Testimony 1 by Natasha Bolognesi


Challenges experienced in investigative reporting: with reference to 'bad medecine'

by Natasha Bolognesi [ http://www.wfsj.org/projects/page.php?id=131#bolognesi ]


How should a journalist follow up a hunch that a scientist has made a bogus claim? In this Personal Perspective, South Africa-based journalist Natasha Bolognesi tells how she exposed Stephen Leivers at the Stellenbosch-based company Secomet, and Professor Girish Kotwal, at the University of Cape Town, for promoting a herbal remedy as a cure for AIDS - with no scientific proof. The story was published in Nature Medicine on 28 June 2006 (vol 12, page 273-4) [ http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n7/abs/nm0706-723.html  ]

General advice (as learned 'on the job') for investigating and reporting on AIDS fraud Origin of investigation into Professor Girish Kotwal's association with Secomet

I came across the Stellenbosch-based company Secomet while researching another health story on bacterial resistance. My case study referred me to this "wonderful" organisation that manufactures and markets herbal products for a wide range of bacterial and viral infections. I followed up and interviewed the director and founder, Stephen Leivers.

During my first interview with him, which was simply to see if his products would be worth mentioning in my article, Leivers started to talk specifically about his herbal wonder, Secomet V, as an AIDS remedy...

Research process:

My instincts told right me from the start that this treatment claim was too good to be true. But I wanted to believe it because the science behind the claim appeared promising and exciting; Leivers’s office looked like an upmarket science lab - large, airy and full of test tubes, jars growing bacteria and computer screens flashing data. And Leivers himself was a microbiologist...

First challenge - ascertaining the scientific validity of the claims

Ironically my first challenge was not in getting data out of Leivers and Kotwal (they were only too happy to dish out anecdotal and in vitro results in the expectation that I would be amazed by this evidence of "scientifically proven efficacy"). The real challenge lay in wading through the information and the “beautiful bullshit” they presented me with, and questioning the validity of their claims.

I asked Leivers if the research into his product Secomet V was peer-reviewed. Yes, he said, and gave me copies of two published papers written by researchers at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and the University of Pisa in Italy. He also gave me a copy of a story on Secomet V published in a popular magazine. So far, so good.

But I still wasn't totally convinced so I went home and did my homework. Because I was unsure I asked people with scientific backgrounds (a science journalist and former research scientist, an immunologist at Tygerberg hospital in Cape Town and a local AIDS clinician) to look at the documents - they unanimously agreed that the research was inadequate and poorly done. Further digging showed that the research was not actually peer-reviewed as the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences does not put its articles through a rigorous peer-reviewing process.

The article in the popular magazine clinched it for me - it was so unscientific and Kotwal, a top virologist, had allowed himself to be quoted in it in connection with Secomet. Big warning bells!

Second challenge - interviewing a top scientist you suspect of misconduct

Once I had ascertained the above I went through the research papers with a fine toothcomb, pulling out inconsistencies and contradictions such as: It was time to interview the lead author of the main paper – Professor Girish Kotwal, head of virology at the Institute of Infectious Disease at UCT.

I am not a scientist, I am a health writer, and so I had to be sure of my understanding of the paper before I could even question Kotwal – I relied very heavily on a strong scientific source for help here. Once I had my facts straight I prepared my questions and went in to see Kotwal.

The interview was difficult. Kotwal rambled and often contradicted himself so I had to ask the same questions in different ways to get the answers I needed.

When I started posing the more sensitive questions with regard to his discovery of toxicity in the plant extract he sidestepped me for at least ten minutes and I had to "press" him to finally admit that the extract was not 100 percent proven safe to administer to the public. But he did, hard as it was. From then on he became progressively wary of me as he realised, I think, that I was not in awe of him and Leivers, but, rather, in doubt.

Third challenge - going back to Leivers for a second personal interview and a third telephonic interview

Second personal interview with Leivers

This was OK - By now I had all my ducks in a row and was able to get really damning information out of Leivers who, through arrogance, was quite easily charmed. The challenge here for me was not to be squeamish about pretending to be in awe of him in order to elicit the info I wanted.

Later telephonic and email interviews with Kotwal and Leivers

This was harder. By now I had told Leivers and Kotwal I had decided on the angle (exposure) of my story and they were both understandably extremely aggressive. Leivers refused to give me proof that he had ethics and MCC approval to run a human trial with Secomet V (he had claimed to have had approval, but in reality he did not). He now refused to make any further comments.

Kotwal demanded that everything he had previously told me on the record now be considered off the record and he tried to justify his previous favourable comments by painting Secomet in a humanistic light.

Fourth challenge – persevering in spite of lawyers' letters and other threats

I had an email from Leivers' lawyer demanding I show them a copy of my article before it went to press (an impossible request); Leivers told me I was simply looking for dirt to write a sensationalist piece and that my name was "dirt" as far as he was concerned. I also received "silent" phone calls over this period where someone would phone me and simply breathe down the other end – I’m pretty sure it was Leivers. The calls stopped after the story was published.

Kotwal threatened me with legal action for character defamation. He also wrote to the editor of Nature Medicine requesting that they do not to publish my story as it was an example of tabloid journalism.

These threats from Kotwal stopped once the article had been published and I must say persevering was worth it as the public ultimately benefited.

Fifth challenge: libel against me post-publication of the article 'Bad Medicine'

Once my article was published the company Secomet amended their website (www.secomet.com). On their homepage they give my name in reference to my article on them and the subsequent media reports. An entire section on their website is still today (as of January 2008) dedicated to libellous and unfounded comments regarding my reporting and that of other publications which picked up on the story.

I do not, however, take their comments seriously and would recommend to anyone else who experiences the same sort of thing to get on with their job and expose the perpetrators further, if possible. A well-researched and water-tight exposé speaks for itself.


home