Statement of W. Shepherd Smith, Jr.

fought a lot of battles together and LTC Redfield has always been exceedingly
careful to avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing. He is perhaps the most
honest person I know. He has never given me proprictary information and I
have never asked for it. Of course, I have heard and seen the data at most of
the presentations. I heard about the first two patients whose data was
presented at Johns Hopkins through others, and about the next four at a meeting
in Keystone.
I was present in Amsterdam for the international meeting, and at Dr.
Redfield's presentation there. I was incensed by the Salk presentation because
he was not on the program (Dan Hoth put him on at the last minute), had little
to say, and this negated the opportunity for people to ask questions following
LTC Redfield's presentation...questions which may have negated all this fuss.
At some point after Amsterdam and between trips to Australia and London
I paid a visit to the WRAIR group at Taft Court, and I happened to walk into
LTC Redfield's department just as he and Dr. Vahey were in the midst of what
appeared to me to be a disagreement. It should be noted that in the past six
years I have visited the WRAIR group a total of perhaps 20 times, not
"frequently" as alleged. I felt the tension but I did not get the opportunity to
be a peacemaker or to say anything to Dr. Vahey. 1 was aware that LTC
Redfield and Dr. Vahey had had trouble only during that one incident. LTC
Redfield strongly advised me to stay out of it. When I got back from London, I
came across an article on my desk that prompted me to wonder if the original
responders had ever been compared to the no-rcsponders and so I called Dr.
Vahey (this was while Dr. Redfield was on leave).
I may be part of LTC Redfield's problem because I am a more aggressive
promoter of vaccine therapy than he is. Because I was in Amsterdam, have
testified before Congress, etc., I wanted to get Dr. Vahey, LTC Redfietd, and
everyone in the WRAIR program to pull together. Since I did not consider my
call to be an event, it is difficult for me to remember all the details but I
definitely did not try to influence the material to bc presented at Chantilly.
LTC Redfield was upset with me for injecting myself against his advice. I did
not understand the furor over my call; I have made hundreds of calls to various
government agencies over the years and this is the first time I have had this
reaction. When I became aware that a memorandum had been written about my
call, I asked COL Burke if I could see it. He told me in no uncertain terms to
drop the matter, which struck me as extremely odd. I told COL Burke that I
wanted to talk to COL Tramont about the matter for advice. He advised me
that "paper gets paper."
Based on my knowledge that two memoranda had been written by Dr. Vahey
and by MAJ Lucey I felt it necessary to see them and assess their accuracy. I
requested copies of them in a meeting with COL Burke the week of 14-18
September 1992 but was denied. On 25 September 92, I sent COL Burke a letter
in which I stated I had agonized over the issue of the Vahey memo. I stated my
belief that there was a serious misunderstanding and, because it was in writing,
I felt it was important to respond in kind. Of most concern, was the implication
that I sought to influence the data of' which nothing could be further from the
truth. I stated that I could not ignore the issue and requested to either review
the memos and respond in writing or have a meeting to resolve the issue. COL
Burke then resigned from our Scientific Advisory Board.