NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 69

I Polimeni, i] (NIH/OD) 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are looking for some extreme examples of PETA's comments where they go over the top to highlight 2-3 examples with screenshots. c. In addition, extreme examples of PETA's past actions not involving the social media platforms will help as well. On our last call you mentioned a campaign against Elisabeth Murray. 1-2 examples with screenshots or other documentation would be helpful. Thank you very much, and happy to have a call to review all of this. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. From: Imhoff, Sarah (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:30 PM To: Fine, Amanda (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Prince, Scott (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Polimeni, Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [C] < @nih.gov>; Lankford, David (NIH/OD) [E] < @od31tm1.od.nih.gov> Subject: Call Regarding Update on NIH Facebook/Instagram Lawsuit Hi everyone, David Lankford and I would like to schedule a call with you to give an update on our discussions with the DOJ this week, some additional questions we have and your initial thoughts on DOJ's current proposed next steps. We haven't received any firm advice on what NIH should do moving forward yet, but wanted to get your opinion on DOJ's current next steps to see whether we should have further discussions with them about their proposed strategy.