Statement of W. Shepherd Smith, Jr.

I wrote again on 20 October 92 to express my sadness and regret over his
resignation from the advisory board and to thank him for his contributions to
ASAP, and to seek a resolution of this issue.
I wrote COL Burke again on 3 November 1992, and, in view of still not
having seen copies of the two memoranda, requested release under the Freedom
of Information Act,
I sent a MFR to COL Burke on 17 November 92 noting that [ still had not
received copies of the Vahey and Lucey memos. I attempted to explain how the
call came about.
My call was made for two reasons: as a courtesy to extend friendship to
Dr. Vahey and to allay my curiosity about several aspects of the Phase I data.
Dr. Vahey described the preceding week as "statistical exploration" by COL
Burke, Dr. McCarthy and herself of the possible combinations that Dr. Redfield
may have presented in Amsterdam (LTCs Redfield and Brundage were on leave).
It did not seem from her comment they were certain which exact patients Dr.
Redfield had presented. I now realize that, in this context, my call out of the
blue came as a surprise, and again it was made without the knowledge, consent
or concurrence of LTC Redfield.
Further, I stated to COL Dangerfield that at the time of the call I was not
aware of any internal dissention concerning his Amsterdam presentation. I
denied ever suggesting anyone report on a specific number of patients and noted
the inference that I am more informed than I actually am. I pointed out that it
should be no surprise that I am well-informed because I have attended more
meetings where AIDS data on vaccine therapy has been discussed than anyone I
know. Besides COLS Burke and Redfield, I believe I am the only person to
testify before Congress on the therapeutic approach of vaccines to HIV disease.
I made it clear that I have never asked for any proprietary information from
WRAIR or MicroGeneSys or anyone else and that I didn't want it; the most nonpublished data I have received was from Dr. Vahey during our twenty minute
conversation. I encouraged Dr. Dangerfield to ask COL Burke, LTC Birx, COL
Tramont, Mr. Volvovitz, or anyone else if I have ever sought sensitive, nonpublished data.
Because I had had no response from COL Burke I sent copies of this last
memo to others in the chain of command, i.e., Dr. Mendcz and General Travis to
ensure a balance in the written statements regarding my call, This whole affair
is regrettable and need never have happened.
I have come to believe through this experience that petty jealousies are
most likely fueling this controversy, and little else. To my knowledge data was
presented historically as it was discovered, always subject to open scientific
debate and criticism. There is a well-established pattern of that. If I turn over
two consecutive stones in a field of many stones and find a dollar under each
stone, I might conclude there's a dollar under every stone in the field. Someone
else might conclude I got lucky and found the only two dollars in the entire
field. There may or may not be any more dollars, only time will tell by turning
over more stones. Hendrix thinks there won't be more dollars and Redfield said
he found two dollars. It's really as simple as that in respect to interpretation
of the "facts." However, it seems obvious now that this was compounded by
COL Burke's jealousy of LTC Redfield, McCarthy's dislike of LTC Redfield's