Reason Gets to the Bottom of the AOL/Microsoft Lawsuit

Reason magazine gets to the bottom of AOL’s recently announced antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. The magazine’s weekly e-mail newsletter neatly sums up the innovative legal theory behind AOL’s lawsuit,

AOL Time Warner filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft claiming that Netscape, which AOL bought in 1999 for $10 billion, was wrecked by Microsoft back in 1995.

The funny thing is that AOL Time Warner is proof positive that merely being big and controlling a ton of marketshare does not a profitable company make. AOL Time Warner is bleeding money at the moment. A nice lawsuit against Microsoft is a pretty good way to focus stock holders’ attention on tertiary matters.

Attack on Taliban Pictures Hoax

A lot of people seem to be linking to this site which purports to show an attack on what is claimed to be a Taliban vehicle. Whether or not the photos themselves are fake is debatable, but these pictures have been floating around the Internet for more than a year now.

Assuming they are genuine, and since that is a Russian vehicle there getting blown to bits, this scene probably represents a Russian vehicle getting taken out by a mine set by Chechen rebels who hung around to videotape their escapades.

Academics with No Common Sense

Columbia Univeristy assistant business professor Columbia University Francis J. Flynn wanted his students to look at how businesses responded to complaint letters. So, he sent out 240 letters of complaint on Columbia stationery to restaurants in the New York area. The letters alleged that Flynn had suffered food poisoning at the restaurants.

Of course as might have been expected if Flynn had thought for a moment before engaging in such an asinine maneuver, the letters cause great concer among the staff at the restaurants, many of whom went to great lengths to find out when Flynn might have visited their restaurant and what could have possibly gone wrong for hmi to end up with food poisoning.

Six of the restaurants are now suing Columbia University for $100 million saying Flynn’s actions were malicious and unethical.

I hope Flynn already has tenure at Columbia, because otherwise he is certainly not going to receive it now.

Source:

University professor gets more than he bargained for after false complaint letters. Just-Food.Com, January 25, 2002.

The Only Thing Inaccurate about HIV Animal Studies is Ray Greek

The January 26, 2002 edition of The British Medical Journal features a letter from Ray Greek and Pandora Pound arguing that HIV research using non-human primates is unreliable. Greek writes,

Thomas Insel, former director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Center in Georgia, said: “[An animal model] that takes 12-14 years to develop doesn’t sound to me to be ideal . . . I can’t tell you what it is that those studies [with chimpanzees] have given us that has really made a difference in the way we approach people with this disease. Animal models of HIV have been notoriously inaccurate for two reasons.

Firstly, the immune response is intensely complicated and there are many disparities between the human response and those of other animals. Secondly, viruses are usually species specific.

. . .

The fact that 20 years on there is still no cure or vaccine for HIV is surely partly because too much money, time, and effort have been invested in animal research which has produced little, if nothing, in return. To make any impact on this global pandemic during the next 20 years, funding needs to be concentrated on research methods that have come up with the goods.

This is a typical modus operandi with Greek — lie through omission.

For example, take the problems with chimpanzee research into AIDS especially given the long time it takes chimpanzees to develop AIDS. Greek conveniently forgets to mention that this is the major reason why animal research into AIDS Has large switched from chimpanzees to monkeys. Greek forgot to add that although Insel said there are too many limitations with chimpanzees, he added that, “I wouldn’t say that about the monkey work.” (One of the biggest problems with chimpanzees, by the way, is their sheer cost — the cost of simply caring for a chimpanzee in a long-term AIDS study can exceed $100,000).

As Nancy Haigwood, the director of the viral vaccines program at the Seattle Biomedical Research Institute, notes in her reply, for a number of reasons much AIDS research now focuses on macaques which have served important roles in helping determine optimal treatment regimens for those afflicted with HIV.

At one time, for example, there was a lot of controversy over whether people who tested positive for AIDS should receive short-term treatment with anti-viral drugs immediately, even though they were symptom-free. Many researchers feared that the anti-virals would cause lots of side effects for patients while the long term benefits were considered to be small.

Research in macaques, however, demonstrated that short-term treatment of the animals with anti-virals immediately after they were infected with AIDS could help keep the disease under control. Haigwood writes that, “Subsequently, many of the critical parameters and limitations of interrupting treatment have been discovered using these models.”

In addition, Haigwood notes that testing of cutting edge genetically engineered vaccines in macaques has helped researchers better understand the obstacles they must overcome to create such a vaccine for humans. Haigwood writes,

Live attenuated SIV, genetically engineered to eliminate pathogenicity, protects adult macaques from lethal challenge. While an attenuated HIV vaccine was under consideration for humans, this same highly attenuated SIV vaccine was found to cause AIDS in newborn macaques. Without these studies, the need for additional safeguards might have been missed — with dire consequence.

As Haigwood sums her reply up, the issue is not whether researchers conduct animal studies or clinical studies, but rather that all tools available must be utilized in finding better treatments for AIDS. “Animal models must be used to complement epidemiological and clinical studies in humans,” Haigwood writes. “Answers will come faster and the research will cost less if the clinical work is focused on strategies that have been pretested in models.”

Source:

Animal studies and HIV research. Ray Greek and Pandora Pound, British Medical Journal, 2002;324:236, January 26, 2002.

Animal models for HIV advance and complement clinical studies. Nancy Haigwood, British Medical Journal, 2002;324:236, January 26, 2002.

Statement by Dr. P. Michael Conn on Animal Rights Intimidation

Back in October 2001 I wrote an article about testimony that Dr. Michael Conn gave during hearings held by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is investigating animal rights terrorism. Conn was nice enough to allow me to reproduce here, in its entirety, the statement Conn made to the task force. It makes for very chilling reading.

Statement by P. Michael Conn
26 SEPT, 2001
Before the City Council, Portland, Oregon

Your Honor and Members of the Council:

My name is Dr. Michael Conn. I work as Special Assistant to the President of Oregon Health and Sciences University and as Associate Director of one of its Institutes, the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center. I also have a research program that has contributed to the development of treatments for breast and prostate cancer, endometriosis and problems of infertility.

Because of what I have to tell you today, it is important that you understand that my own
research program does not currently use animals, although we have in the past. Like most
Americans, I understand the value of animal research in basic science — so important for
development of treatments for both human and animal disease. Therapies for diabetes, AIDS,
Alzheimer’s, cancer, along with antibiotics, vaccines and surgical techniques — to name just a few things — all had origins in animal research. I have spoken and written about the importance of humane animal research and how it benefits humans and animals.

Recently, I was invited to visit the University of South Florida, located in Tampa, Florida. Shortly before this trip, I was alerted that a mid-west activist had announced my visit to Florida on an e-mail listserve. This person, who, I later learned and I am quoting here–, “believes we must be willing to do whatever it takes to gain animals freedom,” even if that means the killing of a so-called “animal abuser,” solicited letters to the university administration and to my academic colleagues. I also received an email from the educational coordinator of Florida Voices for Animals detailing my “ignominy,” and telling me that I was unwelcome in Tampa. I responded, explaining that although I support the humane use of animals in medical research, I do not, myself, use animals in my research projects.

Let me step out of the sequence of events just for a moment. One of the largest animal extremist organizations in the world, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,”– PeTA– subsequently picked up on the midwest and Florida postings and created a page for me on their website, also soliciting e-mails and letters. I learned that PeTA, which has helped fund one of the mid-west activist’s advertising campaigns, is focusing not on my own work but, on the fact that I work for an institution that conducts animal research. PeTA never mentions, however, that my institution is fully accredited and compliant with all federal and state laws.

Back to the sequence of events: My plane was met at the Tampa airport by animal extremists who tried to engage and film me. Exercising their rights, under a Florida open meetings law, they were present at virtually all of my scheduled meetings with USF committees. Some stood outside meeting room doors, distributing fliers that made outlandish claims and lobbying attendees.

Others, wearing t-shirts that said, “keep primate tester Dr. P. M. Conn out of USF,” made
derogatory comments. Still others asked me why I was lying about using primates in my program — a question that a sympathetic faculty member turned into an accusation, insisting in obscene language that I was lying about not using animals in my current research program.

In one meeting, news media with video cameras burst into the room. They never interviewed me, choosing to accept unchallenged the claims made by the extremists and identifying me simply as a “vivisector,” a term of opprobrium used by extremists.

The campus was plastered with handbills, full of absurdly incorrect information. There was no way for me to reach out and dialogue with those who were responsible for this campaign of mis-information. Naively, I did try on one occasion to talk with one of the extremists, but he showed no interest in meaningful discussion.

I received threatening calls at the hotel and knocks on the door in the middle of the night. I never knew who was going to be coming through the door of a meeting room. This put me in a constant state of fear to the degree that, at one point, when a casually dressed faculty member, whom I did not know, entered from the door behind me, I jumped out of the way in fright, later, apologizing to her.

It got so bad that an armed state police officer was assigned to look after me.

The constant presence of an armed guard made me recognize that I was a “sitting duck” to
anyone with a weapon. At one point, after being accused of telling lies, cursed at, and in constant fear for my well being all the while trying to meaningfully address the academic concerns and questions of my USF colleagues I considered returning home to Portland for reasons of personal safety. Though my nerves were shot, I decided to remain in this incredibly stressful situation for the planned two days.

At a little after 4 a.m. on the day of my departure, the police officer met me in the lobby of the hotel, escorted me to a taxi and followed me for a few miles before waving goodbye and turning off to another road. I thought it was over, and with a tremendous sense of relief I checked in and passed through security. Suddenly, as I was about to step onto an escalator, I became aware that some of the extremists — muttering “we came to say goodbye,” and “we were afraid we missed you” — had physically surrounded me. I managed to step aside so that I could descend the escalator several steps behind them. An alert gate agent, noting the message on their t-shirts, phoned airport police, and I was quickly boarded onto an empty plane.

I was to learn, however, that it still wasn’t over. Now, back in Portland, animal extremists have shouted at me from the road above at my home, and I have found that someone has been ransacking my garbage.

All this terrorism is new to me. Remember, I do not work with animals. I work at a university that does, a university, I remind you, that is fully compliant with all laws and measures up to the highest standards of animal care.

I believe that the events I have recounted were meant “to terrorize,” a verb that Webster defines as “to coerce by filling with terror as by the use or threat of violence.” But some animal extremists say, “We do not use violence. We demonstrate and destroy property, but we never injure or kill persons.” What are we to think of that?

Maybe we should ask the four scientists at my institution who received letters armed with razor blades set to cut the hand of the opener — I think that they would call that the use of violence.

Maybe we should ask the center administrators who have received anonymous telephone calls and unsigned mail, and e-mails, which all but threatened them with death — the callers or writers expressing such wishes as that the scientists soon suffer in hell. Even if these communications carefully stopped short of illegal death threats, the administrators felt the force of their violence.

Or maybe we should ask the scientist at another University who has been warned that his
children’s pictures would be put up on the internet — hostages, in other words — until he stops research on animals. Surely he feels this as both a threat and an experience of violence.

The leaders of the animal extremist movement say that they are non-violent in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. They point out that unlike some of their
colleagues in England, who recently took a baseball bat to the head of a researcher, they haven’t physically assaulted or killed anyone — at least, not yet.

But that fact doesn’t qualify them as non-violent, or put them in league with Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks appealed to the consciences of their adversaries; animal extremists, on the other hand, bully and intimidate. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks chose to suffer themselves; animal extremists, on the other hand, set out to inflict suffering on us. Gandhi and King allowed themselves to be arrested for their cause, while animal terrorists set fires in the night, phone anonymously, send unsigned e-mails and post outright lies and half-truths on their web sites.

A little over one year ago, the FBI found my name and home address written on a file card in the home of the former national spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front. Mr. Rosebraugh has been arrested for trespassing at the primate center, publishes a web site on how to make firebombs and distributes a video called “Igniting the Revolution,” which urges people to burn homes and businesses.

You can be assured that when I learned of the FBI discovery, I felt not just the threat of violence, but something more, something that violated my person, something that felt very much like violence. Most certainly I was then, as I was in Florida last month, a target of terrorists.

Painful as it is to be in the cross hairs of terrorists, neither my colleagues nor I will bow to their force or be deflected from our course of discovery that leads to cures of human and animal disease. I challenged those who taunted me in Florida to tell the parents of a critically-ill child that research is not important. The only time these terrorists did not follow me was when I passed through the Cancer ward at Florida’s Moffitt hospital. Go figure.

I am pleased to answer any questions.

In Bizarre Case, Judge Rules Alleged Victim Cannot be Compelled to Preserve Evidence

The Associated Press recently reported on a bizarre rape prosecution in Virginia. An unidentified man is currently jailed and charged with two counts of rape and one account of aggravated sexual assault against his 12-year-old daughter. The accused maintains he is innocent, but a judge recently denied his efforts to preserve DNA material that would conclusively prove whether or not he committed the crime of which he is accused.

That DNA evidence is contained in the fetus that his now-pregnant daughter is carrying. The man’s defense lawyer, Alene Grabauskas, learned that the girl was considering having an abortion. Grabauskas asked the court to order that DNA material from the fetus be preserved if the girl goes through with the abortion.

Fairfax County Juvenile Court Chief Judge David S. Schell denied that request saying, “I do not think I have the authority to order the Commonwealth to obtain evidence which does not exist at this time.”

The attorney for the Commonwealth, Raymond Morrogh, said he would like to obtain DNA evidence from the fetus as well, but that may not be possible if the alleged — who lives with the accused’s ex-wife — is intent on not preserving such evidence,

We’re going to do everything within our power to get any evidence we can. Are we supposed to follow them 24 hours a day? We are prepared to take a (DNA) sample, but I think these people have an absolute right to their privacy. We’re not going to urge them to take any action.

The judge who ruled that he could not compel the girl to preserve DNA evidence from the fetus also noted, however, that if such evidence is destroyed the defense could argue that it was denied a fair trial.

Source:

Girl, 12, can abort without saving DNA for father’s rape trial. ssociated Press, January 17, 2002.