AIDS Conspiracy - Just A Theory
by John S. James
AIDS CONSPIRACY - JUST A THEORY?
by John S. James<br>
for SF Sentinel<br>
Copyright 1986 by John S. James;<br>
permission granted for non-commercial use.
We keep hearing more today about AIDS conspiracy theories.
While this writer finds problems with most of the germ warfare
scenarios, the other kind of allegation - severe and perhaps
deliberate mismanagement of the public-health response to the
epidemic - is hard to refute.
The evidence supports an urgent call for action by
physicians, scientists, AIDS organizations, church and civic
groups, and others. For the real value of a conspiracy theory is
to wake us up to today's holocaust and to augment ongoing efforts
to save lives.
This article looks briefly at the germ warfare theories, and
then examines in depth the unconscionable neglect and
mismanagement of AIDS treatment research. Related topics, such
as the swine flu theory, official neglect or mismanagement of
prevention, education and patient support efforts, or the drastic
cutbacks in Federal support for public health, are beyond our
scope here.
GERM WARFARE THEORIES
These theories view AIDS as a weapon, developed by someone's
germ warfare experiments and released accidentally or
deliberately. Proponents have done an excellent job of
collecting background information on germ warfare and how it may
relate to AIDS. Rather than reviewing this information in
detail, we will tell you where to obtain it for yourself (1).
There are problems with the germ warfare theory. Almost all
the evidence supporting it concerns only the possibility that
germ warfare may have happened, not whether it actually did. The
key technical issue is whether anyone knew enough to have created
the AIDS virus.
The hardest task in generating a new human disease would be
to get it spread as an epidemic. It would be easier to concoct a
disease for delivery to the battlefield, to kill people there and
then die out. It would be even easier to start an epidemic with
an existing disease, which can already spread from one individual
to another - the hardest thing for a disease to do. But creating
the AIDS virus and making sure it worked would have taken many
human experiments which would have killed the people involved.
Every test would have taken months or years because of the long
incubation period. Bureaucrats would be afraid to approve a
project that would kill human subjects. It's hard to believe
that an effort of this scale could have been accomplished by a
small group without management authorization.
The other problem with the germ warfare theory is that it
doesn't lead us to any productive action now. Even if true, it
would be almost impossible to prove. Even if proved, we could
only punish the guilty, not save lives.
The germ warfare theory, then, distracts from a better use
of our energies. There is another possible conspiracy which, if
proved, could wake people up from a terrible silence and neglect
which now prevails.
MISMANAGEMENT OR SABOTAGE OF TREATMENT RESEARCH
This writer's previous articles have documented an appalling
consistency of neglected treatment opportunities, leads not
followed up, and lack of priority on saving lives. We don't have
the smoking gun - proof of public policy made for the deliberate
purpose of letting people die. But there is no excuse for
continuing to leave treatment research to "the experts", without
independent monitoring and overview. The experts are focused on
their own specialties and constrained in many ways by those who
control their funding, who have agendas of their own.
When we look at some specifics to follow, keep in mind these
general patterns, which prevail almost without exception:
* The only AIDS treatment research seriously pursued by
established institutions concerns options which will not be
widely available to physicians for a long time, at least a year
and probably several years.
(Many developments in conventional treatments for
opportunistic infections do become available sooner, but these do
not address the underlying condition of AIDS, and do little to
change the ultimate outcome.)
* Even the superstars of AIDS research (let alone the
unknowns) must continually plead for money to keep their work
alive. They are kept on short leashes. They therefore do not
criticize what is going on, but stick to their own specialties;
they act only under guidelines with prior institutional approval.
Suppliers who sell drugs or equipment to doctors know that
in any field there are only a handful of leaders, and thousands
more who follow the prevailing conventional wisdom. These
followers do not evaluate new treatments on their merits.
And in today's science and medicine, the leaders are those
able to bring big money into their institutions. They remain
leaders only so long as they remain acceptable to the political
forces which control that money.
* AIDS organizations have done excellent work in prevention,
education, and support. But they have neglected to monitor what
is going on in treatment research. In leaving the research to
the experts, then have contented themselves with the image of
brilliant scientists working day and night to find a cure.
The result? No one is watching. There is unbelievable
mismanagement which could never have been so bad under an
informed public.
THE SQUANDERED TREATMENTS
Here are some of the ignored opportunities and mismanaged
treatments that have been described in depth in earlier
installments of this column:
* BHT has proved effective against every lipid-coated virus
tested, both IN VITRO (in a laboratory dish) and IN VIVO (in
animals or humans). The AIDS virus is lipid coated, but no one
has tested BHT with AIDS IN VITRO or IN VIVO, and we know of no
institutional plans or effort to do any such test.
We aren't claiming that BHT necessarily works for treating
AIDS or ARC. But when so much evidence suggests that it might,
why is there no institutional interest in finding out? This case
is one of many which shows that U.S. public policy treats the
AIDS epidemic as less than an emergency.
* AL 721 shows considerable promise as both an antiviral and
immune enhancer; its action is different from other drugs and
thus doesn't completely fit the above categories. Since AL 721
is composed entirely of ingredients found in food, and appears to
be completely safe, it should have been tested immediately. But
AL 721 has been withheld from physicians pending proof of
effectiveness. It took most of a year just to start the first
preliminary test on a handful of subjects, and it may take years
more before physicians are allowed to use their professional
judgement on trying AL 721 for their patients.
* AZT may be the best AIDS treatment to date, although it
may have serious side effects. We hereby publish - apparently
for the first time anywhere - the fact that AZT has a hidden
history, blacked out of all current scientific and popular
articles about it. Eight years ago several published papers
described its antiviral effects, and named the same mode of
antiviral action being discussed today. Today's work represents
little scientific advance over eight years ago; it only adds the
performance of obvious tests with the AIDS virus and with
AIDS/ARC patients.
The public believes that Burroughs-Wellcome developed AZT;
instead what the company did was to keep everyone else away by
buying up the worldwide patent rights, and the world supply of
the key ingredient used in its manufacture. (The company
deserves credit, however, for bringing the compound to public
attention; otherwise, it might have been lost.) The serious
ethical concerns with the conduct of the current clinical trials
on AZT have been documented elsewhere (2).
* Intravenous gamma globulin has shown good results in
treating pneumocystis and other opportunistic infections -
despite the paradox that the patients already had gamma globulin
levels which were too high. Gamma globulin infusion should be
considered for toxoplasmosis, a brain infection which is becoming
more prevalent and is hard to treat with drugs now employed.
Doctors can use gamma globulin routinely - its intended use is
for immune deficiencies other that AIDS - but only a handful of
AIDS or ARC patients have received it. Apparently, no one has
promoted it to doctors; the manufacturer is prohibited from doing
so because its use for AIDS/ARC is not officially approved.
Obtaining such approval would take much time and money.
* Natural therapies - ranging from well-known ones like
vitamin C and garlic to newer botanicals like shiitake and
chlorella - clearly deserve attention. But they have been almost
completely ignored by institutional AIDS research.
By contrast, some natural remedies for other conditions -
such as the herb feverfew for preventing some migraine headaches
- have been rigorously tested in patients by simple double-blind
trials, and are now known to work. It would be ethically and
scientifically justified to test natural remedies in random
double-blind trials, with patients who also received all standard
medical treatments recommended by their physicians.
We can get solid answers about natural remedies, but to get
them fast requires financial and policy support for doctors and
scientists who can do the work. In the U.S., such support has
been virtually nonexistent. (The study of feverfew and headaches
was done in England.)
RUMORS OF WORSE
We have heard credible, but unconfirmed reports of worse
mismanagement. We are publishing these reports so that others
who have additional information can help us confirm or disprove
them.
* Several years ago, a government committee of scientists
reviewing research grants may have been ordered to not fund any
AIDS research, as Congress was under pressure from a
fundamentalist campaign. The scientists reportedly complied.
Anyone with specific information, especially the names and dates
that would identify specific files for a Freedom of Information
Act lawsuit, should contact this writer (3). It is important to
put the facts on the record to wake people up to the more subtle
forms of sabotage probably happening now.
* In 1985, a disastrous study of the drug suramin is
generally agreed to have killed several people. Now this study
is being used to impede further research by denying AIDS/ARC
patients and their physicians access to other experimental
treatments.
Yet, a number of persons close to the suramin trials believe
that the deaths and other damage stemmed from dosage and other
errors in how these tests were conducted - errors that were
preventable based on previously available information. (The
doses and other procedures were set centrally, not by the
individual doctors or hospitals which ran the trials.)
We need more information. The big concern is to prevent
this unfortunate event from causing thousands of additional
deaths by impeding AIDS treatment research now and in the future.
* We are investigating reports of antivirals virtually
unknown in this country. U.S. doctors were reportedly denied
permission to test one of them, although other treatments like
HPA-23, with less medical merit but widely publicized (due to
Rock Hudson's involvement), were quickly approved.
SUMMARY
The mismanagement of AIDS treatment research is far worse
than the public - or even AIDS experts - realize. The incidents
we have cited appear to be only the tip of an iceberg.
We must have independent analyses of treatment research and
related policy issues and decisions. The official experts are
too close to their own specialties and overly dependent on the
continued good graces of funding sources to do this job for us.
AIDS activists and organizations who have avoided treatment
research because they don't have a scientific background, should
realize that they don't need to be experts because the most
important need is for organizing. Physicians and scientists
already have pieces of the information, and they need someone
they can talk to who can put the pieces together and let people
know what is going on. Non-scientists can fairly easily grasp
treatment-research issues; these don't require an extensive
background in biology or medicine.
For several months this writer has published reports of
potentially life-saving treatments that have been ignored or
grossly mismanaged; no one has yet found any errors in this
reporting. What is most unbelievable is that no one else has
been bringing out this information. With thousands dead,
millions of people affected, and thousands of doctors, scientists
and journalists involved, there has been a conspiracy of silence
around the central issues of AIDS treatment research.
The consistent, severe mismanagement of this research will
stop when doctors, scientists, journalists, and organizers stop
passing the buck to other experts, and begin to inform one
another and the public.
FOOTNOTES
(1) For background on the germ warfare theory, obtain the
AIDS radio tapes from the Committee to Stop the Moral Majority
and Fascism, 495 Ellis St. #1271, San Francisco, CA 94102. For
information, contact Paul Bernardino, (415) 673-4609.
(2) On the ethical issues underlying the current AZT trials,
see the article in DISCOVER magazine, August 1986. On the
favored treatment of the late Roy Cohn, who apparently used
political influence to get AZT when it was denied to others, see
several syndicated Jack Anderson columns in July and August,
1986.
(3) Anyone with information about AIDS treatments and
research can contact this writer: John S. James, P.O Box 486,
Santa Cruz, CA 95061, or phone (408) 479-9296. You may remain
anonymous.
***********************************
This article is the tenth installment in the series, "AIDS
Treatment Research", by John S. James.
AIDS Treatment Research is published every other Thursday.
It appears in the SAN FRANCISCO SENTINEL, and will be available
to other newspapers by syndication. It covers alternative and
experimental AIDS treatments.
Periodicals can subscribe to AIDS TREATMENT RESEARCH for
$20. per quarter (7 issues); $25. outside North America air mail.
This price includes the right to one-time, non-exclusive
publication, within 60 days of when you receive the article.
Most articles are 1000 to 1500 words; some are longer.
Individuals and organizations can subscribe at the same
rate.
To subscribe, send $20. to John S. James, P.O. Box 640332,
San Francisco, CA 94164. Subscribers will also receive the last
three months' back issues at no extra charge.
AIDS Treatment Research is also available online.
Permission is hereby granted to upload this article to any online
system, provided that no change is made to the text. However,
you may add your comments to the beginning or end of this file.
|