By the way, SETTING, I have conducted thousands of criminal investigations since 1980, it’s hard not to recognize the fundamental behavioral differences between the innocent and the guilty.

When falsely accused, the innocent (as Gallo portrays himself) will intuitively seek the most ethical, competent, and unbiased investigator available to dig up as much evidence as possible and to prove their innocence before an unbiased judge and jury. The guilty, however, are less enthusiastic about such investigators. Ideally, the guilty prefer less-skilled investigators who are less likely to find damning evidence and more likely to make mistakes. If given the opportunity, they will pay for someone to contrive a plausible alibi.

Although technically a “retired police officer,” Kontaratos spent no more than three months in a police academy, fifteen months in an Orange County jail, and nine months as a trainee with the Culver City Police before retiring with a complained-of knee injury in 1994. His experience is far different from the majority of retirees who spend twenty or thirty years responding to calls, interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects; collecting evidence, and putting cases together so that a competent jury can decide the reasonable guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although hundreds of thousands of highly qualified and ethically unchallenged investigators are licensed throughout the United States, the fact that Gallo singled out someone who had nothing more than the right credentials is as damning as it gets. In return, Gallo (or his goons) flew Kontaratos first class to Europe to meet the Mayor of Rome.

The fact that you would cite his book says much about you as well.

Setting the record straight cited Nikolas Kontaratos' book "Dissecting a Discovery" as proof that Gallo was exhonerated.  The fact is that Gallo appointed the security guard (who also sells filters from his garage) to write the book because no real investigator would cover up Gallo's criminal behavior.  You'll find all of the evidence against Gallo and Kontaratos here:

http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/05/doctors-without-boundaries.html

Also, you say Gallo was interested in his reputation while thousands died.  Did you not know the French Health minister went to jail because for three years the French refused to use Gallo's blood test therefore continuing to use a contanimated blood supply and killing hundreds and maybe thousounds more?  Gallo created the blood test -- his interest was in science, period.

Please read CNN's article here: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9902/09/france.blood.01/

Check out HHS' Appels Baord on Research Intecgrity Adujudications Panel, November 3, 1994 -- the findings as quoted, "One might anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing.  That is not the case," the panel wrote.

Perhaps refer to responsible media such as The Washington Post's David Brown - 4-Year Investigation Exonerates AIDS Researcher, Friday, November 5, 1993.

Also try, "Dissecting A Discovery," The Real Story of How the Ract to Uncover the Cause of AIDS Turned Scientists Against Disease, Politics Against Science, Nation Agaginst Nation by Nikolas Kontaratos, 2006.

Gallo shot his own foot by lab mismanagement.  Based on news media reports during that time, investigators found a mess in documentation in Gallo's lab, a lesson to be learned by all scientists.

An excellent account of the day-to-day events that unfolded in the scientific community from 1982-1984 can be found in the ground-breaking book by AIDS activist Randy Shilts, "And the Band Played On."

In it, he details in meticulous fashion each agonizing moment of the search for the cause of AIDS. He portrays Robert Gallo as a man obsessed with his reputation; not only did he lie about his role in the discovery of the cause of AIDS, he took an active role in refusing to cooperate with research by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) - he wanted the credit to go to his agency, the NCI(National Cancer Institute). (see pg 366-367). And he worked tirelessly to discredit the Pasteur Institute in France.

The most telling quote by Shilts is this one, in which he paraphrases the thoughts of Dr. Don Francis of the CDC,  "April 23, 1984: The French were being cheated of their recognition and the U.S. Government had taken a sleazy path, claiming credit for something that had been done by others a year before. Francis was embarrassed by a government more concerned with election-year politics than with honesty....Competiton often made for good science, Francis knew, lending an edge of excitement to research. Dishonesty, however, muddied the field, taking the fun out of science and retarding future cooperation."

Recognition for the scientists at the Pasteur Institute in France is long overdue. Gallo, and many others, were more interested in their reputations and taking credit for the discovery, while thousands died.

While the Band Played On.

Two things:

1) Congratulations to both Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who led the investigation of Gallo, and the Chicago Tribune, for doing what newspapers are supposed to do. If anyone starts blaming "the French," It would be best to read the Tribune reports first. See here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-100608-hiv-discovery-nobel-prizeoct07,0,7068937.story?page=1

2) This was not merely a fight over professional credit. It was a fight over potentially millions of dollars in royalties. The untold story here is how the expansion of intellectual property laws to so many areas of basic research, including even those under government agencies, has corrupted the scientific process. Reagan's meddling here was a far worse threat to the integrity of science in the overall scheme of things than the more-publicized religious meddling of his administration, as it draws scientists into complicity. If it wasn't for Dingell and his staff, and probably the Tribune's reporters, Gallo would be sharing this prize, wrongly.

"[...I]n 1987, Presidents Ronald Reagan of the U.S. and Jacques Chirac of France had to step in, signing an agreement that split royalties from the AIDS blood test between the two countries. And that’s where the dispute has stood"

-- not quite. In March 1991, thanks to investigations of The Chicago Tribune, Pr Gallo admits his virus was the same than the French virus. Dr Popovic then revealed in May Pr Gallo had tried to dissimulate this. This is confirmed by the Chicago Tribune in a Feb 10, 1992 article. In April 1992, the French Minister for Research, Hubert Curien, asks for a renegociation of the 1987 agreement, a request rejected by the United-States in July. Yet, Pr Gallo will be found guilty of "scientific misconduct" in a official US report in december 1992. Charges are dropped in november 1993, but in July 1994, the US National Institute for Health recognised the French team discovered HIV.

It was then widely accepted by scientists around the world, and this is why the Nobel is attributed to the French team today and not Gallo. Nothing "shocking" there...

The Nobel committee surely held long deliberations and discussions about this. I think they came to the correct conclusion. Gallo, while somewhat helpful to the process, did not take the crucial steps towards the discovery. Instead, after the French announced their discovery he descended into political grand standing and theater, using his official position at the NIH and the help of the Reagan administration. The reason why many Americans think of Gallo as the "discoverer" of the HIV is the press conference that Gallo held with Reagan political appointees, taking credit for the "discovery". There is no doubt that scientific misconduct by Gallo was white washed and fuzzified through political support.