I beg to differ

Nancy F. Olivieri's unfortunate letter speaks little to broad principles for the future, and mostly to a search for personal redress and vindication as she defines it. She ignores the University's progress in implementing tough new standards for industry- sponsored research,¹ and the extensive efforts the University has made to mediate a resolution of her issues.

Olivieri's claims about the publicity surrounding the allegations by the Medical Advisory Committee [MAC] of the Hospital for Sick Children are misleading. The substance of the allegations was never publicized in the University of Toronto Bulletin. The MAC's referral of these matters for investigation ran 9 lines on page 2 of the Bulletin with a 15-point headline.² The story on the University's dismissal of the complaints ran 28 lines on page 3 of the Bulletin with a 30-point headline.³ It included my criticism of the hospital for publicizing the referral, a criticism repeated in CMAJ.⁴ Then-university president J. Robert S. Prichard confirmed to the University's Academic Board that the matter had been referred, after the referral had already been publicized. As Olivieri knows, a statement dismissing the MAC allegations was later read into the formal record of the Council of the Faculty of Medicine.

Olivieri protests that the CEO of the pharmaceutical company with which she became entangled is suing her for $10M. In a fair and rational world, there would be no litigation surrounding this dispute. That said, the suit in question was initiated well after Olivieri had published her study and publicized her views of the drug. It arose from Olivieri's statements about the company's CEO. Moreover, a check through public court records shows that Olivieri has herself initiated lawsuits against officers of Apotex, academic colleagues, the hospital, the University, and media outlets, for claims in excess of $20M.

Olivieri's comments about her personal legal costs side-step her role in initiating proceedings. They also demean the involuntary contributions to her legal costs made by over a thousand nonclinician colleagues who pay mandatory dues to the University of Toronto Faculty Association [UTFA]. In fact, the UTFA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees and services for Olivieri and her supporters.

Olivieri seeks discipline against 2 colleagues “who advanced demonstrably incorrect testimony against me.” But at times in this bitter dispute, Olivieri herself has advanced “demonstrably incorrect” allegations against others, including an allegation of forgery that was subsequently retracted publicly. Less understandable is her recent breach of confidential misconduct proceedings, causing dissemination of misinformation about a distinguished and neutral colleague.

On the efficacy and safety of L1, Olivieri wrongly assumes that the University has or had an official view. The drug's worth is for clinicians, researchers, and regulators to determine.

Olivieri alludes to deferoxamine therapy as “somewhat onerous”; “all this fuss,” it seems, is about an intravenous pump infusion that must be given nightly to children. Not only is the need for an alternative obvious, but Olivieri's own L1 studies were directed to that end. I am therefore baffled by her personalized response to my comment that energy spent on this dispute could be better directed at research into other treatment options for the thalassemias.

In sum, Nancy F. Olivieri's letter sadly illustrates why a definitive resolution is needed to bring closure, if possible, for Olivieri and her allies, and underscores why the involved institutions are indeed moving on.

David Naylor Dean, Faculty of Medicine Vice Provost, Relations with Health Care Institutions University of Toronto Toronto, Ont.