Edward Hammond (not verified) — Sun, 09/07/2008 - 1:11am

I am the person that "Drew Newman" says Ambassador Wibisono "plagiarized", and I would like to here clarify for the record that Mr. Newman's claim is absolutely false.

The truth of the matter is this:

I originally wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post, because I believed that it was very important to publicly correct the numerous errors and misperceptions contained in the editorial by Richard Holbrooke and Laurie Garrett (which was subsequently reprinted in the Jakarta Post).

When the Washington Post did not publish the letter, I sent it to a number of people and urgently asked them if they would be so kind as to put forward the ideas contained in the letter, given the important international humanitarian interest in reforming the GISN.

I was therefore very grateful when Ambassador Wibisono of Indonesia adapted what I wrote and was able to have it published in the Jakarta Post on my behalf.

An utmost priority in the debate over influenza virus sharing is to widely circulate the powerful arguments for changing the current system, therefore, I again thank Ambassador Wibisono for his willingness to carry this message to a broader public.

To conclude: In no way did Ambassador Wibisono "plagiarize" my work. The fact is that I provided a text to others and urged them to adapt my ideas and publish them, and I was extremely pleased that Ambassador Wibisono did so. The allegations made by commentators here are false.

Nita (not verified) — Fri, 08/29/2008 - 3:00pm

Dear The Jakarta Post Health editor,
thank you for posting my previous comment. And I do hope there will be a news/article regarding the CDC lay claims on Indonesia H5N1 virus.

Meanwhile, while researching this matter I found a rather disturbing fact which is related to your website. I found that this Mr Makarim's article you post here, was mostly copied from that blog as well.

http://immunocompetent.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=8&blogId=1

There must be an explanation for this? Maybe Mr Makarim was assisted by the blog owner Mr Ed Hammond in writing this article? Or he simply copy it or what?

And of course, I will understand if you decide not to publish this comment, but please do check it out.

Could I also please ask you to read another blog as this one.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/08/cdc_and_st_judes_worse_tha...

Just read the comments, some of it raises concern and curiosity.
I believe little by little the world will know that Indonesia is not as bad as the foreign media trying to portrait us with regard to sharing virus sample.

Please do make more news with regard to this. This is so important for our country. I am looking forward to reading the news in your website.

Thank you

gsgs (not verified) — Wed, 08/27/2008 - 11:53pm

Makarim Wibisono wrote:

>... the Namru facility
>issue is jointly managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
>the Ministry of Defense.

but Supari has often commented on it and was quoted as strongly
recommending to close Namru

>[GISN] takes resources from developing countries

,as well as from developed countries,

> and provides little to them in return

the "return" comes through other sources, but they don't want
to relate it as sort of "reward" or "payment"

>while leaving developing countries all the more vulnerable
>to an influenza pandemic.

huh ? why are they _more_ vulnerable when submitting samples and data
for international research ? If they were, why do other countries
do it then ?

>Indonesia and other countries that
>have taken the initiative to reform the WHO system are taking
>a laudable and a long-overdue step in improving public health

clearly subjective

>for all by providing, among other things, fair and equitable access
>to the influenza vaccine at affordable prices.

... the influenza vaccine which they are trying to prevent from
being produced by withholding samples ?

>No constituency
>currently seeks to create a "viral sovereignty", for such a de
>facto sovereignty already exists in international law.

...which is being debated.

> Inexplicably,
> Holbrooke and Garret misled their readers by simply ignoring
>the fact that in its 20 years of existence the Convention on Biological
>Diversity, among other international instruments, has recognized
>national sovereignty over genetic resources, including microbes.
>
>Viruses are, unequivocally, genetic resources subject to
>national sovereignty.

give an example ! What I can see and what you yourseld stated above,
at least in practice they were not in the past.

>In addition, the World Intellectual Property
>Rights Organization did establish an inter-governmental forum
>to explore the possible instruments for Traditional Knowledge,
> Genetic Resources and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore.
>
>
>Holbrooke and Garrett claim that it is "ludicrous" to apply
>sovereignty to genetic resources that easily cross borders. Their
>position belies ignorance of both biodiversity and its related
>law and policy. As any farmer, biologist or duck hunter can tell
>you, most genetic resources do, in fact, cross national borders:
>Birds, plants, insects, microbes, crops and practically anything
>else that is made of DNA (or, as in the case of flu, RNA).

however influenza is so quickly mutating, that in fact it becomes
different within weeks or months.

>This simple biological truth has not prevented the exercise of
>sovereignty nor ceased international cooperation in the use and
>protection of biodiversity. Trans-boundary biodiversity issues
>have been addressed and discussed at length for over two decades
>by the United Nations. Diplomats assigned to New York and those
>familiar with issues of public health ought to be clearly aware
>of this pervasive topic. However, Holbrooke and Garrett apparently
>have no clue about this -- otherwise they would not have made
>such off-base assertions.
>
>They also further stated that "the
>WHO has elicited pledges from the world's major drug companies
>not to exploit international repositories of genetic data for
>commercial benefit". Such pledges, even if they existed in the
>form claimed, are contradicted by fact.
>
>First of all, a number
>of companies have lodged U.S. and international patent claims
>over hundreds of H5N1 genetic sequences, resources that were freely
>given to WHO by Indonesia and other countries. These resources
>come from the gene repositories.

sue them. As I understand no one so far claims for patents on viruses
collected in Indonesia or elsewhere

>Second, major pharmaceutical
>companies are engaged in advanced clinical trials that are currently
>underway by utilizing Indonesian, Vietnamese and other viruses
>in vaccines.

which is good, isn't it ? It reduces the risk that a virus
collected in those countries gains pandemic potential.

>One vaccine that used a Vietnamese strain has already
>been licensed. These companies intend to profit from the sales
>of these vaccines while Indonesia and many other resource donor
>countries will receive nothing from the proceeds.

but, that's a Vietnamese virus, or not ? What does Indonesia want
to receive for it and from whom ?
If Vietnam would behave as Indonesia, then Indonsia and others
would not have access to that virus at all.

>This is
>a great injustice and the fact is that industry, large and small,
> massively benefits from the resources within the WHO system while
>no commensurate benefits accrue to Indonesia and other countries
>who, ironically, are facing the gravest immediate threat from
>H5N1.

and thus profit most from research done on it

>Furthermore, the revised International Health Regulations
>do not require viruses to be sent to WHO. Though the revised regulations
>mandate the sharing of information on disease outbreaks of international
>importance, the fact is that such information is already shared
>and will continue to be shared.

give us at least information of the genetical encoding of the viruses,
so we can follow their spread, their acquisition of new potentially
dangerous mutations, their possible reassortments with other viruses
their possible switch of host-species.
For this it is not at all necessary to provide material which could
be used economically.

>The authors further allege
>that Indonesia has violated "a host of other WHO agreements".
>Exactly what agreements were they referring to? As former Indonesian
>Ambassador to the United Nations and other international organizations
>in Geneva, I have directly participated in WHO negotiations whereby
>the intricate issues of influenza virus sharing were intensively
>discussed and I myself unaware of any such allegations.
>
>In
>reality, Indonesia has repeatedly offered to provide more virus
>samples to WHO. Neither Indonesia, nor its Health Minister Dr.
> Siti Fadillah Supari, are intrinsically opposed to providing
>viruses. Rather, the stumbling block is an unwillingness of some
>countries to implement a just Material Transfer Agreement (MTA)
> in defining the rights of parties when viruses are transferred.

which rights ? Who "owns" the right on similar,mutating viruses submitted
by several people ? Indonesia "got" the viruses from migrating birds
probably coming from China, so what if China claims for those "rights" ?

>The underlying proposition that Garrett and Holbrooke rail
>against in their editorial is that Indonesia and other countries
>are asking for a reasonable MTA for influenza viruses -- one that
>doesn't rob anybody -- and for an unbiased WHO.

"robbing" of viruses is the geerally considered a good thing.
That's why we make vaccines etc. Viruses are evil, they kill humans.

>Those agreements
>are far more restrictive than anything that Indonesia or its allies
>have proposed for sharing their viruses. If the current generous
>stance embraced by developing countries is not appreciated, then
>perhaps developing countries should follow suit in restricting
>virus transfers similar to the manner done by U.S. institutions.
> Such a response would clearly be counterproductive.

what has it to do with "developing" ? Should we make different
legacy systems, different intellectual property rights for developing
and developed countries ?

Why is Indonesia withholding data which definetely can't be used
for commercial purposes, only for tracking the virus ?
Can't it be viewed as extorting money (or "rights"-->money)
by threatening to put the world into an increased pandemic danger ?