March 8, 2005
Dr. David Ho
Director
The Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
New York, NY
Dear Dr. Ho:
I wish to extend hearty thanks to you for helping set a high standard of transparency in HIV research, which you did in an article in the New York Times recently. The paper reported you had fully disclosed your ties to the ViroLogic biomedical firm, a basic component of transparency.
However, the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's (ADARC) web site has not posted any information about these ties and how extensive they are. In this new information age, scientists such as yourself can and should fulfill the promise of full transparency through consistent public disclosure.
You have taken a great stride forward in this matter and appeal to you to go further in helping people living with HIV, including myself, achieve transparency with AIDS researchers who have great influence over our health and choice of medicines.
But I believe you must go beyond disclosing ties with ViroLogic only to a New York Times reporter. Whatever disclosures you made to the reporter should be available on the ADARC site.
As a person with AIDS who daily must grapple with this disease, I am entitled to have as much information as possible about the treatments I take and the individuals responsible for creating AIDS drugs, tests to judge their effectiveness, and help set public policy.
These are my recommendations for you to consider in the interests of AIDS transparency:
1. DISCLOSURE PAGE
Creation of a comprehensive financial and ethical disclosure page for you on the ADARC site, listing all of your past and current affiliations with pharmaceutical and biomedical firms.
This should not be a difficult endeavor, considering you must provide this information to medical journals when you publish any of your frequent articles. All it would take really would be for your web masters to post the information.
(Source: http://www.adarc.org)
2. TIES TO VIROLOGIC
Include full disclosure of ties to the ViroLogic firm; how long on their scientific advisory board, family connections, any stock options, and number hours devoted to the company's advisory needs.
I cannot praise you enough in revealing your affiliations to ViroLogic to the Times, but patients, the public and members of the press should have no trouble locating the ties on ADARC's site.
Disclosure of the information should not be dependent on doing a costly search on the Times web site.
(Source: http://www.virologic.com/520.asp?show=520)
3. AFFILIATION WITH GLAXOSMITHKLINE
Post all news releases about your seat on the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Discovery Award Panel from the biomedical corporation.
As you can imagine, being a person living with HIV, I am keenly aware of drug options, and the lack of new ones when my current AIDS drug cocktail fails, so GSK's Drug Discovery and Research Grant program may lead to better anti-AIDS medicines.
You have served on the GSK panel for four years, and in three of those four years, the panel award grant money to researchers in your lab at ADARC, which, frankly, makes the GSK program seem something of money funnel to ADARC.
Starting in 2001, your GSK panel gave $100,000 to ADARC; for 2003 the amount was $125,000; and in 2004 $250,000 went to your ADARC colleagues. Grand total, so far, is $475,000, and I won't be surprised if this kind of fiscal support from GSK to your lab continues.
Your GSK disclosure page should also highlight how the drug manufacturer in February signed a three-year agreement for $7.5 million with ViroLogic to support GSK's drug development of improved AIDS drugs.
(Sources: http://www.dddresearchgrant.com/review_board.html , http://www.dddresearchgrant.com/past_rep.html and http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=VLGC&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=283042)
4. HONORARIA
Disclose all instances of when you received honoraria, including those from drug manufacturers and biomedical firms, and/or were reimbursed for travel expenses to speak at scientific conferences by the firms, amount received and hours spent for speaking engagements, traveling, etc.
5. TAX REPORTS
Post all available IRS 990 tax forms for ADARC. The IRS requires all tax exempt charities to file an annual 990 form, detailing overall budget, revenue, large expenses and contracts, and salaries. Providing all of ADARC's IRS 990 forms since its inception will go far in meeting a basic tenet of fiscal transparency for AIDS researchers and their laboratories.
6. TIES TO JAIDS
Since it is not well-known among the people with AIDS community that you coedit the peer-review Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, state on your disclosure page your association with JAIDS.
Disclose an annual breakdown, since you've been editing the journal, advertising amounts spent by biomedical, technological and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Transparency for the world of AIDS research also means patients should know how much money you are compensated for this work.
(Source: http://jaids.com/)
7. CHAIRING CONFERENCES
You served as chair for the recent retrovirus conference in Boston, where you presented data and answered questions about your research.
Were you compensated for your chairing duties? If so, how much?
As chair of this respected and influential conference, it's vital to know which firms underwrote the expenses of it.
Please disclose any honoria, travel expenses, or any other forms of financial compensation you received as chair, along with a list of the underwriters and how much they each contributed to the conference's expenses.
(Source: http://www.retroconference.org/2005/Home.htm)
8. ADARC BOARDS
The ADARC web site presently only lists the names of officers, and members of the board of directors and the center's scientific advisory board.
Biographical and institutional facts about those who serves as officers or as members of either board guiding ADARC is sorely lacking, along with details about full financial disclosures and competing interests.
(Source: http://www.adarc.org/about/officers.htm)
9. COMPETING INTERESTS DISCLOSURE
Your January 18 article in the PLoS Medicine journal about giving a shot in the arm to AIDS vaccines was accompanied by the following erroneous statement:
"Competing Interests: The author declares that he has no competing interests."
Readers of your article have not been adequately informed about your competing interests and I think it's necessary for you to urge the editors of PLoS Medicine to quickly print a correction with your full financial disclosures.
(Source: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020036)
I ask that you immediately post all of this requested information on the ADARC site, in the name of AIDS research transparency and full disclosure from researchers, diligently working to find a cure.
People with HIV infection or full-blown AIDS, our families and loved ones, millions of at-risk individuals around the globe and concerned citizens of our planet deserve transparency from researchers.
A prompt reply is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Reports, proud muckraking, photos, videos and musings from the veteran LGBT and AIDS human rights advocate Michael Petrelis. Based in San Francisco since 1995. Contact: MPetrelis_at_AOL_dot_com. Vote Petrelis for BART Board District 9 in November!
Monday, March 07, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Dear Friends:
ViroLogic, the developer and manufacturer of the widely promoted HIV drug-resistant tests all over the news lately, put out its most up-to-date financial reports on Tuesday, the opening day of the HIV retrovirus conference in Boston, of which Dr. David Ho is the chairman this year.
The good news I gleaned from this release is that the company is doing well and making a handsome profit from its HIV assays, of which there are quite a few.
But the bad news is that ViroLogic suffered a $77.2 million net loss, due to merging with another biomedical company.
Good thing their HIV resistant assays are in the news, generating more tests performed by anxious people at risk of HIV, public health officials, private doctors and drug companies. Since ViroLogic's assays are so expensive to perform at the company's own lab, and the cost is being picked up by private and public insurers, more tests administered equals more revenue for the shareholders, including Dr. Ho and his brother Sidney.
Patient testing revenue is so vital to the company right now, it's prominently mentioned in the good news part of the CEO's quote below.
For some nasty chatter among speculators and investors about ViroLogic, its stock, the chairman and board, and the Ho brothers, visit Yahoo's financial area.
It's very informative and at: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mb?s=VLGC
MPetrelis@aol.com
^^^
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.cfm?StoryID=19161220&full=1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- ViroLogic, Inc. today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2004.
Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2004 was $9.9 million compared to revenue of $9.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. For the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company reported revenue of $36.8 million, compared to $33.4 million in 2003.
Revenue from the Company's HIV patient testing products was $6.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $5.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. Revenue from the Company's HIV pharmaceutical testing products was $2.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $3.5 million for the same period in 2003. For the full year 2004, revenue from the Company's HIV patient testing products was $24.9 million, compared to $22.8 million in 2003. Revenue from the Company's HIV pharmaceutical testing products for the year was $9.9 million in 2004 compared to $9.1 million for the same period in 2003.
"We are pleased to report record total and patient testing revenue for the fourth quarter and full year of 2004," said William D. Young, CEO and Chairman of ViroLogic. "Our lead product for HIV resistance testing, PhenoSense(TM) GT, continues to be well accepted by physicians as a source of comprehensive information critical to guiding therapy of patients with HIV/AIDS. With the completion of our merger with ACLARA, we intend to develop a market position in oncology that mirrors our pioneering role and leadership position in HIV resistance testing."
For the fourth quarter of 2004, the net loss was $77.2 million, or $1.12 per common share, compared to a net loss of $405,000, or $0.01 per common share, for the same period in 2003. Included in the net loss for 2004 were substantial non-cash items related to the merger with ACLARA, including a charge for in-process research and development of $100.6 million and a favorable adjustment related to the revaluation of the Contingent Value Rights (CVRs) of $28.5 million as well as stock-based compensation expense of $3.4 million. On a proforma basis, adjusted for these non-cash items, the net loss was $1.7 million, or $0.02 per share, in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $405,000, or $0.01 per share, in the same period of 2003.
[snip]
ViroLogic, the developer and manufacturer of the widely promoted HIV drug-resistant tests all over the news lately, put out its most up-to-date financial reports on Tuesday, the opening day of the HIV retrovirus conference in Boston, of which Dr. David Ho is the chairman this year.
The good news I gleaned from this release is that the company is doing well and making a handsome profit from its HIV assays, of which there are quite a few.
But the bad news is that ViroLogic suffered a $77.2 million net loss, due to merging with another biomedical company.
Good thing their HIV resistant assays are in the news, generating more tests performed by anxious people at risk of HIV, public health officials, private doctors and drug companies. Since ViroLogic's assays are so expensive to perform at the company's own lab, and the cost is being picked up by private and public insurers, more tests administered equals more revenue for the shareholders, including Dr. Ho and his brother Sidney.
Patient testing revenue is so vital to the company right now, it's prominently mentioned in the good news part of the CEO's quote below.
For some nasty chatter among speculators and investors about ViroLogic, its stock, the chairman and board, and the Ho brothers, visit Yahoo's financial area.
It's very informative and at: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mb?s=VLGC
MPetrelis@aol.com
^^^
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.cfm?StoryID=19161220&full=1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- ViroLogic, Inc. today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2004.
Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2004 was $9.9 million compared to revenue of $9.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. For the year ended December 31, 2004, the Company reported revenue of $36.8 million, compared to $33.4 million in 2003.
Revenue from the Company's HIV patient testing products was $6.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $5.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. Revenue from the Company's HIV pharmaceutical testing products was $2.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $3.5 million for the same period in 2003. For the full year 2004, revenue from the Company's HIV patient testing products was $24.9 million, compared to $22.8 million in 2003. Revenue from the Company's HIV pharmaceutical testing products for the year was $9.9 million in 2004 compared to $9.1 million for the same period in 2003.
"We are pleased to report record total and patient testing revenue for the fourth quarter and full year of 2004," said William D. Young, CEO and Chairman of ViroLogic. "Our lead product for HIV resistance testing, PhenoSense(TM) GT, continues to be well accepted by physicians as a source of comprehensive information critical to guiding therapy of patients with HIV/AIDS. With the completion of our merger with ACLARA, we intend to develop a market position in oncology that mirrors our pioneering role and leadership position in HIV resistance testing."
For the fourth quarter of 2004, the net loss was $77.2 million, or $1.12 per common share, compared to a net loss of $405,000, or $0.01 per common share, for the same period in 2003. Included in the net loss for 2004 were substantial non-cash items related to the merger with ACLARA, including a charge for in-process research and development of $100.6 million and a favorable adjustment related to the revaluation of the Contingent Value Rights (CVRs) of $28.5 million as well as stock-based compensation expense of $3.4 million. On a proforma basis, adjusted for these non-cash items, the net loss was $1.7 million, or $0.02 per share, in the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to $405,000, or $0.01 per share, in the same period of 2003.
[snip]
Dear Friends:
This is the second letter I received in the past week from the Times about my many concerns related to their coverage of the mutant strain of HIV in New York and some of the researchers involved.
While it's great the paper's editors and reporters read my letters to a science desk editor, I wish the Times would get the stories right and report all the facts and questions about this one case of drug-resistant HIV.
If the Times did that, they wouldn't get criticism from me and their would be no need for the paper's chief of communications to reply to me and defend their coverage and editorial decisions.
We'll just have to wait and see how they report future developments in this continuing story.
^^^
Subj: In Response to Your Letter
Date: 2/23/2005 4:17:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: mathis@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Dear Mr. Petrelis:
To respond to your letter point by point:
1. We quoted Dr. Ho accurately; we did not say or imply that his statement
was correct. On deadline, we are simply not in a position to fact-check
every assertion made by every person we quote. Please bear in mind that
this article was largely devoted to criticism of Dr. Ho and Dr. Frieden,
and brought up many of the points that you yourself have raised.
2. As you acknowledge, we correctly reported Sidney Ho's relationship with
ViroLogic. Whether we might have done so in earlier articles depends on
relevance and on what we knew at the time.
3. Ditto.
4. We sometimes discuss stock performance and sometimes don't. This is
another matter of news judgment. You're entirely free to question our
judgment; we will take into account your criticisms and those of other
readers as we cover these issues in the future.
5. I don't understand your criticism on this point. The article reported
the very concern that you raise.
6. Your criticism of the ViroLogic news release would seem to be a matter
between you and the company.
As for your other letters:
On F.D.A. approval for the ViroLogic test: Is F.D.A. approval required for
the New York City Health Department to use a test? We report on many things
that are used in investigations or studies before they have F.D.A.
approval. The absence of approval in this case may be relevant in future
articles; if it is, we will report it.
On Dr. Ho's ownership of stock in ViroLogic: To repeat, we noted his
membership on the company's scientific advisory board. That seemed to our
editors to be sufficient evidence of his involvement with the company. As
you yourself note, the article in Gay City News makes no suggestion that he
has benefited greatly from owning stock.
Sincerely,
Catherine Mathis
VP, Corporate Communications
The New York Times Company
212-556-1981 (office)
917-593-7425 (cell)
mathis@nytimes.com
This is the second letter I received in the past week from the Times about my many concerns related to their coverage of the mutant strain of HIV in New York and some of the researchers involved.
While it's great the paper's editors and reporters read my letters to a science desk editor, I wish the Times would get the stories right and report all the facts and questions about this one case of drug-resistant HIV.
If the Times did that, they wouldn't get criticism from me and their would be no need for the paper's chief of communications to reply to me and defend their coverage and editorial decisions.
We'll just have to wait and see how they report future developments in this continuing story.
^^^
Subj: In Response to Your Letter
Date: 2/23/2005 4:17:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: mathis@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Dear Mr. Petrelis:
To respond to your letter point by point:
1. We quoted Dr. Ho accurately; we did not say or imply that his statement
was correct. On deadline, we are simply not in a position to fact-check
every assertion made by every person we quote. Please bear in mind that
this article was largely devoted to criticism of Dr. Ho and Dr. Frieden,
and brought up many of the points that you yourself have raised.
2. As you acknowledge, we correctly reported Sidney Ho's relationship with
ViroLogic. Whether we might have done so in earlier articles depends on
relevance and on what we knew at the time.
3. Ditto.
4. We sometimes discuss stock performance and sometimes don't. This is
another matter of news judgment. You're entirely free to question our
judgment; we will take into account your criticisms and those of other
readers as we cover these issues in the future.
5. I don't understand your criticism on this point. The article reported
the very concern that you raise.
6. Your criticism of the ViroLogic news release would seem to be a matter
between you and the company.
As for your other letters:
On F.D.A. approval for the ViroLogic test: Is F.D.A. approval required for
the New York City Health Department to use a test? We report on many things
that are used in investigations or studies before they have F.D.A.
approval. The absence of approval in this case may be relevant in future
articles; if it is, we will report it.
On Dr. Ho's ownership of stock in ViroLogic: To repeat, we noted his
membership on the company's scientific advisory board. That seemed to our
editors to be sufficient evidence of his involvement with the company. As
you yourself note, the article in Gay City News makes no suggestion that he
has benefited greatly from owning stock.
Sincerely,
Catherine Mathis
VP, Corporate Communications
The New York Times Company
212-556-1981 (office)
917-593-7425 (cell)
mathis@nytimes.com
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Feb. 22, 2005
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Times reported on Feb. 21 that Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, who also has a consulting gig with ViroLogic, has "disclosed all of his ties to the company."
Putting aside for the moment the fact that Ho has allegedly fully disclosed links with ViroLogic, even though the ties are not posted on the Aaron Diamond web site, if he made the disclosures to the Times, an important question about his owning stock in the company must be raised related to your coverage.
Christos Petropoulos, director of research and development for ViroLogic, gave an interview last week with new York's Gay City News and confirmed what many Ho and ViroLogic critics had long suspected--Ho owns shares in the company. Why the Times sees this matter as unimportant is hard to fathom.
"Ho has received ViroLogic stock options during his time with the company, according to Petropoulos. With the company stock trading at around $2.50 a share, Ho will not reap great rewards from that relationship.
'I think it’s safe to say that none of our scientific advisory board members are getting rich,' Petropoulos said," according to the gay publication. (Source: http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_360/expertsquestion.html )
One thing Petropoulos forgot to mention is that they may not be getting rich because the company's long-standing financial troubles plague their stock and profits.
If Ho indeed fully disclosed his ViroLogic ties to the Times, why have you not reported on his owning stock in the company?
On the other hand, if Ho did not make the Times aware of his stock ownership, it shows he was not fully disclosing his conflicts of interest.
In any event, I think the Times in future stories about the drug-resistant mutant HIV strain in New York that mention Ho and ViroLogic, the paper will inform readers that Ho owns shares in the company.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Times reported on Feb. 21 that Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, who also has a consulting gig with ViroLogic, has "disclosed all of his ties to the company."
Putting aside for the moment the fact that Ho has allegedly fully disclosed links with ViroLogic, even though the ties are not posted on the Aaron Diamond web site, if he made the disclosures to the Times, an important question about his owning stock in the company must be raised related to your coverage.
Christos Petropoulos, director of research and development for ViroLogic, gave an interview last week with new York's Gay City News and confirmed what many Ho and ViroLogic critics had long suspected--Ho owns shares in the company. Why the Times sees this matter as unimportant is hard to fathom.
"Ho has received ViroLogic stock options during his time with the company, according to Petropoulos. With the company stock trading at around $2.50 a share, Ho will not reap great rewards from that relationship.
'I think it’s safe to say that none of our scientific advisory board members are getting rich,' Petropoulos said," according to the gay publication. (Source: http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_360/expertsquestion.html )
One thing Petropoulos forgot to mention is that they may not be getting rich because the company's long-standing financial troubles plague their stock and profits.
If Ho indeed fully disclosed his ViroLogic ties to the Times, why have you not reported on his owning stock in the company?
On the other hand, if Ho did not make the Times aware of his stock ownership, it shows he was not fully disclosing his conflicts of interest.
In any event, I think the Times in future stories about the drug-resistant mutant HIV strain in New York that mention Ho and ViroLogic, the paper will inform readers that Ho owns shares in the company.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
Feb. 22, 2005
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
Since Feb. 12 the Times' many articles about a suspected case of a drug-resistant mutant strain of HIV in New York have reported on tests used to test the specimens of the patient with this strain. These tests are manufactured, sold and promoted by the ViroLogic company.
In all of the reporting on this case by the Times, the paper has failed to once inform readers that the drug-resistant tests have not received the blessing of federal Food and Drug Administration.
This fact can be verified by reading the four-page product guide for ViroLogic's PhenoSense GT assay, which states the following:
"This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by ViroLogics, Inc. It has not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." (Source: http://www.virologichiv.com/pdf/GT_Product_Guide.pdf , page 4)
The reasons for this lack of approval are contained in ViroLogic's 2002 eighty-seven-page annual report to shareholders.
It said:
"The FDA may impose medical device regulatory requirements on our tests, including possible premarket approve requirements, which could be expensive and time-consuming and could prevent us from marketing these tests.
"In the past, the FDA has not required that genotypic or phenotypic testing conducted at a clinical laboratory be subject to premarketing clearance or approval, although the FDA has stated that it believes its jurisdiction extends to tests generated in a clinical laboratory.
"We received a letter from the FDA in September 2001 that asserted such jurisdiction over in-house tests like ours, but which also stated the FDA is not currently requiring premarket approval for HIV monitoring tests such as ours provided that the promotional claims for such tests are limited to its analytical capabilities and do not mention the benefit of making treatment decisions on the basis of the test results.
"The FDA letter also asserted that our GeneSeq test had been misbranded due to the use of purchased analyte specific reagents (ASRs), if test reports do not include a statement disclosing that the test has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. We now utilize in-house prepared ASRs in our products. The FDA has indicated in discussions that the focus of the letter was our genotypic tests and not our phenotypic tests, but there is no certainty its focus will remain narrow.
"We have had several discussions with the FDA related to its position set forth in the letter. We do not at this point believe the FDA will require us to take steps that materially affect our business or financial performance, but we cannot guarantee this will remain the case.
"We cannot be sure the FDA will accept the steps we take, or that the FDA will not require us to alter our promotional claims or undertake the expensive and time consuming process of seeking premarket approval with clinical data demonstrating the sensitivity and specificity of our tests.
"If premarket approval is required, we cannot be sure that we will be able to obtain it in a timely fashion or at all; and in such an event the FDA would have authority to require us to cease marketing tests until such approval is granted.
"In general, we cannot predict the extent of future FDA regulations of our business. We might be subject in the future to greater regulation, or different regulations, that could have a material effect on our finances and operations. If we fail to comply with existing or additional FDA regulations, it could cause us to incur civil or criminal fines and penalties, increase our expenses, prevent us from increasing revenues, or hinder our ability to conduct our business." (Source: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/VLGC/reports/2002_ar.pdf , pages 29 and 30)
Please answer two questions I have about the lack of FDA approval for ViroLogic's tests, the reasons behind it, and your paper's coverage of the tests and their tremendous impact on the news and public health policies.
First, why has the Times not reported on the absence of FDA approval for the tests?
Second, is the paper truly committed to reporting on all scientific aspects of the mutant HIV strain in New York, including questions about why the FDA has not condoned ViroLogic's drug-resistance assays?
I ask for a prompt response.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
Since Feb. 12 the Times' many articles about a suspected case of a drug-resistant mutant strain of HIV in New York have reported on tests used to test the specimens of the patient with this strain. These tests are manufactured, sold and promoted by the ViroLogic company.
In all of the reporting on this case by the Times, the paper has failed to once inform readers that the drug-resistant tests have not received the blessing of federal Food and Drug Administration.
This fact can be verified by reading the four-page product guide for ViroLogic's PhenoSense GT assay, which states the following:
"This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by ViroLogics, Inc. It has not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." (Source: http://www.virologichiv.com/pdf/GT_Product_Guide.pdf , page 4)
The reasons for this lack of approval are contained in ViroLogic's 2002 eighty-seven-page annual report to shareholders.
It said:
"The FDA may impose medical device regulatory requirements on our tests, including possible premarket approve requirements, which could be expensive and time-consuming and could prevent us from marketing these tests.
"In the past, the FDA has not required that genotypic or phenotypic testing conducted at a clinical laboratory be subject to premarketing clearance or approval, although the FDA has stated that it believes its jurisdiction extends to tests generated in a clinical laboratory.
"We received a letter from the FDA in September 2001 that asserted such jurisdiction over in-house tests like ours, but which also stated the FDA is not currently requiring premarket approval for HIV monitoring tests such as ours provided that the promotional claims for such tests are limited to its analytical capabilities and do not mention the benefit of making treatment decisions on the basis of the test results.
"The FDA letter also asserted that our GeneSeq test had been misbranded due to the use of purchased analyte specific reagents (ASRs), if test reports do not include a statement disclosing that the test has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. We now utilize in-house prepared ASRs in our products. The FDA has indicated in discussions that the focus of the letter was our genotypic tests and not our phenotypic tests, but there is no certainty its focus will remain narrow.
"We have had several discussions with the FDA related to its position set forth in the letter. We do not at this point believe the FDA will require us to take steps that materially affect our business or financial performance, but we cannot guarantee this will remain the case.
"We cannot be sure the FDA will accept the steps we take, or that the FDA will not require us to alter our promotional claims or undertake the expensive and time consuming process of seeking premarket approval with clinical data demonstrating the sensitivity and specificity of our tests.
"If premarket approval is required, we cannot be sure that we will be able to obtain it in a timely fashion or at all; and in such an event the FDA would have authority to require us to cease marketing tests until such approval is granted.
"In general, we cannot predict the extent of future FDA regulations of our business. We might be subject in the future to greater regulation, or different regulations, that could have a material effect on our finances and operations. If we fail to comply with existing or additional FDA regulations, it could cause us to incur civil or criminal fines and penalties, increase our expenses, prevent us from increasing revenues, or hinder our ability to conduct our business." (Source: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/VLGC/reports/2002_ar.pdf , pages 29 and 30)
Please answer two questions I have about the lack of FDA approval for ViroLogic's tests, the reasons behind it, and your paper's coverage of the tests and their tremendous impact on the news and public health policies.
First, why has the Times not reported on the absence of FDA approval for the tests?
Second, is the paper truly committed to reporting on all scientific aspects of the mutant HIV strain in New York, including questions about why the FDA has not condoned ViroLogic's drug-resistance assays?
I ask for a prompt response.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Dear Friends:
Some of the organizations and people behind the infamous alarmism and hype in July 2000 about alleged sub-Saharan levels of new HIV transmissions in San Francisco, which didn't prove true, are now hosting a community forum about the hype coming from NYC the past two weeks.
The sponsors of tonight's meeting have also done their fair share of scare-mongering about the drug-resistant strain of staph, syphilis surges, barebacking HIV poz men, meth use among gays, etc., creating a dense climate of hype, fear and confusion.
While it pleases me such a forum is happening in SF tonight, I think the sponsors, especially the health department, need to think about additional forums on how the department and its community-based partners owe the community answers about the lingering questions raised regarding the hype the department developed on many health issues for gay men in the past six years.
It isn't just the NYC health officials and community organizations who know how to create hype so thick SF needs to put on a forum about how to wade through it. --MPetrelis@aol.com
^^^
http://www.sfgaycenter.org/calendar1.php?id_calendar=11284
02/22/05
SF GLBT Community Center
1800 Market Street
5:00-5:30 refreshments
5:30-7:00 presentations and discussions
Rare Drug Resistant Strain of HIV: Wading Through the Hype
A Community Meeting about the multi-drug resistant HIV strain reported in New York City last week.
HIV medical researchers and community leaders
will discuss what we really need to know about this report and the implications for San Francisco.
Hosted by the LGBT Center, Magnet, and the SFDPH-HIV Prevention Section.
further info: For more information call Mike Pendo @ 415.554.9126 or visit www.SFHIV.org.
Some of the organizations and people behind the infamous alarmism and hype in July 2000 about alleged sub-Saharan levels of new HIV transmissions in San Francisco, which didn't prove true, are now hosting a community forum about the hype coming from NYC the past two weeks.
The sponsors of tonight's meeting have also done their fair share of scare-mongering about the drug-resistant strain of staph, syphilis surges, barebacking HIV poz men, meth use among gays, etc., creating a dense climate of hype, fear and confusion.
While it pleases me such a forum is happening in SF tonight, I think the sponsors, especially the health department, need to think about additional forums on how the department and its community-based partners owe the community answers about the lingering questions raised regarding the hype the department developed on many health issues for gay men in the past six years.
It isn't just the NYC health officials and community organizations who know how to create hype so thick SF needs to put on a forum about how to wade through it. --MPetrelis@aol.com
^^^
http://www.sfgaycenter.org/calendar1.php?id_calendar=11284
02/22/05
SF GLBT Community Center
1800 Market Street
5:00-5:30 refreshments
5:30-7:00 presentations and discussions
Rare Drug Resistant Strain of HIV: Wading Through the Hype
A Community Meeting about the multi-drug resistant HIV strain reported in New York City last week.
HIV medical researchers and community leaders
will discuss what we really need to know about this report and the implications for San Francisco.
Hosted by the LGBT Center, Magnet, and the SFDPH-HIV Prevention Section.
further info: For more information call Mike Pendo @ 415.554.9126 or visit www.SFHIV.org.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Feb. 22, 2005
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I am writing to you because of concerns I have with yesterday's story in the Times following up on recent events related to the discovery in New York City of rare strain of HIV. (Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/health/21aids.html?pagewanted=2 )
These are my concerns, in order of importance to me:
1.
The Times also wrote that, "Dr. Ho said that he has disclosed all of his ties to the company and
that any suggestion of impropriety was false."
Okay, where are these alleged disclosures posted on the web and when did he make them public?
Not on the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's web site, nor on the Rockefeller University site, the center's main academic affiliation. (Sources: http://www.adarc.org/research/ho/ho-cv.htm and http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/abstract.php?id=63 )
This is the list of board affiliations for Ho, omitting mention of his tie to ViroLogic's advisory board, as published on his research center's site:
"Committee Assignments & Board Memberships:
"1990-present Committee of 100 (Chinese American Leadership Organization)
"1997-present Board of Trustees, California Institute of Technology
"1998-present Board of Directors, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
"1998-present Board of Overseers, Harvard University
"2003-present Board member, the MIT Corporation"
Can the two Times reporters who wrote today's story tell me and other readers where exactly Ho has disclosed his ties to ViroLogic? As far as I can tell from public records on the web, he hasn't done so, at least not on sites where one would logically think to look, his research center and Rockefeller University sites.
Since Ho claims he has disclosed links to the company, why weren't the ties reported in previous Times articles about Ho and the new strain of HIV in New York?
2.
The story further noted, "[Dr. David Ho's] brother, Sidney Ho, does
marketing work for the company and once was the head of its
communications department."
True. Too bad the Times didn't see fit to include the above sentence in its initial reporting. Also, Sidney Ho, before taking a job at ViroLogic, served as spokesman of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's media office. The full interconnectedness of both David and Sidney Ho and ViroLogic and the research center has yet to be reported in the Times. (Source: http://www.aegis.com/news/pr/1996/PR960705.html )
3.
The Times stated, "Dr. Ho, who was quoted in the release, serves on the
scientific advisory board of ViroLogic."
But until today, the Times never mentioned Ho sitting on the advisory board and the board connection is conspicuously missing from the release, something not reported by the Times.
Additionally, Ho has collaborated with ViroLogic on at least one scientific study about resistance to AIDS drugs and phenotypic testing, a fact not noted in the release and so far not reported in the Times. (Source: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v180n3/981290/981290.web.pdf )
4.
The Times said, "William D. Young, the chairman and chief executive of ViroLogic, said
there was no effort by Dr. Ho to promote ViroLogic through this case.
He said the company's scientific advisers 'are very aware of their
scientific reputations and that's paramount to them. At some times I
prefer them to be promotional but they are not.' Mr. Young said
ViroLogic issued the news release to make the public aware of its role
in the testing and its extensive nature."
Partially true. The release did inform the public, but it wasn't a totally altruistic statement. It also served as a potential moneymaking message to investors on Wall Street.
What impact did the release have on ViroLogic's stock the day it was issued?
This is how the Dow Jones NewsWires of Feb. 14 reported the influence of that release on the company's shares:
"Virologic Inc. (VLGC) shares advanced 11.9% to $2.73 after the company said its test was able to characterize and identify potential treatments for virulent multi-drug resistant strain of HIV." (Source: http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050214/15/3qkkd.html )
I am curious to know why the affect of the release on the company's stock was not included in today's Times article.
5.
The Times reported: "Critics have also charged that ViroLogic, the lab that did some of the
testing for the Diamond Center and the Health Department in the most
recent case, is using the case to promote its services."
Counting myself among those critics, I'd say there is evidence to back up our claims that ViroLogic sees the story as a way to boost sales and promote wider use of its assays, evidence I believe the Times should have reported.
Take a look at this passage from the Feb. 17 Forbes article about the company and its role in the rare HIV strain in New York:
"'A lot of physicians don't get newly infected HIV patients tested,' says William Young, CEO of ViroLogic. He's hoping that the news about the New York City patient's mutant strain of HIV will encourage more physicians to order its test for such patients. 'Personalized medicine is a reality in HIV,' adds Young. The test isn't cheap: It can run up to $1,250. But most insurance companies, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, do reimburse for the screening." (Source: http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/02/17/cz_kd_0217virologic.html )
Reading the Forbes article, I think ViroLogic critics are justified in our charges against the company, which the Times have reported.
6.
The Times also reported that, "The Monday after Dr. Frieden's Friday news conference, ViroLogic issued a news release calling attention to its work performing the test for drug resistance."
It's a fascinating release actually, in my opinion, starting with the headline:
"Recent Identification of a New York City Patient Infected With Multi-Drug
"Resistant HIV Who Rapidly Progressed to AIDS Prompts Health Officials to
"Encourage Resistance Testing in Newly Infected Individuals." (Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2005/0003019273&EDATE= )
To me, the term health officials means _public_ health officials, not researchers, but not a single public health official is quoted in the release.
The first quote, from Dr. David Ho, contains no mention about encouraging resistance testing. Ho, by the way, has the longest quotes in the release, giving an impression of being a health official, unaffiliated with the company.
The closest we get to a health official encouraging testing for AIDS drug-resistance is the following passage:
"'This case reinforces the importance of resistance testing in the
management of HIV patients, including those individuals who have not received
prior antiretroviral treatment,' said Michael Bates, M.D., Vice President of
Clinical Research at ViroLogic."
You'll notice this "health official" just happens to work for the company marketing the test. A more honest headline for the new release would have said health officials who also have connections to ViroLogic.
The Times could have found room in the story yesterday pointing the somewhat misleading release.
A prompt rely is requested and appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I am writing to you because of concerns I have with yesterday's story in the Times following up on recent events related to the discovery in New York City of rare strain of HIV. (Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/health/21aids.html?pagewanted=2 )
These are my concerns, in order of importance to me:
1.
The Times also wrote that, "Dr. Ho said that he has disclosed all of his ties to the company and
that any suggestion of impropriety was false."
Okay, where are these alleged disclosures posted on the web and when did he make them public?
Not on the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's web site, nor on the Rockefeller University site, the center's main academic affiliation. (Sources: http://www.adarc.org/research/ho/ho-cv.htm and http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/abstract.php?id=63 )
This is the list of board affiliations for Ho, omitting mention of his tie to ViroLogic's advisory board, as published on his research center's site:
"Committee Assignments & Board Memberships:
"1990-present Committee of 100 (Chinese American Leadership Organization)
"1997-present Board of Trustees, California Institute of Technology
"1998-present Board of Directors, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
"1998-present Board of Overseers, Harvard University
"2003-present Board member, the MIT Corporation"
Can the two Times reporters who wrote today's story tell me and other readers where exactly Ho has disclosed his ties to ViroLogic? As far as I can tell from public records on the web, he hasn't done so, at least not on sites where one would logically think to look, his research center and Rockefeller University sites.
Since Ho claims he has disclosed links to the company, why weren't the ties reported in previous Times articles about Ho and the new strain of HIV in New York?
2.
The story further noted, "[Dr. David Ho's] brother, Sidney Ho, does
marketing work for the company and once was the head of its
communications department."
True. Too bad the Times didn't see fit to include the above sentence in its initial reporting. Also, Sidney Ho, before taking a job at ViroLogic, served as spokesman of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's media office. The full interconnectedness of both David and Sidney Ho and ViroLogic and the research center has yet to be reported in the Times. (Source: http://www.aegis.com/news/pr/1996/PR960705.html )
3.
The Times stated, "Dr. Ho, who was quoted in the release, serves on the
scientific advisory board of ViroLogic."
But until today, the Times never mentioned Ho sitting on the advisory board and the board connection is conspicuously missing from the release, something not reported by the Times.
Additionally, Ho has collaborated with ViroLogic on at least one scientific study about resistance to AIDS drugs and phenotypic testing, a fact not noted in the release and so far not reported in the Times. (Source: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v180n3/981290/981290.web.pdf )
4.
The Times said, "William D. Young, the chairman and chief executive of ViroLogic, said
there was no effort by Dr. Ho to promote ViroLogic through this case.
He said the company's scientific advisers 'are very aware of their
scientific reputations and that's paramount to them. At some times I
prefer them to be promotional but they are not.' Mr. Young said
ViroLogic issued the news release to make the public aware of its role
in the testing and its extensive nature."
Partially true. The release did inform the public, but it wasn't a totally altruistic statement. It also served as a potential moneymaking message to investors on Wall Street.
What impact did the release have on ViroLogic's stock the day it was issued?
This is how the Dow Jones NewsWires of Feb. 14 reported the influence of that release on the company's shares:
"Virologic Inc. (VLGC) shares advanced 11.9% to $2.73 after the company said its test was able to characterize and identify potential treatments for virulent multi-drug resistant strain of HIV." (Source: http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050214/15/3qkkd.html )
I am curious to know why the affect of the release on the company's stock was not included in today's Times article.
5.
The Times reported: "Critics have also charged that ViroLogic, the lab that did some of the
testing for the Diamond Center and the Health Department in the most
recent case, is using the case to promote its services."
Counting myself among those critics, I'd say there is evidence to back up our claims that ViroLogic sees the story as a way to boost sales and promote wider use of its assays, evidence I believe the Times should have reported.
Take a look at this passage from the Feb. 17 Forbes article about the company and its role in the rare HIV strain in New York:
"'A lot of physicians don't get newly infected HIV patients tested,' says William Young, CEO of ViroLogic. He's hoping that the news about the New York City patient's mutant strain of HIV will encourage more physicians to order its test for such patients. 'Personalized medicine is a reality in HIV,' adds Young. The test isn't cheap: It can run up to $1,250. But most insurance companies, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, do reimburse for the screening." (Source: http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/02/17/cz_kd_0217virologic.html )
Reading the Forbes article, I think ViroLogic critics are justified in our charges against the company, which the Times have reported.
6.
The Times also reported that, "The Monday after Dr. Frieden's Friday news conference, ViroLogic issued a news release calling attention to its work performing the test for drug resistance."
It's a fascinating release actually, in my opinion, starting with the headline:
"Recent Identification of a New York City Patient Infected With Multi-Drug
"Resistant HIV Who Rapidly Progressed to AIDS Prompts Health Officials to
"Encourage Resistance Testing in Newly Infected Individuals." (Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2005/0003019273&EDATE= )
To me, the term health officials means _public_ health officials, not researchers, but not a single public health official is quoted in the release.
The first quote, from Dr. David Ho, contains no mention about encouraging resistance testing. Ho, by the way, has the longest quotes in the release, giving an impression of being a health official, unaffiliated with the company.
The closest we get to a health official encouraging testing for AIDS drug-resistance is the following passage:
"'This case reinforces the importance of resistance testing in the
management of HIV patients, including those individuals who have not received
prior antiretroviral treatment,' said Michael Bates, M.D., Vice President of
Clinical Research at ViroLogic."
You'll notice this "health official" just happens to work for the company marketing the test. A more honest headline for the new release would have said health officials who also have connections to ViroLogic.
The Times could have found room in the story yesterday pointing the somewhat misleading release.
A prompt rely is requested and appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Friday, February 18, 2005
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Your E-mails
Date: 2/18/2005 3:57:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: mathis@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
CC: sho@virologic.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your recent e-mails.
We don't think our omissions of the connections in the Monday article are
important enough for an editor's note. An editor's note would suggest that
a) our reporting was deficient and b) the omissions were central to the
story; i.e., that it is plausible that Frieden and Ho's connections
influenced their decisions in the AIDS case in some unseemly way. Neither
was the case. Though Ho is a scientific advisor to ViroLogic, in this story
ViroLogic was bit player in a detective story. The relevance of the Frieden
connection to Ho's center is unclear.
Those connections do seem worth reporting out for a different sort of
article, one that looks squarely at the skepticism and jealousies aroused
by this case. We are doing that reporting now and may have an article for
the weekend.
With regard to your questions concerning Dr. Altman, as you point out, the
Times' code of ethics specifically allows a reporter to accept an honorary
degree. Moreover, Dr. Altman first asked Times newsroom management whether
he could accept this particular award, and was told yes because it is
consistent with our ethics code.
Sincerely,
Catherine Mathis
Vice President
Corporate Communications
The New York Times Company
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Your E-mails
Date: 2/18/2005 3:57:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: mathis@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
CC: sho@virologic.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your recent e-mails.
We don't think our omissions of the connections in the Monday article are
important enough for an editor's note. An editor's note would suggest that
a) our reporting was deficient and b) the omissions were central to the
story; i.e., that it is plausible that Frieden and Ho's connections
influenced their decisions in the AIDS case in some unseemly way. Neither
was the case. Though Ho is a scientific advisor to ViroLogic, in this story
ViroLogic was bit player in a detective story. The relevance of the Frieden
connection to Ho's center is unclear.
Those connections do seem worth reporting out for a different sort of
article, one that looks squarely at the skepticism and jealousies aroused
by this case. We are doing that reporting now and may have an article for
the weekend.
With regard to your questions concerning Dr. Altman, as you point out, the
Times' code of ethics specifically allows a reporter to accept an honorary
degree. Moreover, Dr. Altman first asked Times newsroom management whether
he could accept this particular award, and was told yes because it is
consistent with our ethics code.
Sincerely,
Catherine Mathis
Vice President
Corporate Communications
The New York Times Company
So much for all of the queer citizen's of the People's Republic of San Francisco having progressive or liberal views, especially on AIDS and our brothers tweaking out on meth. This letter is the _only_ one to appear in the BAR this week on the suspected NYC supervirus and it may represent the views of far too many in the local queer community. I won't be surprised when a queer citizen of the republic in which I live calls for reviving William F. Buckley's call to tattoo the buttocks of PWAs and HIV poz men as an effective way of controlling the epidemic. --MPetrelis@aol.com
^^^
Bay Area Reporter
baypaper@aol.com
17 February 2005
Letters (Page 7)
Emerging AIDS Crisis
When the AIDS epidemic started, very smart people in the city of San Francisco, gay and straight, took immediate action. They shut down the bathhouses and promoted safe sex with vigor. The results were remarkable.
After this success many things have changed. For most, AIDS is no longer a death sentence. With treatment and good genes some folks live seemingly forever. Those who witnessed the horrors of the early epidemic are now dead or too old to get out and swing very much. (Sorry the truth hurts me too.)
Most in the scene today only remember seeing Ryan White on TV and wonder if he is still alive. Perhaps most importantly the drug scene has changed too. Methamphetamine has become cheaper and more popular. More people are smoking it, as that is cheaper and more potent. Smoking it also ruins the teeth. Those sore gums are wonderful for exchanging bodily fluids. Oral sex just isn't as safe as it used to be when you have no teeth and bloody gums.
All of these factors have helped the disease pick up speed lately. The new superstrains are a product of the idiotic behavior of the above-mentioned groups. What is really sad is when you look at the economics of their behavior. A ton of money was spent fighting AIDS. A group of idiots decided to act stupid and now AIDS has the potential to get real cheap. With these new strains you will die quickly. There will be no lengthy legislative pleas by bleeding hearts for more money for treatment, because now, thanks to some, there is no treatment. Congratulations, you wasted billions of dollars by doing dope and having unsafe sex. You weren't happy sending the letters of the gay community to Sacramento and Washington, D.C. begging for funding every year.
The smart minds of the gay community are waking up once again as they did at the disease's onset. They are talking about taking direct action against positive people who like to get high and have sex with people without mentioning their deadly secret. The people who do this are murderers, it is crystal clear. Those who behave this way but don't transmit the disease are attempted murderers.
We had a case here in San Francisco where a former health commissioner allegedly knowingly infected his partner. Don't whine to me about needing more money for education, this guy was one of the health educators. What we need is accountability.
Those gay men that knowingly spread the disease now amongst their own community are the worst sort of people. I'm a libertarian at heart. I don't care what adults you have sex with and I don't care how you party as long as you behave and I don't want my kids to pay for you after you tear your body up. At the start of AIDS we went to great lengths to protect the diagnosed people's privacy. Now many are getting death sentences because they use their privacy to infect others. The gay community is now coming to the realization that the black community has come to. We kill way more of each other every day than the ole Klan did in the last 20 years combined.
I call on our legislative leaders, particularly Mark Leno, Bevan Dufty, and Tom Ammiano to take the lead in this. After a few evil people shrivel up in San Quentin after losing their comfy cute lives people will take notice and stop murdering their own so-called community.
John Viletto
San Francisco
^^^
Bay Area Reporter
baypaper@aol.com
17 February 2005
Letters (Page 7)
Emerging AIDS Crisis
When the AIDS epidemic started, very smart people in the city of San Francisco, gay and straight, took immediate action. They shut down the bathhouses and promoted safe sex with vigor. The results were remarkable.
After this success many things have changed. For most, AIDS is no longer a death sentence. With treatment and good genes some folks live seemingly forever. Those who witnessed the horrors of the early epidemic are now dead or too old to get out and swing very much. (Sorry the truth hurts me too.)
Most in the scene today only remember seeing Ryan White on TV and wonder if he is still alive. Perhaps most importantly the drug scene has changed too. Methamphetamine has become cheaper and more popular. More people are smoking it, as that is cheaper and more potent. Smoking it also ruins the teeth. Those sore gums are wonderful for exchanging bodily fluids. Oral sex just isn't as safe as it used to be when you have no teeth and bloody gums.
All of these factors have helped the disease pick up speed lately. The new superstrains are a product of the idiotic behavior of the above-mentioned groups. What is really sad is when you look at the economics of their behavior. A ton of money was spent fighting AIDS. A group of idiots decided to act stupid and now AIDS has the potential to get real cheap. With these new strains you will die quickly. There will be no lengthy legislative pleas by bleeding hearts for more money for treatment, because now, thanks to some, there is no treatment. Congratulations, you wasted billions of dollars by doing dope and having unsafe sex. You weren't happy sending the letters of the gay community to Sacramento and Washington, D.C. begging for funding every year.
The smart minds of the gay community are waking up once again as they did at the disease's onset. They are talking about taking direct action against positive people who like to get high and have sex with people without mentioning their deadly secret. The people who do this are murderers, it is crystal clear. Those who behave this way but don't transmit the disease are attempted murderers.
We had a case here in San Francisco where a former health commissioner allegedly knowingly infected his partner. Don't whine to me about needing more money for education, this guy was one of the health educators. What we need is accountability.
Those gay men that knowingly spread the disease now amongst their own community are the worst sort of people. I'm a libertarian at heart. I don't care what adults you have sex with and I don't care how you party as long as you behave and I don't want my kids to pay for you after you tear your body up. At the start of AIDS we went to great lengths to protect the diagnosed people's privacy. Now many are getting death sentences because they use their privacy to infect others. The gay community is now coming to the realization that the black community has come to. We kill way more of each other every day than the ole Klan did in the last 20 years combined.
I call on our legislative leaders, particularly Mark Leno, Bevan Dufty, and Tom Ammiano to take the lead in this. After a few evil people shrivel up in San Quentin after losing their comfy cute lives people will take notice and stop murdering their own so-called community.
John Viletto
San Francisco
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Times' chief medical reporter, Dr. Lawrence K. Altman, coauthored a Feb. 13 article about scientists urging more research into the appearance of an apparently rare drug-resistant strain of HIV. He quoted an AIDS expert from the University of California at San Francisco about the history of drug-resistant HIV infection and there was no bias or favoritism toward the university. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/health/13virus.html )
My concern, however, is the UCSF Medal, the university's highest honor equivalent to an honorary degree, given to Altman in April 2004 for his excellence in reporting on medicine and science. Altman received the medal at a $70-a-head banquet to raise funds for the university and laud his achievements. (Source: http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200404222/ )
Accepting the award appears to not be in violation of the Times' code of ethics, according to paragraph 55 of the paper's rules for reporters. (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf )
However, I am concerned about the lack of transparency on the paper's part to inform readers that Altman last year accepted an honor from a research university that he frequently includes in his reporting, and, whose experts he often quotes.
This brings up the question of how the Times maintains transparency regarding correspondents, the awards and honoraria they receive, and avoiding conflicts of interests, or the appearance of favoritism.
For example, as a reader, I believe I should have been informed, perhaps not in print but at least on the Times' web site, that a source in the past three years had touted Altman's reporting on a host of issues with a medal.
Same policy would apply, say, if the Tony Awards organization gave a citation to the Times' chief theater critic, threw a party on his behalf, and charged the public money to attend. Of course, it would be up to the individual reader to then determine if the theater showed favoritism to the Tony's or any theatrical personalities.
It may be no surprise Altman received laurels from UCSF since its researchers and spokespersons are constantly in his stories.
What responsibility do you, as a Times editor, and Altman, as the correspondent, have to reader to show transparency about reporters and their sources?
A prompt reply is requested.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Cc:
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
Arthur Bovino, Assistant Public Editor
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Times' chief medical reporter, Dr. Lawrence K. Altman, coauthored a Feb. 13 article about scientists urging more research into the appearance of an apparently rare drug-resistant strain of HIV. He quoted an AIDS expert from the University of California at San Francisco about the history of drug-resistant HIV infection and there was no bias or favoritism toward the university. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/health/13virus.html )
My concern, however, is the UCSF Medal, the university's highest honor equivalent to an honorary degree, given to Altman in April 2004 for his excellence in reporting on medicine and science. Altman received the medal at a $70-a-head banquet to raise funds for the university and laud his achievements. (Source: http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200404222/ )
Accepting the award appears to not be in violation of the Times' code of ethics, according to paragraph 55 of the paper's rules for reporters. (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf )
However, I am concerned about the lack of transparency on the paper's part to inform readers that Altman last year accepted an honor from a research university that he frequently includes in his reporting, and, whose experts he often quotes.
This brings up the question of how the Times maintains transparency regarding correspondents, the awards and honoraria they receive, and avoiding conflicts of interests, or the appearance of favoritism.
For example, as a reader, I believe I should have been informed, perhaps not in print but at least on the Times' web site, that a source in the past three years had touted Altman's reporting on a host of issues with a medal.
Same policy would apply, say, if the Tony Awards organization gave a citation to the Times' chief theater critic, threw a party on his behalf, and charged the public money to attend. Of course, it would be up to the individual reader to then determine if the theater showed favoritism to the Tony's or any theatrical personalities.
It may be no surprise Altman received laurels from UCSF since its researchers and spokespersons are constantly in his stories.
What responsibility do you, as a Times editor, and Altman, as the correspondent, have to reader to show transparency about reporters and their sources?
A prompt reply is requested.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Cc:
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
Arthur Bovino, Assistant Public Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)