Duke University | Howard Hughes Undergraduate Program

Lisa, I would caution you to not believe all that you see in 'The Band Played On', or to believe all that is written in the book (I've seen the film, and read the book). Although there's a great deal to praise in the book (the film is, naturally, rather over-dramatized), there's also a great deal that's simply wrong or, at best, biased. In particular, although Bob Gallo was undoubtedly a highly controversial figure during the period covered by the film, he is not the monster he was portrayed as being. What is not generally known, but is certainly true, is that the script advisor for the film (and a principal source for the book) was another scientist who was involved in a very bitter personal and professional dispute with Gallo. Hence everything that appeared in the film placed Gallo in the worst possible light, essentially as an act of revenge. Imagine how a film featuring you would come across if the script were written by your worst enemy with revenge in mind? As you rightly note at the end of your posting, films do exaggerate and oversimplify. But they also can be very biased if the advisor is biased. Gallo, in the end, was cleared by federal investigators of every substantive charge that was made against him over the events covered in the film. Sure, he made some enemies around that time, and he could certainly be personally abrasive and is highly competitive. But the monster he was portrayed as being? No, not in my view. And remember, his work saved a huge number of lives. Regards John Moore PS The script advisor's own career disintegrated in later years, although he made a great deal of money in the process. A film about him would be a very interesting one to see........

"And the Band Played On" was created by HBO in the spirit of many Docudrama’s: “Docu” doesn’t make money, “Drama” does. Somehow it seems to be okay to fabricate a story around real history to make money. The movie insults the intelligence of any educated person by so obviously portraying characters (in this case real people) as either all good or all bad. Every Drama needs a villain, so HBO decided Robert Gallo would be 100% evil. No wonder someone could conclude I "felt hatred for the scientist Robert Gallo." Marty Delaney of Project Inform created a representation of all of the falsehoods and inaccuracies in “And the Band Played On”. Marty was there, and he was not a principle. I would hope that those of us who consider ourselves educated are wise enough to listen to both sides of a story before drawing conclusions. Since you have listened to one, please read the other before deciding to feel hatred towards someone. You can also find a historical summery of Robert Gallo here: http://www.ihv.org/news/AHistoricalSummaryofGallo.pdf The following documentation of scientific misstatements and historical inaccuracies contained in “And the Band Played On” was developed by Marty Delaney, Director of Project Inform: I know personally and well all the main characters of this book, and particu¬larly so the scientists. I have had extensive interactions with Chermann, Essex, and Gallo for many years. I have known Montagnier since 1989 and discussed these events with him both in America and in his offices in Paris. I've known Don Francis since 1986, have served on commissions with him and discussed these events with him many times. I know many other important and relevant players of this drama whose names aren't mentioned, names like Jacques Leibowitch, Willie Rosenbaum, Jean Claude Gluckman, Tony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Jay Levy, etc. I would be hard pressed to believe that any of them would find the scientific story portrayed in the film as even partially accurate. It is simply a lie. Whatever Gallo's personality traits, or any weaknesses in initially acknowledging the French, there is record after record, document after document which verifies the important role of his team in mak¬ing sense out of AIDS. No one argues that the French team first isolated the virus later proven to be the cause of AIDS. But it is equally true that no one disputes the fact that the French team did so using tools and pro¬tocols developed by the Gallo team, or that the Gallo team first solved the critical problem of growing the virus in sufficient quantities to make a blood test possible and proved that the new virus, whatever its source, was the cause of AIDS Jointly, the two teams saved tens of thousands of lives. So why should one of these people be so vilified in your film? On the contrary, your film should have been an opportunity to correct misperceptions in the popular press - to get the real truth out. The following is a list of the most glaring errors, which taken together, demonstrate a clear intent to slander, and nearly all of which are disproven by available documentation and historical records. The film's portrayal * Don Francis is clearly shown to invent the theory that the cause of AIDS will be a retrovirus. This precedes any mention of Gallo, NCI, or the French team. The verifiable historical record There is ample documentation from the French that this concept was put forth by Gallo and this is supported by the 1982 publication record. In all likelihood, the idea evolved out regu¬lar discussions between Gallo and Max Essex at Harvard. (Don Francis was something of a protege of Essex, and it is likely that he first heard the idea from him).Essex says that in 1982, Francis did not know that any retroviruses had yet been found in humans. Resolution, final version This role is downplayed and fudged through dialogue, although the impression is still left that it was Don’s idea. The film's portrayal * Jim Curran informs Don Francis of Gallo's knowledge of retroviruses and suggests this will be a breakthrough because it will get the self-serving big shot involved. At this very first mention of Gallo's name, he is portrayed by Francis as an ego-maniac consumed by pursuit of a Nobel prize. Francis speculates that this will finally make AIDS interesting to Gallo, as it will allow him to find a disease associated with his discovery of the human retrovirus. The verifiable historical record By the time of these events, Gallo had already received virtually every medical prize except the Nobel for earlier discoveries. There was no need to find a disease associated with hu¬man retroviruses, as this had been done years ago (T-cell leukemia was found to be caused by HTLV-I). While no one can say that Gallo never spoke about or thought of the Nobel, it is certain that he never spoke of it with Don Francis, who was simply not a confidant in any way. At a time when the Reagan Administration was unwilling to commit funds for the study of AIDS, and many top scientists and laboratories were refusing to work with AIDS-tainted blood for fear of infection by a virus of unknown and deadly virulence, Gallo directed his own funding and his laboratory toward researching the problem. While other labs and scientists were trembling in fear of this unknown disease, Gallo and his people were all but wading in it, at a time when today's "P3" and "P4" protective isolation methods were un¬available to them. Resolution, final version No real change The film's portrayal * Don Francis is shown to call Gallo to enlist his help against AIDS. Don barely begins to tell him of his suspicion that a retrovirus is the cause of AIDS when Gallo cuts him off abruptly saying "a gay plague doesn't interest me in the least." Thru Don's persistent cajoling, Gallo eventually sees the opportunity for fame through AIDS work and agrees to get involved. The verifiable historical record Don Francis played no role in getting Gallo and his team involved in AIDS. This work was triggered by a speech by Jim Curran. The notion that Gallo was disinterested in the gay plague is disproven by historical records, as he was one of the earliest scientists on record to become involved with the disease. Resolution, final version No change. HOB viewed is simply as a dramatic item, not a fact. The film's portrayal * Gallo is seen in a conversation with his chief lab assistant Mika Popovic, cutting off his every sentence and suggestion while Popovic looks on painfully, doing what he is told. This characterization of Gallo as bossy, demanding, and refusing to listen to anyone is repeated every time he and Mika speak, and is also demonstrated in conversations with Max Es¬sex. Both are shown to painfully acquiesce. The verifiable historical record Don Francis never worked for Gallo, so he would not be a knowledgeable source on the subject. Gallo and Popovic and Essex have a long history of respectful communication. The behavior portrayed in the film would not be tolerated for a second between coworkers Popovic is an extremely strong-willed and determined person who never bows to anyone as shown in the film. Essex is similarly strong and independent. S Resolution, final version Some of this is toned down. Essex seems less a wimp. The film's portrayal * Don Francis proposes the idea of testing the blood with the hepatitis b test, claiming that it is 85 to 90% effective in screening out the blood of AIDS infected people. He is portrayed as the lone hero offering this approach, while everyone else disregards him, including Jim Curran. The verifiable historical record This approach was rejected because it was only relevant in a few narrowly defined communities where the diseases were likely to overlap. Francis raised it simply because it was what he knew. Science does not act on wild hunches, but upon data, which Francis never provided. Few believed this approach to be useful, and many felt it could be harmful, both socially and medically - because of the potential for stigma¬tization of people who tested positive for hepatitis B (a major portion of the popu¬lation), and by giving false confidence based on an un¬reliable test). Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * The scene in France shows a kind, silver-haired gentleman, Montagnier, standing behind and gently guiding two researchers, apparently Jean Claude Chermann and Francois Barre-Sinousi. He is portrayed as Gallo's opposite, the consummate listener, careful scientist without an ego. Chermann is portrayed as doting on every word from Montagnier. The verifiable historical record The French work was done by a large French team, the majority of whose members were outside of and not affiliated with the Pasteur Institute. This is true both of the original discovery of the virus and even more so of the development of the French blood test. Contrary to the film, Chermann has for the last decade taken Gallo's side in the public de¬bates with Montagnier. Chermann and Barre-Sinousi worked in a separate, independent place, not alongside or under Montagnier. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * The French are shown having difficulty "keeping the cells alive" long enough to prove the pres¬ence of a retrovirus. Montagnier is shown to invent the idea of growing the virus in umbilical cells, which solves the problem. After the French announce their discovery, Gallo is shown an¬noyed and puzzled over how they got the cells to grow. He orders Mika Popovic to secretly find out how they did it. The implication is that wants to steal their methodology. The verifiable historical record The use of umbilical cells to grow a retrovirus was first demonstrated in a Gallo lab protocol published in 1980 and was based on a 1976 discovery by Gallo's group of a growth factor for T-cells, now known as interleukin 2. Like most of what the French used in their work, this protocol was given to them by Gallo (who also trained some members of their team). There is a readily available copy of a letter from the French thanking Gallo for the proto¬ol. Resolution, final version The dialogue is changed here, literally eliminated while the video remains the same. They simply don’t describe what is being done. In the later scene, Gallo still orders Mika to find out how “they did it,” without any explanation of what “it” is. The film's portrayal * The French then try to prove that their virus is not the same as HTLV-I or II. They get HTLV antibodies from Gallo, which do not react with the culture. They say this proves they have a new virus and the cause of AIDS. They immediately call the CDC, where Don Francis and the whole team erupt with joy that the French have found the cause of AIDS. The verifiable historical record This refers to an early 1983 publication by Montagnier's group, at which time they reported finding the new virus in only about 17% of people with AIDS in their testing. At this time, HTLV I was also being found in about 10 % of PWAs. Montagnier is on public record saying that he knew this early discovery, while helpful, did not determine that their virus was the cause of AIDS - No scientists, not even Don Francis, believed that this discovery was sufficient to ascertain the cause of AIDS. For the next year and half, the French team failed to grow the virus in large quantities, the key step needed to develop a blood test, and failed to consistently detect their virus in most patient samples. The historical record is clear that this work was both first completed and first published by the Gallo team. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * Gallo is shown berating Popovic in a conversation and insisting he must have made an error in recent analyses showing HTLV in only 15% of samples. There is a reference to some earlier work in which all the cultures were supposedly found positive, and Gallo insists that the current findings can't be right. The verifiable historical record HTLV was never found in more than 10% of patients. Gallo never claimed HTLV I or II the cause of AIDS. In 1983 paper, he found it 2 of 33 patients, and said this was not evidence it was the cause of AIDS, but that AIDS patients may sometimes also carry this infection, like many other infections found in their blood. Resolution, final version Moderated slightly The film's portrayal * Don Francis is shown to send blinded blood samples to the French, and he shortly afterward declares that the French identified them 100% correctly. The verifiable historical record This occurred nearly a year later than shown, and the work was done by Kalyanaranan (Kaly), a lab scientist who had just left Gallo's lab, where he had been trained. Kaly disputes Don Francis' version of these events and has provided a sworn deposition to this effect to the US Congress. Gallo's team had already published data showing a 90 to 100 % success rate identifying AIDS blood samples by the time Francis claimed the French had their first high rate of success. The movie has the order of these events reversed. In science, events are dated by their publication date, not dates subjectively claimed in private communications. The putative 100% accuracy of the French was also based solely on the ELISA test, known for a high rate of false positives, especially when the threshold of postivity is lowered, as was done in this case. To avoid this problem, a confirmatory test, called the Western Blot, is routinely used to confirm samples found positive on ELISA. The Gallo papers published in 1984 used this test, while the unpublished, unverified claim by Don Francis did not. The best result reported by the French in 1983 was a 20% success rate.. In July 1984, 2 months after the Gallo papers were published reporting 90 to 100% accuracy, the French reported 37.5% accuracy in a publication with Don Francis. The French have never reported or published a finding of 100% to this date. Resolution, final version Unchanged The film's portrayal * Jim Curran sadly tells Don Francis that Gallo is furious at him for sending the French the blood samples, and that Gallo has angrily cut off "all reagents, lab supplies - everything you need to function." The verifiable historical record An angry outburst by Gallo was triggered by two events. Francis' sending samples to the French became an issue only because it occurred at a time when the CDC had somehow stopped sending them to the NCI. Gallo and the NCI had been requesting samples from transfusion-associated AIDS cases, a key element for proving the causal role of the virus. Despite repeated requests and promises, the flow of samples stopped for some¬where between 6 and 12 months. When Gallo discovered that samples were going to France, while not getting them in the US, he hit the ceiling in a famous meeting at the CDC. Finally, it is also illogical that Gallo could interrupt Francis' work, since Francis, not even in the film, actually did any laboratory work other than collecting and storing blood samples. He never did set up the virology lab at the CDC that he desired (which is, perhaps, one of the reasons he has carried on a vendetta against Gallo, since the government re¬fused to fund duplicative retrovirology lab facilities at CDC, arguing they already had them at NCI. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * The film shows a cryptic conversation in which Gallo calls Francis from a dark room, in which he is barely visible. Gallo says coldly: "Congratulations for sending my Nobel to the French." He responds, " What makes you think they didn't discover the virus?" Gallo answers "I don't care." and slams down the phone. The verifiable historical record Gallo says no such conversation ever happened, and that he has never discussed the notion of a Nobel prize with Don Francis. If this conversation was created out of dramatic license, it bolsters the case that the film deliberately set out to demean and defame Gallo. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * Later we see Jim Curran wringing his hands and saying "Gallo wants all the credit and all the patents for himself." The verifiable historical record The film makes no sense here, as it shows Gallo making no contributions whatsoever. If so, why would anyone take serious his "demand" for credit? Why would any even consider giving him a patent? Neither Gallo nor anyone in his lab patented their pre-1984 discoveries. It was completely outside the NIH tradition to do so and only permitted in rare circumstances. Gallo was told to patent the blood test by the Reagan Dept. of HHS and his NCI superiors. They argued that this would prevent problems and delays in the commercialization of the test, and protect against fraudulent or inaccurate tests. They said it would permit the government to limit the number of com¬mercial licenses, which would attract large companies most capable of quickly producing and distributing the test. Few NIH em¬ployees had ever been involved in patents, and Gallo was unaware, like most at NIH, that patents or profits as a government employee were possible. Two years later, in 1986, Reagan changed the law to permit personal profit for the first time. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * Gallo is shown receiving humanitarian award, mouthing several pious platitudes, concluding that he "does it for the sake of the children who are sick." This is played up to make him look like a lying hypocrite. The audience at the screening alternately laughed, hissed, and sneered. Francis appears and they walk out together. Gallo ridicules the emptiness of his speech, commenting how "that line about the kids" gets them every time. Francis pleads with him, saying that he's going to delay everything by his threat to sue for all the credit. Don urges him, on behalf of humanity, to be nice and to stop delaying things. The verifiable historical record This entire event is absurd. Gallo, who was inspired to work in medicine after the death of young sister, is extremely sensitive on this point. He denies ever using such a line in a speech, denies ever meeting with Don Francis at or after an awards dinner. Gallo never threatened to sue anyone - it was exclusively the French who were threatening lawsuits at that time because they felt that Americans were getting too much credit. Nothing was even remotely delayed by any of this - quite the opposite, there was a mad competitive rush to get this stuff published and announced. Resolution, final version The dialogue is changed here so that now Gallo is heard to say “that line still gets to me,” making him sound a little less monstrous, though it still implies that it’s a line. I didn’t hear the audience hiss at this scene in the newer versions. The film's portrayal * Next comes a brief depiction of the famous 1984 Heckler press conference. The film shows Gallo crediting the discovery to years of cooperation with the French, and trail off with the com¬ments "if the viruses are eventually found to be the same, and I think they will be, .... " The verifiable historical record The press conference was an unplanned accident. Gallo was in Europe on medical matters, awaiting publication of the key 1984 pa¬pers in Science when the story of his impending publications was leaked (by a friend of Don Francis) to the press. The press threatened to break the story without waiting for the publication date. When Heckler and HHS began getting calls from the press, she called an emergency, ill-prepared press conference and had Gallo return from Europe overnight, The HHS people knew little of the scientific history, only that Gallo was about to publish 4 papers announcing the cause of AIDS. Heckler made Gallo the hero of the discovery. He was left with the problem of trying to ex¬plain about the years of collaboration with the French team. The French, who should have been at the event, were insulted by the press conference, as they hadn't be notified. This ill-considered event triggered years of discord. Resolution, final version No change was needed, as this one was surprisingly fair by focusing on Gallo’s reference to the French. Only Heckler looks foolish in this one. The film's portrayal * Francis is again shown pleading with Gallo for peace between the two groups. Gallo is shown to arrogantly suggest that on an upcoming trip to Europe, if he happens to be in the area, and if he feels up to it, he might consent to meet with French. But, he adds, he says he will only meet with his "scientific peers," implying that Don Francis will not be welcome. The verifiable historical record This trip was in fact planned and scheduled by Gallo, as part of the effort to appease the French over the press conference. Don Francis played no role in setting up this meeting. Resolution, final version The scene is shorter, with Francis simply proposing the meeting, Gallo acknowledging he’ll be in Europe, but saying he’ll only meet with this scientific peers. The film's portrayal * We next see a dim office in Paris, in which sit Francis, Montagnier, Chermann, and BarreSinousi, impatiently checking their watches. Luc finally rises and says "Twenty-five minutes is long enough to wait for anyone, even Gallo." Gallo suddenly bursts through the door, cheerful and insensitive to being late. They agree to hold the meeting anyway, but Gallo demands that Francis leave the room. He meekly complies, without complaint either from himself or the French. It is as if Gallo has the power of a dicta¬tor over all these people. The verifiable historical record This event is fictitious, other than the fact that meeting took place, and that Don Francis invited himself to attend. Resolution, final version The scene is unchanged, but doesn’ t come across quite as nasty because of some of the prior changes, which softened the scene in which this meeting was proposed. The film's portrayal * In the following scene, Gallo reopens the door to Francis and announces that everything is agreed upon. There will be three papers, etc. and the two groups will share the credit for the discovery. The French seem sincerely pleased and in agreement with him. The implication now is that both groups have sold out Don Francis and taken the credit jointly for themselves. The verifiable historical record This makes no sense if, as the film portrays, Gallo's team contributed nothing. Why would the French willingly and happily decide to share credit and write joint papers? Why, a few scenes later, would a patent for the blood test be awarded to Gallo? Dramatically and logically, it is completely crazy. This is because the film falsifies these events, distorting the fact that there were two years of collaboration be¬tween the two groups and that each recognized and respected the contributions of the other - as is am¬ply documented in not one, but two histories of the discovery jointly published by the French and the Americans. Resolution, final version Unchanged. The film's portrayal * Gallo, Francis, Chermann, and Barre Sinousi are shown at a night club celebrating the joint discovery and agreement. Gallo appears next to Chermann at a urinal, saying "What do we need the CDC for? "Cut to another scene, going out the door, in which Gallo takes Francis aside and say "What do we need the French for? We've done all the work together." The verifiable historical record The coversation with Chermann did occur, because Gallo believed that Francis and the CDC had no role to play in the upcoming work, which centered solely on virologic discovery to determine whether the French and American viruses were the same. He denies the conversation with Francis and suspects it may have been constructed from other conversations in which he complained about the CDC sending samples to Paris when it was failing to send them to Washington. Resolution, final version The entire scene is omitted. The film's portrayal * A short scene later shows that Gallo receives the patent for the blood test. Francis or Curran objects, saying that the French put in their application 3 months earlier. There is no discussion of what the patent is about, or what were the differences in the two applications, or why Gallo sought a patent. The verifiable historical record The patent did not depend on who first discovered the virus, or on which strain of the virus was used in development of the test. The patent defines the methods for large scale production of virus and the technology which permitted rapid and inexpensive testing of patients and the blood supply. The patent was given to the Gallo team because they success-fully demonstrated this technology well before the French. Patent application dates are only rele¬vant in a dispute if both parties have demonstrated and proven the same results. They did not. History shows that the French government later blocked the use of the American blood test in France for 6 to 8 months, waiting for the French test to be ready - and thereby permitting the infections of thousands of people from tainted blood. This is easily the biggest and most evil scandal of the epidemic, but the movie is utterly silent on the subject. Resolution, final version No change The film's portrayal * In a scene at the Pasteur, Luc and his doting team are shown examining the Gallo team's Science publications when they notice the photographs. One of them recognizes the photos and says it must be their virus. Luc orders DNA testing, saying "This time, Gallo has gone too far." Luc later in 1985 calls a press conference and announces that the viruses are not just the same, but identical. A reporter asks whether he is implying that Gallo stole the vi¬rus. He responds with dignity, saying that "that is for others to decide." The verifiable historical record It is absurd for anyone to claim that the source or type of a virus can be identified by looking at a photo. Viruses are not thus identifiable. The historical record shows that the virus in the photo was neither the original French virus as thought by Montagnier, nor the American virus as thought by Gallo, Instead, it is a later-identified French strain which came to contaminate more than a dozen cell cultures internationally, in Montagnier's and Gallo's labs, as well as the Weiss lab in Great Britain and several other labs around the world. It was not the 1983 virus originally sent by the French to Gallo, and provides no evidence nor even a hint of theft. All the labs of the era were contaminated by this strain. Historical records, and federal investigations, have confirmed that Gallo's lab had several other independent isolates of HIV at this time. Resolution, final version I think I saw a line added, to the effect “of course, you can’t really know the source of a virus from a picture.” The film's portrayal * The film ends with no further mention of Gallo, but the director said that the final version will include a long text follow-up showing what became of all the main characters in the subsequent years. No doubt, Francis will be beatified by the Pope, while Gallo will be shown to be the subject of endless government inquiries and found guilty of some vague "misconduct" over the origin of the virus. The verifiable historical record Gallo has been the subject of government investigations, most of them triggered by misinformation in the earliest printings of this book, and by statements made by Don Francis. Neither the books author, nor Don Francis, however, have ever been required to provide evidence of their complaints, while Gallo's entire side of the story has been meticulously told under oath. The Federal investigations exonerated Gallo . In fact a final analyses done by an impartial group concluded, “After all the sound and fury one would have expected to find some iota of evidence of wrong-doing. There was none.” Resolution, final version The ending following says that Gallo was accused of unethical conduct in an NIH investigation. Final comments: Many aspects of this film are baffling and nonsensical historically, but the director does an excellent job of creating emotion and sentiment. As such, it does a good job making people hate Gallo and see him as a completely evil figure with no redeeming qualities who made no scientific contributions of his own, yet somehow schemed with great success to receive all the credit. A thinking audience would have to ask how he managed to pull this off, or why the French seemed to make agreements with him or why he'd be given the patent. But most viewers will only see the crude statements of good and evil. This is a gross distortion of history, and completely unfair. Marty has since passed away in January 2009 – he is remembered by his friends at www.martydelaney.com and bio can be found below: Mr. Delaney in 1985 founded Project Inform, a leading national HIV treatment and public policy information and advocacy organization based in San Francisco, and served as its Director until 2008. He was a member of the NIAID AIDS Research Advisory Committee from 1991 to 1995, served on NIAID’s National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Disease Council from 1995 to 1998, and also has served in other advisory roles for the Institute. The NIAID Director’s Special Recognition Award gave an award to Mr. Delaney’s citing “extraordinary contributions to framing the HIV research agenda, particularly with regard to antiretroviral drugs and access to treatment; exceptional efforts on behalf of HIV-infected people; and wise counsel while serving on NIAID advisory committees.” “Millions of people are now receiving life-saving antiretroviral medications from a treatment pipeline that Marty Delaney played a key role in opening and expanding,” says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “Without his tireless work and vision, many more people would have perished from HIV/AIDS. He is a formidable activist and a dear friend. It is without hyperbole that I call Marty Delaney a public health hero.” “As a treatment advocate and activist, Marty always has been keenly analytical, well-informed, articulate, persistent, tough-minded, gracious and fair,” Dr. Fauci adds. “With this award, NIAID thanks Marty for his advice, his boldness in asking hard questions (and demanding cogent answers), and for the countless hours he has devoted to helping NIAID, formally and informally, in our work in the fight against HIV/AIDS.” Mr. Delaney was one of the founders of the community-based HIV research movement and, through his work at Project Inform, led the way to HIV treatment education becoming widely available to patients and medical providers. He was a leader of the movement to accelerate Food and Drug Administration approval of promising drugs and a key player in the development of today’s widely used Accelerated Approval regulations and Parallel Track system for providing experimental drugs to seriously ill people preceding formal FDA approval. In recent years, among many other activities, Mr. Delaney has led the Fair Pricing Coalition to improve the accessibility of HIV medications, and has advocated for an aggressive research agenda to find a cure for AIDS. When the final history of AIDS is written, there is no question that Martin Delaney will be one of the key figures who brought this great human tragedy to an end,” said Dana Van Gorder, Project Inform’s Executive Director. “Marty rose brilliantly to the challenge of persuading sometimes reluctant government agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies to respond in a compassionate and urgent way to the needs of thousands of people dying of AIDS. The fact that we now benefit from a very strong arsenal of medications to treat HIV infection, and from information about how to use them effectively, is largely attributable to this great man. Those of us living with HIV feel deeply the loss of our chief guardian and friend.” Delaney is an internationally recognized leader of the movement to represent the needs of HIV patients in the process of drug discovery and to accelerate FDA approval of promising drugs. He was a key player in the development of today’s widely used Accelerated Approval regulations and the Parallel Track system for providing experimental drugs to seriously ill people prior to formal approval by the FDA. He was one of the founders of the community-based HIV research movement and, through Project Inform, led the way to an unprecedented level of HIV treatment education available to both patients and caregivers. Delaney also led the Fair Pricing Coalition, which negotiates with industry to assure that HIV medications are affordable and accessible, and he was Chair of the Board of the Foundation for AIDS Research. Delaney has been a constructive critic of federal, academic, and industry AIDS research efforts and a featured voice in the media and at scientific conferences on AIDS-related topics. His writings have appeared in prestigious medical publications including TheJournal of Infectious Diseases and the Journal of AIDS, and in a number of popular magazines. Delaney is also the co-author ofStrategies for Survival, The Gay Men’s Health Manual for the Age of AIDS and editor of the Project Inform HIV Drug Book. His work and the history of Project Inform have been described in several books, including Acceptable Risks, by Jonathan Kwitney; Against the Oddsby Peter Arno and Good Intentions by Bruce Nussbaum. “Through his work at Project Inform to increase awareness about HIV/AIDS treatment opportunities and challenges, Martin Delaney leaves an extraordinary legacy,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Access to the information Martin committed his life to sharing has literally been the difference between life and death for millions. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said it best when he called Martin a public health hero. San Francisco mourns his loss.” Dr. Fauci, who leads the federal agency responsible for research and drug development for HIV, on January 11 issued a Special Recognition Award to Delaney. “Millions of people are now receiving life-saving antiretroviral medications from a treatment pipeline that Marty Delaney played a key role in opening and expanding,” said Fauci. “Without his tireless work and vision, many more people would have perished from HIV/AIDS. As a treatment advocate and activist, Marty always was keenly analytical, well-informed, articulate, persistent, tough-minded, gracious and fair. NIAID thanks him for his advice, his boldness in asking hard questions, and for the countless hours he devoted to helping NIAID in the fight against HIV/AIDS. He was a formidable activist and a dear friend.” “There will never be another Martin Delaney,” said Lynda Dee, founder of the AIDS Treatment Activist Coalition, “He was the first AIDS activist, the trailblazer. Marty taught so many of us in the community how to be treatment activists. He will be sorely missed by community and by so many researchers. AIDS research would not be at this successful juncture without his vision and perseverance. Marty is one of the true heroes of our movement. His example will always be with us.”