com

cc;
HHS FOIA Office