Statement of Ltc. Robert R. Redfield

July requesting samples to complete missing data points to complete
the viral burden analysis and a memo dated 27 July requesting that
"the next Friday meeting be devoted to a discussion of the attached
data within the laborztory group" and listing the individuals
receiving the data set. In another memo dated 27 July addressed to
the Members of the Department of Retroviral Research it was stated
that the attached data would be reviewed and analysed at the 31
July meeting. On 30 July there was a meeting of the Ops/Plans and
Retroviral Research Committee at which all Tri-Service
representatives were present; there was no discussion related to my
presentation in Amsterdam.
At the Department meeting on 31 July Dr. Vahey presented her
as an ubset analyses but the primary discussion was led by
he charged asme with misrepresenting data in Amsterdam
he news media. I denied using the terms "4 fold
increase and 3 fold reduction" and quoted the Washington Post
statement which made clear that I did not claim efficacy. This
confrontation occur ed front of the entire Department, members
of the *MJF an
On 4 August,DTTTd MG Travis and gave an overview of the
rgp160 trials; viral burden data were presented with n=15. Two
days later, I received a memo from Dr. Vahey regarding viral burden
data; vaccinees n=26 and natural cohort n=20. The statistical
analysis was incomplete and I scheduled a full analysis of the data
on 11 August and then left the office for essentially the rest of
the month (leave and scientific meetings). However, I had stayed
in contact with my office, came in to receive mail and made
telephone numbers available where I could be reached.
I came off leave for the 11 August data meeting, which I
scheduled; attenders were myself, and Drs. Vahey, Birx and Michael.
The discussion related to whether or not to correct CD4 cell
counts, what constituted baseline a~.ia and which patient met
the criteria. I requested the data be given to Dr. McCarthy for
statistical analysis. I said I wanted all 26 patients included and
that CD4 cells not be corrected.
On 13 August, the analysis by Dr. Ng was provided to Dr. Vahey
and I called Dr. McCarthy and requested that analyses be
coordinated between him and me and that I expected all data
analyses from his shop to be reviewed by him before forwarding them
and that all work for my department be coordinated through the
Principal Investigator (in this case, me). I also received a copy
of Dr. Vahey's poster for the NCVDG meeting in Chantilly and a
"final version" the following day in which the DNA, RNA and CD4
data differed from the day before.
I was on annual leave 15-29 August. During the week of 17-24
August another version of the chantilly poster was put in my inbox. A memo addressed to COL Burke and me from Dr. Vahey dated 21
August attached the 20 August report from Dr. McCarthy which
concluded that there was no significant reduction in viral load in
the intervention cohort from the rpg160 Phase I Trial. Although my
telephone number while on leave was available, I was not contacted.
During this week a series of meetings were held between COL Burke,