Page 1 - Title Page
i!111 I I fllII IIIII IIlillIIIIIII l IIIII: 5571095.0418.073 Jon Cohen From: Jon Cohen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NEJM article Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:52 AM Thanks. I think there are three issues: 1. Why didn't they solicit your opinion earlier? 2. Why didn't they run the editorials by the AIDS researchers on their editorial board? 3. Why did they run Lurie/Wolfe when it appeared to violate their own policy regarding embargos/Ingelfinger (Lunrie and Wolfe had held press conferences prior to the publication). Best, Jon > From: [email protected] > To: Jon Cohen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: NEJM article > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 10:35 AM > Only to say that it could not have been included in the same issue unless > the editors had chosen to elicit our opinion earlier. By the time I was > aware of the Angell and Wolfe/Lurie pieces (through an unapproved route of > dissemination of proofs), the issue was (I am told by Kassirer) locked up. > Obviously we would have preferred to have appeared side-by-side, but we > seem ultimately to have gotten our message out fairly effectively through > our piece and many other commentators. Now we can wait for the letters > and other responses to what has been published up to this point! Page 1