POISON BY

PRESCRIPTION
The AZT Stor
By John Lauritsen
Foreword by Peter Duesber
ASKLEPIOS
New York
1990
POISON BY PRESCRIPTION: The AZT Story
by John Lauritsen
Foreword by Peter Duesberg
Published by ASKLEPIOS/Pagan Press.
Copyright c 1990/1992 by John Lauritsen
All rights resered.
Printed in the USA.
Fourth Printing: November 1992
Correspondence regarding this book should be directed to:
John Lauritsen, 26 St. Mark's Place, New York City 10003.
John Lauritsen's new book, The
AIDS War, will be published by
Asklepios early in 1993.
If not available in a convenient bookstore, POISON BY
PRESCRIPTION can be ordered for $12 (postpaid) from the
author at the above address.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 90-81328
ISBN 0-943742-06-4
Dedicated to the" AIDS Dissidents"-who
dared to speak out during an epidemic of lies:
jad Adams Walter Gilbert Charles Orleb
Hansueli Cliff Goodman Neenyah Ostrom
Albonico Beverly Griffin Gerard Pollender
Max Allen Group for the Positively Healthy
Laurence Badgley Scientific Projektgruppe
Michael Reappraisal of AIDS-Kritik,
Baumgartner the HIV-AIDS Gesamtdeutsche
Harvey Bialy Hypothesis Initiative
Edward Brecher H.E.A.L. jon Rappaport
Tony Brown john Hammond Nick Regush
Frank Alber Hassig Robert Root-
Buianouckas Nicky Hirsch Bernstein
Allan Burns Neville Harry Rubin
Michael Callen Hodgkinson S.A.A.O.
Mike Chapelle Robert Hoffman (Netherlands)
Richard and Bill and Claudia Ruth Sackman
Rosalind Holub Casper Schmidt
Chirimuuta Drew Hopkins Peter Schmidt
Seymour Cohen Guido Horner Kawi Schneider
Andrew Cort Coleman jones Russell Schoch
Harris Coulter Heinrich Kremer Craig
Bryan Coyle lise Laas Schoonmaker
john Crewdson Michael Lange joseph Schwartz
Michael Culbert Robert Laarhovn joan Shenton
jon Damski Nat Lehrman joseph
Luigi De Marchi Katie Leishman Sonnabend
Brian Deer Anthony Tom Steele
Ola Deraker Liversidge Gordon Stewart
james D'Eramo Bruce Livesey john Scythes
Peter Duesberg Cass Mann Michael Verney-
Eleni Eleopolis Stuart Marshall Elliott
Bryan Ellison Clemmer Erika Weiss
Michael Ellner Mayhew Ill Hank Wilson
Celia Farber Patrick Merla Michael Wilson
Gene Fedorko Kary Mullis ian Young
Giuliano Ferrieri Roger Muller
Fabio Franchi Ehrhart Neubert ... and the many
Ron Gans Gary Null others I may have
Ben Gardiner Luke Olmstead overlooked.
Th e G reek god oI med| c| ne, Ask| ep| os, had two
daughters who symb| | zed the two comp| ementary as~
pec t s oI t h e med| c a | art: |anake| a symb| | zed the
know| edge oI dr ugs der | ved I rom the earth and I rom
p| ants, Hyge| a , the doctr| ne that the way to hea| th | s
to avo|d excesses and to | | ve accord| ng to the | aws oI
reason. [ Ren Oubs, Han Adapt | ng)
As the ch| | | I rom the po| son was reach| ng h | s gro| n,
Socrates uncovered h| s Iace [ Ior he had covered | t)
and sa| d ~ they were h | s | ast words ~ ' Cr| to, we
shou| d oIIer a cock to Ask| ep|os. n| | | you remember l '
`| w| | | do | t ' , sa| d Cr| to, ' | s t here anyt h| ng e| sel
There was no rep| y, and then the body moved. The
attendant uncovered h| m. ne saw t hat the eyes were
set , and Cr| to c| osed the eyes and mout h.
And t hat , Echec rates, was t he way ou r comrade
d| ed. | can honest| y say, that oI a| | the men | have
known | n ou r t| me, he was the bravest, and the w| sest,
and the most v| rtuou s . [ || ato, |haedo)
C O N T E N T S
|oreword
| nt roduct|on
| . |O| SON b Y |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
| | . A/ T ON TR| AL
| | | . T H E E || OE H| OLOGY O| | E AR
| V. ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART ONE
v. ON THE A/ T | RONT. |ART TnO
V| . A/ T ANO CANC E R
V| | . bURROUGHS nE L L COHE | SSUE S AOV| SORY
V| | | . U. S. CUTS A/ T OOS E | N HAL |
| X. A/ T | ORHE AL THY | EO|L E
X. A ' STATE O| THE ART' A/ T CON| E RE NC E
X | . | NTE RV| E n n| TH | E T E R OUE S b E RG [ 1 88 7 )
X | | . KANGAROO COURT E T| OL OGY
X | | | . | NTE RV| E n n| TH | E T E R OUE S b E RG [ 1 880)
X | V. | NCOH |E TE NC E | N A| OS E | | OE H| OLOGY
Append| x. New York Nat| ve Art| c| es
| ndex
| l l ust rat|ons
Cover oI New York Nat | ve, 1 ) une 1 88 7
|hotograph oI |eter Ouesberg
|hotograph oI Harry Rub| n
|hotograph oI Iake s| | de
Graph : A| OS | nc| dence by ' R| sk Groups '
7
8
1 1
? 5
4 8
58
7 1
8 7
1 04
1 1 4
1 1 7
1 ? J
1 40
1 4J
1 68
1 7 J
1 84
1 8 8
6
1 4 ?
1 5 0
1 60
1 7 6
AT is not a cue for AS.
AT's alleged benefts ae not
backed up by had data, and a not
suf cient to compensate for the
drug's known toxicities.
Rcover fom AS will come fm
strengthening the body,
not poisoning it.
D not tke prb or
rmend AT
..
- Jon Lriten (R 14) I
|OREnORO 7
Foreword
The ONA cha| n term| nator A/ T was des| gned over
twenty years ago Ior the t reatment oI | eukem| a. | t s
ant | | eu k em| c mechan| sm oI act|on | s to k | l | grow| ng
l ymphocytes by term| nat|on oI ONA synthes| s. How~
ever , s| nce A/ T Ia| l ed to pro| ong t he | | ves oI l eukem| c
an| mal s, | t was not accepted Ior cancer chemotherapy.
| n 1987 | t was approved to treat symptomat| c and
asymptomat| c carr| ers oI H| V to cure or prevent A| OS ,
based on the hypothes| s t hat H| V cau ses A| OS. One
year l ater, | n 1988, the des| gners oI A/ T rece| ved a
Nobel pr | ze Ior med| c| ne, a| though there was no ev| ~
dence t hat A/ T wou| d cu re or prevent A| OS .
Th e r at | on a| e oI A/ T t herapy | s s| mpl e, | I not
na| ve: t he ret rov| r us H| V depends on ONA synt hes| s
Ior mu| t | pl | cat| on, and A/ T term| nates ONA synthes| s.
Thus A/ T shou l d stop A| OS , | I A| OS were cau sed by
H| V, and | I H| V were mul t | pl y| ng du r| ng A| OS. Yet
there | s st| l l no prooI Ior the now s| x year~o|d hypo~
thes| s t hat H| V cau ses A| OS. Horeover, many stud| es
show t hat no more than one | n 1,000 l ymphocytes are
ever | nIected by H| V ~~ even | n peopl e dy| ng I rom
A| OS. S| nce A/ T cannot d| st | ngu| sh between an | n~
Iected and an un| nIected ce| | , 999 un| nIected cel l s must
be k | | | ed to k | | | ] ust one H| V~| nIected cel | . Th| s
means t hat A/T, as a t reatment Ior A| OS , has a very
h | gh t ox | c| ty | ndex. | n v| ew oI t h| s , there | s no
rat| ona| expl anat|on oI how A/ T cou l d be beneI| c| al to
A| OS pat| ent s, even |I H| V were proven to cau se A| OS.
There | s al ways a sma| | chance Ior an unpred| ctabl e
eIIect , a m| racl e, even | n sc| ence. | I A/ T were to
prevent or cu re A| OS desp| te the Iacts that the v| r us~
A| OS hypot hes| s | s ungrounded and t hat H| V does not
make ONA du r| ng A| OS , |t wou l d be such a m| rac| e.
UnIortunate| y t here | s very | | tt| e room Ior a m| racl e
w| th A/ T, becau se | t s mechan| sm oI act|on | s so em~
ba r rass| ngl y cl ear, name| y tota| | y nonspec| I| c term| na~
8 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
t | on oI ON A synthes| s. One cou | d be | ucky w| th
m| rac| e~ant| ~A| OS Iunct |ons oI drugs whose mechan| sm
oI act|on | s por| y understood, such as asp| r| n, or even
ch| cken soup ~ but hard| y w| t h a substance t hat | s a
c h a | n t er m| nator oI | ymphocyte ONA synt hes| s | n a
person a| ready deI | c| ent | n | ymphocytes.
| t | s conce| vab| e t hat A/ T may prov| de short~term
beneI | t s aga| nst A| OS to a person w| t h acute m| crob| a|
| n I ect |ons | |ke t ubercu|os| s , pneumon| a, cand| d| as | s or
herpes , s| nce these d| seases are ca| | ed A| OS | I H| V
ant| body | s present , by k | | | | ng t hese m| crobes together
w| th host ce| | s. However , such | nIect|ons cou | d be
cont ro| | ed much better w| t h conI | rmed, spec| I | c thera
peut | cs t han w| t h t he random| y tox| c A/ T.
The u | t | mate ] udge oI a hypothes| s | |ke t he v| r us~
A| OS hypot hes| s | s | t s u seIu | ness |n terms oI thera
peut| c beneI| t s and prevent| on. The v| r us~A| OS hypo~
thes| s has not stopped the spread oI A| OS , |t has not
saved a s| ng| e A| OS pat| ent , and |t | s about to create
50,000 new ones ~ the number oI peop| e cur rent | y
be| ng t reated w| t h A/ T. nhatever s| | ght c| a| ms A/ T
once had | n be| ng useIu | aga| nst A| OS ~ have been
A/ Ted' by ) ohn L aur| t sen' s ' |o| son by | rescr| pt|on:
The A/ T Story' .
|eter Ouesberg
| roIes sor oI Ho| ecu| ar b|o|ogy
Un| vers| ty oI Ca| | Iorn| a, berke| ey
Apr | | 1990
| NTROOUCT| ON
9
Intructio
Th e au t h or | tar| an m| nd~set oI ou r t | mes demands
c redent| al s. | t | s not enough to eval uate a man' s
argument on | t s mer | t s: the qual | ty oI h | s ev| dence and
reason| ng. |t |s obl | gatory to know by what | | cense,
degree or t | t l e he has the author| ty to speak .
| n wr| t| ng these art| c| es, | ' ve t r| ed to be both a
good genera| | st and a good spec| al | st . Hy academ| c
background [ Harvard) | s | n the soc| al sc| ences, and |
have two decades oI exper | ence as a su rvey research
execut | ve and anal yst . Somet| mes t h| s background was
hel pI u | , as when anal yz| ng c| | n| cal tr| a| s. but | ' ve a| so
had to st udy a number oI I| el ds that were new to me:
med| c| ne, mol ecu l ar b| ol ogy, publ | c heal th , tox| col ogy,
etc. nhen neces sary | ' ve sought expert adv| ce.
Th| s bok conta| ns my ma] or A/ T art| cl es Irom the
New York Nat | ve, and some add| t|ona| mater| al . There
| s a certa| n amount oI repet | t|on, but | don' t th | nk a
god reader w| l | m| nd. | n the m| dst oI struggl e, |
have ne| ther t | me nor energy to wr| te an ent | rel y new
bok. |n add| t|on, there may be h | stor| cal val ue | n
preserv| ng these art| cl es as t hey were pub| | shed.
Chapter 1 , ' |o| son by |rescr| pt |on: The A/ T Story ,
g| ves an overv| ew oI the s| tuat |on as oI about t he
m| ddl e oI 1989.
Chapter | | , ' A/T On Tr| al ' , | s t he most | mportant
art| cl e ~ an | n~dept h anal ys| s oI t he |hase | | t r| al s ,
wh| ch were the bas | s oI government apprival Ior A/ T,
as wel l as cl a| ms that A/ T ' extends l | Ie' .
Chapter | | | , ' The Ep| dem|o|ogy oI |ear ' , conI ront s
bad government sc| ence exacerbated by bad ]ou rnal | sm,
l ay| ng to rest t he cl a| m that 99% oI those | nIected
w| th t he ' A| OS v| r us' w| l | develop ' A| OS' .
Chapter | V descr| bes d| al ogue on A/T among peopl e
w| th A| OS and phys| c| ans. Chapter V d| ssect s a ma]or
A/ T su rv| val study, wh| ch has been u sed Ial sel y to
cl a| m beneI| t s Ior A/T.
10 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | 1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY
Chapters V| th rough X desc r| be ch ronolog| cal l y t he
progress oI a campa| gn t o g| ve A/ 1 t o heal t hy peopl e.
1h| s unspeakabl y ev| l campa| gn, wh| ch | character | ze as
' | atrogen| c genoc| de' , | s bu| l d| ng momentum r| ght now.
1h e end r esul t w| l l be many ten s oI thou sands oI
death s I rom A/ 1 po| son| ng ~~ death s that pred| ctabl y
w| l l be d| agnosed and reported as ' A| OS' .
| have argued | n pr| nt s| nce 1984 that t he ' A| OS
v| ru s | s a poor cand| date Ior cau s| ng ' A| OS' . | n the
summer oI 198
7
| was t he I| rst ]ou rnal | st to | nterv| ew
the mol ecul ar b| ol og| st , |eter Ouesberg, and my | nter~
v| ew w| th h| m | n the Nat| ve was l argel y respons| bl e Ior
br| ng| ng the H| V debate | nto the publ | c arena. Chap~
ter X| | s an excerpt I rom that | nterv| ew, Chapter X | |
descr| bes a Iorum where | roIessor Ouesberg hel d h | s
own aga| nst members oI t he A| OS E stabl | shment ' , and
Chapter X | | | | s an excerpt I rom a more recent | nter~
v| ew. Chapter X| V | s a tal k | gave at a bronx Iorum,
where every one oI the speakers re]ected the hypo~
thes| s t hat H| V | s the cau se oI ' A| OS' .
| am proud to sel I~publ | sh t h| s bok. | n t he ab~
sence oI a I ree press ~ and r| ght now there | s pre~
c|ou s l |ttl e I ree speech Ior ' A| OS d| ss| dent s' ~~ | have
done what had to be done, us| ng the tool s ava| l abl e to
me. | t ' s ne| ther Iun nor proI| tabl e to be t he wh| stl e~
blower on a dangerou s drug. Anx|ety | s a constant
compan| on, and I r | ends and al l | es can seem Iew and Iar
between. but my consc| ence | s cl ear, and | am l earn~
| ng anew the val ue oI sel I~rel | ance.
| hope to persuade the reader t hat | am r| ght. 1he
day | s com| ng when h| stor| ans w| l l lok back on the
A/ 1 ep| sode as a t ragedy, a cr| me aga| nst human| ty,
and oneoI the greatest I rauds | n med| cal h | story.
Sound| ng the tocs| n on A/ 1 | s a ]ob Ior al l oI us .
) ohn L au r| tsen
New York C| ty
Apr | l 1990
|O| SON bY |RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY 1 1
I . Poi s By Presriptio:
The AZT Story
1en s oI t hou s ands oI peopl e are now tak | ng a
deadl y drug wh| ch was approved by the Un| ted States
government on the bas| s oI I raudu l ent research. 1hat
drug | s A/ 1, al so known as Ret rov| r and z | dovud| ne.
| t | s the on| y Iederal l y approved drug Ior the t reat~
ment oI ' A| OS" [ a poorl y deI| ned const ruct now en
compass| ng more than two dozen ol d d| seases ) .
A/ 1 | s not cheap. 1reatment Ior a s| ngl e pat| ent
costs between $ 8 , 000 and $ 1 ? , 000 per year, most oI
wh | ch |s pa| d Ior, d| rect l y or | nd| rectl y, by taxpayer
money.
1he most tox|c drug ever approved or even con~
s | dered Ior long~term u se, A/ 1 | s now be| ng | nd| s~
c r | m| nat e l y p rescr|bed on a mass scal e. Even the
br| t| sh manuIactu rer, bur rough s nel l come, doesn' t know
Ior su re how many peopl e are on A/1, but |t may be
as many as 5 0, 000 worl dw| de. 1he great ma]or| ty are
gay men , but the drug | s a| so be| ng g| ven to | nt ra~
venous drug u ser s, hemoph| | | acs and other peop| e w| th
'A| OS ' [ |nAs ) . Ch| | dren, | ncl ud| ng new~brn | nIant s ,
are now rece| v| ng A/1, as are pregnant women who
ar e ' H | V~pos| t| ve" [ that | s , who have ant |bod| es to
human | mmunodeI| c| ency v| ru s [ H| V ] , wh| ch the worl d~
renowned mo| ecul ar b| o| og| st , |eter H. Ouesberg, has
desc r| bed as a harm| ess and ' proIound| y convent| onal '
ret rov | r u s
1
) . A/ 1 | s be| ng g| ven to hea| thy H| V~
pos| t| ve | nd| v|dual s , under the preten se that do| ng so
w| l | prevent ' progress|on to A| OS". Some members oI
1
| et er H. Ou e sbe r g, ' H uman | mmunodeI| c| ency
V | r us And Acqu | red | mmunodeI| c| ency Syndrome: Cor~
rel at| on but Not Cau sat | on", | roceed| ngs oI the Nat |on~
a| Academy oI Sc| ences , Vol . 8 6 [ |ebruary 1 8 ) pp.
7 5 5 ~7 6 4.
1? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | 1| ON: THE A/ 1 STORY
the ' A| OS establ | s hment ' , l | ke n| l l | am Hasel t| ne ( oI t he
Harvard Schol oI |ubl | c Heal th ) , have gone so I ar as
to advoc ate g| v| ng A/T t o perIect l y hea| t hy, H| V~
negat| ve members oI ' h| gh r | sk groups' , such as gay
men , to prevent them Irom becom| ng ' | nIected' .
1he prognos| s cannot be not good Ior these peop| e.
A/ 1' s tox| c| t| es are so great that about 5 0 / oI |nAs
cannot tol erate | t at a| | , and must be taken oII the
drug | n order to save the| r l | ves. A/ 1 | s cytotox| c,
mean| ng t hat | t k | l l s heal thy cel l s | n the body. A/ 1
dest roys bone marrow, cau s| ng | | Ie~th reaten| ng anem| a.
A/1 cau ses severe headaches, nausea, and muscu| ar
pa| n, | t cau ses musc| es to waste away, | t damages the
k| dneys, l | ver , and nerves. A/ 1 bl ock s ONA synthes| s ,
t he very l | Ie process | t se| I ~~ when ONA synt hes| s | s
bl ocked, new cel l s Ia| l t o devel op, and the body | n~
ev| tab| y beg| ns to deter| orate.
1h e c u mu l at | ve, l ong~t er m eI I ec t s oI A/ 1 are
unknown, s| nce no one has taken the drug Ior more
than th ree years. E ven |I pat| ents were to su rv| ve the
short~term tox| c| t| es oI A/ T, t hey wou l d st| l l Iace the
prospect oI cancer cau sed by t he drug. Accord| ng to
the |OA anal yst who rev| ewed the A/T tox| co|ogy data
~ and who recommended t hat A/ 1 not be approved Ior
market| ng ~ A/ 1 ' | nduces a pos| t| ve response | n the
cel l t ransIormat| on assay' and | s thereIore ' presumed
to be a potent| al carc| nogen.
?
| et er Ou e sber g h a s c a l l ed A/ 1 ' pure po| son' .
J
?
Ha r vey | . C h er nov , ' Rev| ew & Eval uat| on oI
| h armaco|ogy & 1ox| cology Oata' , NOA 1 ~6 5 5 , ?
Oecember 1 8 6. ( |OA document obta| ned under the
| reedom OI | nIormat |on Act )
J
J ohn L aur| t sen , ' Say| ng No 1o H| V: An | nterv| ew
\| th |roI. |eter Ouesberg, nho Says, ' | noul d Not
norry Abut be| ng Ant | body |os| t| ve', New York Na~
(cont| nued )
|O| SON bY |RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY T J
A| OS researcher and phys| c| an )oseph Sonnabend has
stated t hat ' A/ 1 | s | ncompat| bl e w| t h l | Ie.
4
nh at beneI | ts does A/ 1 have, t hat cou l d oIIset
such terr| bl e tox| c| t| es None, as a matter oI Iact .
A/ 1' s beneI| ts tend to van| sh as soon as one scrut| n~
| zes t hem. 1he oIt~repeated cl a| m t hat A/ 1 'extends
l | Ie' | s based on research that I ul l y deserves to be
cal l ed Iraudu l ent.
1he bel | eI | n A/1' s beneI| t s appears to be based on
th ree bd| es oI ' ev|dence' . | | rst are the |hase | |
[ ' Ooubl e~ bl | n d, | l acebo~Cont rol l ed' ) tr | al s oI A/ 1,
conducted by t h e |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat|on [ |OA) .
Second are anecdotal report s. 1h| rd | s a report wh| ch
has recent l y appeared | n the ) ournal oI t he Amer| can
Hed| cal As soc| at |on [ ) AHA) . L et ' s l ok at these one
at a t | me.
The Phas I I Trials
[ 1h | s sect| on |s based on document s t hat the |OA
was Iorced to rel ease under the | reedom oI | nIorma~
t |on Act. A deta| l ed anal ys| s appears |n my art| cl e,
' A/ 1 On 1r| al ' . nh | tewashed reports on the |hase | |
t r| al s can be Iound | n two art| c| es by Hargaret | | schl
and Ooul as R| chman | n the New Engl and ) ou rnal oI
Hed| c| ne. )
J
[ cont| nued)
t | ve, | ssue ? ? 0, 6 ) u l y T 8 7 , [ Repr| nted | n Ch r| stopher
Street , | ssue T T 8, Oecember T 8 7 ) .
4
) ohn L au r | tsen, ' A/1: | at rogen| c Genoc|de' , New
York Nat | ve, | ssue ? 5 8 , ? 8 Harch T 88.
5
Hargaret A. | | schl , ' 1he EII| cacy oI Az|dot hy~
m| d| ne [ A/ 1 ) |n the 1reatment oI |at| ents w| th A| OS
and A| OS~Rel ated Compl ex' , and Oougl as A. R| chman,
' 1he 1ox| c| ty oI Az|dot hym| d| ne [ A/ 1) | n t he 1reat~
[cont| nued )
1 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
|hase | t r| al s determ| ned t hat | t was poss| b| e to
g| ve A/ T to human be| ngs, al t hough there was never
any doubt that the drug was extremel y tox| c. The
next step was t he |hase | | tr | al s, conducted by the
| OA at 1 ? med| c a l centers t hroughout t he Un| ted
States , beg| nn| ng | n the spr| ng oI 1 86. Th| s ' doub| e~
bl | nd, pl acebo~contro| l ed' study was des| gned so that
two groups oI ' A| OS ' pat | ent s wou l d be ' t reated' Ior
?4 week s , one group rece| v| ng A/T and the other
rece| v| ng a pl aceb. Ne| ther the pat| ents nor t he
doctors were supposed t oknow who was gett| ng what.
| n p r act | c e , t h e s t udy bec ame unbl | nded a| most
| mmed| ate| y. Some pat| ents d| scovered a d| IIerence | n
t a s t e bet ween t he A / T and the pl aceb capsu l es.
Other pat| ent s took the| r capsu l es to chem| st s, who
anal yzed t hem. Ooctors Iound out wh | ch pat| ent s were
rece| v| ng A/ T I rom very obv|ou s d| IIerences | n b|od
p roI | l es. Thus , the very des| gn oI the study was
v| ol ated. |or th| s reason a| one the |hase | | t r| al s
were | nva| | d.
6
There are god reasons why bl | nd stud| es are re~
qu | red Ior t he approva| oI a new drug. The potent| a|
b| ases ar e so great , Ior bth pat| ent and doctor, t hat a
dr u g~| dent | I | ed t r | a l wou l d be sc| ent| I| ca| | y u sel ess.
|at| ents who bel | eved t hat death was | mm| nent w| thout
the | ntervent |on oI a new ' wonder drug' , must have
been psychol og| cal l y devastated to | earn that they were
5
( cont | nued)
ment oI |at| ents w| th A| OS and A| OS~Rel ated Com~
pl ex' , New Eng| and )ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne, ? J ) u l y 1 8 7 .
6
E | | en C. Coper, ' Hed| cal OII| cer Rev| ew oI NOA
1 ~6 5 5 ' . Add| t|onal ev| dence oI the prematu re unbl | nd~
| ng oI t he study comes I rom |nAs who part| c| pated | n
the |hase | | t r| al s and a chem| st who anal yzed the
capsu l es , as Ieatu red on an NbC News ( Channel 4)
dcumentary, ?7 ) anuary 1 8 8 .
|O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY 1 5
onl y rece| v| ng a pl aceb. |hys| c| ans , w| t h h| gh expec~
tat|ons Ior A/ T, may have been b| ased not onl y | n the
ways t hey | nterpreted and recorded data, but al so | n
the way t hey t reated t he| r pat| ent s. | t | s note~
wort hy t ha! the publ | c has never been | nIormed by the
|OA | nvest | gators, by bu rrough s nel l come, or by | | schl
and R| chman t hat t he study became unbl | nded.
The |OA documents show t hat the |hase | | t r| al s
were character | zed t hroughout by s l opp| ness and l ack
oI cont rol . |or exampl e, record| ng Iorms Ior symptoms
were so | n ept l y des| gned that the data had to be
abandoned. T| me and aga| n t he |OA documents sug~
gest t he l |kel | hood oI cheat| ng. Case report Iorms
were changed month s aIter they had been recorded,
w| th no expl anat|ons or | nd| cat|ons oI who had done
the chang| ng. Some oI t hese changes Iavored A/ T by
reduc| ng the cases oI adver se react| on to t he drug.
7
At boston , one oI the twel ve center s, an |OA
| nvest | gator Iound ser| ou s probl ems: ' mul t | pl e dev| at| ons
I rom standard protocol procedure' . She recommended
that the boston data be excl uded I rom the study. | n
add| t| on, numerou s cases oI ' protocol v| ol at| ons' were
d| scovered th roughout the study. Host | nvol ved the
unauthor| zed u se oI other drugs. The protocol s were
de s | gned to proh| b| t mul t | pl e drug u se, | n order to
avo|d dr ug | nteract|ons and conIound| ng t he resu l ts.
8
An |OA | n~hou se meet| ng was convened to dec| de
what to do about al l oI the bad data, the del | nquent
center, and the v| ol at|ons oI protocol . The dec|s|On
was made to keep everyth| ng. |al se data were re~
ta| ned. Garbage was t hrown |n w| t h t he god stuII.
The researcher s excu sed these | nexcu sabl e dec| s| ons on
two grounds: One, | I they d| dn' t u se the Ial se data,
7
C
.
oper , op. c| t .
8
El | en C. Coper, Addendum
1
1 t o Hed| cal OI~
I| cer Rev| ew oI NOA 1 ~65 5 ' , 1 6 Harch T 8 7 .
1 6 |O| SON bY |RE SCR| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
there wou | d be hard| y any pat| ents | eIt | n t he s!udy.
Two, u s | n g t he Ia| se data d| dn' t rea| | y change the
resu | t s very much. As every proIess|ona| researcher
knows , | t | s never acceptab| e to use Ia| se data. | n and
oI | tse| I, the de| | berate use oI Ia| se data made the
|hase | | tr| a| s not on| y | nva| | d, but I raudu| ent.
9
H| dway t hrough ~ as the researcher s were | os| ng
cont ro| and the study was bomb| ng ~~ the tr| a| s were
abrupt | y term| nated. n| t h much med| a IanIare |t was
c| a| med t hat A/ T had m| racu |ou s| y preserved t he | | ves
oI t h ose tak| ng | t , and t hat | t wou | d thereIore be
' uneth | ca| ' to w| t hho| d A/ T I rom |nAs , even Ior the
Iew mre weeks t hat wou | d be requ| red to carry the
s t udy t h rou gh to comp| et | on. A| | eged| y on| y one
pat | ent on A / T h ad d| ed, as opposed to n| neteen
pat| ents on p| acebo, dur| ng an average t reatment t| me
oI seventeen weeks. ( As | ' | | argue | ater, these mor~
ta| | ty c| a| ms are not to be be| | eved. ) At t h| s po| nt a| |
pat| ent s were to| d whet her they had been tak| ng A/ T
or p| acebo ( wh | ch many oI them a| ready knew) and
were g| ven the opportun| ty to take A/ T.
The premat ure term| nat| on oI the study dest royed
the or| g| na| study des| gn, and cau sed chaos I rom an
ana| yt | ca| standpo| nt. Twenty t h ree oI the pat| ents
had been ' t reated' Ior | ess t han Iou r weeks, never~
the| ess, t he| r data were t hrown |n a| ong w| t h everyone
e| se ' s . T ab| es wh | c h wou | d h ave been ent | re| y
st r a| ghtIorward | I a | | pat| ent s had I | n| shed the| r ? 4
week s oI t reatment had to re| y upon we| rd stat | st| ca|
p ro ec t | ons . |or examp | e, | nstead oI show| ng the
percentages oI pat| ents | n each group who exper| enced
oppor t u n | st| c | nIect|ons w| t h| n ? 4 week s , |t became
necessary to guess ~ to deve|op a pro]ected proba~
b| | | t y oI t h e | r ex per | enc| ng opportun | st| c | nIect| ons
w| t h| n ?4 week s. Th| s | s ana| ogous to est| mat| ng the
probab| | | ty oI deve|op| ng art hr| t | s by t he age oI 70,
|O| SON bY |RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY 1 7
u s| ng a sampl e | n wh| ch on| y a Iew peop| e had reached
t h| s age, and |n wh| ch some were st| | l ch| l dren.
1 0
| n an Aesop |abl e, a man boast s that, | n an ath l et | c
compet| t|on on the | s l and oI Rhodes, he had perIormed
a spectacu | ar ] ump t hat no one cou | d beat . |erhaps
annoyed by h| s bragg| ng, one oI t he men l | sten| ng to
h| m says: ' Here | s Rhodes. ) ump here| ' 1he pr| nc| p| e
app| |es | n t h| s case. | I A/ 1 cou l d extend the | | ves oI
' A| OS' pat| ents |n t he |hase | | t r | al s , then |t cou l d
extend the | | ves oI ' A| OS' pat| ents el sewhere. but the
m| rac| e has never repeated | t sel I.
nhen the |hase | | t r| al s were over, most oI the
pat| ents dec| ded to beg| n or cont| nue tak| ng A/1. At
t h| s po| nt the m| rac| e was over. A/ 1 d| dn' t prevent
t hem I rom dy| ng. |n ? 1 week s 1 0/ oI the pat| ent s on
A/ 1 d| ed [ whereas al | egedl y | ess t han 1 / oI the A/ 1
pat| ents had d| ed dur| ng the m| racu l ou s 1 7~week t reat~
ment oI t he |hase | | t r| al s) .
Another compar | son: AIter the |hase | | t r| a| s ended,
A/ 1 became ava| l ab| e on a ' compass| onate p| ea' bas | s ,
and s u r v| val s t at | st| cs were kept on 4, 805 ' A| OS'
pat| ents who took A/ 1. Accord| ng to Oav| d barry,
V | ce | res | dent | n charge oI research at bur rough s
nel l come, somewhere between 8/ and 1 ? / oI the 4, 8 05
' A | OS ' pa t | ent s t reated w| th A/ 1 d| ed du r| ng Iou r
mont h s [ =1 7 week s) oI t reatment.
1 1
| n compar| ng the
t wo g rou p s ~~ each con s | s t | ng oI ' A| OS' pat| ents
t reated w| th A/ 1 Ior 1 7 week s ~ we I| nd an enormou s
d| IIerence: l ess than 1 / d| ed du r| ng the |hase | | t r| al s
vers us 8~1 ? / [ ca| | | t 1 0/) Iol |ow| ng re| ease oI the
drug. [ See tab| e below. ) A d| IIerence oI th| s mag~
1 0
| | sch| and R| chman , op. c| t . , L awrence Haupt~
man, ' Stat| st| ca| Rev| ew and E va| uat| on' , NOA 1 8~65 5 ' ,
E l | en Coper , ' Hed| cal OII| cer Rev| ew .
1 1
1 e| ephone conver sat|on w| t h Oav| d barry, ?4
Hay 1 888.
1 8 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
n | t u de cannot be due to chance ~ the most l |ke| y
exp| anat|on | s t hat the | ess re| | abl e I| gure (1 /, I rom
the |hase | | t r| a| s ) | s wrong.
There are st| | | more reasons Ior be| ng skept| cal oI
t h e mort a l | t y data I rom the |hase | | t r| a| s. The
theory beh| nd A/T | s wrong: H| V ( as argued persua~
s| vel y by Ouesberg and other s) | s not t he cause oI
' A| OS' . And even |I |t were, a drug l | ke A/ T, de~
s| gned to prevent the v| r us I rom rep| | cat| ng by stop~
p| ng v| ra| ONA synthes| s , wou | d be u se| ess, s| nce | n
' A| OS ' pat| ents H| V | s cons| stentl y | atent and there~
Iore no l onger mak| ng ONA. On top oI that, t here | s
no ev|dence t hat A/ T h a s any ant| v| ral eIIect aga| nst
H| V | n the bdy, as opposed to the test t ube. ( |or
awh| l e pro~A/T researcher s were c| a| m| ng resul t s Irom
t h e | ~ ? 4 ant | gen test ' , an unva| |dated and h| gh| y
| naccu rate test , but such c| a| ms have been abandoned. )
bases:
HORTAL | TY COH|AR| SONS
( A| OS |at| ents Treated n| th A/ T)
|hase | | |ol |ow| ng
Tr| a| s Re| ease OI Orug
Total |at| ents
Treated n| th A/ T
| n Each Tr| al (1 45 ) ( 4, 8 0 5 )
Oeat hs | n 1 7 week s 1 / 1 0 /
The probab| | | ty | s l ess t han one |n a m| | | |on t hat the
d| IIerence (1 / vs. 1 0/) coul d be due to chance. Th| s
powerIu | | y | mp| | es that t he | ess rel | ab| e I| gu re (1 /) | s
wrong.
|O| 5ON bY |RE5C R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 51ORY 1
5t | l | I u rt h e r grounds Ior skept | c| sm concern the
eth| cs and competence oI the researchers. |eop| e who
wou l d know| ngl y tol erate cheat| ng, who wou l d use Ial se
dat a, and who wou l d cover up t he unbl | nd| ng oI a
'doubl e~b| | nd' study, woul d be capabl e oI other k | nds
oI ma| Ieasance. 1here are many unanswered quest |ons
on how bur rough s nel l come rece| ved excl us | ve r| ghts
to A/ 1, and how t h| s terr| b| y tox| c drug ga| ned gov
ernment approva| Iaster t han any drug |n the | OA' s
h| story. 1he Nat| onal Gay R| ght s Advocates [ NGRA) ,
h a s c h arged ' | l | ega| and | mproper co| l us| on' between
bu r rou gh s ne | | come and t wo Iederal agenc| es, t he
Nat | onal | n st | t u t es oI Hea| th [ N| H) and the |OA.
5hor t l y aI t er bur rough s nel | come sent a check Ior
$ 5 5 , 0 0 0 to 5amue| broder oI the Nat|ona| Cancer
| nst| tute [ part oI the N| H) , bur rough s ne| l come re
ce| ved exc| us | ve r| ght s to market A/ 1, even t hough
A/ 1 had been | n ex| stence Ior ? 0 years and bur rough s
nel l come had pl ayed no part | n the drug' s deve|op~
ment.
1 ?
| | n a | l y , t h e |hase
because the researcher s
pat| ents who d| ed, and
on the causes oI death .
| | mortal | ty data are su spect
perIormed no autops| es on t he
re| eased al most no | nIormat| on
1he |OA reIu ses even to d| ~
vu |ge what c| t| es the pat| ent s d| ed | n.
5umm| ng up: | t | s h | ghl y un| | kel y that A/ 1 extended
the | | ves oI pat| ent s |n t he |hase | | t r| al s. 1here are
at l east th ree exp| anat| ons , not mutua| l y exc| u s| ve, to
account Ior the al |eged mortal | ty data. One, s| nce the
study became unb| | nded and the doctors

new wh| ch
pat| ent s were rece| v| ng each t reatment , the A/1 pa
t| ent s , unconsc| ou s| y or de| | beratel y, may have rece| ved
better pat| ent management, the p| acebo pat| ents may
have been k| | l ed oII t hrough neg| ect. 1wo, the s| cker
1 ?
Ray O' L ou gh | | n , ' L aws u | t Charges Col | u s|on
bet ween | ed s , A / 1 Haker' , bay Area Reporter, 5
November 1 87 .
? 0 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. T HE A/ T STORY
pat| ents may have been p| aced | n the p| aceb group to
beg| n w| t h. [ The |OA document s | nd| cate t hat t h| s
was | ndeed t he case.
1 J
) Th ree, there may have been
de| | berate cheat| ng: some dead A/ T pat| ent s may have
been post humou s| y reass| gned to the p| acebo group.
G| ven t he s| opp| ness oI t he tr| a| s, and t he dep| orab| e
standards oI the researcher s, the t h| rd exp| anat |on | s
ent | re| y p| au s| b| e.
As| de I rom the doubt I u| morta| | ty data, there | s the
| ssue oI A1T' s tox| c| t| es. The | OA ana| yst who re~
v| ewed t h e p h a r maco| ogy data, Harvey | . Chernov,
recommended that A/ T shou | d not be approved. Cher~
nov documented many ser|ou s s| de eIIect s oI A/ T, and
summar | zed | ts eIIect on the b| od as Io| |ows: ' Th u s,
a | t hough t h e dose var| ed, anem| a was noted |n a| |
spec| es [ | nc| ud| ng man ) | n wh| ch the drug has been
tested.
14
Anedtal Rers
At t he Stockho| m ' A| OS' conIerence | ast summer a
nu mber oI abs t racts were presented, wh| ch c| a| med
var|ou s beneI| t s Ior A/T. These abst ract s cons| sted oI
unpub| | shed data der| ved I rom uncont ro| | ed observat|ons
oI sma| | numbers oI pat| ent s. |or sc| ent| I | c debate,
the va| ue oI such report s , | n the context oI a con~
Ierence where J ? 0 0 abst racts were presented, | s n| | .
S uch abst racts amunt to | |tt| e more t han anecdota|
ev| dence.
One oI the more absu rd abst racts was | ater pub~
1 J
Coper, Hed| ca| OII| cer Rev| ew .
1 4
Ha rvey | . Chernov, ' Rev| ew & E va| uat |on oI
|harmaco|ogy & Tox| co|ogy Oata ' .
|O| SON bY | RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY ? 1
l | s h ed | n t h e New E n g| and ) ournal oI Hed| c| ne
1 5
.
Researcher s connected w| t h the government and bur~
rough s ne| l come gave A/ 1 to ? 1 ch| | dren who had
' H | V | n I ect | on ' , and cl a| med that the A/ 1 bosted
the| r | Qs by 1 5 po| nts. A| though 5 oI t he ? 1 ch| l dren
d| ed, t he researcher s were so | mpressed by ' neuro
deve| opment a l ' | mp rovement s t hat they recommended
g| v| ng A/ 1 to ' | nIected but asymptomat| c newborns ' .
Anyone who has stud| ed t he pr| nc| pl es and techn|ques
oI p s ycho| og| cal test| ng can on| y have contempt Ior
t h| s m| s use oI | nte| | | gence tests.
Anot h e r var | et y oI anecdotal report comes I rom
phys| c| ans who t reat ' A| OS' pat| ent s. 1hese doctor s,
many oI t h em rather gu l | | bl e | nd| v|dua| s , have been
to|d t hat A/ 1 represent s the ' best hope' . n| t h t h| s
expectat|on, t hey beg| n dos| ng t he| r pat| ent s w| t h A/ 1,
and soner or | ater some oI them bel | eve that they
have ' seen good resu | ts' . OI cou rse, ' god resu | ts'
may not be good by any rat| ona| cr| ter| a. |erhaps a
pat | ent , h a v| n g undergone mul t| p| e t ransIu s|ons and
suIIered agon| z| ng s| de eIIects, d| es aIter 1 1 month s,
the doctor can then rat| onal | ze that he wou| d have
d| ed soner |I |t hadn' t been Ior the A/ 1. Ooctors | n
New York C| ty have begun exper| ment| ng w| th reduced
doses oI A/ 1 ( ha| I doses, quarter doses, or even l es s ) ,
as wel l as A/ 1 |n comb| nat | on w| th many other drugs.
E xper| mentat|on oI t h| s sort , w| th no sound bas| s | n
e| t her theory or Iact , | s no better t han the use oI I rog
sk| ns , l eeches, cryst al s and the l | ke.
|or every doctor who has ' seen good resu l ts' , t here
may wel l be ten doctors who have seen bad resu | ts.
As t he l atter observat| ons ar e not Iash | onabrthey are
1 5
|h | l | p A. || zzo, et al . , ' EIIect oI Cont| nuou s
| nt ravenous | nIu s|on oI / | dovud| ne ( A/ 1) |n Ch | l dren
w| th Symptomat | c H| V | nIect| on' , New Engl and )ou rnal
oI Hed| c| ne, 6 October 1 88.
? ? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: T HE A/ T STORY
not l |kel y to I| nd express| on | n abst ract s at ' A| OS'
conIerences.
The JAMA Aricle
A ma]or study oI A/ T, ' S u rv| val E xper| ence Among
| at | ent s n| t h A | O S Rece| v| ng / | dovud| ne [ A / T ] ' ,
recent l y appea red | n t h e ) ou rnal oI t he Amer| can
Hed| cal Assoc| at |on ( ) AHA) .
1
{
A/ T promoters have
used th | s study to cl a| m t hat A/ T extends the l | ves oI
|nAs .
Res ea r c h er s I rom t he government and bur rough s
nel l come s t u d| ed 4 , 8 0 5 | nAs t reated w| th A/ T.
Through col ossal | ncompetence they l ost t rack oI 1 1 ? 0
pat| ent s, not know| ng | I they were even al | ve or dead.
Th e r es earcher s t hen u sed stat| st| cal pro]ect|on me~
thods to guess what resu l t s they m| ght have obta| ned
|I t hey had not l ost t he 1 1 ?0 pat| ent s, and came up
w| th a 1 0~mnth su rv| val est | mate oI 7J /. They then
wrote the| r report |n such a way that t he 7J / gues s
appeared t o be an actual su rv| val stat| st| c. | | nal l y,
they made a number oI grossl y | nval | d compar | sons to
other groups oI |nAs , un] ust| I| abl y cl a| m| ng t hat A/ T
had extended the l | ves oI t hose | n the| r study.
| t | s a sad commentary on the standards oI med| cal
]ou rnal s t hat ) AHA wou l d publ | sh t h| s bl atant exerc| se
|n d| s| nIormat| o

The AZT Philoshy

Th e q u e s t | on a r | s es : How can phys| c| ans ] ust | Iy
presc r| b| ng a drug whose beneI| ts are so dub|ou s and
wh ose s| de eIIects are so terr| bl e |hys| c| ans are
supposed to honor the Oath oI H| ppocrates, t he car~
1 6
Terr| C reagh~K| rk et al . , '5u rv| val E xper| ence
Among |at| ents n| th A| OS Rece| v| ng / | dovud| ne [ A/ T ] :
| ol l ow~up oI |at| ents | n a Compass|onate |l ea | ro~
gram , ) ournal oI t he Amer| can Hed| cal As soc| at|on, ?5
November 1 8 8.
|O| SON bY |RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY ? J
d| nal pr| nc| pl e oI wh| ch | s to act Ior t he good oI the
pat| ent , do| ng not h | ng t hat | s harmIu l .
1here seem to be two p| l l ar s to the A/ 1 ph| losophy.
| | rst | s the Amer| can Ia| th | n drugs as the appropr | ate
t reatment Ior al most everyth| ng. 1he more potent and
expens| ve the drug, the better.
Second | s t he preva| l | ng bel | eI t hat ' A| OS' | s ' | n~
var| abl y Iatal ' , t hat |nAs have onl y a Iew month s to
l | ve. |or exampl e, t he ) AHA art| cl e d| scus sed above
assert s , ' A| OS | s a term| nal d| sease' . |hys| c| ans who
accept t h| s prem| se can s| mpl y | gnore the cumu| at| ve
tox| c| t| es oI A/1.
1here are several ob]ect| ons to t he A/1 ph| losophy.
Host | mportant, ' A| OS' | s not | nvar| abl y Iatal . 1here
are |nAs who have surv| ved Ior many year s, and who
appear to be recover| ng. And why not l nhat other
d| sease | s ' | nvar| abl y Iatal ' l | | mag| ne that Iut ure
med| cal h| stor| ans w| l l regard many or even most oI
the ' A| OS ' Iatal | t| es as | atrogen| c: cau sed by med| cal
t r eat ments rather than by ' A| OS' | t sel I . 1he s| ck
deserve a ch ance to recover. n| th A/ 1 t here | s l | ttl e
ch ance.
A Philoshy For Reovery
1o be honest , at t h| s po| nt we do not know exact l y
what ' A| OS ' | s, or what cau ses | t, or how to t reat | t
( al though phys| c| ans ar e gett| ng better at t reat | ng t he
var | ou s oppor t u n | s t | c | nIect| ons ) . | rom al l oI the
ev| dence, | t appears unl | kel y that ' A| OS' | s a s| ngl e
d| sease ent | ty cau sed by a novel | nIect|ou s agent , H| V
or other . Rat her , ' A| OS' appears to be a cond| t|on or
cond| t|ons wh| ch may ar | se I rom mul t| pl e cau ses. | n
my op | n | on , c h em| cal s ( | ncl ud| ng rec reat| onal dr ugs,
ant | b|ot | cs , and med| cal drugs) probabl y pl ay the pr| ~
24 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY
mar y ro| e | n mak| ng gay men and | nt ravenou s dr ug
users s| ck , but t hat | s another d| scus s |on.
1
7
| I A| OS' | s real l y a degenerat| ve cond| t|on cau sed
l argel y by tox| ns, bth med| ca| and ' recreat| onal ' , then
what | s an appropr| ate t reatment Not st| | l another
dr u g, but r at her I reedom I rom tox| ns. L ong~term
su rv| vors, a| most w| thout except |on, have avo|ded tox| c
chemtherapy ( | | ke A/ 1) and have opted Ior repa| r| ng
the| r bd| es t hrough a more heal thy l | Iestyl e: exerc| se,
god nutr| t|on, rest and stress reduct|on, and avo| dance
oI h a r mI u | s u bst ances ( | ncl ud| ng c| garettes , al coho| ,
h ero| n , coc a | n e, HOA , quaa| udes, barb| t urates, E ve,
Ecstasy, |C |, 1C|, Spec| al K, ethy| ch | or| de, poppers,
and al l other ' recreat| onal drugs' ) .
Human bod| es are the product oI m| | l |ons oI year s
oI evol ut|on, | n a un| verse I | l | ed w| t h m| crobes oI a| l
k| nds, | I a| |owed to, t hey know how t o heal them~
sel ves. Recovery I rom A| OS' w| | l come I rom st reng~
then| ng the body, not po| son| ng | t.
1
1
7
)ohn L au r| t sen , ' COC' s 1ab| es Obscure A| OS~
Orugs Connect|on , |h| l adel ph| a Gay News , 14 |ebruary
1985. Al so many art| c| es | n the New York Nat| ve I rom
1985 to the present.
) ohn L au r | t sen and Hank n| l son, Oeath Rush:
|oppers & A| OS, New York , 1986.
A/ T ON TR| AL ?5
I I. AZT On Trial
| argued |n a prev|ou s art| c| e ( | | rst Th| ngs | | rst ' )
t hat the t heory beh| nd A/ T ( now known by | t s t rade
name oI Ret rov| r ) was Ia| se, | nasmuch as the hypothe~
s| s that H| V causes A| OS has been reIuted by |roI.
|eter H. Ouesberg, a wor| d~renowned mo| ecu| ar b|o|o~
g| st at berke| ey
1
, t hat A/ T' s a| | eged beneI| t s were not
backed up by re| | ab| e ev| dence, t hat | t s tox| c| t| es were
I | rm| y estab| | shed and severe, and thereIore the drug
shou| d not be prescr| bed, recommended, or used.
| n h | s | nterv| ew w| t h me
2
, |roI. Ouesberg reIer red
to A/ T as a po| son and as cytotox| c ( | etha| to body
ce| | s ) . Ouesberg sa| d t hat t h e theor| es beh| nd A/ T
were Ia| se, t hat there was no rat| ona| e Ior treat| ng
w| th A/ T' , t hat prescr| b| ng A/ T was h| gh| y | r respon~
s| b| e, and that A/ T was guaranteed to be harmIu| :
A/ T h| t s a| | ONA t hat | s made. | t | s he| | Ior
the bne marrow, wh| ch | s where the T and b
ce1s and a| | those t h| ngs are made. | t ' s he| | Ior
that. |t has a s| | ght preIerence Ior v| ra| ONA
po| ymerase compared to ce| | u| ar ONA po| ymerase,
based on | n v| t ro stud| es on| y, but t hat ' s cer~
ta| n| y not abso| ute. | t k | | | s norma| ce| | s qu| te,
qu | te exten s| ve| y.
J
1
|eter H. Ouesberg, |h. O, Ret rov| r uses as Car~
c | nogen s and | at hogen s : E xpectat|ons and Rea| | ty,
Cancer Research, 1 Harch 1 8 7 .
) ohn L au r| t sen, 5ay| ng No to H| V. An | nterv| ew
n| th | roI. |eter Ouesberg, Nat| ve, | ssue 1
? ? 0.
?
L aur| t sen and Ouesberg, op. c| t.
J
| b| d.
26 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
At the t | me these art| cl es were publ | shed, the onl y
report s on t he |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat |on ( |OA)
t r | al that was the bas | s Ior grant| ng government ap~
proval to market A/ T, were | n the popu l ar med| a or a
promot|onal I | l m produced by A/ T' s manuIactu rer , bur~
rough s~nel l come. Ooctors who prescr| bed A/ T d|d so
on the bas| s on very l | m| ted | nIormat|on , along w| t h
t he assu rances oI the |ubl | c Heal th Serv| ce t hat A/ T
represented t h e ' best hope' .
Th| s appears to have changed. The 2J ) ul y 1 8 7
| s sue oI the New Engl and )ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne ( N E) H)
cont a | n s a t wo~par t report on the |OA' s ' Ooubl e~
bl | nd, |l acebo~Cont rol l ed Tr| al
4
| t q u | c k l y bec ame cl ear to me that there were
ser |ou s probl ems w| th the reports. The descr| pt |on oI
met hodology was | ncompl ete and | ncoherent. Not a
s | n gl e t abl e wa s acceptabl e accord| ng to stat| st| cal
standards ~ | ndeed, not a s| ngl e tabl e made sense. | n
part | cu l ar, the I| rst report, on ' eII| cacy' , was marred
by contrad| ct|ons , | l l ~l og| c, and spec| al pl ead| ng.
| n the meant| me, | rece| ved about 5 0 0 pages oI
mat e r | a l wh| ch | ro]ect | nIorm | n San | ranc| sco had
obta| ned I rom the | OA under the | reedom oI | nIorma
t |on Act . Th| s mater| al showed the dark unders| de oI
t h e dou bl e~bl | nd, pl acebo~cont rol l ed tr | al ~ Ial s| I| ca~
t | on oI dat a, s l opp| ness, conIu s| on, l ack oI control ,
depart ure I rom accepted procedures ~~ t h| ngs not even
h | nted at |n the NE ) H report s. Hart| n Oel aney oI
| ro]ect | nIorm g| ve

Ia| r summary oI what emerges

I rom the |OA mater| al .
4
Ha r ga r et A. | | s ch l , H . O. , ' T h e E I I | cacy oI
Az | dot h ym| d| ne ( A/ T) | n t he Treatment oI |at | ents
w| th A| OS and A| OS ~Rel ated Compl ex' , and Oougl as O.
R| chman , H. O. , ' The Tox| c| ty oI Az| dothym| d| ne ( A/ T)
| n t he Treatment oI |at| ents w| th A| OS and A| OS~Re~
l ated Compl ex' , New Engl and )ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne, 2J
) u l y T 8 7 .
A/ T ON TR| AL
The mu l t | ~cent er c | | n | c a | t r | a | s oI A / T are
perhaps the s|opp| est and most porl y cont ro| | ed
tr| a| s ever to serve as t he bas| s Ior an |OA
dr ug l | cens| ng approval . Concl u s| ons oI eII| cacy
were based on an endpo| nt ( mrta| | ty) not | n| ~
t| al | y pl anned or Iormal | y Iol |owed | n the study
aIter the drug Ia| | ed to demonst rate eII| cacy on
a | | t he or| g| na| l y | ntended endpo| nts. because
mortal | ty was not an | ntended endpo| nt, cau ses
oI death were never ver| I| ed. Oesp| te t h| s , and
a I r | ghten| ng record oI tox| c| ty, the |OA ap~
proved A/ T | n record t| me, grant| ng a t reatment
| N O | n l ess than I | ve days and Iu!! pharmaceut| ~
ca| l |cens| ng | n l ess than 6 months.
? 7
AI t er r ead| ng t h rough the |OA mater| al several
t| mes, | ca| | ed Hargaret | | sch| and Oougl as R| chman,
the pr | mary authors oI t he N E ) H art | cl es, and spoke
w| th each oI them Ior about hal I an hou r. The con~
ver s at | on s were not very en]oyabl e Ior any oI us .
Ne| ther one oI t hem cou l d expl a| n t he tabl es | n the
reports t hat they themsel ves had supposed| y wr| tten.
They both repeatedl y sa| d that | shou | d cal | bu rrough s~
nel l come to I | nd out how t he tabl es were developed or
to obta| n answers on other quest |ons. R| chman became
qu| te t rucu | ent at one po| nt, say| ng t hat | was ' I| x~
ated' on t he tab| es, t hat | shoul d ' Iorget about the
tabl es' , t hat t he report woul d be ' ] ust as god w| t hout
them . The| r | gnorance regard| ng these tab| es | s real | y
amaz| ng. As a market research anal yst , | am accu s~
tomed to work| ng w| th tabl es, and | can say t hat |
have never wr| tten a report conta| n| ng even a s| ng| e
tabl e I cou |d not exp| a| n and | nterpret .
Oes p| te abundant report s oI t he horr| bl e phys| cal
consequences oI tak| ng A/ T, severa| oI t he New York
C| ty phys| c| ans most prom| nent | n t reat| ng A| OS and
ARC pat| ents are not on| y prescr| b| ng A/ T, but act| ve
ly prose| yt | z | ng Ior | t. | t h| nk t hat h | story w| l | ] udge
these doctors harsh | y. Th| s art| cl e w| l | argue that no
? 8 |O| SON b Y | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
credence shou l d be pl aced | n the NE ) H report s, that
t h e ' beneI | t s ' at t r | buted to A/ T rema| n unsubstan~
t | ated.
The abrte trial
Th e ' doubl e~bl | nd, pl acebo~cont rol l ed' t r | al oI A/ T
was conducted by t he | OA at twel ve med| cal centers
th roughout t he Un| ted States. Al though t he pat| ents
d| d not enter the study al l at one t| me, each pat| ent
was | ntended to undergo a Iu l l ? 4 week s oI ' t reatment '
~ e| t her w| t h A/ T or w| t h a pl acebo.
H| dway t hrough the study | t was observed t hat onl y
one pat| ent on A/T had d| ed, whereas more t han a
dozen on p l ac ebo had. Accord| ng to the rece| ved
ver s|on, the |OA t hen dec| ded |t wou l d be uneth| cal to
cont| nue the study, s| nce A/ T was so spectacu l arl y ( | I
unexpectedl y) prol ong| ng t he l | ves oI t hose who tok
| t . The study was term| nated, al l pat| ents were tol d
whether they had been tak| ng A/ T or a pl acebo, and
al l were g| ven the opportun| ty to take A/ T. As | ' l l
argue l ater, there are good reasons Ior be| ng skept| cal
oI t h e mort a l | t y data, as wel l as t he mot| ves Ior
premat urel y term| nat| ng the study.
Ow| ng to the earl y term| nat|on, onl y T 5 pat| ents
[ 5 / oI the total ) compl eted the I ul l ? 4 week s oI t reat~
ment . Twenty~th ree pat| ents were t reated Ior l ess
t h an Iou r week s . On t h e aver age, pat| ent s had
rece| ved t reatment Ior about T 7 week s at the t| me t he
study was aborted. ( See Tabl e 1 . )
A s m| gh t be | mag| ned, t he prematu re term| nat |on
| nval |dated the or| g| nal study des| gn and cau sed chaos
I rom an anal yt| cal standpo| nt. Tabl es wh| ch woul d
have been ent| rel y st ra| ghtIorward | I al l pat| ent s had
I| n| shed t he| r ? 4 week s oI t reatment had to rel y upon
cont rover s | a l s t at | st | c a l p ro ect | ons. |or exampl e,
| nstead oI show| ng the percentages oI pat| ents | n each
group who exper| enced opportun| st| c | nIect|ons dur| ng
the ?4 weeks , | t became necessary to devel op a proec~
ted p robab| l | t y oI t h e | r ex per | enc| ng opport un| st | c
A/ T ON TR| AL 2
| nI ect | ons w| th| n 24 week s. Th| s | s anal ogou s to
est | mat| ng the probab| l |ty oI devel op| ng arth r | t| s by the
age oI 70, u s| ng a sampl e | n wh| ch onl y a Iew peopl e
had reached t h| s age, and | n wh | ch some were st| l l
t eenagers. Th e method u sed ( Kapl an~He| er |roduct~
L | m| t Hethod) | s a stat | st| cal attempt to est | mate what
resu l ts wou l d have been | I t he study had not been
term| nated. L | ke mopp| ng up m| l k, | t may be the best
th | ng to do ~~ but | t wou l d be better not to sp| l l t he
m| l k.
TAbL E T
VE RY | En |AT| E NTS | | N| S HE O THE |UL L 24~nE EK |ROTOCOL
base: Total nho began
Tr| al
|| n| shed Tr| al
O| d Not |in| sh Tr| al
' St| l l |art| c| pat| ng'
Oropped Out oI Study
neek s oI Treatment ( Hean)
Total Treatment
|at| ents A/ T |l acebo
(282) (T45 ) (T J7 )
5 / 6/ 4 /
5 / 4/ 6/
7 J / 7 / 67 /
22/ T 5 / 2/
( T 7 . J ) ( T 7 . 6 ) ( T 6 . )
[ NOTE : AL L TAbL E S | N TH| S ART| C L E ARE HY
On N, T H E Y A R E NOT TAK E N | ROH T H E N E ) H
RE |ORTS.
n| t h po| gnant r es t r a| nt , an | OA mat h emat | c a l
s t at | s t | c | a n r eg| st ered h| s m| sg| v| ngs over t h e earl y
term| nat |on:
There are a number oI d| squ| et| ng aspect s con~
cern| ng t h| s NOA. | t conta| ns onl y one con~
J 0 |O!SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A / T STORY
t ro| | ed cl | n| cal t r | a| , and thus there | s no | n~
dependent conI| rmatory ev| dence Ior t hat study' s
resu | t s . | t conta| ns a re| at| ve| y sma| l number oI
pat| ents ( 200 ) who have been t reated w| th A/ T.
The control | ed c| | n| cal study | s re| at| ve| y short
[ | . e. , 24 week s ) and was term| nated ear| y on the
ba s | s oI u n a n t | c | p at ed I avorab| e resu | t s | n a
manner that has never been adequate| y deI| ned
| n terms oI | t s | mpact on t he subsequent stat | st| ~
ca| ana| yses. [ Emphas| s added.
The unblin trial
Th e s t u dy was p| anned as a ' doub| e~b| | nd' tr| a| ,
wh| ch means that the drug was supposed to be | abe| | ed
and the study conducted |n such a way t hat ne| t her
doctors nor pat| ents knew whether A/T or a pl acebo
was be| ng adm| n| stered.
| n pract| ce, the A/ T t r| a| became unb| | nded rather
qu | ck | y. An |OA med| ca| oII| cer wr| tes: ' the Iact that
the t reatment groups unb| | nded themse| ves ear | y cou |d
have resu l ted | n b| as |n t he workup oI pat| ents ' .
6
The study became unbl | nded among t he pat| ents as a
resu|t oI d| IIerences | n taste between A/ T and the
p| acebo:
| n| t | a| | y t he p| acebo capsu | es, wh| ch were | nd| s~
t | n gu | s h abl e I rom t h e A / T cap s u | e s | n ap~
pear ance, were d| st | ngu| shab| e | n taste. Th| s
d| IIerence was corrected and t he p| acebo cap~
sul es rep| aced w| th new ones aIter earl y report s
5
L awrence Hauptman, |h . O. , ' Stat| st| ca| Rev| ew
a n d E va | u at | on ' , NOA
1
1 ~ 6 5 5 /O r u g C | a s s 1 A,
bur rough s~nel | come Company, A/ T Capsul es, p. 1 7 .
6
E | | en C. Coper , H. O. , H. |. H. , ' Hed| ca| OII| cer
Rev| ew oI NOA 1 ~65 5 ' , p. 70.
A/ T ON TR| AL
were rece| ved oI pat| ents break| ng t he capsu| es
and tast| ng the med| cat |on.
7
J T
Anyone who has spent t | me w| t h |nAs | s aware oI
the keen | nterest w| th wh| ch t hey compare t reatment s.
And anyone who has observed the gay grapev| ne | s | n
awe oI the speed w| th wh| ch | nIormat|on can t rave|
around t he wor| d. | can we| | be| | eve t hat I rom the
t | me the I| rst two pat| ents compared notes on how
the| r caps u| es tasted, |t was on| y a matter oI days
unt| | many or mst oI the pat| ents knew whether t hey
were gett| ng A/ T or a p| aceb.
Ot h e r pat | ent s d| scovered what med| cat |on t hey
were rece| v| ng by tak| ng the| r capsu| es to chem| st s Ior
ana| ys| s.
| n some | nstances pat| ents po| ed and shared t he| r
med| c at | on, t h u s en s u r | n g t h at a | | oI them cou | d
rece| ve at | east some A/ T. Other pat| ents, who Iound
out t he| r med| cat|on was on| y a p| acebo, took R| bav| r | n
that had been smugg| ed | n I rom Hex| co.
| rom t h e s t andpo| nt oI t h e doctor s, the study
u nb| |nded | t se| I t hrough the str| k| ng| y d| IIerent b| od
proI| | es oI t he two t reatment groups. [ See ' Tox| c| ty
be| ow. ) No attempt was made to b| | nd the b|od
resu| ts I rom any oI t he doctors |n the med| ca| centers
at wh| ch the tr| a| s were he| d. Accord| ng to an |OA
ana| yst .
The t reatment groups may have unb| | nded them~
se| ves to a | arge extent du r| ng the I | rst two
mnt hs due to drug~| nduced eryt h rocyte mac ro~
cytos| s.
8
There are very god reasons why b| | nd stud| es are
requ | red Ior the approva| oI a new druThe poten~
7
!b| d. p. 6.
8
| b| d.
P
70.
J2 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
t| al b| ases are so great , Ior bth pat| ent and doctor,
t h a t a d r u g~| den t | I | ed t r | al woul d be sc| ent| I| call y
u sel ess.
Hany pat| ent s entered the t r| al bel | ev| ng t hat death
wa s | mmanent w| t hout t h e | nt e rvent |on oI a new
wonder drug . |or these pat| ent s, the psycholog| cal
consequences oI I | nd| ng out t hat they were rece| v| ng
onl y a pl acebo must have been devastat| ng. A sense oI
despa| r and hopel essness may well have cont r| buted to
the h | gh mortal | ty |n the pl acebo group.
Ooctor s , and sc| ent | st s | n general , ar e oIten ex
tremel y gul l | bl e peopl e. | n the| r bok , betrayer s oI
the Trut h: | raud and Oece| t | n the Hal l s oI Sc| ence,
n| l l | am b road and N| chol as nade devote an ent | re
chapter to ' Sel I~Oecept| on and Gul l | b| l | ty . Sc| ent| st s
unconsc| ou sl y see what t hey want to see. E ven t he
most absu rdl y cr ude hoaxes, l |ke t he || l tdown man,
were bel |eved Ior many years by em| nent sc| ent| sts.
n| th h| gh expectat|ons engendered Ior A/T, | t | s not
u n reasonabl e to assume that unconsc|ous b| ases aI~
Iected not only how data were | nterpreted and recor~
ded, but al so how pat| ent s were t reated. The shock~
| ngl y h | g h deat h r at e among t h e pl acebo pat| ents
suggests t hat these pat| ents may not have been man~
aged well by the| r attend| ng phys| c| ans.
nh en ! spoke to | | schl and R| chman, they both
vehementl y den| ed t hat t he t r| al had become unbl | nded
beIore |t was term| nated. Th| s suggests that t hey had
l | ttl e cont rol over , or knowledge oI, what was happen~
| ng ~ or, t hat t hey were not tell | ng t he t rut h. As
| OA anal yst Coper stated, | t wa s Iact t hat t h e study
became unbl | nded earl y on. And s| nce the A/ T t r| al
wa s not bl | nded , t h e ent| re study was | nval | d and
worthl ess. On t h| s bas | s alone, |OA approval oI t he
drug was ne| ther proper nor l egal .
Slopiness, imrrieties, fals data
Th e A/T t r | al wa s c h a racter| zed t hroughout by
slopp| ness and l ack oI control . Record| ng Iorms were
A/ T ON T R| AL JJ
poor | y des | gned , | ead| ng to conIus|on when doctors
were asked to make ] udgments. |or examp| e, doctors
were asked to record 1 0 sub] ect| ve symptoms ' oIten
assoc| ated w| t h H| V | nIect| on' , and to dec| de whether
they were symptoms oI A| OS or adverse react| ons to
the drug t reatment. Understandab| y | t was hard to
d| IIerent| ate among ' ma| a| se, Iat| gue, and | et hargy , | et
a|one to dec| de whether these were cau sed by drug or
by d| sease. H|dway t hrough the tr| a| the ' sponsor
( bu r rough s~ne | | come ) su bs t | tuted a J J~| tem ' A| OS~
r e| at ed s | g n s and symptoms sheet , at wh| ch po| nt
conIus|on became utter chaos. Host oI the med| ca|
center s were unab| e to re| ate one Iorm to t he other,
or even to comprehend the J J~| tem Iorm, and so | n the
end the | ncomp| ete data on the 10~| tem Iorm served as
the pat| ent s' on| y base| | ne data.
nh en | OA ana| yst s r ev| ewed t h e C a se Report
|orms, numerou s | mpropr| et| es were observed.
Symptoms prev|ou s| y checked oII on the 1 0~|tem
sh eet were crossed out or otherw| se changed,
u s u a | | y w| t h out t h e p r | n c | pa | | n ve st | gator ' s
| n| t | a| s , and somet| mes w| t h a date oI change
much | ater t han the date the Iorm was or| g| na| | y
I | | | ed out , w| t hout exp| anat | on as t o why changes
were made.
' T ra n s c r | pt |on oI data I rom 1 0~| tem symptom
Iorm to the JJ~| tem Iorm was perIormed, some~
t| mes w| t hout date oI | n| t | a| s oI who d| d the
t ranscr| b| ng. Somet| mes the or| g| na| Iorm was
not subm| tted.
Adverse exper| ences were somet| mes crossed out
mont h s aI t er | n | t | a | | y r ecor ded, even though
' poss| b| y re| ated to test agent' had been checked
J 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: T HE A/ T STORY
oI I or| g| na| | y by the | nvest | gator or h | s des| g~
nee.

The | ast set oI | mpropr| et| es | s espec| a| | y ser| ous , as

| t appears t o be tendent| ou s , Iavor| ng A/ T by reduc| ng
the cases oI adverse react| ons to t he drug. | I done
de| | berate| y t h| s wou | d const| tute cheat| ng and Iraud,
th| ngs t hat peop| e superv| s| ng stud| es must constant| y
be v| g| | ant aga| nst . | I there can be cheat| ng | n | | tt| e
th| ngs, there can be cheat| ng | n b| g t h| ngs as we| | .
Hav| ng det a| | ed t hese var| ous | mpropr| et | es, t he |OA
ana| yst | nsouc| ant| y d| sm| s sed t he who| e mess w| t h a
sentence t hat caught me comp| ete| y oII guard.
nhatever the ' rea| ' data may be, c| ear| y pat| ents
| n t h| s study, bth on A/ T and p| acebo, reported
many d | s ea se sympt om/pos s | b| e adverse drug
exper| ences.
10
' nhatever the ' rea| ' data may be ' | | can' t get
over t h| s ph rase. | s t h| s an express|on oI bu reaucrat| c
cyn| c| sm, a sardon| c Iorm oI humor, or what Oo |OA
ana| yst s even care whether the| r data | s ' rea| ' or not
Ser |ou s prob| ems were uncovered at one oI t he 1 2
med| ca| center s. Accord| ng to an | OA ana| yst:
Th e | OA | n s pect or I ound mu | t| p| e dev| at| ons
I rom s t andard p rotoco| p rocedu r e, and s h e
recommended t h at dat a I rom t h | s centerb
exc| uded I rom the ana| ys | s oI t he mu| t| center
t r | a| . [ Emphas| s added. ]
I I

| b| d.
PP

7 7~78.
10
| b| d.
P
7 8 .
1 1
E | | en C. Coper, H. O. , ' Addendum
1
1 to Hed| ca|
OII| cer Rev| ew oI NOA 1 , 6 5 5 , p. 1 .
A/ T ON TR| AL J 5
The |OA | nspector' s report d| d not reach an ap~
propr| ate department unt| | | ate Oecember 1 8 6, th ree
mont h s aI t e r t h e t r | a | had been term| nated. The
dec| s |on was t hen made
to request | nspect| on oI a| | twe| ve centers wh| ch
part | c| pated | n t h| s tr | a| , due t o the | mportance
oI t h| s drug, | t s h| gh pub| | c v| s| b| | | ty, and be
cau se one oI the ear| y | nspect| ons had revea| ed
' s | gn | I | c an t dev | a t | on s ' I rom | OA regu| at| ons
regard| ng the proper conduct oI c| | n| ca| | nves~
t| gat| ons .
T 2
At t h | s po| nt | nspect| ng a| | 1 2 centers was | |ke
|ock| ng t he barn aIter the horse was sto| en. OI grave
concern | s t he Iact t hat one oI t he prob| ems noted | n
the de| | nquent center had t o do w| t h ' dr ug accoun~
t ab| | | t y' , p e rhaps t he most ser|ou s | mpropr| ety t hat
cou |d be | mag| ned. | I t here | s even the s| | ghtest doubt
that a| | A/ T pat| ent s' rea| | y were gett| ng A/ T, and
a| | ' p| acebo pat| ent s' rea| | y were gett| ng p| acebos, t hen
the study has Ia| | en apart at | t s very core.
| n add| t| on, there were numerou s cases oI ' protoco|
v| o| at | on s . nhen the study was des| gned, var|ous
cond| t | on s were deI | n ed a s con st | t u t | n g ' p rotoco|
v| o| at |ons ' , as a resu | t oI wh| ch a pat| ent ' s data wou | d
be exc| uded I rom the data base. Host oI the protoco|
v| o| at | on s concer ned the unauthor| zed u se oI other
drugs | n add| t|on to the t reatments adm| n| stered | n t he
study. These rest r| ct|ons were necessary | n order to
avo|d drug | nteract|ons, conIound| ng res u| t s , and so on.
At an |OA | n~house meet| ng convened to dec| de what
to do about the pat| ents | n whom protoco| v|o| at| ons
were noted, one |OA oII| cer commented t hat ' | I exc| u
s| on oI a | | pat | en t s w| t h p rotoco| v|o| at| ons were
1 2
!b| d. p. 1 .
J 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: T HE A/ T STORY
st r| ct| y app| | ed, qu | te a Iew pat| ent s wou | d probab| y be
de| eted I rom the database.
1 J
AIter agon| z| ng over the ' h| gh| y v| s| b| e, potent| a| | y
| nI| ammatory | s sue' oI whether t o exc| ude data I rom
the de| | nquent center or I rom pat| ents w| th protoco|
v|o| at|ons , |t was dec| ded to exc| ude noth| ng. |a| se
data were reta| ned. Garbage was th rown |n w| th the
god stuI I . Th| s was the rat| ona| | zat|on:
becau se the morta| | ty ana| yses were so strong| y
| n Iavor on the drug, any s| | ght b| ases t hat may
h ave been | n t rodu ced wh en m| nor ' p rotoco| '
v| o| at | on s occ u r red wer e h | g h | y u n | | k e | y t o
| nI| uence the outcome.
1 4
T h | s | s eg reg| ous| y bes|de the po| nt. | t | s | r~
r e| evant whether or not t hrow| ng |n bad data w| th
god data w| | | ' | nI | uence the outcome' . The po| nt | s
that you don' t do | t on pr| nc| p| e. | t | s an abso| ute
and | ron~c| ad pr| nc| p| e oI research t hat you don' t u se
bad data. No pr| nc| p| ed ana| yst wou | d ever proceed to
| nterpret data that he knew were contam| nated. One
may note that not a h | nt oI these prob| ems appears | n
the NE ) H reports by | | sch| and R| chman.
Mortality
The morta| | ty data t hat so dazz | ed the |OA that
t hey t er m| n ated the A/ T tr| a| premat ure| y and ac
cepted bad data are shown | n Tab| e 2. On| y 1 / oI the
1 4 5 A/T pat| ents , compared to 1 4/ oI the 1 J 7 p| acebo
pat| ent s d|ed dur| ng the cou rse oI the tr | a| . Stat| st|
ca| | y, th| s | s h| gh| y s| gn| I| cant ~ the probab| | | t| es are
better t han out oI 1 00 t hat the d| IIerence [1 / vs.
1 4/) | s rea| , as opposed to be| ng a product oI chance.
1 J
| b| d. p. 2.
1 4
!b| d. P J .
A/ T ON T R| AL
TAb L E 2
HORTAL | TY
OOUb L E~bL | NO, | L AC E bOONTROL L E O TR| AL
base: Tota| nho began Tr| a|
Cumu| at | ve Oeat hs Ou r| ng
Tr| a|
neeks OI Treatment ( Hean )
Treatment
A/ T | | acebo
( 1 4 5 ) ( 1 J 7 )
1 / 1 4/
( 1 7 . 6 ) (1 6 . )
J 7
S| gn| I| cant| y h | gher than A/ T at the / conI | dence
| eve| .
One mu st c aut| on, however , t hat these morta| | ty
data reI| ect a very short t| me per|od ~ on| y 1 7 weeks ,
on t he average. | t wou | d be I a| | ac|ou s to assume that
the death rate wou | d have cont| nued to be h| gher | n
the p| acebo group | I the t| me per|od were J0 week s, or
a year , or two years.
| n add| t|on, there are good reasons to be skept| ca|
oI the morta| | ty data. |or one th| ng, the death rate
| n the p| acebo group | s shock| ng| y h| gh. Accord| ng to
doctor s |n New Yor k w| th extens| ve exper| ence |n
treat| ng A| OS pat| ent s , w| th good pat| ent management ,
nowhere near t h | s many pat| ent s ought to have d| ed | n
such a short t| me.
| n add| t|on, the death rate | n the A/ T group | s
su sp| c|ous | y |ow when compared w| th other tr| a| s oI
A / T . AI t er t h e ' doub| e~b| | nd, p | acebo~contro| | ed'
study was term| nated, a| | pat| ents were | nIormed wh| ch
treatment they had been rece| v| ng, and were oIIered
the opt|on oI rece| v| ng A/T. ( See Tab| e J ) A tota| oI
227 pat | ent s accepted the oIIer , and cont| nued or
J 8 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
began t o rece| ve A/T (1 2 7 who were or| g| na| | y t reated
w| th A/ T and 1 00 who were or| g| na| | y t reated w| th
p | acebo) . A / T no | onger prevented pat| ents I rom
dy| ng. | n the 21 weeks oI the 'open~| abe| ' t r| a| , 1 0/
oI the pat| ent s d| ed. Cu r |ous| y, not on| y death s but
a| so opportun| st| c | nIect|ons | ncreased | n the or| g| na|
A/ T group as son as t he I | rst study was term| nated.
There | s no good exp| anat|on why t h | s shou | d be so.
TAb L E J
HORTAL | TY
O|E N~L Ab E L TR| AL |OL L On| NG T E RH| NAT| ON
O| OOUbL E ~b L | NO, | L AC E bO~CONTROL L EO TR| AL
( 1 8 September 1 8 6 ~ 1 J |ebruary 1 8 7 )
base: Tota| |art| c| pat| ng
Cumu | at| ve Oeat hs Ou r| ng
Open~L abe| Tr| a| (21
neek s OI Treatment )
Tota|
|at| ents
(2 27 )
1 0/
T reatment
A/ T || acebo
( 1 27 ) ( 1 00 )
8 / 1 2/
Anot h e r t r | a | oI Al T occ u r red pr| or to t he
'doub| e~b| | nd, p| acebo~cont ro| | ed' t r| a| . ( See Tab| e 4 )
Th| s was a ' |hase | ' tr | a| , | ntended to g| ve a pre| | m| ~
nary est| mate oI the drug' s tox| c| t| es. | n t he |hase |
tr| a| , 1 2/ d| ed du r| ng a t| me per |od oI on| y 6 weeks .
The Iour pat| ents who d| ed were rep| aced, and a| | JJ
pat| ents cont| nued to take A/ T | n an ' extended tr| a| ' ,
dur| ng wh| ch an add| t| ona| 21 / d| ed. | t | s unc| ear
I rom the |OA mater| a| exact| y how |ong t he extended
tr| a| | asted ~ but at any rate a cumu| at| ve tota| oI
A/ T ON TR| AL J
one~t h| rd (JJ/) oI t he pat| ent s d| ed, e| ther | n the
phase | or | n the extended tr| al .
b u r rough s~nel l come prov|ded data to t he |OA on
deat h s wh | c h occ u r red among p at | ents who began
tak| ng A/ T Iol l ow| ng rel ease oI t he drug. The | nIor~
mat|on was |n | ncred| bl y garbl ed Iorm, but | was abl e
to ascerta| n at l east the death s that occurred dur| ng
the I| rst 8 weeks oI t reatment. Ou r| ng t h| s short t | me
per|od 6/ oI t he pat| ents d| ed.
TAb L E 4
HORTAL | TY
|HAS E | TR| AL O| A/ T
( No |l acebo Control )
base. Total Rece| v| ng A/ T (J J )
Oeat hs Ou r| ng 6~neek Tr| al 1 2/
Oeath s Ou r| ng E xtended Tr| al 21 /
Cumul at | ve Oeat hs J J /
Tabl e 5 shows a compar | son oI t hese Iou r stud| es oI
A| OS or advanced ARC pat| ents who were t reated w| th
A/T. | t can read| l y be seen t hat the death rate | n t he
doubl e~bl | nd, pl acebo~control l ed' tr | al ( the I| rst col
umn) |s s| gn| I| cant l y lower t han | n any oI t he other
stud| es , espec| al l y cons| der| ng that the t r| al s | n col ~
u mn s th ree and Iou r represented much shorter t| me
per|ods. | n other words , the mortal | ty data I rom the
' doubl e~bl | nd, p l acebo~con t rol l ed ' t r | a l are a l mos t
40 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
certa| n| y wrong, based on compar | sons w| th morta| | ty
data I rom other A/ T t r| a| s.
| n add| t|on, skept| c| sm | s war ranted by v| rtue oI the
stakes | nvo| ved, hundreds oI m| | | |ons oI do| | ar s. The
mater| a| s re| eased by t he |OA show that both t he |OA
and bu r rou gh s~ne| | come were qu | te w| | | | ng t o bend
ru| es | I do| ng so wou | d Iac| | | tate approva| Ior A/ T.
The | OA d| d not come to t h e A/ T t r | a| s w| th c| ean
hands. | n Iact , the |OA has a |ong h | story oI co| ~
| us|on w| th | ndust ry. A number oI examp| es can be
Iound | n the bok , How to Get R|d oI t he |o| sons | n
Your body, by Gary Nu| | and Steven Nu| | .
Anot h e r examp| e where t he |OA catered to the
needs oI b| g bus| ness can be Iound | n a crude propa~
ganda p| ece, Eva| uat|on oI Hea| th Aspects oI Sugars
Conta| ned | n Carbohydrate Sweeteners' , recent| y c| rcu
| at ed by t h e s u ga r | ndus t ry, and prepared by the
O| v| s|on oI Nut r| t|on and Tox|co| ogy, Center Ior |od
SaIety and App| | ed Nut r| t|on, |od and Orug Adm| n| ~
st rat| on. Th| s report , wh| ch str| ves to exonerate sugar
I rom any connect|on w| th obes| ty, d| abetes, hyperten~
s|on, toth decay, etc. , u ses pseudo~sc| ent| I| c | anguage
and tab| es, but |s consp| cuou s| y short on reIerences.
One | mag| n es t hat the aut hors oI t he report were
mt| vated by someth | ng other t han sc| ent| I| c | dea| s.
One more examp| e oI t he | OA' s t a| nted past: |or
more than a decade, the |OA has reIu sed to recogn| ze
the Iact t hat poppers are drugs, and to regu| ate them
as such , c| a| m| ng that poppers are rom odor| zer s ' ,
s| nce they are | abe| | ed as such. The |OA has t rad| ~
t | ona| | y been concer ned w| t h | abe| | | ng, and wou | d
certa| n| y take act|on | I snake o| | were | abe| | ed as an
A| OS remedy' , or | I coca| ne were | abe| | ed as a ' nasa|
decongestant ' . nh y shou | d t hey accept the cyn| ca| | y
r| d| cu |ou s c| a| m that poppers are rom odor| zers'
T 5
T 5
) ohn L aur| tsen and Hank n| | son, OEATH RUSH:
|oppers & A| OS , |agan |ress 1 8 6.
TAb L E 5
HORTAL | TY COH|AR| SONS
( |ou r Stud| es O! A| OS/ARC | at |ent s Treated W| t h A/ T)
Ooub| e~b| | nd E xtended
|| acebo~ Open~ Open
Control | ed L abe| |hase | Harket
Tr| a| Tr| al Tr| a| Tr| al
-
bases: Tot al |at| ents
|art| c| pat| ng | n
E ach Tr| al [1 45 ) [227 ) [J J ) [ 25 52)
Oeat hs Our| ng Tr| al 1 / 1 0/ 1 2/ 6/
S| gn| !| cant | y h | gher than the Ooub| e~bl | nd, || acebo~Cont ro| | ed Study at
the / Con!| dence L eve| or more.
S| gn| !| cant| y h | gher than the Ooubl e~bl | nd, || acebontrol | ed Study at
the 5 / Con!| dence L eve| .
)
N
-
0
z
-
;
)
r
.
..
42 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T!ON. THE A/ T STORY
am al so d| st ru stIu l oI the morta| | ty data because
oI the Iact that probl ems w| th ' drug accountab| | | ty'
wer e among t hos e Iound at the del | nquent med| ca|
center. Suppose t hat some oI the p| acebo deat hs were
real l y A/ T pat| ents who had been post humou s| y reas~
s| gnedl There are a number oI ways t hat t h| s cou | d
have been done. As a check | t wou l d be des| rabl e to
have some way oI ver| Iy| ng t hat the p| acebo pat| ents
who d| ed rea| l y had been pl acebo pat| ent s. UnIor~
tunatel y, t he cau ses oI death were | | sted | n perIunc~
tory and even | ncorrect ways [ ' A| OS ' , ' pneumon| a [ u n
spec| I| ed] ' , ' su spected Tb or CHV' or ' su spected HAl
or CHV' ) . S| nce death was not an endpo| nt oI t he
study, many oI the causes oI death were not ver| I| ed.
No autops| es were perIormed. These m| ght have
y| e| ded u se I u l | n Iormat| on, and wou | d have ver| I| ed
whether or not there were t races oI A/ T or other
dr ugs | n t he bod| es oI t he ' p| acebo' pat| ents.
| ro ect !nI or m requ est ed cop| es oI the med| cal
records oI t he pat| ents who d| ed. | t wou | d have been
pos s | b| e to det erm| ne I rom t hese, w| t h cons| derab| e
accuracy, whether or not the pat| ent had been t reated
w| th A/ T. The |OA reIu sed to rel ease the med| cal
records, cl a| m| ng that they were ' conI| dent| al ' . | t | s
hard to see wh y the records wou l d have been ' conI| ~
dent| a| ' | I t he |OA had wh| ted out t he names oI the
pat| ents . And the |OA knows wel | enough how to
wh| te out t h| ngs. nhat exactl y | s t he |OA aIra| d oI l
The | nadequate descr| pt |ons oI causes oI death , t he
| ack oI ver | I| cat |on oI death cau ses, t he l ack oI autop~
s| es , the reIu sa| to re| ease med| ca| records ~ these
t h| ngs are even more su sp| c|ou s | n | | ght oI t he str| n~
gent procedu res t hat the |OA | a| d down Ior t r| a| s oI
other drugs. | n a recent t r| a| oI R| bav| r | n, autops| es
wer e ob| | gatory, and a Oeath Report Iorm oI more t han
J0 | tems had to be I|| | ed out Ior each pat| ent who
d| ed.
A/ T ON TR!AL 4 J
Efficacy
The mrta| | ty data are even more su spect | n | | ght
oI t he Iact that the doub| e~b| | nd, p| aceb~contro| | ed
tr| a| Ia| | ed to demnst rate t hat A/ T had any beneI| t s ,
re| at | ve to t he p| acebo group. S| | ght | ncreases | n t he
T~4 ce| | counts | n the A/T group d| d not per s| st over
t| me. There |s no known mechan| sm by wh| ch A/ T
cou |d produce beneI| ts suII| c| ent to account Ior t he
dramat| c d| IIerences | n morta| | ty.
A/T wa s Iou nd to have no s| gn| I| cant ant | v| ra|
act| v| ty aga| nst a var| ety oI other human and an| ma|
v| r uses, | nc| ud| ng herpes s| mp| ex v| r us type 1 cyto~
mega|ov| r us , adenov| r us type 5 , meas| es v| r us , r h| no~
v| rus 1 J , bov| ne rotav| r us , and ye| |ow Iever v| r us. | t
has been shown to | nh| b| t t he rep| | cat|on oI Epste| n
barr v| r us [ E bV) though the c| | n| ca| s| gn| I| cance oI
t h| s I | nd| ng | s unknown.
1 6
A| though A/ T [Ret rov| r ) | s oII | c| a| | y deI| ned as a
drug Ior symptomat| c H| V | nIect| on , | t was no more
eIIect| ve aga| nst H| V than the p| acebo was. Severa|
measures oI v| ra| act | v| ty were used, and no stat| st | ~
ca| | y s | g n | I | cant changes | n the percent oI pos| t| ve
cu | tu res or t| me to detect |on oI v| r us | n cu| t ure were
observed.
1 7
AIter rev| ew| ng the Ia| | ure oI A/ T to prove eII| ca~
c| ous | n any known way, an |OA ana| yst conc| uded
t hat A/ T t reatment | s | |ke| y to be worse than t he
d| sease | n the |ong r un:
OI part | cu| ar concern | s the poss| b| | | ty that the
hemato|og| c tox| c| ty oI t he drug when adm| n| s~
t ered over a p ro| onged pe r | od oI t | me may
eventua| | y deb| | | tate pat| ents to such an extent
that t hey may become | ess ab| e to res | st oppor~
t u n | st | c | n Iect | ons and other comp| | cat|ons oI
1 6
Coper , Hed| ca| OII| cer Rev| ew ', p. 1 ? 8.
1 7
| b| d. P J 4 .
44 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
H | V~d| seas e [ s| c] than | I they had been | eIt
unt reated.
1 8
Toxicity
| n summar| z| ng adverse react| ons to the drug, the
|OA med| ca| oII| cer states, ' The maor| ty oI pat| ents
who were r andom| zed to rece| ve A/ T | n t h| s tr | a|
exper| enced s| gn| I| cant tox| c| ty.
1
Th| s | s, | I any~
t h | n g , an understatement , espec| a| | y cons| der| ng t hat
many A/ T pat| ents were treated w| th the drug Ior on| y
a Iew weeks . | I a| | A/ T pat| ents had been treated Ior
?4 week s , as or| g| na| | y p| anned, the percentages ex~
per | enc | n g va r|ou s tox| c| t| es wou| d undoubted| y have
been even h| gher.
Hac roc ytos | s ( en| arged red b|od ce| | s , assoc| ated
w| th pern| c|ou s anem| a) occur red |n 6 / oI t he A/ T
pat| ents , but | n none oI the p| aceb pat| ent s. Th | s
measu re, wh| ch c| ear| y d| st| ngu| shed A/ T I rom p| acebo
pat | ent s | n over two~t h| rds oI the cases, p| ayed a
maor ro|e |n the unb| | nd| ng oI the study among the
doctors.
| n add| t|on to the ' doub| e~b| | nd, p| acebo~contro| | ed'
tr| a| , many exper| ment s were perIormed, wh| ch I urther
demon st r ated t h e h | gh tox| c| ty oI the drug. The
resu | ts oI the Ce| | TransIormat| on Assay suggested:
A/ T may be a potent| a| carc| nogen. | t appears
to be at | east as act| ve as the pos| t| ve cont ro|
mater| a| , methy| cho| anthrene.
?0
1 8
| b| d. p. 1 J 1 .
1
| b| d. p. J .
? 0
Harvey | . Chernov, |h. O. , ' Rev| ew & E va| uat|on
OI |harmaco|ogy & Tox|co|ogy Oata , P 4.
A/ T ON TR| AL
TAbL E 6
bLOOO TOX | C| TY
[ Ooub| e~b| | nd, | | acebo~Cont ro| | ed Study)
Treatment
4 5
A/ T || acebo
base: Tota| nho began Tr| a| [ 1 4 5 ) [ T J 7 )
E X | E R| E NCE O OUR| NG TR| AL .
ANE H| A
Hoderate [ Hb < 7 . 5 )
Severe [ Hb < J . 5 )
Hemog|ob|n decreases > ?g.
TRANS| US| ONS
Had at | east one t ransIu s|on
Had mu| t| p| e t ransIus|ons
HARROn SU| | RE S S| ON
Grade J marrow suppress|on
[ Hb < 7 . 5 g. /dec| | | ter, neut ro~
? 5 /
"
4/
1 J /
"
? /
J 8 /
"
? /
J 1 /"
T 0/
? 1 /"
4/
ph| | e < 7 5 0 , or wh| te ce| | s <T 5 00) 4 5 /"
1 ? /
HAC ROCYTOS | S [ ASSOC| ATE O n| TH
| E RN| C| OUS ANE H| A)
Hean corpuscu| ar vo| ume < 1 00m' 6/"
Hean corpuscu| ar vo| ume <T 1 0i m' 4 T /"
L EUKO| E N| A [ wh | te b|ood count
<1 5 0 0 )
NEUTRO| E N| A [ neutroph| | e counts
<7 5 0 )
? 7 /"
T 6/
"
7 /
? /
"
S| gn| I| cant| y h | gher t han || acebo at t h e / Con~
I| dence Level or more.
4 6
|O| SON b Y |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
T he |OA anal yst who rev| ewed the pharmacol ogy
d at a , Ha r vey | . Chernov, succ| nctl y summar| zed the
eIIect oI A/T on the bl od:
T h u s , a l t h ough t h e dose var| ed, anem|a was
noted | n al l spec| es [ | ncl ud| ng man ) | n wh| ch the
dr ug has been tested.
? T
Chernov concl uded h | s rev| ew oI t he pharmacology
da t a by recommend| ng t hat A/ T shou l d not be ap~
p roved.
| n con c l u s | on, the Iu l l precl | n| cal tox| col og| cal
proI | l e | I Iar I rom compl ete w| th 6~month data
ava| l abl e, but not yet subm| tted, one~year stud| es
to beg| n short l y, etc. The ava| l abl e data are
| n suI I | c| ent to support NOA approval .
? ?
Ethical issues
There | s no doubt that A/ T | s a h| ghl y tox| c drug,
t h at | t w| l l be harmIul t o pat| ent s, many oI whom are
al ready severel y deb| l | tated. On the other hand, there
| s no s c| en t | I | c a l l y cred| bl e ev| dence t hat A/ T has
beneI | t s oI any k| nd. The ' doubl e~bl | nd, pl acebo~con~
t rol l ed' tr | al oI A/ T | s unworthy oI credence. Assu r~
ances I rom representat| ves oI the pharmaceut | cal | ndus~
try or the |ubl |c Heal t h Serv| ce, that A/ T represent s
t he ' best hope' , ar e al so unworthy oI credence.
| subm| t that | t | s mal pract| ce Ior phys| c| ans to
p r es c r | be A / T , a po| son wh| ch can onl y harm the
pat| ent .
| subm| t t hat | t was uneth| cal Ior A/ T to be ap~
proved on the bas | s oI research wh| ch was, to put | t
a s generou sl y as pos s| bl e, | nval | d.
? T
| b| d. p. 7 .
? ?
| b| d. p. 8
A/ T ON TR| AL 47
The nat| on' s b| od supp| y be|ongs to a| | o! us . | !
A/T cont | n u e s t o be adm| n| stered to thousands o!
pat| ents ~ apparent| y t here are a| most 1 0, 000 pat| ents
on A/ T, at | ast count ~ th| s w| | | mean an | nto| erab| e
d ra| n on the b| ood supp| y, w| th many A/ T pat| ents
requ| r| ng t rans!us |ons as o!ten as every other week.
|t | s one th| ng when someone becomes ser|ous| y | | | or
has an acc| dent or ma] or operat| on. Such a person has
every r| ght to rece| ve b| od. but A/ T | s now creat| ng
ent | re| y another category o! pat| ent ~ those whose
bone mar row becomes | r r eve r s | b| y damaged, whose
cont | n u ed ex | s t ence | s !or ever dependent upon the
b|od o! other s. A category o! | atrogen| c vamp| res.
And t h| s | s gratu| tou s , the resu| t o! a drug that shou| d
never have been adm| n| stered | n the !| rst p| ace. | n
th| s sense A/ T harms a| | o! us , not ] ust the pat| ents
who are be| ng po| soned by | t.
1
4 8 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON. T HE A/ T STORY
I l l . The Epidiolo of Fear
| syc hol og| cal warIare | s be| ng waged aga| nst gay
men | n the Un| ted States. |or the past month or so
the med| a have been d| s sem| nat| ng host | l e propaganda,
w| t h the mes sage t hat we w| | | a| l d| e, t hat we mu st
d| e. These death t hreat s do not | ssue I rom the u sual
b| got s ~ not I rom Roman Cathol | c ag| tator s, or meno~
pau sal beauty queens , or Iundamental | st TV hustl er s, or
quack psych | at r | s t s , or Has| d| c zeal ot s. ne are not
be| ng drummed to death by voodoo w| tch doctors , or
anat h emat | z ed by p r u r | ent p r | est s. ne are be| ng
cur sed | n the name oI sc| ence, and the | mprecat|ons
d| rected aga| nst u s have t he | mpr| mat ur oI t he |ubl | c
Hea| th Serv| ce [ |HS ) . The prognos| s oI dom | s eman~
at| ng Irom t hat pecul | ar Iorm oI med| ca| su rvey re~
search known as ' ep| dem|ology' .
HI V Antibies = Death?
H|chael Specter , wr| t| ng |n t he nash| ngton |ost ,
was one oI t he I| rst to propound t he death message:
The A| OS v| r us w| | l al most certa| n| y k | l | every~
one | t | nIect s unl ess eIIect| ve drugs are developed
to treat | t , Iedera| researchers have pred| cted Ior
the I| rst t | me
AI t er st udy| ng a group oI gay men I rom San
| ranc| sco Ior the past decade, however, researcher s
have produced a stat | st | ca| model t hat pred| cts
per cent oI those | nIected w| l | eventua| l y develop
acq u | red | mmune deI| c| ency syndrome ' | I t hey do
not d|e I rom ot her cau ses. '
becau se no one has ever been cu red oI Al OS , a
percent Al OS rate means t hat v| r tual | y al | wou l d
d| e unl ess a treatment | s deve|oped.
1
T
H | c h ael Specter, ' A| OS V| r us L | kel y |atal To
Al | | nIected' , The nash | ngton |ost , J ) une T 88.
THE E || OE H| OLOGY O| | EAR 4
These gr | m statements are a| | eged| y based on ep| ~
dem|o|og| ca| research conducted | n San | ranc| sco, as
d| scus sed | n a report t hat appears | n the J ) une T 8 8
| s sue oI Sc| ence, ' A Hode| ~based E st | mate oI the Hean
| ncubat|on |er|od Ior A| OS |n Homosexua| Hen' .
?
The
authors are Kung~)ong L u | , a mathemat | c| an w| th the
Center s Ior O| sease Contro| [ COC) , n| | | | am n. Oar row,
oI the COC ' s A| OS program, and George n. RutherIord,
| | | , oI t he A| OS OII| ce | n the San | ranc| sco Oepart~
ment oI |ub| | c Hea| t h.
The head| | ne on the second page oI Specter' s art| c| e
| s even more emphat | c, ' A| OS | nIect|on | rov| ng |ata|
| n A| | Cases ' . AIter | naccu rate| y desc r| b| ng the San
| r anc| sco st u dy, and repeat| ng the | atest doomsday
est | mates I rom the |HS ( J 00, 000 A| OS cases |n t he
U. S. by t he end oI 1 ? ) , Specter | ays out t he ram| I| ~
cat |ons oI t he ' I| nd| ng' t hat everyone w| th H| V an~
t| bod| es w| | | deve|op A| OS.
| u b| | c h ea| t h serv| ce oII| c| a| s hope the new
study w| | | encou rage those at h| ghest r| sk to be
tested so that t hey w| | | seek med| ca| attent|on | I
needed
Hany phys| c| ans are prescr | b| ng A/ T Ior t he| r
pat| ent s who are | nIected but have not deve|oped
A| OS , a| though t he drug has not yet been proven
eIIect| ve Ior those pat| ent s . |ub| | c hea| th oII| c| a| s
s ay t h at t h| s st udy | s | |ke| y to encou rage other
doctor s t o prescr | be | t t o pat| ents | nIected w| t h
H| V.
Now, | et ' s step back Ior a moment and observe
wh at ' s happen| ng here. | | rst , a number oI cr uc| a|
?
Kung~)ong L u | , n| | | | am n. Oarrow, and George
n. R u t h er Iord, | | | , 'A Hode| ~based E st | mate oI t he
Hean I ncubat|on |er|od Ior A| OS | n Homosexua| Hen' ,
Sc| ence, J ) une 1 8 8 .
5 0 |O| SON b Y |RE SC R| | T| ON. THE A / T STORY
semant| c d| st| nct| ons ar e be| ng ob| | terated. ' A| OS ' , a
cond| t|on or d| sease that | s sa| d to be | nvar| abl y Iatal ,
| s now be| n g con I l at ed w| t h ' H| V | nIect|on' , | . e. ,
hav| ng ant| bod| es t o a ret rov| ru s t hat has not yet been
shown to be harmIu l .
[ Readers oI t h e Nat | ve are aware t hat |eter Oues~
berg, a mol ecu| ar b| ol og| st at berke| ey, has prov|ded a
powerIu | , and so Iar unanswered, cr| t| que oI t he hypo~
thes| s that H| V | s the cau se oI A| OS.
J
)
The concept oI A| OS | s expand| ng to encompass not
onl y A| OS~Rel ated Compl ex [ ARC ) , but a| so so~cal | ed
' H| V | nIect|on' , and even member sh| p | n a ' h| gh r | sk
group' . To be a gay man | s becom| ng more and more
equ| val ent to be| ng a person w| t h A| OS [ |nA) .
Second, A/ T | s be| ng promoted a s the appropr| ate
t r eat ment Ior ' H | V | n I ect | on ' . |ersons who test
pos| t | ve Ior H| V ant| bod| es w| l l now I | nd themsel ves
between the Scy| l a oI A| OS and the Charybd| s oI A/ T
po| son| ng, w| t h t h e long~term prognos| s oI t h e | atter
be| ng worse t han t hat oI the Iormer. Th| s amounts to
a r e| nstatement oI the anc| ent ) udeO~Ch r | st| an death
penal ty Ior sodomy. Lovers oI other men mu st d| e.
Specter was not a|one | n putt| ng Iorth t h| s | nter~
pretat |on oI the San | ranc| sco study. On J ) une 1 8 8 ,
|aul Reger , a sc| ence wr| ter Ior the As soc| ated | ress,
wrote: A| OS eventua| l y w| l | k | l l percent oI t he
peopl e | nIected w| t h the v| ru s , accord| ng t o a new
st udy that says |t takes an average oI 7 . 8 years Ior
the d| sease | tsel I to show up.
4
And a New York
J
|or Ouesberg' s | deas , see. |eter H. Ouesberg,
' Hu man | mmu nodeI | c | ency V | r u s and Acqu | r ed | m~
mu nodeI | c| ency syndrome: Correl at| on but not Cau sa~
t| on ' , |roceed| ngs oI t he Nat |onal Academy oI Sc| en~
ces , |ebruary 1 8 .
4
|aul Reger, ' A| OS | rognos| s ' , As soc| ated |ress
d| spatch, J ) une 1 8 8.
THE E | | OE H| OLOGY O| | E AR 5 T
T | me s a r t | c l e by bruce L ambert , ' New York Cal l ed
Unprepared on A| OS [ T 4 ) ul y T 8 8 )
5
, conta| ned a
header , Al most al l carr| ers oI t he v| r us are expected
to become | l l ' , and quoted Or. ) ames 0. Hason, d| rec~
tor oI t he COC, as say| ng, ' ne have to assume t hat
everyone | nIected w| l l u l t| matel y become symptomat| c.
New York C| ty Heal th Comm| ss| oner , Or. Stephen C.
)oseph , was quoted a s say| ng:
| don' t know anybdy | n the I| el d who does not
agree that eventual l y the overwhel m| ng percentage
oI | nIected peopl e w| l l have ser| ou s |I not severe
symptomology, | n the h| gh 8 0 ' s6 0 ' s a s cl ose to
un| versal as you get |n med| c| ne.
beI or e an al yz | ng the San | ranc| sco study, wh | ch
does not s u ppor t the statements made by Specter,
Reger, L ambert, Hason, and )oseph , a bas| c po| nt needs
to be emphas| zed. Al though there | s unden| abl y a
cor r el at |on between H| V ant| bd| es and the develop~
ment oI A| OS , the correl at |on | s Iar I rom perIect , and
| t |s onl y a hypothes| s t hat t he rel at| onsh| p | s cau sal .
Ouesberg has persuas| vel y argued that, even | n pat| ents
who are dy| ng I rom A| OS , H| V rema| ns b|ochem| cal l y
| nact| ve, or l atent, and t hat a v| r us, l |ke anyt h| ng el se,
has to do someth| ng to get somet h| ng done. | t has
yet to be proven, | n even a s| ngl e case, t hat H| V has
pl ayed a rol e | n cau s| ng A| OS.
The Sa Frais Stud
The Sc| ence art| cl e, ' A Hodel ~based E st | mate oI t he
Hean | ncubat| on |er|od Ior A| OS | n Homosexual Hen' ,
h a s t h e t yp | c a l shortcom| ngs oI report s wr| tten by
publ | c heal th oII| c| al s. | n part| cu l ar , t he report con~
5
bruce L ambert , ' New York Cal l ed Unprepared on
A| OS ' , New York T| mes , T 4 ) u l y T 8.
5 ? |O| SON b Y | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A / T STORY
ta| ns an | nadequate descr| pt |on oI methodology, wh| ch
does not even appear | n one pl ace, part oI t he method~
ology appear s on t he I | rst page, and t hen more meth~
odol ogy appears, | ncongruou sl y, on t he second page.
So Iar as | can tel l , t h| s | s what was done:
A number oI ep| dem|olog| cal st ud| es h ave ut | l | zed a
cohor t oI 670 homosexual and b| sexual men who
enrol l ed at San | ranc| sco C| ty Cl | n| c between 1 78 and
1 80 , | n order to part | c| pate |n var|ou s stud| es oI
hepat | t | s b. | nvest| gators L u | , Oar row and RutherIord
obta| ned a subsampl e oI 84 oI these men, Ior whom the
approx| mate date oI seroconvers|on cou l d be est| mated
~~ t h at | s to s ay, men who had a pos| t| ve H| V~1
ant | body test w| t h| n 1 ? month s oI a negat | ve ant| body
test . The authors oIIer the Iol l ow| ng descr| pt| on: ' The
84 men | ncl ude 8J men who were sel ected at random or
retu rned Ior hepat | t | s b vacc| ne Iol l ow~up, cou l d be
located and gave wr| tten consent Ior the| r stored sera
to be tested Ior H| V~1 ant| body, and one man who d| ed
I rom A| OS |n 1 8 ? .
| n t h e t | me per | od | nvol ved, I rom 1 7 8 to t he
present , ?1 oI the men [ ? 5 / oI the total ) developed
A| OS. On the average, Ior these ? 1 men , t he t| me
between se roconver s | on and a d| agnos | s oI A | O S
[ al l egedl y the ' | ncubat|on per| od' ) was 4 . 8 year s.
U s | n g t h e s e d a t a , L u | d e vel oped an a rcane
mat h emat| cal model , whose pro]ect |ons were | ntended
to est| mate two t h| ngs. 1 ) the proport| on oI t he total
sampl e oI ' | nIected' men who wou l d eventual l y develop
A| OS , and ? ) the ' mean | ncubat|on per|od' Ior those
who wou l d devel op A| OS. He est| mated the l atter at
7. 8 year s. n| th regard to the Iormer, the Iol l ow| ng
concl u s|on was reached.
Fr the Rer in Sciece:
L et p be the proport| on oI | nIected | n~
d | v | d u a l s who w| l l even t u al l y devel op
A| OS. . . . The max| mum l | kel | hod est| mate
THE E || OE H| OLOGY O| | EAR
oI p | s 0. w| t h a 0 / conI| dence | nterval
[ 0. J 8, 1 . 00)
5 J
ConI r onted w| th t h| s statement , Specter , who | s
obv| ou s | y u nIam| | | ar w| t h stat| st| cal l anguage, s| mpl y
l a t c h ed on to the ' max| mum l |ke| | hod est | mate' oI
/, and | gnored what Iol l owed. And yet the state~
ment , ' w| t h a 0/ conI| dence | nterval [0 . J 8 , 1 . 00) | s
c r u c | a l . T r a n s | at ed | n t o p | a | n Eng| | s h, the above
statement reads as Iol | ows:
Translati:
L et ' p' be the proport| on oI | nd| v| dual s
w| t h H| V ant | bod| es, who w| | | eventua| l y
deve|op A| OS. . . . n| th about 0/ certa| nty,
p | | es somewhere between J 8 /and 1 00/.
Note t he d| IIerence. n| th onl y a 0/ conI| dence
| nterval , t he est| mate oI ' p' has a 6? percentage po| nt
spread, a| | the way I rom J 8/ to 1 00/. Stat | st| cal | y,
th| s means t hat the est| mate | s w| | d| y unstab| e. | n
I act , | I someone asked me to anal yze data w| th a
conI | dence | nterva| anywhere near t h| s l arge, | ' d s| mpl y
te| | h| m to go away, and to come back when he had
dat a wor t h | ook | n g at . Norma| | y | n research one
preIers at l east a 5 / conI| dence | evel , |n wh| ch case,
accord| ng to L u | , ' p' wou | d be somewhere between ? 7 /
and T0 0 /| At any rate, t hese stat | st| cs are a Iar cry
I rom H| chae| Specter' s statement, ' The A| OS v| r us w| l l
a| most certa| nl y k| l | everyone | t | nIect s.
To make s u r e t h a t | h ad | nt er p r eted the key
statement co

rrect l y, | ca| | ed bth Kung~)ong L u | and

n| | | | am Oarrow, and to my near amazement, they both
agreed w| t h me on a| most everyt h | ng. L u| sa|d t hat
my reword| ng oI the concl us|on regard| ng ' p' was cor~
rect , and t hat the statements made | n t he press had
been | naccu rate and m| s| ead| ng. He sa| d that Specter' s
statement s , wh| ch | read to h| m, were wrong, and t hat
| I Specter had ca| l ed h| m, he wou l d have to| d h| m so.
5 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
Oar row al so agreed that med| a coverage oI t he| r art| c| e
had been Iar I rom sat| sIactory, and that ex| st| ng data
were not adequate to est| mate, w| th any degree oI
prec| s |on, t he proport|on oI al | peopl e w| t h H| V an~
t | bod| es who wou | d event ua| l y deve|op A| OS.
A Rerestative Samle?
Even the gross| y unstabl e est| mate oI ' p' [J8/ to
T 00/, w| t h 0/ certa| nty) appl | es onl y to the samp| e
st u d| ed: 84 homose x u a | /b | se xua| men, non~randoml y
sel ected I rom the San | ranc| sco C| ty Cl | n| c Study. | t
wou l d be wrong to assume t hat t h| s sampl e was at al l
representat| ve oI t he tota| un| verse oI peopl e w| t h H| V
ant| bod| es. Th| s | s one oI the most bas| c quest|ons | n
su rvey research : How representat| ve | s a samp| e oI a
part| cul ar un| verse or popu | at|on l To what extent | s
one ] ust | I| ed | n pro]ect| ng I| nd| ngs I rom the sampl e to
the target un| versel
H| chae| Specter, | n h | s art| c| e oI J ) une T 8 8 says
t hat ' The researcher s randoml y se| ected 8 4 oI the men
Ior Iol low~up stud| es Th| s | s s| mpl y not t rue. [ | n
res ear ch s amp| | ng, ' random se| ect|on' has a prec| se
mean| ng: namel y, t hat every | nd| v| dual | n the popu l a~
t|on be| ng samp| ed has an equal and a known proba~
b| l | ty oI be| ng sel ected. ) | n Iact, the | nvest| gators
randoml y sel ected 5 T 5 H| V~T seropos| t| ve men I rom the
tota| cohort oI 670, but were onl y ab| e to determ| ne
the year oI seroconvers|on Ior 84 [ oI whom one had
been dead Ior 6 years ) . They sett| ed Ior what they
cou l d get . ThereIore, the 84 men may not even be
rep r esent a t | ve oI a l l seropos| t | ve men |n t he tota|
cohort.
Norma| | y report s on su rvey research conta| n a de~
scr| pt |on oI t he sampl e. A reader want s to know t he
character | st | cs oI the peopl e stud| ed, so he can have
some | dea how typ| cal they are oI the tota| popul at |on
the samp| e | s | ntended to represent . There | s no such
descr| pt|on | n the Sc| ence report. However, n| | l | am
Oar row was al so the pr| nc| pal author oI another ep| ~
THE E | | OE H| OLOGY O| | EAR 5 5
dem| o| og| c a | report ut| | | z| ng the San | ranc| sco C| ty
C| | n| c cohort.
7
Th| s report does desc r| be some char
acter| st| cs oI the C |ty C| | n| c cohort, who were sero~
negat| ve when I| rst tested [1 78~1 8 0 ) . Oar row to| d
me he saw no reason to assume the character| st| cs oI
t h| s samp| e wou | d d| IIer great| y I rom those oI the 8 4
men | n the other study.
Th es e J5 men were, putt| ng | t euphem| st| ca| | y,
' | | v| ng | n the I ast | ane' . They were | ndeed ' bu rn| ng
the cand| e at bth ends ' . n| t h regard to recreat |ona|
drug u se, 84/ were coca| ne u ser s, 64/ u sed ampheta~
m| nes , 5 1 / u sed quaa| udes , 4 1 / u sed barb| tu rates , ? 0 /
u sed need| e drugs, and 1 J / shared need| es. The | nves~
t| gators asked about poppers | nept| y, but | t appears
that the great ma]or| ty oI t hese men were | nto poppers
as we| | . | n the area oI sex, 5 / pract | sed recept | ve
ana| | ntercou r se w| t h steady or nonsteady partners, 5 7 /
averaged more t han Iou r d| IIerent sexua| partners per
mnt h, 44/ pract| sed | nsert| ve or recept | ve I | st | ng w| t h
non steady partners, and 1 8/ shared douch | ng equ | p~
men t . | n terms oI med| ca| h| story, 7 4/ had been
t reated Ior gonorrhea, 7J / had had hepat | t | s , 5 7 / had
exper| enced b| eed| ng w| t h | ntercou r se, J0 / had been
t reated Ior ameb| as | s , and ?8 / had been t reated Ior
syph| | | s .
| wou | d | |ke to make two po| nts, as non]udgmenta| | y
as poss| b| e. | | rst , | I t he 84 men stud| ed by L u | ,
Oarrow, and RutherIord were at a | | s| m| | ar to t h e J5
men | n t h e A) |H study, t hen they can hard| y be repre
sentat | ve oI

tota| un| verse oI 1 . 5 to J m| | | |on

| nd| v|dua| s | n t he U. S. est| mated by the COC to have
H | V ant | bod| es . Second, |t wou | d be su rpr| s| ng | I
peop| e who | | ved | |ke t h| s d| d not become ser| ou s| y
7
A| | | | am n. Oar row, Oean | . Echenberg, et a| . ,
' R| sk | actor s Ior Human | mmunodeI| c| ency V| ru s [ H| V)
| nI ect | ons | n Homosexua| Hen' , Amer| can )ou rna| oI
|ub| | c Hea| t h, Apr | | 1 8 7 .
5 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A / T STORY
s| ck, a | | Iestyl e oI heavy drug u se, mul t| p| e venerea|
d | seas es w| t h I requent ant| b|ot| c t reatment , and un-
heal thy and dangerous sexua| pract| ces, may be qu | te
suII| c| ent to cau se a cond| t|on oI | mmune deI| c| ency,
w| th or w| thout H| V or any other spec| I | c | nIect|ou s
agent .
Refutati: New Yor Blo Ceter Data
A bas| c pr| nc| pl e oI ana| ys| s | s t hat data must make
sen se. Th| s may seem to obv|ous to ment|on, but
nov| ce ana| yst s oIten are s | aves to the numbers they
see | n I ront oI them, and w| l | concoct b| zar re expl ana~
t| ons rather t han come to gr | ps w| t h cont rad| ct| ons | n
the data. | n actua| pract| ce, when data don' t make
sense, | t | s a| most al ways becau se they are wrong.
There are many ways t hat er rors can occu r | n su rvey
research ~ I rom outr| ght cheat | ng, to errors |n cod| ng
or s t udy des | gn or mat h emat| cs or samp| | ng, to a
I| nger s l | p on the part oI t he keybard operator enter-
| ng computer tabu| at|on spec| I | cat|ons. | t | s t he task
oI a god ana| yst to spot and t rack down such errors.
| n the case oI ep| dem|o| og| ca| research , t he data
ought to make sen se | n the context oI what | s known
about A| OS. | I t he I| nd| ngs I rom the L u| , Oar row and
RutherIord study are to have pred| ct| ve val ue beyond
the 84 men stud| ed, t hen t hey shou l d bear compar| son
w| th other st ud| es oI seropos| t| ve | nd| v| dua| s .
A study conducted at t he New York bl od Center
I | at l y cont r ad| c t s t h e I | n d| n gs oI t h e L u | st udy.
Accord| ng to a New York T| mes art| c| e by L awrence K.
A| t man , ' A| OS Hystery. nhy Oo Some | nIected Hen
Stay Heal thyl ' [ ) une J 0, T 8 7 )
8
:
| n New York , at l east T J men who vo| unteered | n
1 78 Ior t he hepat| t| s b vacc| ne tr| a| were al ready
8
L awrence K. Al tman, ' A| OS Hystery. nhy Oo
Some | nIected Hen Stay Heal thyl ' , New York T| mes ,
J 0 ) une 1 8 7 .
THE E | | OE H| OLOGY O| | EAR
5 7
| nIected w| t h the A| OS v| r us [ s| c] and have l | ved
Ior n| ne years w| thout develop| ng A| OS, accord| ng
to Or. Cl add E. Stevens, the head ep| dem| ol og| st at
the New York bl od Center.
An aston | sh | ng po| nt | s t hat the | mmune systems
Ior al l 1 J oI these men l ook ' perIectl y normal , ' Or.
Stevens sa| d |n an | nterv| ew
Hore aston| sh| ng, Or. Stevens sa| d, Ior unknown
reasons onl y one oI the 87 peopl e | n the New York
bl od Center study who were Iound to have become
| nIected w| t h the A| OS v| r us [ s| c] s| nce 1 8 1 has
developed A| OS.
So then, | n New York onl y one out oI 1 00 ' | nIec~
ted' | nd| v|dual s [1 /) developed A| OS, whereas |n San
| ranc| sco ? 1 out oI 84 [ ? 5 /) developed A| OS. |I H| V
| s t he sol e cause oI A| OS , | t | s not poss| bl e Ior both
set s oI data to be correct , notw| th stand| ng the pos~
s| b| l | ty t hat the t| me per |ods may not be qu| te t he
same, or t hat the character| st | cs oI t he two sampl es
may be d| IIerent . The poss| b| l |ty that the d| IIerence
[ ? 5 / vs. 1 /) coul d b due to chance | s l ess t han one
| n a m| l l |on. | I , on the other hand, A| OS | s cau sed by
tox | n s [ l | k e r ec reat | onal dr u gs ) and other l | Iestyl e
Iactors, t hen both set s oI data m| ght be cor rect ~~ | t
woul d mean that the San | ranc | sco sub ects pur sued an
A | OS l | I estyl e [ or ' death styl e' ) , and t he New York
sub ect s d| dn ' t , and t hat |n e| ther case, H| V had l | ttl e
or noth | ng todo w| th the outcome.
Colusis
E x | st | n g data do not support cl a| ms t hat al l , or
mst , or even many | nd| v|dual s w| th H| V ant| bod| es w| l l
devel op A| OS. As u sual , government ' ep| dem|ol ogy'
Ial l s Iar short oI the standards oI proIes s|onal su rvey
research . However , | n the present comedy oI error s,
the ma| n cul pr | t s appear to be the med| a. Reporters
l | k e H | c h ael Specter , l ack| ng the necessary t ra| n| ng,
5 8 |O| SON b Y |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A / T STORY
ar e not up to the task oI | nterp ret| ng A| OS ep| dem| ol ~
ogy.
| t | s st| l l noth | ng more than a shaky hypothes | s
that H| V has anyt h| ng at al l t o do w| th cau s| ng A| OS.
| n a coupl e oI week s, an | s sue oI Sc| ence | s schedu l ed
to run a Iorum or debate on the H| V hypothes| s, w| t h
|eter Ouesberg argu| ng that H| V does not cau se A| OS,
and Robe rt Ga l l o, n| l l | am bl attner and H. H. Tem| n
argu| ng t hat | t does. | t w| l l be the I| rst t | me t hat
Gal l o & Co. have been w| l l | ng to deIend the| r hypo~
t h e s | s | n a c | v | l | zed manner and |n an appropr| ate
publ | cat |on, compl ete w| t h reIerences. | su spect t hat
many readers oI t h| s debate w| l l be shocked when they
real | ze how sk| mpy, | ndeed pathet | c, t he argument s on
behal I oI the H| V hypothes| s are. And oI cou rse, | I
H| V | s not t he cau se oI A| OS, what exact l y | s t he
po| nt oI attempt | ng to est | mate the proport |on oI H| V~
| nIected | nd| v| dual s who w| l l devel op A| OS l nhy not
est| mate the proport |on oI ) udy Gar l and l | steners who
w| l l develop A| OS l | t m| ght be h| gher.
| t | s ser|ou s when death t hreat s are d| rected aga| nst
us . | somet | mes t h| nk that too much attent |on and
sympathy have been g| ven to gay men who are s| ck
and dy| ng, and not enough to those oI us who have
heal thy m| nds and heal thy bod| es. ne are al so target s
oI p sychol og| cal warIare. ne al so are | ncreas| ngl y
be| ng port rayed as sou rces oI pol l ut |on, as t hreat s to
the ' | nnocent ' heterosexual popu l at|on.
Our su rv| val depends on not accept| ng the rol e oI
v| ct| m. | I peopl e d| rect death w| shes at u s , we shou l d
d| rect death w| shes r| ght back at them. No one shou l d
be al lowed to attack us w| t h | mpun| ty. At the same
t| me we need to reta| n a sense oI cool . an appropr| ate
bal ance oI s e l I~preservat |on , anger, and a sense oI
humor. As| de I rom the Iact that ou r l | ves are at
stake, cur rent events real l y are pretty absu rd, aren' t
theyl
1
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART ONE 5
I V. On The AZT Frot: Par One
| t ' s now more t han a year s| nce the New York
Nat | ve p u bl | shed my anal ys| s oI the |hase | | A/ T
tr| al s , wh| ch were the bas | s oI the drug' s hasty ap~
prova| by the |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat|on [ |OA) . | n
that art| c| e ( A/ T on Tr| al ' ) | demonst rated that the
|OA~conducted tr| al s oI A/ T were not merel y sl oppy,
but Iraudu l ent. | n the meant| me, a lot oI water has
gone under t he br| dge. On the one hand, bu rrough s~
ne| | come, t he manuIactu rer oI A/ T [ now known as
Ret rov| r ) has l aunched a worl dw| de propaganda ] ug~
gernaut , w| t h great success. the ma]or| ty oI phys| c| ans
treat| ng A| OS pat| ents now prescr | be and even prosel y~
t | z e Ior A/ T, and thou sands oI gay men [ | ncl ud| ng
those w| th A| OS , w| th ARC , and mere| y w| th ant| bod| es
to H| V) are be| ng dosed w| t h t he drug. On t he other
hand, there | s now a groundswel l oI oppos| t|on to A/ T,
based on shared exper| ence concern| ng t h e drug' s s| de
eIIect s . Th| s co| umn w| l l rev| ew some recent devel op~
ment s.
Suriving a Thriving With AI DS
The |eopl e w| th A| OS Coa| | t|on has ] ust publ | shed
S u rv| v| ng and Thr | v| ng n| th A| OS. Co| l ected n| sdom,
Vol ume Two.I Th| s l arge book , wr| tten ent | re| y by
|nAs and t he| r I r | ends and Iam| | y, | s worth more than
dozens oI t he ' med|ca| | y correct' A| OS bok s t hat have
Il ooded t he market . As d| d t he I| rst vol ume, | t con~
ta| ns a wea| th oI pract | cal | nIormat|on. Hany photo~
gr aph s and per sonal account s v| v| d| y document the
exper| ence oI be| ng a |nA.
1
H| chael Ca| l en, ed. , Su rv| v| ng and Th r| v| ng n| th
A| OS. Co| l ected n| sdom, Vol ume Two. $ ? 0 pl us $ 1 . 7 5
post age I rom. |eop| e w| t h A| OS Coa| | t |on, J 1 nest ? 6t h
St reet , New York , NY 1 00 1 0.
60 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T S TORY
A var | et y oI v|ewpo| nts and approaches are ex~
p re s sed on t r eat ment s , though on t he who| e most
cont r| butors Iavor non~tox| c therap| es. | n an art| c| e,
S u r v| v| ng and Th r| v| ng w| t h A| OS ' , H| chae| Ca| | en,
who conducted a st udy oI |ong~term su rv| vors [ who
' had su rv| ved Iu | |-b|own COC~deI| ned A| OS Ior th ree
or more year s ) , observes.
Oes p| t e | nt ens e p ressure among phys| c| ans to
take A/ T~the on| y Iedera| | y approved t reatment Ior
A| OS~on| y one oI the gay |ong~term su rv| vors was
on A/T at the t| me oI t hese | nterv|ews. [ The
s | ng| e except | on s u bsequent| y d| scont| nued tak| ng
A/ T . ]
Th| s | s to be expected. The A/ T ph| | osophy, based
on the assumpt |on that ' A| OS | s a term| na| d| sease' ,
can oIIer no more than t he Ior| orn hope oI ' extend| ng
| | Ie' Ior a Iew month s [ and there | s no Iactua| bas| s
Ior even th | s modest c| a| m) . L ong~term su rv| vors, on
the other hand, are conv| nced t hat they can and w| | |
get better. They are endeavor| ng to st rengthen t he| r
bod| es t h rough a h ea | t h y | | I e s t y| e: exerc| se, good
nutr| t |on, rest and st ress reduct|on, and avo| dance oI
h a r mI u| s u bst ances [ | n c | ud| ng c | gar et t es , a | coho| ,
poppe r s , and a| | other ' recreat| ona| drugs' ) . Tox| c
chemtherapy~| | ke A/T~| s | ncompat| b| e w| t h recovery.
barry G| nge| | , a |nA who |s a| so an H. O. , wr| tes.
The mag| c drug Retrov| r [ A/ T] wh| ch has been
Io| sted on the pub| | c as a t r | umph aga| nst A| OS | s
act u a | | y t u r n| ng out to be a cumu | at| ve po| son.
nh| | e | t may pro|ong | | Ie | n the short t er m [ not
t r ue ~ ) L ] A / T creates | t s own set oI ser|ou s
hemato|og| c prob| ems, wh| ch may | n Iact cont r| bute
to the d| sease rather than moderate | t .
One oI t he bok ' s h| gh| | ght s | s ' The | ros and Cons
oI Tak | ng A/ T: A Round Tab| e O| scu ss|on. ) une ? 1 ,
1 8 8 ' , | n wh| ch a group oI |nAs d| scus s t he| r exper|~
ON THE AZ T | RONT. |ART ONE 6 1
ences w| t h AZ T. Some oI t h e ma| n po| nts emerg| ng
I rom the d| scu ss|on are the t remendous pressure I rom
dctors and peers to take A/ T, t he hopes, de| u s|ons ,
and subsequent d| sappo| ntments | nvol v| ng the drug, and
t h e ver y r eal and horr| bl e s|de eIIect s. | cannot
| mag| ne t hat any |nA who reads t h| s 1 8~page art| cl e
thoughtIu | | y wou | d have t he s l | ghtest | nc| | nat|on ever
to try AZ T.
A common theme | s t hat t h e d| scuss|on part| c| pant s
Ieel much better, and s| eep better , aIter t hey cease
tak| ng AZT. |or examp| e:
SCOTT: | ' m Ieel | ng better t han | ' ve Ie| t | n a
|ong t| me. And a lot oI |t | att r| bute to be| ng oII
the AZ T. | t was on| y w| t h| n the l ast week that
| ' ve act ual | y started sl eep| ng a I | ve hou r per| od.
On AZ T, | ' d wake up aIter hal I an hou r and then |
cou l dn' t go back to s l eep. Then | ' d Ial | as| eep Ior
an hou r and then | ' d be up aga| n Ior another coupl e
oI hou rs That m| ght have been the cau se oI a lot
oI the Iat| gue du r| ng t he day. | can' t p| npo| nt t he
cau se oI t he sl eep prob| ems exact l y, but | do at~
tr| bute them to the A/ T.
Another |nA comments.
J EREMY: S| nce | stopped tak | ng AZ T, my sto~
mach hasn' t Iel t bl oated, my appet | te has been much
better and that | s god Ior my general Ieel | ng oI
wel l ness. Recent | y | ' ve been s l eep| ng more than
u sua| , wh| ch may be because my body needs | t and
| ' m ust catch | ng up nhen | was tak| ng AZ T
around t he c| ock, | wasn' t gett| ng a s much sl eep.
Or when | d| d s| eep, t hey were lot s oI | | tt| e naps
| nstead oI one un| nterrupt ed da| | y sl eep.
?
?
) eremy was subsequentl y persuaded by h | s doctor
to go on a quarter dose oI AZ T. He d| ed severa|
mnt hs | ater.
6 ? |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
Another part | c| pant , | reder| ck Gl enn, states t hat | n
genera| h| s hea| th has been god s| nce h| s d| agnos| s oI
|C | .
F RED: Th e on| y hosp| tal | zat| ons wh | ch | have
act ua| | y | ncu rred were due to the A/ T. Tw| ce |
ended up | n emergency roms |n a state oI severe
conIu s| on, temperatu res, nau sea, headaches, wh| ch
aIter exten s| ve test| ng they had t o attr| bute t o t he
A/ T. | was t ransIu sed th ree t| mes.
| n add| t | on to | ncapac | t at | n g a n x | et y, | reder| ck
Gl enn suIIered anem| a so severe that he was | ncapab| e
oI dress| ng h| msel I . | | na| | y one doctor rea| | zed that
G| enn was hav| ng a tox| c react| on to A/ T, wh| ch was
cau s | n g t h e anx | et y at t ack s , and recommended he
d| scont | nue t he drug. The res u| t oI go| ng oII A/ T was
an | mmed| ate and dramat| c | mprovement:
F RED: | stopped the A/ T. And the mental
conIu s| on, t he headaches, the pa| ns | n the neck , t he
nau s ea, al | d| sappeared w| t h| n a ? 4~hou r per |od.
Now, there has to be some corre| at|on there. There
has to be. And t he m| nute those symptoms d| sap~
peared, my anx|ety d| sappeared w| t h them.
At one po| nt H| chael Ca| l en asked t he other s | I
they knew anyone who had been on A/ T Ior a year or
mre, who was do| ng wel | , and who exper| enced no
s| de eIIect s. A| | oI t hem shok t he| r heads ' no' . Th| s
| s s| gn| I| cant, because amng themsel ves t he d| scus s|on
part| c| pant s probabl y knew t hou sands oI |nAs , | nc| ud~
| ng many hundreds who were on A/ T.
An exchange between H| ke Ca| l en and Kenny Taub
oIIers rea| | ns| ght | nto the psycho|ogy oI pat| ents who
cont| nue to have Ia| th | n A/ T, desp| te the very real
suIIer| ng they have to undergo, and desp| te the | ack oI
tang| b| e beneI| t s I rom t he drug:
MIKE: Can you te| l us about what opport un| st | c
| n Iect | ons you h ad du r| ng the t wo and one~ha| I
years t hat you' ve been on A/ T l
ON THE A/ T | RONT. |ART ONE 6 J
KE NNY: OK. | ' ve h ad |C | Iou r t | mes and
tuberculos| s once. And t hat ' s al | .
MI KE: nhat makes you t h| nk A/ T | s do| ng you
any good |I you ' ve had pneumocyst | s Iou r t | mes and
t u be rc u l os | s wh | l e you were on A/ T and wh| | e
you ' ve a l so had to have ? 5 t ransIu s|ons because oI
A/ T~| nduced anem| a l nhen you say t hat you t h| nk
| t' s do| ng you good, what do you mean by t hat l
KENNY: | don' t bel | eve t hat the A/ T coul d stop
any opport un| st | c | nIect|on I rom occu rr| ng. . . . Al l |
can say | s , | t has been my cho| ce to go on A/ T and
to st| ck w| th | t. | ' ve spoken to many researcher s
nat | onw| de who wer e p ro~A / T | n t he sense oI
| ncreas| ng longev| ty. And so | made t he cho| ce to
st | ck w| th |t and go t hrough the t ransIu s| ons , even
though, yes, they are a pa| n |n the ass.
MI KE: | st | | l don' t underst and. You have con~
t| nued to take A/T Ior a |ong t | me becau se you
th| nk | t ' s do| ng someth| ng. nhat | s |t that you
th| nk | t ' s do| ng |I you' ve cont| nued to have oppor~
tun| st| c | nIect|ons and to have ser| ou s s|de eIIect s
Irom A/ T l nere you l os| ng a lot oI we| ght , or
hav| ng Iever s, and have t hose subs| dedl Has you r
mental state | mproved becau se oI A/ T or | s there
some bl ood t es t t h at you Ieel you ' ve shown a
market | mprovement on t hat you att r| bute to A/ Tl
Somet h| ng has made you st| ck w| th A/ T t hrough a
lot oI t ransIu s| ons and a lot oI opport un| st | c | nIec~
t| ons. nhat | s t hat someth | ngl
KENNY: That ' s a good quest|on. | robabl y t he
onl y answer | can g| ve | s that | ' m psychol og| ca| l y
add| cted. There' s al so an ego th | ng about | t.
want to make the Gu | ness bok oI norl d Records as
t he l ongest A/T I reak , or someth | ng. [ L augh s]
And | ] ust l don' t know.
Kenny Taub d| ed on T 5 Oecember T 8 8. He had
suIIered st| | l more attacks oI |C | and tubercul os| s , as
we| l as col | apsed l ungs.
64 |O| SON b Y | RE SCR| |T| ON: THE A/T STORY
A Panel o AZT at Columa University
On 1 November 1 8 8 , a conIerence was hel d at
Co| u mb| a Un | ve r s | ty , ' A | OS . | mp rov| ng t h e Odd s~
1 8 8 ' . On the who| e | t was a I|op. Attendance was
I ar below what was ant| c| pated. The aud| tor| um was
ba rba rou s | y over h eated. L | ttl e was sa| d t hat was
e| t her new or u seIu | , and much was sa| d t hat was
untrue. Open d| scuss|on was not perm| tted. The many
s | | des t h at we re s hown by va r| ou s speakers were
pro]ected on the back wa| l oI the stage | n such a way
that they cou |d not be seen ~ the bttom ha| I oI each
s l | de was b|ocked by the tabl e and pane| part| c| pants
on stage. [ Cu r|ou s| y, nobody comp| a| ned, and perhaps
| t | s ust as we| | . )
Th e | east u n | nterest| ng pane| wa s on ' Az|dothy~
m| d| ne ~~ saIety, eII| cacy, and u se | n asymptomat| c
H| V | nIect|on [ s| c] ' , mderated by L au ra || nsky, one oI
the organ| zers oI the conIerence. The I | rst speaker
was Cra| g Het roka, H. O. , |h . O. , who gave a presenta~
t |on that was al most | nhuman | n | t s g| | bness. Het roka
r at t | ed oII ' comp l | cat|ons' assoc| ated w| th A/ T, as
though t hese were noth | ng more than the | | ttl e words
on a bot t l e oI over ~th e~counter pa| n k | | | er . The
' compl | cat|ons ' , Het roka assu red us, were ' compl etel y
revers| b| e once A/ T | s stopped' . [ | ' m not so su re that
A/T| nduced death | s ' compl ete| y revers| b| e' , but t hen
wh y q u | bb| e l ] Hetroka descr| bed the ' beneI| t s' oI
A/T, u s| ng as h | s sou rce t he notor|ous | | sch| art| c| e,
wh| ch d| s| ngenuous | y reported on the I raudu| ent , | OA~
conducted |hase | | tr | a| s oI A/ T.
J
J
Ha rgar et A. | | s c h | , ' The EII| cacy oI Az| do~
t h ym| d| ne [ A/ T ) |n the Treatment oI |at | ents w| t h
A | O S and A | O S~ Re| at ed Comp| ex ' , and Ooug| as O.
R| chman, ' The Tox| c| ty oI Az|dot hym| d| ne [ A/ T ) | n t he
T reat ment oI |a t | ents w| t h A| OS and A| OS~Re| ated
Compl ex' , New Eng| and )ou rna| oI Hed| c| ne, ? J ) u | y 1 8 7 .
ON THE A/ T | RONT. |ART ON E 65
Th e second speaker wa s Hart| n Oe| aney, Co~O| rec~
tor oI |roect | nIorm. H| s ta| k represented a sharp
abut~Iace. A year and a ha| I ago Oe| aney was | n the
R| bav | r | n camp , and was an | mportant opponent oI
A/ T. | t was | ro] ect | nIorm, together w| th ACT U| ,
that obta| ned the |OA document s, under the | reedom
oI | nIormat |on Act , wh| ch were the bas| s oI my expos
oI the A/ T t r | al s, as wel | as the bas| s oI exposs by
NbC news and by ) oseph Sonnabend, H. O. A year ago
t h | s s ummer , Oe| aney des c r | bed the A/ T t r| al s | n
scath | ngl y cr | t| cal terms.
Oe| aney has changed h | s t une, and | s now on the
b u rrough s~nel | come team. H| s ta| k was a hard~se| l
p | t c h Ior A / T. ' A/T | s not t he enemy' , p| eaded
Oel aney, ' l et ' s not get | nto a shout| ng match [ l ] ' . He
u rged the aud| ence not to ' argue al l day about Il aws
[ on| y I l aws l ] | n the [ A/ T t r | al s ] study' , s| nce | t was
' necessary t o |ook at al l stud| es oI A/ T' .
Oel aney downpl ayed t h e tox| c| ty oI A/ T by cl a| m| ng
that tox| c| ty data ' | n the most part were com| ng I rom
very s| ck pat | ent s ' . A lot oI the probl ems w| th A/ T,
he argued, came I rom g| v| ng | t to ' the wrong peop| e at
the wrong t | me' , the s| de eIIects were ' Iar | ess s| g~
n| I| cant when u sed |n heal th| er peopl e' .
Tox | c| ty out oI t he way, Oel aney began to wax
ent h u s | a st | c. There were hundreds oI pat| ent s, he
contended, who had been u s| ng A/ T successI u| | y Ior
one year, two year s, and longer. The val ue oI A/ T
| ay | n adm| n| ster| ng | t | n ' earl y stages oI | nIect| on' | n
order to ' hal t t he progress|on oI H| V' . Oel aney then
re| ated an anecdota| case, and advocated us | ng A/ T | n
h a l I dos es and | n comb| nat |on w| th such drugs as
dextran su l Iate and acycl ov| r.
End| ng on a maudl | n note, Oel aney | amented, ' A lot
oI peopl e are be| ng d| scou raged Irom ever t ry| ng A/ T. '
' G| ve them a chance to u se | t ' , h e pl eaded, ' L et ' s not
c| ose the door on t h| s drug unt | | we I | nd someth| ng to
rep| ace |t w| th | ' .
6 6 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: T HE A/ T STORY
Th e next s peaker wa s )oseph Sonnabend, H. O. ,
H. R. C. |. , who has pr| vatel y pub| | shed h | s own cr| t| que
oI the A/ T t r| al s.
4
Sonnabend began by say| ng that
the tox| c| t| es oI A/ T shou | d not | | ght| y be d| sm| ssed.
The harmIu | eIIect s oI t he drug are real , and t hey are
ser| ous. Techn| ca| l y, A/ T | s a po| son, | t | s cytotox| c
[ | . e. , | t k | | l s cel l s] . The drug cannot d| st | ngu| sh be~
tween | nIected and hea| t hy ce| l s, |t k | l | s both . Never
beIore has a dr ug as tox| c as A/ T been presc r| bed Ior
| ong~term u se. The l ong~term eIIect s oI AZ T, t he
cumu l at| ve tox| c| t | es, ar e unknown. Sonnabend empha~
s| zed the eth| cal respons| b| l | t| es oI the phys| c| an, to be
s ure that there was a sound sc| ent| I| c bas | s Ior the
bene I | t s oI t h e drug, cons| der| ng that | t s tox| c| t| es
were I | rm| y estab| | shed.
Sonnabend t hen descr| bed some oI t he shortcom| ngs
oI the A/ T t r| a| s , | n part | cu| ar t he Iact t hat the study
bec a me u n b| | nded ear | y on [ | . e. , both doctors and
pat| ents knew whether A/ T or a p| acebo was be| ng
adm| n| stered] . The bas| c des| gn oI the study was t hus
v| ol ated. Not on| y d| d t he unb| | nd| ng have a powerIu|
psychol og| ca| eIIect on the pat| ents, but | t may have
l ed to unequal and b| ased pat| ent management I rom the
attend| ng phys| c| ans.
AIter Sonnabend I| n| shed h| s presentat|on, he was
attacked by Hart| n Oel aney, who ma| nta| ned t hat he
had seen a l ot oI pat| ents go back to work, t hat not
al l stud| es oI A/T were mean| ng| ess, and t hat at | east
a dozen other stud| es had produced s| m| l ar resu | ts.
H| chae| L ange, H. O. , spoke next, concentrat| ng on a
s| ng| e po| nt . whether an ant| v| ra| eIIect aga| n st H| V
h a s been demnst rated sc| ent| I| ca| | y Ior AZ T. L ange
acknow| edged that some sc| ent| sts were conv| nced t hat
4
) os eph A. Sonnabend, Rev| ew oI A/ T Hu | t| ~
cent er T r | a | Oa t a Obt a | ned Under t he | reedom oI
| nIormat |on Act by |ro]ect | nIorm and ACT| , A| OS
|orum, ) anuar y 1 8 8 .
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART ONE 67
H| V | s not t he cau se oI A| OS. Neverthe| ess, | t | s
cl a| med t hat A/ T works by prevent| ng H| V I rom rep| | ~
cat| ng, and t h| s cl a| m ought to be exam| ned. L ange
then proceeded to rev|ew a| | oI the data, both pub~
l | shed and unpub| | shed, t hat bore on the quest|on. He
conc| uded t hat ev| dence Ior an ant| v| ra| eIIect oI A/ T
on H| V was compl ete| y | ack| ng. Two years ago, | n
ear| y 1 8 6, c| a| ms were be| ng made that A/T | nh| b| ted
H| V, on the bas | s oI the |~? 4 ant| gen test. However,
at the |OA hear| ngs he| d | n ear| y 1 8 8 , there was no
ta| k oI the |~?4 ant | gen test, |t had not panned out.
L ange cr | t| c| zed the way A/ T had been promoted by
t he ' Hed| cal | ndust r| a| Comp| ex' , st ress| ng t hat we do
not know what the |ong~term eIIects oI t he drug are.
The next speaker was Ron Grossman, H. O. , who
| mmed| ate| y | aunched | nto a personal attack on ) oseph
Sonnabend: ' n| t h a| | due respect , )oe, no drug | s not
po| son ~ you know t hat we| | ~ there are Iar more
po| sonous drugs than A/ T| ' [ Grossman' s statement | s
pure demagoguery. nhat other drugs are a s tox| c a s
A/ Tl And have they been prescr| bed Ior |ong~term
u se by hea| t hy peop| e l ]
Oo| ng h | s best to poh poh t he tox| c| t| es oI A/ T,
Grossman asserted that every other drug | n med| c| ne
a| so had tox| c eIIect s. He went so Iar as to c| a| m,
' ne know more about the tox| c eIIects oI t h| s drug
than about any other drug stud| ed. [ Th | s | s a b| atant
Ia| sehod. S| nce no more t han a handI ul oI peop| e
have taken A/ T Ior more t han two and a ha| I year s,
the cumu| at | ve tox| c| t| es oI t he drug ar e tota| | y un~
known. ] Grossman went on to descr| be the A/ T tr| a| s
|n g|ow| ng terms, argu| ng t hat the speedy approval oI
A/ T showed, ' There aren' t ] ust bad guys | n nash| ng~
ton. Grossman r| d| cu | ed the not|on t hat co~Iactors
[ | |ke poppers or ot her drugs) pl ayed a rol e | n cau s| ng
A| OS: ' The on| y co-Iactor | s t | me. ne know t hat .
He concl uded by say| ng t hat A
]
s| owed the progres~
s| on oI H| V, t he drug bught ' qua| | ty t | me' , and A/ T
oIIers hope' .
6 8 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Next , H| chael Cal l en, oI t he |nA Coa| | t |on, des~
cr| bed the 'overwhe| m| ng peer pressu re to take A/T' .
| n r es pons e to G ros s man ' s c| a| m t hat A/ T 'oIIer s
hope' , Ca| l en suggested | t wou l d be better t o oIIer
hope t hrough substances t hat d| dn' t have the ser|ous
tox| c| ty oI A/ T. ' | t | s not rat| onal ' , sa| d Cal | en, ' to
say t hat everyone w| th A| OS ought to t ry A/T. The
arguments aga| nst A/T are very we| l deve| oped, and
very rat| ona| , and what we ought to do | s make certa| n
t hat everyone has acces s to the arguments on both
s| des oI t he | ssue. ' There are those oI u s who made
a rat| onal cho| ce not to t ry A/ T' , he stated, ' and we
need to support those who have dec|ded not to take
A/ T, ] ust as we have supported t hose who are tak| ng
A/ T.
| n the d| scus s|on per|od, both Sonnabend and L ange
commented t hat por qual | ty sc| ence had been u sed on
beh a l I oI A / T , and asked Hart| n Oe| aney to state
spec| I| cal | y what stud| es he had | n m| nd. At t h| s po| nt
Oe| aney became t r u c u | ent . '| don' t have a | | st oI
stud| es | n my br| eIcase, but t here were page aIter page
| n the [ Stockhol m] abst ract s support| ng pos| t| ve resu | t s
I rom stud| es oI A/ T. And | I necessary, | ' l | meet w| t h
you pr| vate| y [ l | ] t o show you some oI t hese stud| es.
Oe| aney' s d| atr| be cont| nued: ' L et' s not pretend that
t here' s even a s| gn| I| cant m| nor| ty op| n|on out there
t hat suggest s A/ T | s not an ant | v| ra| . | can ' t I | nd
anyone outs| de t h| s tabl e to suggest that t hat ' s t he
case The A/ T argument | s becom| ng a magnet Ior
ant | ~establ | shment Ieel | ngs. That ' s not OK when | | ves
are at stake.
Sonnabend, ma| nta| n| ng h | s d| gn| ty, rep| | ed t hat he
had |ooked at the Stockhol m abst ract s , and that t he
qua| | ty oI ev| dence was soIt . The abst ract s | nvo| ved
uncontrol l ed observat|ons oI smal l numbers oI pat| ents,
Ior s c| ent | I | c debate , t h ey were | | tt| e better t han
anecdota| ev| dence. Grossman t hen snapped at Son~
naben d, ' T h at ' s poppycock | Everyone at t he tabl e
except you knows that' s rubb| sh | '
ON 1HE A/ 1 | RON1: |AR1 ONE 6
L a u r a | | n sk y, wh o a s moderator ought to have
at t empt ed to keep Oel aney and Grossman to some
measure oI c| v| l | ty, | nstead o| ned the pack and tol d
t h e aud| ence that Sonnabend and L ange were ' very
much a m| nor| ty . Her comment was grat u| tou s and
unIa| r , and cau sed one gentl eman | n the aud| ence to
procl a| m, ' 1hat doesn ' t mean they' re wrong| ' At t h| s
po| nt | ra| sed my hand and attempted to speak , || nsky
sc reamed that there wou l d be ' no d| scu ss|on I rom t he
I l oor . 1he panel was over .
| then went up on stage, and asked || nsky when
there wou l d be an open d| scu ss| on, as | wanted to
correct a number oI unt rue t h| ngs that had been sa| d
du r| ng the panel . || nsky tol d me, not very cou rteou s~
ly, that there wou l d be no open d| scus s|on , and t hat | I
| had a quest|on | shoul d wr| te | t on a p| ece oI paper
l |ke everyone el se. | t hen approached Grossman , and
asked h| m |I he had read my art| cl e on the A/ 1 t r| al s.
Grossman' s response was to snarl someth| ng | nart| cu~
l atel y and to tu rn h| s back on me. nhen | retu rned to
my seat , a secu r| ty guard approached me, and sa| d he
had been asked to ' escort me I rom the bu| l d| ng.
and the peopl e w| th me were amazed, to say the l east ,
but | t was t | me Ior the l unch break , so | l et mysel I be
escorted out .
L ater | n t he day, du r| ng an aIternon panel , | l eIt
t h e au d| tor| um to go to the men' s room, and was
| ntercepted by the same guard, who sa| d he had been
asked to see that | d| dn' t enter the aud| tor| um. | tol d
h| m that everyt h| ng was al l r| ght , and not to worry,
and went back | n, hal I expect| ng h| m to Iol l ow. He
d| dn' t .
AIter the conIerence was over, | asked || nsky why
a guard had tr| ed to keep me out oI the aud| tor| um.
S h e den| ed k now| ng anyt h | ng about | t, and sa| d |
shou l d po| nt out the guard to her. |erhaps || nsky was
tel l | ng the tr ut h , but she | s no I r| end oI Iree speech.
L ast summer || nsky, and her col l eague |aul Oougl as,
went around | | re | sl and, as oII| c| al representat| ves oI
7 0 |O| SON b Y | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Gay Hen' s Hea| th C r| s | s [ GHHC ) , te| l | ng gay men that
t hey shou | d get themse| ves tested Ior H| V ant | bod| es,
and | I ' pos| t| ve' , shou l d cons| der go| ng on A/ T. At
one oI t hese tal ks, a | | re | sl and res| dent tok | ssue
w| th some oI || nsky' s and Ooug| as' s statements con~
cern| ng t he causa| rol e oI H| V and the beneI| t s oI
A/T. || nsky' s response was to ask the aud|ence to
agree w| t h her t hat he shou l d not be al |owed to speak.
On t h| s occas|on she p| ayed the wrong card, Ior on
| | re | s| and |t was she who was t he out s| der, and t he
aud| ence emphat| cal | y | nd| cated they wanted t o hear
what t he| r Ir| end had t o say. || nsky and Oougl as d| d
not attempt t o answer h| s arguments.
The Col umb| a conIerence was an unpl easant exper|~
ence Ior me. | don' t | |ke hav| ng secu r| ty guards ca| l ed
on me because someone | s aIra| d oI my presence: that
| m| ght say someth| ng out oI pl ace or wr| te an art | cl e
Ior the New York Nat| ve. | don' t l |ke showcase con~
Ierences devoted to creat| ng de| us|ons so I rag| l e that
they wou l d be shattered by I ree and open d| scus s |on.
Th| s | s tota| | tar| an| sm.
1
ON THE A/ T | RONT. |AT TnO 7 T
V. On The AZT Frot: Par Two
| n my prev|ou s art| cl e, 'On The A/ T | ront: |art
One ' , | concl uded there |s no sc| ent| I| cal l y cred| bl e
ev|dence t hat A/ T has beneI| t s oI any k| nd. Never~
t h e l e s s , the popul ar med| a and med| cal ou rnal s are
I | l l ed w| th statement s to the eIIect that A/ T has been
shown to ' extend l | Ie' . Th| s cl a| m appears to be based
on th ree bd| es oI research :
| | rst , there are the |hase | | [ ' Ooubl e~bl | nd, | l a~
cebo~Cont rol l ed' ) A/ T t r | al s, conducted by the |ood
and Orug Adm| n| st rat| on [ |OA)
T
. | n ' A/ T on Tr| al ' ,
| demonst rated t hat the | OA~conducted tr | al s oI A/ T
wer e not mer el y s l oppy, but I r audul ent, and t hat
government approval oI A/ T was thereIore | mproper
and i l l egal .
Second, there are a number oI abst racts wh| ch were
presented at the A| OS conIerence hel d |n Stock hol m
l ast summer. These cons | st oI unpubl | shed data der| ved
I rom u n con t rol l ed obs ervat|ons oI smal l numbers oI
pat | ent s , Ior sc| ent | I | c debate, such report s , |n t he
context oI a conIerence where J ? 00 abst racts were
presented, are no better than anecdotal ev| dence.
Th| rd, there | s a maor study oI A/ T, ' Su rv| val E x~
per| ence Among |at| ents n| th A| OS Rece| v| ng / | dovu~
d| ne [ A/ T] ' , wh| ch has ust appeared |n the ? 5 Novem~
ber T 8 8 | s sue oI the ) ou rnal oI the Amer| can Hed| cal
T
Hargaret A. | | schl , 'The EI I| cacy oI Az| dothy~
m| d| ne [ A/ T ) |n the Treatment oI |at | ents w| t h A| OS
and A| OS~Rel ated Comp! ex ' , and Oougl as O. R| chman,
' The Tox| c| ty oI Az| dothym| d| ne [ A/ T) | n the Treat~
ment oI |at| ent s w| th A| OS and A| OS~Rel ated Com
pl ex' , New Engl and ) ournal oI Hed| c| ne, ? J ) ul y T 8 7 .
7 ? |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE AZ T STORY
As soc| at |on [ ) AHA) .
?
The pu rpose oI th| s ar t| cl e | s to
s how t h at t h| s | s very bad research, on wh| ch no
credence oI any k| nd shou l d be pl aced.
The AZT Phi loshy
The tox| c| t| es oI AZ T are I | rml y establ | shed. The
dr ug | s cytotox| c [ | .e. , | t k | l l s heal thy cel l s ) , | t de~
st roys bne marrow, |t cau ses severe anem| a, head~
aches, nau sea, and muscu l ar at rophy, |t damages the
k| dneys, l | ver , and nerves, and | t | nh| b| ts ONA syn~
thes| s. The consequences oI AZ T tox| c| ty shou l d not
be taken l | ghtl y. nhen ONA synthes| s | s blocked, new
cel l s are not Iormed, cel l s do not develop ~~ the l | Ie
process | n eIIect comes to a hal t. ) oseph Sonnabend,
a p rom| nent New Yor k C | t y A | OS re searcher and
phys| c| an, expressed | t succ| nctl y: ' AZ T | s | ncompat| bl e
w| th l | Ie.
The quest |on then ar| ses: How can phys| c| ans ] ust| Iy
prescr| b| ng th| s drug, whose beneI| t s are so dub|ou s
and whose s| de eIIect s are so terr| bl el |hys| c| ans are
supposed to honor the Oath oI H| ppoc rates, the car~
d| nal pr | nc| pl e oI wh| ch | s to act Ior the god oI the
pat| ent , do| ng not h| ng that | s harmI ul . but AZ T | s
harmIu l . | n t he words oI mol ecul ar b| ol og| st |eter
Ouesberg, ' AZ T | s pure po| son. '
| suggest t hat t h e answer to t h| s paradox can be
Iound |n the common bel | eI that A| OS | s ' | nvar| abl y
Iatal ' , t hat peopl e w| th A| OS [ |nAs ) have onl y a Iew
mont h s to l | ve. Th e ) AHA art| cl e expresses t h| s
corner stone oI t he AZ T ph| l osophy: ' A| OS | s a term| nal
?
Ter r | Cr eagh~K| rk et al . , ' Surv| val E xper| ence
Among |at | ent s n| th A| OS Rece| v| ng Z | dovud| ne [ AZ Tj :
| ol l ow~up oI |at| ents |n a Compass| onate |l ea | ro~
gram' , )ourna| oI the Amer| can Hed| cal As soc| at| on, ?5
November 1 88.
ON THE A/ T | RONT. |ART TnO 7 J
d| sease'.
J
|hys| c| ans who accept t h | s prem| se may be
ab| e to prescr| be A/ T |n good consc| ence: s| nce |nAs
are cons| dered to be Iac| ng | mm| nent deat h, t he cumu~
| at | ve tox | c | t | e s oI A / T can be | gnored, and A/ T
therapy can be rat| ona| | zed a s oIIer| ng the hope oI
' extend| ng | | Ie' Ior a Iew month s [ t hough there |s no
Iactua| bas | s Ior even th | s modest c| a| m) .
There are severa| ob] ect| ons to the A/ T ph| |osophy.
Host | mportant | s t he Iact t hat A| OS | s not | nvar| ab| y
Iata| . There ar e |nAs who have su rv| ved Ior many
year s , who are | ead| ng I u| | and product| ve | | ves , and
who appear by a|| rat| ona| cr| ter| a to be recover| ng.
And why not l nhat other d| sease | s ' | nvar| ab| y Iata| ' l
| | mag| ne t hat Iut u re med| ca| h| stor| ans, |ook| ng back
on the present, w| | | regard many or even most oI the
A | OS I at a | | t | e s as | at rogen| c ~ cau sed by med| ca|
treatments rather than by A| OS | tse| I [ whatever exact~
| y ' A| OS' | s ) . |t | s noteworthy t hat |ong~term s ur~
v| vor s , a| most w| thout except |on, have avo|ded tox| c
chemotherapy [ | | ke A/ T) and have opted Ior strength~
en| ng t he| r bod| es t hrough a hea| thy | | Iesty| e. exerc| se,
good nutr| t| on, rest and st ress reduct| on, and avo| dance
oI h a r mI ul s u bs t ances [ | nc| ud| ng c| garettes, a| coho| ,
popper s, and a| | other ' rec reat |ona| drugs' ) . |nAs
deserve a chance t o recover. n| th A/T there | s no
chance.
A/ T | s now be| ng tested on hea| thy peop| e who
mer e| y h ave ant| bod| es to H| V, wh| ch accord| ng to
Ouesberg | s a typ| ca| | y harm| ess ret rov| r us. Hembers
oI the A| OS estab| | s hment , | |ke n| | | | am Hase| t| ne, have
advocated g| v| ng A/ T to seronegat | ve members oI ' h| gh
r| sk groups ' [ mean| ng us , gay men ) . To do so wou | d
be tantamount to genoc| de.
The po| son| ng oI s| ck and hea| thy peop| e a| |ke w| t h
A/T | s a cr ue| hoax, | nasmuch as there | s st | | | no hard
sc| ent | I | c ev| dence to support c| a| ms oI A/ T beneI| t s ,
J
| b| d. p. J 0T 4.
74 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/T STORY
l east oI al l | n the l atest ' research ' emanat| ng I rom
bur roughs~nel l come.
The JAMA Aricle
nhen the |hase | | A/ T tr | al s were abruptl y ter-
m| nated | n September T 8 6, | t was ant | c| pated that
government procedu res wou l d requ | re about s| x month s
beIore A/ T cou l d be marketed Ior prescr| pt |on u se.
An | nt e r | m mea s u re was establ | shed, whereby A| OS
pat| ents who had prev|ou sl y exper| enced an ep| sode oI
|n eu mocyst | s c a r | n| | pneumon| a [ |C | ) cou l d rece| ve
A/ T pr| or to market| ng oI the drug. Th| s was done on
a ' compas s| onate pl ea' bas | s under a ' Treatment | nves-
t | gat| onal New Orug [ | NO) ' exempt |on , the rat| onal e
be| ng that these pat | ent s were ' at subst ant| al r | sk oI
earl y deat h' and A/ T wou l d beneI | t t hem, presumabl y
by prevent| ng Iu rther attacks oI |C|. The ) AHA ar~
t| cl e, ' Su rv| val E xper | ence Among |at| ents n| th A| OS
Rece| v| ng / |dovud| ne [ A/ T] ' , reports on 4 80 5 pat| ent s
who rece| ved A/ T under t h| s | NO program.
Col l a borat| ng | n the study were the Nat| onal | n-
st| tute Ior Al l ergy and | nIect |ou s O| seases , the Nat| onal
Cancer | nst | t ute [NC| ) , t he |ood and Orug Adm| n| st ra-
t|on [ |OA) , bur rough s nel l come [ the manuI actu rer oI
A/T ) , and b| ospher| cs | nc. [ apparent l y a pr| vate re-
sea rch company located |n bel tsv| l l e, Haryl and) . | t
was hoped that the program wou l d prov| de ' an oppor~
tun| ty to gather data regard| ng longer~term exper| ence
w| th z| dovud| ne' | n a popul at |on t hat was l arger and
more var | ed than that | n the |hase | | tr | al s.
Ch | l dren were total l y, and women al most ent| rel y,
excl uded Irom t he study. The average age oI t he 4 8 0 5
sub] ect s was J 7 years, 7 / oI them were mal e, 8 7 /
were ' homosexual or b| sexual ' , and 7 / were ' wh| te,
not H| span| c' . | t | s stated t hat ' Hany pat | ent s repor-
ted more than one A| OS r | sk behav| or' ~~ |n other
words, many oI t he gay men were al so | nt ravenou s
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART TnO 7 5
drug u sers ~ and yet t h| s overl ap h a s been supp ressed
| n the ) AHA art| c| e' s Tabl e 1 .
4
[ See Exh| b| t 1 . )
Tabl e 2. -Descri ption of Enrol led Popul ati on
Underging Zidovudine Treatment
Charatlc
Risk cateor
Hxuallisexual
Intravnous drug abuser
Hemophiliac
Heterosxual
Transfusin reipient
Unknown
Gender
M
F
Race
White, not Hispanic
Black, nt Hispanic
Hispanic
Pacific Islander and
Ar Eskimo
Ar Indian
Oher
No. (%) of Patlenta
41 68 (86.7)
287 (6.0)
65 ( 1 .4)
1 84 (3.8)
6 ( 1 . 4)
35 (0.7)
4658 (96.9)
1 47 (3. 1 )
3798 (79.0)
520 ( 1 0.9)
424 (8.8)
21 (0.4)
3 (0. 1 )
39 (0.8)
E XH| b| T T . Th| s tabl e | s reproduced exact l y I rom the
) AHA art| cl e, p. J 0T 1 . | t | s cl ear t hat most [ 8 7 /) oI
t h e v| ct | ms oI z|dovud| ne t reatment ' are gay men.
Not| ce t hat the overl ap group, gay men who are al so
|V drug user s, has been suppressed, these pat| ents are
counted onl y as ' homosexua| /b| sexual ' , but not as ' | V
drug abu ser ' . The total number oI pat| ents [ 4 8 0 5 ) | s
not shown, suggest | ng that the authors and/or ed| tors
oI ) AHA are | gnorant oI a bas| c stat | st| cal convent |on.
4
| b| d. P J 0 T J.
7 6 |O| SON bY |RESC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
E ach pat| ent was | n| t| al | y dosed w| th ? 0 0 mg oI
A/ T every Iou r hours around the c| ock. However ,
prov| s| on was made to l ower the dosage or to d| scon
t | n u e dosage t empor ar | l y, | n t he case oI ' adverse
eIIect s ' . Approx| matel y T 5 00 phys| c| ans cooperated | n
the st udy by enrol l | ng or Io| | ow| ng up pat| ents. These
doctors were tol d, when they agreed to part| c| pate,
that they wou l d be expected to suppl y | nIormat|on on
the| r pat| ents on a regul ar bas| s. beIore September T 5 ,
T86 pat| ent | nIormat| on came | n automat| ca| l y, s| nce
doctors needed to prov|de | t | n order to obta| n I urther
suppl |es oI A/ T Ior the| r pat| ents. AIter September
T 6 , T 8 6 dat a col l ect | on became more haphazard,
t h ough t he | nve st | gators t r | ed t o cont| nue obta| n| ng
data t hrough tel ephone contact and ma| l ed quest| on~
na| res.
Mi ssing: 1 1 20 Patients
| n t h e | n t er e s t s oI I a | rness, | cal | ed bur roughs
nel | come, t o hear the| r expl anat| ons Ior what appear
to be | ncompetence, d| shonesty, and I raud connected
w| th t h| s research . | spoke br| eI| y w| t h Terr| C reagh~
K| rk, HS, the pr| nc| pal aut hor oI the ) AHA art| cl e,
and at greater l ength w| th Oav| d n. barry, HO, al so
an author oI the art| c| e and bu rrough s nel | come V| ce
|res| dent | n charge oI research. | ' l | say t h| s much Ior
bu rroughs ne| | come: at l east t he| r peop| e are cou rteous
and w| | | | ng to t al k | n sharp cont rast t o t he NC | and
t h e COC , wh er e m| l | tary secu r| ty meas ures prevent
unauthor| zed reporters [ whether I rom the Nat| ve or the
b b C ) I rom t a l k | ng to the so~cal | ed ' sc| ent | st s ' . |
Iou nd t h e e x p | an at | ons oI t he bur rough s ne| | come
researchers to be compl ete| y unacceptabl e, but at l east
they have some respect Ior d| al ogue. | n an atmosphere
oI | n t ens| Iy| ng censor sh| p and tota| | tar| an| sm, t h| s | s
apprec| ated.
|or some reason the bu rrough s ne| | come resear~
chers set the| r s| ght s on report| ng 44 week [ or T 0
ON THE A/ T | RONT. |ART TnO 7 7
mnt h) su rv| val Ior the A/ T rec| p| ents. UnIortunatel y,
by t h| s t | me they had compl etel y l ost cont ro| oI t he
study. | t had bmbed. | ncred| b| e as | t sounds, nearl y
one out oI Iou r sub] ect s ( ?J/) had been l ost . The
researchers d| d not know whether 1 T ?0 pat| ents were
even dead or a| | ve ~ and | I a| | ve, whether or not t hey
were st | l | tak| ng A/T. [ See Tab| e A. || ease note t hat
| n t h| s art| cl e the | ettered tab| es are my own, whereas
t h e E x h | b| t ' tabl es are reproduced I rom the ) AHA
art| c| e, w| t h myown comments at the bottom. )
-
TAbL E A
SURV| VAL STATUS A| TE R 44 nE E KS O| A/ T TREATHE NT
base.
Surv| val Stat us AIter 44 neeks
Reported al | ve
Reported dead
Unknown [ | . e. , | ost )
Tota| |at| ents
4 8 0 5 = T 00/
? 8 J 8 = 5 /
8 4 7 = 1 8 /
T 1 ? 0 = ? J /
| I one looks onl y at t he T 04J pat| ents who were
enrol | ed |n t he I| rst Iou r week s oI t he | NO program,
the record oI the bu rroughs ne| | come researcher s | s
even more appa| l | ng. No Iewer t han 7 J 4 [ 7 0/) oI these
pat| ents had been ' l ost ' . [ See Tab| e b. )
7 8 |O| SON bY |RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
TAb L E b
SURV| VAL STATUS A| TE R 44 nE EKS O| A/ T TREATHE NT
[ Among |at | ent s Enro| | ed | n the | | rst 4 neek s )
base.
Surv| va| Stat us AIter 44 neek s
Reported a| | ve
Unknown [ e| ther dead or l ost )
Tota| |at| ent s
Enrol | ed | n
|| rst 4 neek s
T 04J " T 00/
J 0 " J 0/
7 J 4 " 7 0 /
Te r r | C reagh-K | rk exp | a| ned t hat t hey h ad t r| ed
hard to I | nd out what had happened to the T T ?0 pa~
t| ent s who were | ost [ l etter s, tel ephone cal | s , etc . ) . |
am not | mpressed. | roIes s| onal researchers are ex~
pected to ant| c| pate prob| ems beIore they occur. To
l os e t r ack oI near| y one~quarter oI an ent | re study
group | s co| ossal | ncompetence, Ior wh| ch t here can be
no excuses. | I a proIes s| onal researcher ever Iound
h | mse | I r espon s | bl e Ior s u c h a d| saster, he wou | d
probabl y be contemp| at| ng two cou r ses oI act| on: ex| | e
or su | c| de. but not t he | ntrep| d bu rrough s nel | come
researchers ~ t hey dec| ded to resort to some stat| s~
t| cal hocu s~pocus , | n order to pretend t hat t he T T ? 0
pat| ent s hadn' t rea| | y been | ost aIter al l .
A Guess I s A Guess I s A Guess
OI the 4 80 5 pat| ent s , ? 8 J 8 [ 5 /) were reported as
be| ng a| | ve aIter 44 weeks ~ | I we as sume t hat a| | oI
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART TnO 7
the l ost pat| ents had d| ed, t hen 5 / wou l d represent
the l owest poss| bl e su rv| val est | mate. On the ot her
hand, J 5 8 pat| ents [ 8? /) were not reported to have
d| ed aIter 44 week s ~ |I we assume that al l oI these
pat| ents were |ndeed al | ve, then 8 ? / woul d represent
the h| ghest poss| bl e su rv| val est| mate. The t rue per~
cent su rv| v| ng presumabl y l | es somewhere |n between
5 /
and 8 ? /. The bu rroughs nel l come researcher s
u sed some k | nd oI stat | st| cal pro]ect| on techn|que | n
order to est | mate ~ or guess, as | t wer e ~ what the
t rue percent su rv| v| ng wou l d be | I al l the data were | n
and the 1 1 ?0 pat| ents had not been l ost.
Th| s | s an abu se oI stat | st | cs. | ro]ect| on techn| ques
are not a Iorm oI mag| c. The Iact | s t hat the bur~
rou gh s nel l come r esea r c h e r s l os t cont rol oI t he| r
study. They Ia| l ed. And there |s no Iorm oI stat | st | cs
that can remedy t h| s , any more t han | t can put sp| l t
m| l k back | n the btt l e or put Humpty Oumpty back
toget her aga| n. Terr| Creagh~K| rk sa| d t hat the Kap~
l a n~He | e r | roduct L | m| t method had been u sed to
est | mate the percent su rv| v| ng aIter 44 weeks. How~
eve r , the Kapl an~He| er | roduct L | m| t method | s not
ment | oned | n t h e ) AHA art| cl e, wh| ch reIers to a
L| E TE S T procedu re and to st andard su rv| val tech~
n| ques , whatever those m| ght be.
AI t er a l l t h e t h e t a l k about t h e Kapl an~He| er
| roduct L | m| t method and/or the L | | ETE S T procedure,
| t | s someth| ng oI a l etdown t o I| nd t hat the authors
may have obta| ned the| r 7 J / est| mate by a s| mpl er
method. They state t hat | I al l t he l ost' pat| ents were
st | l l al | ve [ and on A/ T ) , the su rv| val at 44 week s
cou l d be est| mated to be as h| gh as 8 ? / . On the
other hand, | I al l oI t he l ost' pat| ents had d| ed 1 5
days aIter the l ast report was rece| ved [ a pecul | ar
assumpt| on, but l et | t pass ] , the su rv| val cou l d be
est | mated to be as low as 64/ . At t h| s po| nt they
add toget her the two percent s [8 ? / + 64/) and d| v| de
by two, t hus obta| n| ng ~~ E u reka | ~~ an average oI
7J /. Hav| ng perIormed el ementary schol ar| thmet| c
80 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
they wr| te. ' The t rue su rv| val Ial l s somewhere between
these two po| nt s, presumabl y most cl osel y reIl ected by
the overal l po| nt est| mate oI 7J/.
5
nh at ever p ro] ect | on t ec h n | q u e s were u sed, t he
authors oI t he report reach t he concl u s| on. ' Over al l
su rv| val at 44 week s aIter hav| ng started therapy was
7 J /
[ ? . T /) [ | | g. T ? ) ' .
6
At th| s po| nt | w| s h to em~
phas| z

two th | ngs. | | rst , the u se oI the word, ' was' .

Th e a u t h or s d| d not wr | te, ' was est| mated to be' ,
wh | c h wou l d have been honest, they wrote, ' was' ,
wh| ch | s a l | e. Unl ess spec| I| ed otherw| se, a percent | s
al ways assumed to be an actual percent . Second, t he
conI | dence | nterval oI ? . T / | s | mpos s| bl y low, con~
s | der| ng that |t must
_
I l ect not onl y t he er ror | n~
herent | n a pro]ect| on t ry| ng to compensate Ior t he
l oss oI ? J / oI the total sampl e, but mu st reI l ect
sampl | ng var| at |on as wel l . [ See Exh| b| t ? . )
On the I| rst page oI the art| cl e | t | s stated. ' A
det a| l ed descr| pt|on oI data management and t rack| ng
procedures | s beyond the scope oI t h| s art| cl e and w| l l
be publ | shed el sewhere. nhen | tal ked to Creagh~K| rk
she sa| d she had ] ust begun to wr| te t h| s ' descr| pt | on' .
| look Iorward eagerl y to read| ng | t , but | n t he mean~
t| me we al ready know enough to re]ect and repud| ate
what the bu rroughs nel l come researchers have done.
They have del | beratel y and I raudu l ent l y presented an
est| mate as though |t were an actual percent [ der| ved
by d| v| d| ng an act ual number by an act ual total ) . That
these peopl e | ntended to dece| ve | s ev| dent I rom the
st at ement | n t h e abs t ract at the beg| nn| ng oI the
) AHA a r t | c l e . ' Over a l l su rv| val at 44 week s aIter
| n| t| at | on oI therapy was 7 J / [

? . T /) .
7
Nowhere | n
5
| b| d. p. J 0 T J.
6
| b| d. p. J 0 T ?.
7
| b| d. p. J 00.
C
c
s
-
:
e

0
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART TnO 8 T
60
40
20
0
0 28 56 84 1 1 2 1 40 1 68 1 98 224 252 280 308
No. of Days Since Starting Zidovudi ne Therapy
Fig 1 . -0erall surivl exprience of patients with acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome undergoing zidovudine therapy (with confidence limits).
E XH| b| T ? . The above chart | s reproduced exact | y as
| t appeared | n the ) AHA art| cl e, p. J 0 1 4. Note t hat
there | s pl enty oI wh| te space between the bottom two
bar s, wh| ch cou | d have been u sed to expl a| n t hat the
ch a rt | s ba sed on s t at | st| cal est| mates rather t han
actua| percents. Note Iu rther that the annot at|on on
the y ax| s reads ' / Surv| v| ng' , wh| ch | s m| s| ead| ng and
Iraudu | ent . There | s pl enty oI room to say ' E st | mated
/ Surv| v| ng' or ' E st . / Surv| v| ng' .
8? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
the abst ract | s there even a h| nt t hat the 7 J / I | gure | s
merel y an est| mate. | t goes w| thout say| ng t hat an
abst ract shou | d accurate| y summar | ze the ma| n art| c| e,
s| nce many peop| e never read beyond the abst ract.
Oav| d barry c| a| med t hat bu rroughs ne| | come had
no cont ro| over these matters, t hat t hey were d| ctated
by t he ed| tor| a| pol | cy oI ) AHA. Th| s | s nonsense. | t
| s not Ior t he ) AHA ed| tors or anyone el se t o dec| de
that a guess | s ust as good as an actual stat| st| c.
Nor | s | t Ior them to dec| de whether or not tab| es and
chart s need to have suII| c| ent annotat|on t hat they w| | |
b mean| ngIu | and tr uthI u| .
Unexplaine Deaths
S| nce the Iocus oI the study was on su rv| val ver su s
death , | t | s obv|ou s| y | mportant to know t he cau ses oI
death Ior the 847 pat| ents who are known to have
d| ed. The | n adequ ac y oI t he | nIormat| on obta| ned
revea | s once aga|n the | ncompetence oI t he resear~
chers. At t he very beg| nn| ng oI t he study, t he phys| ~
c | a n s ought to have been tol d that t hey wou l d be
expected to prov| de compl ete and accu rate | nIormat| on
on t h e | r pat | ent s. ThereIore | t | s d| sconcert| ng to
| earn that t he s| ng| e mst I requent cau se oI deat h was
desc r| bed as ' unspec| I| ed' [1 6. 4/) . [ See Exh| b| t J. )
And | I we add together ' unspec| I | ed' [ 1 6. 4/) w| th
' A| OS, not c| ass| I| ed' [ 1 1 . ? /) , we I | nd t hat Iu | l y ? 7 . 6 /
oI t h e death s were descr| bed | n unacceptab| y vague and
mean| ngl ess terms. | u rther , we observe t hat there are
no I ewer t han th ree ' cau ses' rel ated to pneumon| a,
wh| ch m| ght or m| ght not be the same t h| ng: ' pneumo~
cyst |s car| n| | pneumon| a [1 J. 8 /) , resp| ratory arrest'
[ 7 . ? /) , and ' pneumn| a unspec| I | ed' [ 6. 0/) , together
these th ree add up to ? 7 /.
8
A proIess| ona| ana| yst
wou l d have ' netted' together the th ree Iorms oI pneu~
mn| a ~ show| ng the ' net' tota| on the tabl e, w| t h t he
8
| b| d. p. J 0 1 ? .
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART TnO
Tabl e 4. -Most Frequentl y Reported Pri mary
Causes of Death Among Patients With AI DS
Undergoing Zidovudine Therapy
CauMof Dth Fruenc %of Dtha
Unspifie 1 39 1 6.4
Pneumoystis carnii
pneumnia 1 1 7 1 3. 8
AI DS, not classified
95 1 1 . 2
Mycbacterial disease 75 8.9
Respirator arrest 61 7. 2
Neplasm 5 6. 6
Pneumonia, unspcifie 51 6.0
AIDS with infe,
n nelasm 39 4.6
Sptiemia 37 4. 4
Encephalpathy, acute 26 3. 1
Cachexia 25 3.0
Cardiac arrest 24 2.8
Lympoma 24 2.8
Cyomealovirs 23 2.7
AIDS with infe,
neplasm 22 2.6
Disrder of central
nerous system 20 2.4
Dementia 1 9 2.2
Inanition 1 9 2.2
Blo ls 1 1 1 .3
Crptocl meningitis 1 1 1 . 3
Meningitis 1 1 1 . 3
Toxoplasmosis 1 1 1 . 3
Sizures 1 0 1 .2
AIDS with neoplasm,
n infetion 9 1 . 1
Muliple causes of death were repre for many
patients. All atribute causes of death have ben
inlude. AIDS indicates acuired immunoeficiency
syndrome .
8 J
E XH| b | T J . Note that ? 7 . 6/ oI the deat h s are e| ther
' unspec| I | ed' or ' A| OS, not c| ass| I| ed' . No Iewer t han
th ree ' cau ses are re| ated to pneumon| a, wh| ch m| ght
or m| ght not be the same th | ng [|neumocyst | s car | n| |
pneumon| a, resp| ratory arrest , and pneumon| a unspec| ~
I| ed) , together these add up to ?7/. The authors I a| |
to show the tota| number oI deat h s [N = 847) on wh| ch
the I requenc| es | n the I| rst co| umn ar e percentaged.
84 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/T STORY
th ree spec| I | c Iorms oI pneumon| a underneath t he net .
Oav| d barry d| d not know what ' nett | ng meant, al ~
though | t | s an el ementary stat| st| cal procedure, and
one wh| ch |s essent| al to produce mean| ngI ul tabl es.
Faulty Coariss
Even |I one accepted the 7 J / s urv| val at 4 4 week s
aIter | n| t| at |on oI A/ T t herapy, one wou l d st| l l have to
as k wh et her t h| s su rv| val rate | s real l y very good.
The authors oI t h| s study bel | eve t hat | t | s , and state:
' The su rv| val est| mate Ior t h| s t reated cohort | s s| g~
n| I| cantl y above t hat desc r| bed |n prev| ou sl y reported
natu ral h| story cohorts. They then proceed to make a
number oI spec|ou s compar | sons to:
An ol d [ 1 8 1 ~1 8 5 ) New York C| ty cohort where
the med| an cumul at | ve su rv| val was est| mated to
be 1 0. 5 mnt hs .
A I ragment oI the COC ' s A| OS stat | st | cs , Iocus~
s | ng on l y on cases d| agnosed |n the I| rst s| x
mnt hs oI 1 86.
A study oI one year [ not 44~week ] su rv| val Ior
hemop h | l | ac s [ a congen| t al l y s| ck l y popu l at|on]
w| th A| OS.
A ' prospect| ve study oI a San | ranc| sco cohort
show| ng onl y 5 0/ su rv| v| ng beyond 1 1 . ? mnth s
[ not 4 4 weeks or 1 0 mnt hs ] . Th| s so~cal l ed
' p rospect| ve study | s merel y an abst ract pre~
sented at a ) une 1 8 7 A| OS conIerence.
None oI t hese natu ral h| story stud| es | s at al l
comparabl e to the | NO study reported on | n t he ) AHA
art| cl e. bes| des wh | ch , t here are numerou s and ma]or
p robl ems | n vol ved | n at t empt | n g to make s u rv| val
compar | sons: Oo A| OS pat| ents who take A/ T have
t h e same character | st | cs as t hose who do not take
ON THE A/ T | RONT: |ART TnO 8 5
A/ Tl | robab| y not . Oo |nAs on A/ T rece| ve t he
same pat| ent management as |nAs who ar e not on
A/ Tl | robab| y not . Are |nAs | | v| ng |onger now t han
they were a Iew years agol They probab| y are [ and
th | s cou | d be becau se pat| ent management | s better , or
because |nAs be| ng d| agnosed now are not as s|ck as
those be| ng d| agnosed severa| years ago) . | n add| t|on
t h er e | s t he Iact t hat about 5 0 / oI |nAs cannot
to| erate A/T and have to be taken oII t he drug. nhat
th | s mean s | s t hat the st ronger pat| ents [ tak| ng A/ T
because they can to| erate | t ) are compared w| t h t he
weaker pat| ent s [ who cannot to| erate A/ T) . Obv|ou s| y
t h| s | s a st rong b| as | n Iavor oI A/ T.
Speak| ng w| t h a Iorked tongue t he authors oI t he
) AHA art| c| e say:
The use oI h| stor| ca| contro| s | s | ntended s| mp| y
to p rov| de a reIerence po| nt, and no attempt | s
made to make stat| st| ca| compar | sons between the
nat u ra| h| story cohort and t h| s popu | at|on oI z | do~
vud| ne~t reated pat| ent s.

T h | s c aveat | s deI | n| te| y ca| | ed Ior. Any such

compar | son wou | d be | nva| | d. Neverthe| ess, the ) AHA
art | c | e h ad no soone r appea red | n pr| nt t hant
bur roughs ne| |come researcher s ru shed to the med| a to
c| a| m t hat A/ T had extended the | | ves oI t he pat| ents
| n the | NO study. An As soc| ated | ress d| spatch oI
November ? 5 , 1 88 reported that:
Near| y 5 , 000 peop| e who took the A| OS~I| ght| ng
dr u g once k nown as A / T s u r v| ved at a much
greater rate than those w| t hout | t, say researcher s
Ior the med| c| ne' s maker.
Accord| ng to the A| story Terr| Creagh~K| rk sa| d
t hat ' records oI peop| e who were d| agnosed w| th A| OS
beIor e z | dovud| ne bec ame ava| | ab| e show on| y 5 0/

| b| d. p. J 0 1 5 .
8 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE AZ T STORY
su rv| ved past T T mnt hs ' . Th| s | s a reIerence to the
' prospect| ve San | ranc| sco cohort study, a comp| etel y
| mproper compar | son. The d| spar| ty between the caveat
| n t h e ) AHA art| c| e, and the subsequent statement s
made by
_
authors oI t h e ) AHA art | cl e to t h e med| a,
suggest s t hat these peop| e | ntend to dece| ve.
Suning Up
|t |s d| sgraceIu | that the ed| tors oI ) AHA a| lowed
t h| s garbage to be pub| | shed. | t | s d| sgraceI ul that
they perm| tted a dub|ou s est| mate to be pa| med oII as
an actual su rv| val stat | st | c, and t hat t hey perm| tted
Ial se and m| s| ead| ng compar| sons to be made. | n no
way does t h| s study show t hat AZ T ' extends | | Ie' or | s
even sl | ght| y beneI| c| a| . The st udy demonstrates on| y
how Iarc| ca| are the peer~rev| ew standards oI even t he
l ead| ng med| ca| ]ou rnal s.
1
A/ T ANO CANC E R
8 7
VI . AZT An Cacer
| t | s u rgentl y necessary to rev| ew t he tox| c| ty oI
A/ T | n l | ght oI recent market| ng devel opments. | r| or
to l ast August, A/ T therapy was oII| c| al | y | nd| cated
onl y Ior A| OS or ARC ' pat| ents who e| ther had a
h| story oI cyto| og| cal | y conI| rmed |neumocyst | s car | n| |
pneumon| a [ |C | ) or an absol ute CO4 [ T 4 he| per/| n~
ducer ) l ymphocyte count oI l ess than ?00/mm
J
| n the
per| pheral b|ood beIore therapy | s begun. [ |hys| c| an' s
Oesk ReIerence) Th| s changed dramat| cal | y | n August,
when a ser| es oI press re| eases were | s sued by t he
Nat | onal | nst| tute oI Al l ergy and | nIect| ou s O| seases
[ N | A | O ) and ot h er br an c h es oI the |ubl | c Heal th
Serv| ce [ |HS ) , c| a| m| ng t hat A/ T was beneI| c| al Ior
H| V~| nIected persons w| t h m| | d symptoms oI | mmune
system damage and a| so Ior H| V~| nIected persons who
have not yet devel oped symptoms.
Th e ol d r at | onal e Ior prescr| b| ng A/ T was t hat
peopl e w| th A| OS [ |nAs ) were suIIer| ng I rom a d| sease
that was | nvar| abl y Iatal , that such persons had onl y a
Iew mont h s to l | ve, and that A/ T m| ght extend t he| r
l | ves Ior a Iew more month s. The | dea was t hat | n a
desperate s| tuat |on , drast| c meas ures were cal l ed Ior.
| have repeatedl y argued t hat t h| s v| ewpo| nt | s wrong
~ that A| OS | s not | nvar| ab| y Iatal , t hat some |nAs
have su rv| ved Ior many years and appear to be recov~
er| ng, and t hat the on| y chance Ior recovery | | es | n
st rengthen| ng t he body, rather than | n] ur| ng | t t hrough
tox|c chemtherapy l |ke A/ T.
Now a compl etel y d| IIerent game p| an | s | n opera~
t | on. n | t h we| l ~or c h e st rated propaganda emanat| ng
I rom N| A| O, Gay Hen' s Heal th Cr| s | s [ GHHC ) , |roect
| nIorm, and var|ous and sundry other A| O5 groups ,
c l | n | c a | r e s e a r c h e r s , and ot h er con Ieder at es oI
bu rrough s nel lcome [ the manuIactu rer oI A/ T) , phys|
c| ans are now be| ng u rged to prescr| be A/ T Ior per~
I ec t l y h e a l t h y peop | e. Th e t a r geted | nd| v| dual s~
8 8 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: T HE A/ T STORY
est| mated to be several hundreds oI thou sands | n t he
Un| ted States a| one ~ merel y have ant | bod| es t o H| V~
1 , a ret rov| r us t hat has not yet been proven to be
harmIu l , | et a| one the cau se oI the devastat| ng A| O
Syndrome. Hea| thy peopl e, who ought t o |ok Iorward
to | | v| ng I or sever a| more decades, are now be| ng
conned | nto tak| ng the most tox| c substance ever pre~
sc r | bed Ior |ong~term u se. S| nce gay men are the
pr| mary target s oI A/T market| ng, s| nce A/T t herapy
wou l d probab| y cau se even an ath| ete | n h | s pr| me to
d| e w| t h| n a Iew year s, and s| nce the a| l eged ' beneI | ts'
oI A/ T rest upon I raud, | t | s not unreasonabl e to u se
the word ' genoc| de' to descr| be what | s happen| ng.
The Great AZT Sca: Results Without Data
| n my art| cl es |n the Nat| ve | have ana| yzed t he
stud| es t hat a| | eged| y demonst rate A/T' s eIIect| veness,
and have conc| u ded t h at t h e re | s no sc| ent| I| ca| l y
cred| b| e ev| dence that A/ T has beneI| t s oI any k | nd.
Ooc u ment s wh| ch the |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat| on
[ |OA) was Iorced to re| ease under the | reedom oI
| nIormat|on Act revea| ed t hat the |hase | | [ ' doubl e~
bl | nd, p| acebo~cont ro| l ed' ) A/ T t r| al s were worth| ess.
The researchers covered up the Iact t hat the study had
become unbl | nded [ thus v| ol at| ng the bas| c test des| gn ) .
| rotoco| v|o| at |ons were overl ooked. norst oI a | l , the
researchers de| | berate| y u sed data that t hey knew were
Ial se. These I raudul ent tr | al s were the bas| s oI gov~
ernment approval oI the drug.
T
Another study oIten c| ted as prooI oI A/ T' s bene~
I | t s concer n s pat | ent s who rece| ved A/ T aIter the
1
Nat | ve | s s u e ? J 5 . Anot h e r h | g h | y c r | t| cal
rev| ew oI the |hase | | tr | al s was wr| tten by ) oseph A.
Sonnabend, ' Rev| ew oI A/ T Hu | t| center Tr| a| Oata
Obt a | n ed Under the | reedom oI | nIormat|on Act by
| ro] ect | nI or m and AC T~U| ' , A| OS |orum, ) anuary
1 8 8 .
A/ T ANO CANCE R 8
|hase | | t r | al s were prematu rel y term| nated.
?
have
wr| tten an extens| ve anal ys| s oI t h| s study, wh| ch | s a
rot t en m| x t u re oI | ncompet ence and d| shonesty.
J
T h rough col os s al | ncompetence the researchers l ost
t rack oI 1 1 ? 0 pat| ent s , not know| ng | I t hey were even
al | ve or dead. They t hen u sed stat| st| cal pro]ect| on
methods to guess what resu l ts they wou l d have ob~
ta| ned |I they had not l ost t he 1 1 ? 0 pat | ent s , presented
the| r guesses as actual su rv| val stat | st | cs, and made a
number oI grossl y | nval | d compar | sons | n order to cl a| m
that A/ T had extended l | ves. Th| s ' research' | s a
bl at ant ex er c | s e | n d| s | n Ior mat | on, p rov| ng noth | ng
except how I arc| cal are the ' peer rev| ew standards oI
med| cal ] ournal s.
As appal l | ng as these two stud| es were, they at
l east presented data, however dub|ou s. The two stud~
| es t hat rece| ved so much IanIare l ast August d| dn ' t
even go t h at I ar. Th e general publ | c, phys| c| an s ,
| nAs , and h ea l t h c a r e workers were expected to
accept ' I | n d| n gs ' wh | ch cons| sted oI general | zat |ons
t hat were not even backed up by numbers. Normal l y a
press rel ease on a study | s | s sued a Iew days beIore
the publ | cat |on oI a report |n a peer~rev| ewed med| cal
]ou rnal . Th| s | s et h| cal l y obl | gatory, because phys|
c | a n s w| th the respons| b| l | ty oI prescr| b| ng a drug~
espec| al l y one as tox| c as A/ T ~~ are ent| t l ed to have
recou rse to hard dat a, a proper desc r| pt |on oI method
ology, and an | ntel l | gent anal ys| s oI the I | nd| ngs.
On 1 7 August 1 8 the U. S. Oepartment oI Heal th
?
Ter r | C reagh~K| rk et al . , ' Su rv| val E xper| ence
Among |at | ents n| th A| OS Rece| v| ng / | dovud| ne [ A/ T] :
|ol l ow~up oI |at | ents |n a Compass|onate |l ea | ro~
gram' , ) ou rnal oI the Amer| can Hed| cal As soc| at|on, ? 5
November 1 8 8.
J
Nat| ve | ssue J00.
0 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
and Hu man Ser v | ces [ HHS ) | ssued a press rel ease,
wh| ch began.
A mul t| center A| OS drug tr | al w| t h more than
J , ? 00 vol unteers has shown t hat z | dovud| ne [ A/ T)
del ays progress|on oI d| sease | n certa| n H| V~| nIected
persons who have not yet developed symptoms.
The al l eged I| nd| ngs oI the study [ known as ACTG
| rotocol 0 T ) were desc r| bed | n a vague paragraph,
wh| ch d| d not g| ve a s| ngl e hard stat| st| c:
The board Iound that, | n those part| c| pants w| t h
Iewer than 500 T4 cel l s who rece| ved z| dovud| ne
[ A/ T ] , the rate oI progres s|on to A| OS or severe
A RC was roughl y hal I that Ior part| c| pants w| t h
I ewer t h an 5 0 0 T4 cel l s who rece| ved pl acebo.
| rog r es s| on to symptoms was about the same | n
pat| ents rece| v| ng e| ther 5 0 0 mg per day or T , 5 0 0
mg per day oI the drug. Tox| c| t| es were m| n| mal | n
bth t reatment groups . Hore | mportantl y, w| th the
except|on oI nau sea that occur red | n about J per~
cent oI the vol unteer s , v| rt ual l y no d| IIerences | n
s| de eIIect s were observed | n persons rece| v| ng the
l ower dose and persons rece| v| ng pl acebo. [ | rom
press rel ease, U. S. Oepartment oI Heal th and Human
Serv|ces, T 7 August T 8 )
Then on ? 4 August 1 8 N| A| O | ssued | t s own press
rel ease, ' Res ul t s oI Cont rol l ed Cl | n| cal Tr| al s oI / | do~
vudi ne |n Ear l y H| V | nIect| on' . Th| s two~pager cov~
ered bth | rotocol 0T [ heal thy persons ) and |rotocol
0 1 6 [ per sons w| t h ' m| l d symptoms' ) , and gave even l ess
| nIormat |on t han the HHS statement had. | t made the
h i g h l y | mpl a u s| bl e assert| on that ' z| dovud| ne toxi c| ty
exper | enced by the persons stud| ed | n | rotocol 0 1 was
m| n| mal .
| spent several days cal l | ng N| A| O and var|ou s other
| H S br an c h e s | n an at t empt to obta| n some hard
i nIormation about |rotocol 0 T . They sent me a th ree~
page ' backgrounder ' ent| t l ed, ACTG 01 ~ Quest |ons
AZ 1 ANO CANC E R T
and Answer s ' . 1h| s Q & A descr| bed t h e ' resul t s ' oI
the study | n one paragraph.
nhat were t he actual res ul t s l Z | dovud| ne [ AZ 1j
del ayed the onset oI advanced ARC or A| OS Ior
| nd| v| dual s who entered the study w| th l ess t han 5 0 0
14 cel l counts. As oI Augu st T 0, T 8 , J 8 | nd| v| d~
ual s random| zed to pl acebo had developed endpo| nts
[ JJ oI wh| ch were A| OS ) . Onl y T7 | nd| v| dual s
random| zed to T 00 mg z | dovud| ne I| ve t| mes da| l y
had developed endpo| nts [ T T oI wh| ch were A| OS ) ,
and T | nd| v|dual s rece| v| ng J 00 mg I | ve t| mes da| l y
developed endpo| nts [ T 4 oI wh| ch were A| OS ) . 1he
substant| al d| IIerence | n outcome between t reatment
groups was observed Ior t hose enter| ng the study
w| th a 14 cel l count l ess than 5 00. However, Ior
|nd| v|dual s enter| ng w| t h 14 cel l counts between 500
and 800, Iewer endpo| nts occur red, and no deI| n| te
statement regard| ng d| IIerences | n event rates can
be made at t h| s t | me. [ | rom ' backgrounder. AC1G
0T ~ Quest |ons and Answer s' , Nat |onal | nst| tute oI
Al l ergy and | nIect |ou s O| seases , T 7 Augu st T 8 )
As t he reader can see, t h | s statement | s g| bber | sh,
| t g| ves no real data, and | t | s | n cont rad| ct| on w| t h
the earl | er HHS press rel ease.
nhen | tal ked to the N| A| O press oII| cer who was
supposed to be most knowl edgeabl e about |rotocol 0 T ,
and asked h| m some spec| I| c quest|ons [ wh | ch he was
unabl e t o answer ) , he tol d me I rankl y t hat | had al l oI
t h e | n Ior mat | on h e h | msel I had ~~ t hat there was
not h| ng he cou l d tel l me | d| dn' t al ready know.
ba sed on my k nowl edge oI | rotocol 0 T , equal
perhaps t o t hat oI anyone | n the country, | ccnst ruc~
ted 1abl e T , wh| ch shows t he I| nd| ngs |n the s| mpl est
and most st ra| ghtIorward way poss| bl e. 1h| s tabl e
s hou l d be st ud|ed careIu l l y by anyone who | s con~
s| der| ng the u se oI AZ 1 Ior an ' asymptomat| c H| V~
| nIected person' . 1abl e T conta| ns al l oI the data we
have about | rotocol 0T .
TAb L E 1
' Res ul t s | rom N| A| O~Conducted | rotocol 0 1 :
| | acebo~Control l ed Tr | al | n Asymptomat| c H| V~| nIected |er sons
bases:
| rogressed to A| OS
or Advanced ARC
Ourat| on oI Treatment :
Range [ mnth s )
Hean [ mnt h s )
Hed| an [ mnth s )
Total
Sampl e"
[ l )
1 /
l l
[l)
[l)
[l)
Treatment
A/ T | l acebo
[ l )
[ l )
1 / 1 /
[ l )
[l)
[ l)
l
[l)
[l)
[ l)
l
"Accord| ng to N| A| O, 'mre than J ? 0 0 asymptomat| c H| V~| nIected vol unteer s were
enrol l ed approx| matel y two year s ago . However , al l stud| es have drop~outs.
N| A| O does not state how many vol unteer s were st| l l part| c| pat| ng when the
study was term| nated.
""Al so somet| mes reIer red to as ' severe ARC ' [ undeI| ned ) .
1
N
"
0
V
0
z
O
-
"
;
m
V
n
;
"
-
0
z
-
I
m
)
N
-
V
-
0
;
-
AZ T ANO CANCE R J
Drug Regulatio Amrican Style
The ord| nary m| nd oIten Ia| | s to make the d| st| nc~
t |on between th | ngs as they are and t h| ngs as t hey
ought to be. |or examp| e, | I t he |OA | s to do | t s ob
and protect t he Amer| can pub| | c I rom dangerou s dr ugs,
| t ought to have a system Ior keep| ng t rack oI adver se
react|ons to a drug aIter | t has been put on the mar~
ket . Hany peop| e thereIore assume t hat there | s such
a system. There | s not. | n t h| s regard t he Un| ted
States takes an approach to drug regu| at |on t hat | s
d| IIerent I rom that oI most other | ndu st r | a| | zed coun~
tr | es.
| n the Un| ted States , a| | oI the eIIorts | n screen| ng
a new dr ug Ior adverse s| de eIIects are supposed to
take p | ace beIore the dr ug | s approved. Once a drug
has been approved whether by hook, crok, or the
| n t r | n s | c mer | t s oI the product | t' s c| ear sa| | | ng
I rom then on. | n theory, phys| c| ans are supposed to
r epor t adver se eI I ec t s to man u I actur er s, who are
supposed to re| ay the | nIormat| on to the |OA. but | n
pract| ce, w| th no | ncent| ves Ior comp| | ance, no pun| sh~
men t s Ior noncomp| | ance, and w| th no Iedera| data
gat h er | n g s ys t em, t he post~market| ng su rve| | | ance | s
haphazard at best.
| n cont rast , br| ta| n has a soph| st| cated and r| gor~
ou sI y enIorced system oI post~market| ng su rve| | | ance.
The ph| | osophy there | s t hat some adverse eIIects oI a
drug on| y become apparent aIter a certa| n per| od oI
t| me t h| s | s known as chron| c tox| c| ty and t hat
some adverse eIIects m| ght be re| at| ve| y rare, Iound
perhaps | n on| y 1 | n 1 000, or 1 | n 5 000 persons.
Ne | t h e r t h e c h ron| c tox | c | t y nor the rare adverse
eI I ec t s wou | d | | k e | y be | den t | I| ed |n pre~market| ng
t r | a | s , wh | c h t yp | c a | | y | nvo| ve on| y a Iew h undred
sub] ect s t reated Ior a re| at| ve| y short t | me.
Host new drugs take to 1 0 years to go t hrough
t h e | OA ' s a p p rova| p roces s , wh| ch | nc| udes | n| t| a|
saIety test s | n an| ma| s and human be| ngs, c| | n| ca| tr | a| s
Ior eI I | cacy and s aI et y, and extens| ve rev| ew and
4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/T STORY
an a| ys | s oI t h e data. A/ T, however , was rushed
t hrough the approva| proces s Iaster t han any drug | n
the |OA' s h| story ~ | ess t han two year s. As a resu | t ,
the oII | c| a| | y recogn| zed tox| c| t| es oI A/T ar e Iar I rom
comp| ete. | u rt her , the ' non~oI I | c| a| ' tox| c| t| es oI A/ T,
we| | known t hrough the Iorm| dab| e |nA grapev| ne, are
not be| ng systemat| ca| | y recorded.
On top oI a| | these prob| ems, A/ T was approved on
the bas | s oI research t hat was not ] ust | nadequate, but
Iraudu| ent. | t | s | mportant to rea| | ze that the | OA
h a s been I or many decades a notor | ous| y corrupt
agency. T| me and aga| n oII | c| a| s |n t he | OA have
co| | uded w| t h drug manuIacturers | n order to suppress
| nIormat|on about a drug' s s| de eIIects. Recent| y Or.
S | dney H. no| I e, d| r ector oI the non~proI| t |ub| | c
C | t | zen Hea| th Research Group [HRG) , charged t hat
under Comm| s s | oner | r ank E . Young, the |OA ' | s
| mp| | c| t| y | nv| t| ng a | | oI t h e | ndustr| es | t regu | ates to
]o| n | n t he | aw| es sness.
4
| am prepar| ng a Iut u re
art | c| e t hat w| | | rev| ew some oI the we| | ~documented
cr | mes aga| nst pub| | c hea| th that have been comm| tted
t hrough co| | us|on oI drug manuIactu rer s, t he | OA and
other branches oI the |ub| | c Hea| th Serv| ce, c| | n| ca|
researcher s, and the Amer| can Hed| ca| As soc| at| on.
The Cherv Review of AZT' s Pharacoloy & Toxicity
Amng t he document s wh| ch t he |OA was Iorced to
re| ease under t he | reedom oI | nIormat|on ACT was t he
Rev| ew & E va| uat|on oI |harmaco|ogy & Tox| co|ogy
Oata' Ior t he drug Ret rov| r [ gener| c name: z | dovud| ne,
aka A/ T or az|dot hym|d| ne) , wr| tten by |OA tox| co|ogy
4
Horton H | n t z , ' Anatomy oI a Tragedy' , New
York Newsday, J October 1 8 .
AZ T ANO CANC E R 5
ana| yst Harvey | . Chernov, |h . O. , and subm|tted | n | t s
I| na| Iorm on ? Oecember 1 8 6.
5
C h er nov rev| ewed severa| dozen stud| es t hat had
been comp | et ed, | nc| u d| ng |n v| tro stud| es and ex~
per | ment s on r at s , m| ce, rabb| t s , beag| e dogs, and
human be| ngs. Hany add| t| ona| stud| es had not been
comp| eted or had been p| anned but not begun. The
s| ng| e most | mportant I| nd| ng was t hat AZ T was tox| c
to the bne marrow, caus| ng anem| a. Chernov wrote:
T h u s , a | t hough t h e dose var| ed, anem| a was
noted | n a| | spec| es [ | nc| ud| ng man) | n wh| ch t he
dr ug has been tested.
Chernov noted that AZ T was Iound weak | y muta~
gen | c | n v| t ro | n t he mou se | ymphoma ce| | system.
Oose~re| ated ch romosome damage was observed | n an | n
v| tro cytogenet| c assay u s| ng human | ymphocytes.
.
E v| dence I rom t h e ' Ce | | T ran s I or mat | on Assay
| nd| cated t hat AZ T was | | ke| y to cause cancer. | n
Chernov's summary:
Th| s bAL b/c~J TJ neop| ast| c t ransIormat| on assay
wa s per I ormed accord| n g to s t andard operat| ng
procedu re. Concent rat| ons oI AZ T as | ow as 0. 1
mcg/m| reduced the number oI ce| | s | n cu| t ure aIter
a J ~day exposu re. A stat | st| ca| | y s| gn| I| cant | n~
crease | n the number oI aberrant ' Ioc| ' was noted
at a concentrat|on oI 0. 5 mcg/m| . Th| s behav| or | s
character | st| c oI tumr ce| | s and suggests t hat AZ T
may be a potent| a| carc| nogen. | t appears to be at
| east a s act | ve as the pos| t | ve cont ro| mater | a| ,
methy| cho| anth rene [ a known and ext reme| y potent
carc| nogen] .
5
Harvey | . Chernov, |h. O. , Rev| ew & Eva| uat|on
oI |har maco|ogy & Tox| co|ogy Oata, NOA 1 ~65 5 , ?
Oecember 1 8 6. [ |OA document obta| ned under t he
| reedom OI | nIormat| on Act ) .
6 |O| SON bY |RESC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Chernov was concerned t hat | n the r ush to approve
A/ T, the |OA was v|o| at| ng | t s own gu| de| | nes and
proceed| ng on the bas | s oI | nadequate | nIormat| on:
| OA gu | de| | n es wou | d h ave p res c r | bed more
extens | ve prec| | n| ca| test| ng t han that reported t hus
I ar . However , t he u rgency Ior deve|op| ng an ant| ~
A| OS drug has been so great that c| | n| ca| test| ng
has preceded the usua| /customary prec| | n| ca| test| ng.
|or ex amp| e, wh| | e data I rom a 6~mnth c| | n| ca|
s t udy are ava| | ab| e, resu | t s oI t he support| ng 6~
mnth prec| | n| ca| tox| c| ty stud| es have not yet been
subm| tted. A| so, t he app| | cant has a protoco| Ior a
T04~week c| | n|ca| study, whereas chron| c [ 5 ?~week
p rec | | n | c a| tox | c | t y stud| es are not schedu |ed to
start beIore ) anuary~|ebruary oI t h| s year.
Tak| ng | nto account a| | oI t he | nIormat| on ava| | ab| e
to h| m, Chernov recommended t hat A/ T shou | d not be
approved Ior market| ng:
| n con c | u s | on, t he I u| | prec| | n| ca| tox| co|og| ca|
p roI | | e | s I a r I rom comp| ete w| th 6~mnth data
ava| | ab| e, but not yet subm| tted, one~year stud| es to
beg| n short| y, etc. The ava| | ab| e data are | nsuI~
I| c| ent to support |OA approva| .
AZT a CaPr
Obv| ou s | y | I A / T | s go| ng to be prescr| bed to
hea| thy [ | I ' H| V~| nIected' ) peop| e, w| t h t he expecta~
t |on t hat they w| | | take t he drug Ior the rest oI t he| r
| | ves , | t | s | mpor t ant and eth | ca| | y | mperat| ve t hat
phys| c| ans and pat| ent s be I u| | y | nIormed on t he | ssue
oI carc| nogen| c| ty. but bur roughs ne| | come and t he| r
accomp| |ces | n the |OA have done the| r best t o sweep
carc| nogen| c| ty under the rug. back | n 1 8 6 bu r roughs
ne| | come proposed dea| | ng w| t h t he resu | t s oI t he Ce| |
TransIormat| on Assay by say| ng on the Ret rov| r | abe| ,
' Th e s | gn | I | cance oI t h es e | n v| tro resu | t s | s not
known.
A/ T ANO CANC E R 7
Th| s proposed | abe| | | ng wa s cr| t| c| zed by t h e |OA
t ox| co| ogy ana| ys t , H a r vey Chernov, I or be| ng m| s~
| ead| ng:
The sentence: ' The s| gn| I| cance oI t hese | n v| tro
resu | t s | s not known. | s not accu rate. A test
chem| ca| wh| ch | nduces a pos| t| ve response | n the
ce| | t r an s I or mat | on a s say | s p re sumed to be a
potent| a| carc| nogen.
6
bur rough s ne| | come reso| ved th| s prob| em by s| mp| y
dropp| ng the oIIend| ng sentence, w| t h t he end res u| t
be| ng every b| t as obscurant| st. | n t he Retrov| r ent ry
| n | hys| c| ans' Oesk ReIerence, wr| tten by bu rroughs
ne| | come, carc| nogen| c| ty | s dea| t w| th | n the Io| |ow| ng
way:
L ong~term carc| nogen| c| ty stud| es oI z| dovud| ne
| n an| ma| s have not been comp| eted. However , | n
an | n v | t ro mamma| | an ce| | t ransIormat| on assay,
z | dovud| ne was pos| t| ve at concentrat|ons oI 0. 5
mcg/m| and h| gher.
ne| | now, how many phys| c| ans wou | d know what
these I| nd| ngs meant Oamned Iew, | I any. Chernov
sa|d what the I| nd| ngs meant: A/ T | s presumed to be a
carc| nogen | but most phys| c| ans wou | d assume t hat
A/ T was not carc| nogen| c, Ior the s| mp| e reason t hat
t h e | h ys| c| ans' Oesk ReIerence ent ry hadn' t sa| d | t
was.
| n tox|co|ogy a bas| c d| st| nct| on | s made between
ac ut e tox | c| ty and ch ron| c tox| c| ty. Acute tox| c| ty
re
|
ers to those adver se eIIects t hat are man| Iest w| th| n
a re| at | ve| y short per|od oI t | me [ | I not necessar| | y
| mmed| ate| y ) . Ch ron| c tox| c| ty reIers t o adverse eI~
Iects t hat on| y become apparent over t| me. | t | s a
t r u | s m oI tox| co|ogy t hat chron| c tox| c| ty cannot be
pred| cted I rom acute tox| c| ty.
6
Harvey Chernov, op. c| t
8 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON: THE AZ T STORY
There ar e severa| k| nds oI chron| c tox| c| ty. | n one
k| nd, a s| ng| e exposure to the substance can resu | t | n
| | | ness many year s | ater ~ t h| s appear s t o be the case
w| th Agent Orange [ d| ox| n ) . Another k| nd oI chron| c
tox | c | t y | nvo| ves an acc u mu| at| on oI the substance
w| t h| n the body, aIter wh| ch symptoms occur . St | | |
another k| nd oI chron| c tox| c| ty | nvo| ves the accumu | a~
t| on oI | n ury:
Cons| der the c| rcumstances oI a sma| | degree oI
| rrevers| b| e | n] ury resu| t| ng I rom each oI a ser| es oI
doses. | I the change eIIected by a s| ng| e d| v| ded
dose | s t r u| y | rrevers| b| e, t he end resu| t oI a ser| es
oI doses may be essent | a| | y | dent| ca| w| th t he eIIect
oI the same tota| dose g| ven at one t| me.
7
| t takes t | me to determ| ne the potent| a| oI a sub~
stance to cau se cancer. Th| s | s one reason why Cher
nov ob] ected to the approva| oI AZ T beIore the com
p | et | on oI |ong~term carc| nogen| c| ty stud| es. | n the
words oI a tox| co|ogy expert:
T| me as we| | as dose | s a Iactor | n assess| ng
propert| es oI chem| ca| carc| nogens as compared to
drugs. | t | s | n t h| s way t hat carc| nogens d| IIer
I rom or d| nary tox| c agents. A number oI sma| |
doses g| ve no overt s| gna| oI t he| r presence and | n
due t | me can y| e| d tumors w| t h| n the | | Ie~span oI a
host . n| th noncarc| nogens such |ow dosages wou | d
be comp| ete| y | nnocuou s .
8
7
L ou | s ) . C a s ar et t , ' Tox| co|og| c Eva| uat| on , a
chapter |n Tox| co| ogy: The bas| c Sc| ence oI |o| sons,
ed| ted by L ou | s ) . Casaret t , |h . O. , and ) ohn Oou| | ,
H. O. , |h . O. , New York, Toronto, and L ondon, 1 7 5 .
8
) ohn H . ne| sburger , ' Chem| ca| Carc| nogenes| s ,
a chapter | n Casarett and Oou| | , op. c| t
A/ T ANO CANCE R

T h e po| n t rega r d| ng l ow dosages' | s espec| al l y
rel evant | n the case oI A/ T. Hany |nAs have been
l ed to bel | eve t hat |I t hey are on low dosages oI A/ T,
t h ey w| | | evade the terr| bl e tox| c| t| es oI t he drug.
|erhaps t hey w| l l to some extent evade the acute tox| ~
c| t| es, but onl y t | me w| l l tel l what ch ron| c tox| c| t| es
l |e | n wa| t, | ncl ud| ng cancer.
Samuel b roder oI t h e Na t | onal Cancer | nst| tute
[NC| ) | s t he man who | s more respons| bl e than anyone
el se Ior the development and promot|on oI A/ T. [ |or
t h | s rol e , some ' A | OS d | s s | dent s ' h ave nom| nated
broder Ior the annual Or . JoseI Hengel e award. ) E ven
broder now adm| ts that h| s drug may cause cancer. He
| s co~author oI a recent l y publ | shed art| cl e | n the New
E ngl and )ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne [ N E ) H) , | n wh| ch | t
stated:
m
| n cons| der| ng earl y | ntervent |on w| th z | dovud| ne,
| t | s oI part| cul ar concern that the drug may be
carc| nogen| c or mutagen| c, | t s long~term eIIect s are
unknown.

Hav| ng made t h| s adm| ss| on, the authors engage | n

some strangel y soph| st| cal reason| ng. '/|dovud| ne may
be assoc| ated w| th a h| gher | nc| dence oI cancers | n
pat | en t s wh ose | mmunos u r ve | l l ance mechan| sms are
d| stu rbed, s| mpl y because | t | ncreases the| r longev| ty.
OI cou rse, ot her th| ngs be| ng equal , | ncreased longev| ty
| nc reases one' s r | sk Ior al l k | nds oI t h| ngs, | ncl ud| ng
per | sh| ng | n an earthquake, dy| ng oI ol d age, or hav| ng
d| nner w| th an ant| ~porn act| v| st . However, broder &
Company a r e wrong to a s s er t t hat A/ T | ncreases
l ongev| t y, Ior " pat | en t s wh ose | mmunos u r ve| l l ance

Rober t Va rc hoan, H| roak | H| t suya, Charl es E .

Hyer s , and Samue| broder , ' Cl | n| cal |harmacology oI
J' ~Az|do~? ' J ' ~O| deoxythym| d| ne [ / |dovud| ne) and Rel ated
O|deoxynucl eos| des' , New Engl and )ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne,
1 4 September 1 8 .
1 00 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
mec h an | s ms a re d| s t u rbed ' . | c ha| | enge t hem, or
anyone e | se , to c| te a s| ng| e, sc| ent| I| ca| | y cred| b| e
study, t hat proves t h| s .
Musular Atrhy an Other Unfficial AZT Sid Ef
fets
As ment|oned above, t here | s no oII| c| a| , on~go| ng
su rve| | | ance oI A/ T' s s| de eIIect s. Neverthe| ess, we
have a pretty good | dea what some oI t hem are I rom
the |nA grapev| ne. And occas| ona| | y some unoII| c| a|
s| de eIIects su rIace | n | etter s to med| ca| ]ou rna| s or | n
oII~the~cuII comment s at A| OS conIerences. One such
s| de eIIect | s muscu| ar atrophy coup| ed w| th | ntense
mu sc u | a r p a | n . Hany |nAs have exper| enced t h| s
cond| t |on, Ior examp| e, |eabody | n San | ranc| sco:
AIter be| ng on a I u| | dose oI A/ T Ior about 1 0
mnt hs , | started to go downh| | | ~ mre Iat| gue,
headach es, nau sea/d| z zy Iee| | ng, pa| nIu| | ntest| na|
cramp| ng ANO | oss oI mass | n my | egs. | ' m not
sure | I t h| s | oss oI mass | s musc| e or Iat . | | ost
about 8 | bs and was hav| ng sc| at| c | | ke | eg pa| ns. |
went oII the A/ T comp| ete| y and now | Iee| a| most
nor ma| . Hu c h mor e energy, | ess oI t he other
symptoms. bUT | ' m worr| ed about my sk | nny | egs
and bny but t . Hy doctor t h| nks | t ' s H| V re| ated
~ but what do doctors knowI | had t he | eg pa| n
and | oss oI mass wh| | e on t he A/ T and Iee| better
oII the A/T.
10
Anot her |nA, O|ogenes, wrote:
| had the same exper | ence on A/ T w| t h | eg pa| n
and musc| e | oss. been oII A/ T ? mos. now and
pa| ns are a| most comp| ete| y gone ~ a| so musc| e
1 0
Commu n | c at | on I rom | eabody, |ub| | c |orum,
A| OS | nIormat| on bu| | et| n, San | ranc| sco: [ 4 1 5 ) 6 ? 6~1 ? 4 6.
A/ T ANO CANC E R 1 01
soreness and l oss oI muscl e tone has rever sed some~
what.
1 1
| n st ances oI sever e mu s c u l a r at rophy and pa| n
cau sed by A/ T were reported | n a l etter to the New
E ng| and ) ourna| oI Hed| c| ne. The phys| c| ans observed:
Al l pat| ent s had an | ns| d| ou s onset oI myal g| as,
mu s c | e t ende rne s s , weaknes s, and severe muscl e
at rop h y I avor | ng t h e p rox | ma| mu s c l e grou p s .
| h y s | c a l exam| nat| ons reveal ed vary| ng degrees oI
mu s c l e weaknes s and g ros s l y apparent at rophy.
ne| ght l oss due to muscl e l oss was un| Iorm| y noted,
| n one pat| ent , the | oss was a str| k| ng 1 8 kg. [4 0
pounds] .
The phys| c| ans he| d A/ T respons| bl e Ior the mus~
cul ar at rophy and pa| n:
ne d| d not observe t h| s | l | ness beIore z | dovud| ne
wa s ava| | abl e, the d| sorder was seen | n pat| ent s
t ak | n g t h e dr u g I or ext ended per |ods, and the
syndrome wa s amel | or at ed aI t er t h e dr u g was
stopped.
1 ?
A l ead| ng br | t | sh A| OS doctor, Or. Hatthew Hel bert ,
sent b u r rou gh s ne| l come stock | nto a t empor ar y
t a | | sp | n wh en be p u b l | c | y comment ed on mu scu | ar
at rophy and other ser| ou s, but not oII | c| al | y acknowl ~
edged, s| de eIIect s oI A/ T:
b| t| ng hard on t he hand t hat had pa| d h | s a| r
Iare, he pl aced heavy emphas | s on new, deb| | | tat| ng
1 1
Commun| cat |on I rom O|ogenes , | b| d.
1 ?
L au ra ) . bes sen et al . , 5evere |ol ymyos| t | s~
L |ke Syndrome As soc| ated n| th / | dovud| ne Therapy oI
A| OS and ARC ' [ | etter ) , New Eng| and )ou rna| oI Hed| ~
c| ne, 1 7 Harch 1 88.
T 0? |O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T S TORY
and somet | mes dead| y s| de~eIIects oI Ret rov| r on
some oI h | s A|ds pat| ents. Some men' s musc| es had
degenerated dramat| ca| | y aIter |ong~term u se oI t he
dr ug. Ot her s had rap| d| y deve|oped a ser| ous bra| n
d| sease, encepha| | t | s , son aIter be| ng taken oII t he
dr ug. G| ven the company' s dut y t o keep a new
dr u g under act| ve s urve| | | ance, Or. He| bert asked
why the company had not p| cked up s| m| | ar cases
among the thousands oI peop| e t reated w| th Ret ro~
v| r Ior a year or more |n t he Un| ted States.
1 J
Other we| | ~known, but not oII| c| a| | y acknow| edged,
s| de eIIects oI A/ T | nc| ude damage to the k| dneys,
| | ver , and nerves. An o| d I r| end oI m| ne was one oI
t h e ea r | | e r pat| ent s to be put on A/ T. E veryone
thought he was do| ng we| | . |or a| most a year he was
occas|ona| | y ab| e t o work or go t o concert s. Then one
day he went | nto comp| ete para| ys| s, and he d| ed two
days | ater. Now, para| ys| s | s not an oII | c| a| | y recog~
n| zed s| de eIIect oI A/ T, t here | s no warn| ng about | t
on t he package. Neverthe| ess, t here | s a connect| on.
|eter Ouesberg has reIerred to A/T as a ' po| son' ,
and w| t h god reason. A/T | s cytotox| c ~ | t k| | | s
ce| | s . A/T term| nates ONA synthes| s , t he very | | Ie
p roce s s | t se| I , by wh| ch new ce| | s are Iormed and
grow. ThereIore, damage to each and every organ oI
the body | s an expected consequence oI A/T t herapy.
Ethics
| be| | eve t hat h| story w| | | severe| y condemn t he
eth| ca| shortcom| ngs oI such A/ T promoters as Samue|
broder , Ant hony |auc| , and Hargaret | | sch| . | n t he| r
zea| t o expand the market Ior A/ T, t hey have uncon~
sc| onab| y I a| | ed to | nIorm t he pub| | c about t he | |ke| y
|ong~term consequences oI A/ T t herapy.
1 J
O u ncan Campbe| | , ' The Amaz| ng A| ds Scam' ,
The New Statesman, ? 4 ) une T 8 8 .
A/ T ANO CANC E R T 0J
| al so bel | eve that h| story w| l l condemn the phys| ~
c | an s , ' A| OS groups ' and | nd| v|dual s who have been
u rg| ng heal t hy [ ' H| V~| nIected' ) gay men to take A/ T.
Two year s ago | wrote | n t he Nat| ve t hat ' | t | s
mal pract| ce Ior phys| c| ans to prescr| be A/T, a po| son
wh| ch can on| y harm the pat| ent.
T 4
| reaII| rm t h| s
] udgment . nhen phys| c| ans coax and ca]ol e and bul l y
t he| r ' H| V~pos| t| ve' pat| ents | nto tak| ng A/ T, do they
t e| | them that the |ong~term eIIect s oI A/ T are un~
k now n l . that A/ T | s cytotox| cl that A/ T dest roys
bne marrowl t hat A/ T causes muscul ar atrophy and
pa| n l that A/ T term| nates ONA synthes| s l t hat A/ T
damages t he nerves, k| dneys, and l | ver l Oo they tel l
t he| r pat| ents that A/ T w| l l probabl y cause cancer | n
the | ong run l | I not , these phys| c| ans have Ia| l ed to
| n Ior m t h e | r pat | ents about the dangers oI a drug
whose ' beneI| ts' have yet tobe demonst rated.
And | | ssue t h| s chal | enge to the A/ T doctors. | I
you k now oI a s | ngl e sc| ent| I| cal l y cred| bl e study~~
] u st one ~ wh| ch proves that A/ T | s beneI| c| al ~~ Ior
| nA s , Ior peop | e w| t h ARC , Ior heal thy [' H| V~| n~
I ec ted' ) peop| e, or Ior anyone el se ~~ then | et me
k now. | wou l d certa| nl y acknow| edge | t publ | cl y.
Or. )oseph Sonnabend, one oI the most | ntel l | gent
and honest A| OS researcher s, has sa|d t hat ' A/ T | s
| n c ompa t | b| e w| t h l | I e. | n a recent conversat|on
Sonnabend sa| d t hat |auc| , | | schl , and t he other A/ T
advoc a t e s h ave been r em| s s , and | ndeed cr| m| na| l y
negl | gent , | n not ment| on| ng the l |kel | hood that long~
t er m u se oI A/ T may resul t |n cancer. | bel | eve that
ten year s I rom now, l ok| ng back over tens oI t hou~
s a n d s oI horr| bl e, A/ T~rel ated deat hs , no reasonabl e
per son w| l l d| sagree w| th h | s verd| ct.
1
T 4
Nat | ve | ssue ? J 5 .
1 04 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE AZ T STORY
VI I . Burroughs Wellco I ssues Adi sry
AZ T cau ses cancer in an| mal s . Thi s Ii nd| ng was
d| vu | ged by bu rroughs ne| l come, manuIact urer oI AZ T
[ al so known a s Ret rovi r , zi dovudi ne) , | n an advi sory
sent on 5 Oecember 1 8 to thou sands oI physi c| ans
wh o t r eat A| OS pat i ent s. nidespread consternati on
ensued. ConIu sed and cont rad| ctory statement s were
| ssued to the press by physi c| ans, |ubl | c Heal th Servi ce
[ |HS ) oII i ci al s, and ' A| OS act | vi st s ' .
The study i nvol ved 60 mal e and Iemal e rats and
mi ce, wh i ch were t reated Ior 1 ~?? month s , equi va| ent
to most oI t hei r norma| l i Iespan. H| gh , m| dd| e, or | ow
doses oI AZ T were adm| ni stered to 7 ? 0 oI the rodents,
wh i l e the other ? 40, as cont rol s, recei ved not hi ng.
Cancer occur red onl y among the Iemal e rodent s t reated
wi th AZT. Seven oI the 60 Iemal e mice recei vi ng the
h| gh dose, two oI the 60 Iemal e rats recei v| ng the hi gh
dose, and one oI the 60 Iemal e m| ce rece| vi ng the
mi dd| e dose developed cancer oI t he vagi na. No tu~
mors were Iound i n any oI the cont ro| rodent s. The
cau se~eIIect re| ati onsh| p between AZ T and the cancers
was real and si gn| I | cant, accordi ng to the i nvesti gator s,
| n a group oI thi s si ze, | n thi s amount oI t | me, there
shou l d have been no cancers oI the type observed.
| mmedi ate| y promoters oI AZ T ru shed i n to down~
pl y the s| gni I i cance oI the I| ndi ngs. |n an As soci ated
|ress story, Or. ) ames Hason, assi stant secretary Ior
heal th oI t he Oepartment oI Heal th and Human Ser~
vi ces sai d t hat the resu l t s ' do not establ i sh that the
drug has a carc| nogen| c eIIect | n humans . ' Al ong the
same l | nes, bu rrough s nel l come stated i n | t s l etter that
' re s u l t s I rom rodent car ci nogeni ci ty stud| es are oI
l i mi t ed p r edi ct i ve va | u e I or h u mans . ' These are
st range th i ngs to say. | I rodent carc| nogen| c| ty stud~
i es have l i ttl e ' predict i ve val ue Ior humans' , why do
them in the I| rst pl acel | I rodent studi es are mean~
i ng| ess, why are they a standard part oI the toxi ci ty
bURROUGHS nE L L COHE | SSUE S AOV| SORY T OS
screen| ng oI new dr ugsl OI cou rse, the carc|nogen| ~
c| ty oI some substances | s spec| es~spec| I| c. So what l
Th er e are probabl y substances t hat cau se cancer | n
humans but not | n rodent s. The ma| n po| nt oI these
I | nd| ngs | s t hat AZ T can cau se cancer |n an| mal s~~
thereIore |t | s reasonabl e and prudent to act on t he
assumpt|on t hat | t can cau se cancer | n humans as wel l .
Hason I urther ' noted' t hat t h e doses g| ven to t he
rodent s | n the study were much h| gher t han recom~
mended Ior human u se.
T
Th | s statement | s baI I l | ng.
Nowhere | n t he bur rough s nel l come ' backgrounder or
l etter | s | t stated t hat the h| ghest rodent dose oI AZ T
wa s h| gher than the equ | val ent human dose. Th e th ree
test doses are desc r| bed s| mpl y as h| gh , m| ddl e, and
low. | t | s unl |kel y t hat the h| ghest rodent dose cou l d
h ave been h | gh er t h an the equ | val ent recommended
h u man dose I or one r eason: a l arge proport| on oI
human be| ngs t reated w| th a Iu l l dose oI AZ T develop
l | Ie~th reaten| ng anem| a and have to be taken oII t he
drug. | u rt her, accord| ng t o a government tox| col ogy
anal ys t , A Z T~r el ated anem| a has been Iound |n al l
spec| es st ud| ed
_
| ncl ud| ng rodent s, dogs, monkeys, and
h u man be| ngs. ThereIore, |I t he rodent dose had
real l y been ext raord| nar | l y h| gh, many oI the rodent s
wou l d have per| shed I rom anem| a. Th| s d| d not hap~
pen. | I anyt h| ng, the h| ghest rodent dose was probabl y
wel l below the equ | val ent h uman dose, | nasmuch as Iew
human be| ngs have been abl e to stay on a I ul l dose oI
AZ T Ior more than a Iew month s at a t| me. And none
oI the rodents were g| ven transIu s|ons.
T
Oeborah Hesce, ' AZ T~Tumor s , As soc| ated | ress,
5 Oecember T 8.
?
Harvey | . Chernov, |h. O. , Rev| ew & E val uat |on
oI |harmacology &
{
ox| cology Oata, NOA T ~65 5 , ?
Oecember T 8 6. [ |OA document obta| ned under t he
| reedom OI | nIormat|on Act ) .
1 0 6 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
|h| l | p ) . H| l ts wrote | n t he New York T| mes: ' Ooc~
tors who treat many A| OS pat| ents sa| d t he I| nd| ngs
ra| sed concerns about onl y one roup: pregnant women
| nIected w| th t he A| OS v| r us . Th| s | s absol utel y
Ial se, and reIuted by [ oI al l peopl e) bu rrough s nel l ~
come publ | c rel at |ons spokeswoman Kat hy bart l ett , who
cor rect l y stated:
Though t h e rodents developed vag| nal t umors,
t hat ra| ses the pos s| b| l | ty oI a carc| nogen| c poten~
t | a l | n general and shou l d not be | nterpreted as
appl y| ng onl yt o the vag| na or t o women.
4
| n a Reuter d| spatch oI 5 Oecember , a stock market
anal yst , |eter Sm|t h , | s quoted as say| ng, ' There' s no
| nd| cat |on at t h| s stage t hat |t aIIect s humans. Th| s
| s not true. As readers oI t he Nat| ve are aware, a
standard test Ior carc| nogen| c| ty, t he Cel l TransIorma~
t|on Assay, was perIormed over th ree years ago. The
resu l ts were h| ghl y pos| t| ve, | nd| cat | ng t hat A/T shou l d
be ' p re s u med to be a pot ent | a l carc| nogen ~~ | n
humans. | I| rst c| ted the Cel l TransIormat| on Assay
over two years ago
5
and descr| bed | t | n more deta| l
ust over a month ago.
6
And now, | n l | ght oI the
rodent carc| nogen| c| ty study, | t may be t | me to lok at
the I| nd| ngs aga| n.
J
|h| l | p ) . H| l t s , ' A| OS Orug Cau ses Cancer | n
An| mal s' , New York T| mes, 6 Oecember 1 8 .
4
H
.
esce, op. c| t.
5
Nat| ve | ssue ? J 5 .
6
Nat | ve | ssue J40.
bURROUGHS nE L LCOHE | S SUE S AOV| SORY T 0 7
The Cell Transfonatio Assay
| n T 87 the |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat |on [ |OA)
was Iorced to rel ease, under the | reedom oI | nIorma~
t |on ACT, a l arge quant| ty oI documents rel ated to the
approval oI A/ T. Among these was t he ' Rev| ew &
Eval uat |on oI |harmacology & Tox| cology Oata' Ior t he
dr ug Ret rov| r [ gener| c name: z | dovud| ne, al so known as
A/T or a z | dot hym|d| ne) , wr| tten by |OA tox| co|ogy
anal yst Harvey | . Chernov, |h . O. , and subm| tted | n | t s
I | nal Iorm on ? Oecember T 8 6.
7
Ch er nov rev| ewed several dozen stud| es that had
been compl eted, | ncl ud| ng |n v| tro stud| es and exper| ~
ments on rat s, m| ce, rabb| t s , beagl e dogs, and human
be| ngs. Hany add| t|ona| stud| es had not been com
pl eted or had been p| anned but not begun. The s| ngl e
most | mportant I | nd| ng was that A/ T was tox| c to the
bne mar row, cau s| ng anem| a. Chernov wrote:
T h u s , a l t hough t h e dose var| ed, anem| a was
notcd | n al l spec| es [ | ncl ud| ng man) | n wh| ch the
drug has been tested.
Chernov noted t hat A/ T 'was Iound weak | y muta~
gen | c | n v| t ro |n the mou se l ymphoma ce| | system.
Oose~rel ated ch romosome damage was observed | n an | n
v| tro cytogenet| c as say u s| ng human | ymphocytes.
.

v| dence I rom t he ' Ce l l T r an s I or mat | on Assay

| nd| cated t hat A/ T was | |kel y to cause cancer. | n
Chernov's summary:
Th| s bALb/c~JTJ neopl ast| c t ransIormat| on assay
wa s per Iormed accord| ng to s t andard operat| ng
procedure. Concent rat|ons oI A/ T as l ow as 0. T
mcg/ml reduced the number oI cel l s |n cu| t ure aIter
a J~day exposu re. A stat | st | ca| l y s| gn| I| cant | n~
crease | n the number oI aberrant ' Ioc| ' was noted
at a concent rat|on oI 0. 5 mcg/m| . Th| s behav| or | s
character | st| c oI tumor cel | s and suggests that A/ T
7
Harvey Chernov, op. c| t.
1 0 8 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
may be a potent| a| carc| nogen. | t appears to be at
| east as act | ve as the pos| t| ve contro| mater| a| ,
methy| cho| anth rene [ a known and ext reme| y potent
carc| nogen ] .
| t s hou | d be noted t hat the Ce| | TransIormat| on
Assay eva| uates the eIIect s oI substances on human
ce| | s. The test | s cons| dered to be h | gh| y pred| ct | ve oI
the potent| a| oI a substance to cau se cancer | n hu~
mans. | n Chernov' s words, ' A t est chem| ca| wh| ch
| nduces a pos| t| ve response | n the ce| | t ransIormat| on
as say | s presumed to be a potent| a| carc| nogen.
The resu | t s oI the Ce| | TransIormat| on As say are
we| | k nown to b u rrough s ne| | come, s| nce they are
a | | uded to [ | I c rypt | ca| | y) , on the Ret rov| r package
| n s er t and | n t he Ret rov| r entry | n the |hys| c| ans'
Oe sk ReI er ence. | t | s regrettab| e, thereIore, t hat
t h es e re s u | t s were not ment| oned | n t he bu rroughs
ne| | come adv| sory | etter or | n any oI t he newspaper
art| c| es. |hys| c| ans who mu st make an eva| uat |on oI
the carc| nogen| c r| sk s oI A/ T w| | | do so on t he bas | s
oI | ncomp| ete | nIormat | on. They w| | | know about t he
rodent stud| es, but not about t he equaI | y | mportant
Ce| | TransIormat |on Assay.
Interiew With Jer Horitz
Th e | mp res s|on g| ven by t he bur rough s ne| | come
| etter | s t hat the | ssue oI carc| nogen| c| ty was ra| sed
Ior the I| rst t | me by t he rodent stud| es. Th| s | s not
true, oI cou rse, as the resu| t s oI the Ce| | TransIorma~
t |on Assay were known over th ree years ago. The
qu es t | on t h en a r | se s wh et h e r other | nIormat|on on
A/ T's carc| nogen| c potent| a| was ava| | ab| e even I urther
back | n t | me.
| t e| ep honed O r. ) erome Horw| t z, the man who
| nvented A/ T back | n 1 64. Horw| tz was a | | tt| e
d | s gr unt | ed, I ee| | ng t h at he h ad been | nterv| ewed
enough a| ready, but he agreed to answer some ques~
t| ons. Accord| ng to Horw| t z , A/ T was deve|oped | n
bURROUGHS nE L L COHE | S SUE S AOV| SORY 1 0
the hopes t hat | t wou l d be eIIect| ve |n t reat | ng cancer.
A / T wa s abandoned becau se | t was not eIIect| ve
aga| n st cancer, the drug Ia| | ed to prol ong the l | ves oI
l euk em| c an| ma| s. A/ T was never t r | ed | n human
be| ngs, s| nce | t compl ete| y Ia| l ed to demonst rate eI~
I| cacy | n the an| mal stud| es.

| asked Horw| tz what tox| c| t| es were observed | n
the an| ma| s, and whether A/T was al so re]ected be~
cause oI | t s extreme tox| c| ty. He repl | ed t hat A/ T
was not re]ected because oI tox| c| ty, but onl y because
| t was not eIIect| ve aga| nst cancer. | t hen asked
whether cancer had been observed | n any oI the an| ~
ma| s. At t h| s po| nt Horw| t z became qu | te deIens| ve,
and sa| d t hat he ' categor| cal | y den| ed' t hat cancer had
been Iound. He asserted that the | nvest| gators had
been |ook| ng onl y at the pro|ongat|on oI | | Ie | n the
| eukem| c an| ma| s. Accord| ng to h| m, | t was not unt| |
t h e m| d~' 8 0 s t hat any an| ma| tox| c| ty stud| es were
done , e | t h e r by b u r rou gh s nel | come or by Samuel
broder at the Nat |ona| Cancer | nst | tute.
There | s a conI | |ct oI test| mony here, wh| ch | am
unab| e to resol ve. Other reporters have been under
the | mpress|on t hat A/T was abandoned | n the ' 60s
| arge| y or even pr| mar | | y because oI | t s tox| c| ty. |or
exampl e, br| an Oeer wrote | n the Sunday T| mes t hat
A/ T had been ' abandoned | n 1 64 as be| ng too po| son~
ous .
8
Ce| | a |arber , who | nterv| ewed Horw| t z, wrote
| n S | | N: ' [ A/ T] had actua| | y been deve|oped a quarter
oI
g
ntu ry ear| | er as a cancer chemot herapy, but was
she| ved and Iorgotten because | t was so tox| c, very
ex pens | ve to produce, and tota| l y | neIIect| ve aga| nst
cancer.

Another col | eague, who has requested ano~

8
br| an Oeer , ' Revea| ed: | atal | | aws oI Orug That
Gave Hope' , Sunday T| mes [ L ondon) , 1 6 Apr | | 1 8.

Cel | a | arber, ' S| ns oI Om| ss|on: The A/ T Scan~

da| ' , S | | N, November 1 8 .
1 1 0 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
nym| ty, has | nIormed me that Horw| t z to| d h| m | n an
| n t erv| ew t h at A / T wa s abandoned because oI | ts
ext reme tox| c| ty as we| | as | t s | neIIect| veness: Not on| y
d| d A/T not cure cancer, | t cau sed | t |
nhatever the truth may be about tox| c| ty stud| es | n
t he ' 60s ~ and | | mag| ne t hat much | nIormat| on has
| r retr| evab| y gone down t he memry ho| e ~~ one Iact
stands out : A/ T was re]ected as a cancer drug w| t hout
ever try| ng | t on humans. A| though the | mpress|on | s
somet| mes g| ven that A/ T | s an o| d cancer drug Ior
wh| ch a new u se was Iound, no human be| ng had ever
taken A/ T unt | | brave vo| unteers d| d so | n the m| d~
' 80s , as part oI t he |OA~conducted |hase | [ tox| c| ty)
tr| a| s oI A/ T.
The Changing Ris-Beefit Ratio
| n r es pond| n g to news about t h e rodent c a r~
c| nogen| c| ty stud| es , a number oI A/ T apo| og| st s soun~
ded a part | cu| ar theme: The r| sk s oI A/ T must be
we| ghed aga | n st | t s beneI| t s . |or examp| e, ) ames
Ha son | s quoted as say| ng: ' | n sp| te oI these new
an| ma| I| nd| ngs, pat| ent s w| th the d| sease appear to be
at I ar g reat er r | sk I rom not r ece| v| ng z | dovud| ne
t r eat ment t h an I rom any pot en t | a | r | sk oI cancer
assoc| ated w| th the drug' s u se.
1 0
|at | ents tak| ng A/ T were | ess g| | b. |eter Sta| ey, a
member oI ACT U| , | s quoted as say| ng:
| am tak| ng A/ T and | do I| nd t h| s Ia| r | y wor~
r| some, but | am more Iear Iu| oI H| V t han | am oI
c ancer. Th| s sh| Its t he equat|on oI beneI | t and
r| sk , but not enough to t | | t |t away I rom u s| ng t he
drug.
1 1
1 0
H
+
esce, op. c| t .
1 1
|h| | | p ) . H| | t s , op. c| t .
bURROUGHS nE L L COHE | S SUE S AOV| SORY 1 1 1
There | s a | arge and grow| ng bdy oI | nIormat |on
on the r | sk s oI A/T. |n add| t|on to the r| sk oI can~
cer, A/ T | s cytotox| c [ | etha| to body ce| | s ) , |t dest roys
the bne marrow and cau ses severe anem| a, |t damages
t h e k | dney s , | | ver , and ner ves ,
muscu| ar pa| n and at rophy [ wast| ng
are t h e ' beneI | t s ' oI A/ T, t hat
terr| b| e tox|c| t | es l
| t c a u s es s ever e
away) . nhat then
cou | d oII set such
| have ma| nta| ned, and cont | nue to ma| nta| n, t hat
t here | s no sc| ent| I| ca| | y cred| b| e ev| dence that A/ T
has beneI | ts oI any k| nd. Th | s | s an open cha| | enge,
and | shou | d be grateI u| | I any oI the A/ T promoters
wou | d c | t e a s | n g| e s t udy ~~ ] u st one ~~ wh | ch
demonst rates beneI| t s oI A/ T and deserves to be ca| | ed
s c| ent | I | ca| | y cred| b| e' . So Iar, t h| s cha| | enge has
e| ther been evaded comp| ete| y, or a dozen genera| | y
wort h | e s s ' st ud| es' have been ratt| ed oII , w| t h t he
comment t hat the ev| dence | s 'overwhe| m| ng' . The
| atter tack was recent | y taken | n an abu s| ve and | | | ~
| nIormed art| c| e | n the |nAC Coa| | t|on News| | ne.
1 ?
| t | s | eg| t| mate to speak oI a r| sk~beneI| t rat| o' ,
but I| rst the ' beneI | t s' have to be estab| | shed. | t w| | |
not do t o subst| tute quant| ty Ior qua| | ty. A dozen
wort h| ess stud| es prove noth | ng, even | I t hey a| | agree
w| th each other. by way oI ana| ogy, | et ' s t h| nk back
on the vast number oI I| y| ng saucers or ' un|dent | I| ed
I | y| ng ob]ect s' [ U|Os) that were observed | n the ' 60s .
None oI t he observat|ons were very we| | documented,
but there were so many oI them| How cou| d | t be t hat
they were a| | wrong|
| take no pos| t |on on whether or not I| y| ng saucer s
Irom outer space have v| s| ted ou r p| anet, e| t her re~
cent | y or | n the past , but mere| y po| nt out t hat such
v| s| tat| ons rema| n to be demonst rated. L | kew| se w| t h
the beneI| t s oI A/T.
1 ?
Rob Sch| ck, ' The C razy Case Aga| nst A/ T' ,
|nAC Coa| | t |on News | | ne, November 1 8.
1 1 ? |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Ba News For Businss?
Stock market ana| yst s were puzz | ed by t he Iact that
the obv|ous| y bad news oI A/T' s carc| nogen| c| ty had
a l mos t no eI I ect on the share pr| ce oI bur rough s
ne| | come stock. | an nh| te, pharmaceut| ca| s anal yst at
U. K . Stockbrok e r K l e| n wor t b en son, commented: ' |
don ' t under st and why the shares have not Ial | en.
nh| te sa| d he wou | d have expected about a ?0 pence
drop | n t h e share pr| ce aIter the news about t he
| nc reased ' r| sk Iactor .
1 J
nh| te' s l ack oI concern Ior
t h e h u man [ a s opposed to proI | t ) aspects oI A/ T
therapy | s stunn| ngl y reveal ed | n h | s comment:
| I cancers do develop | n humans, | t ' s probabl y
go| ng to take a wh| l e to deve| op.
1 4
The proI | t s Irom the sal e oI A/ T are enormou s.
Accord| ng to the HcGraw d| spatch:
Ret r o v | r , n e l l c ome ' s second~h | gh es t ~ se l l | ng
product w| th sa| es oI 1 J 4 m| n pounds [ = $ ? 1 4
m| | | |on] |n the year ended Aug. ? 6, | s w| del y ex~
pect ed to be one oI ne | | come' s Iastest~grow| ng
product s | n the ear| y 1 0s.
1 5
Undet er r ed by the rodent carc| nogen| c| ty I | nd| ngs,
bur rough s nel | come expects bus| ness to be better t han
ever |n 1 0, as the market Ior A/ T expands to | n~
c | ude perIectl y heal thy peopl e who happen to have
ant | bod| es to H| V [ a ret rov| r us wh| ch, accord| ng to
renowned mo|ecu| ar b| o| og| st |eter Ouesberg, | s ' pro~
1 J
Ael l come Says Tests Show A| OS Causes Cancer
| n Rodent s ' , HcGraw~H| | l News , 5 Oecember 1 8 .
1 4
Ael lcome Says Ret rov| r Can Cau se Cancer | n
Rat s' , Reuter d| spatch, 5 Oecember 1 8 .
15
HcGraw~H| | l News , 5 Oecember 1 8 .
bURROUGHS nE L L COHE | S SUE S AOV| SORY 1 1 J
I ound| y convent| onal ' and thereIore presumabl y harm~
| ess ) .
1 6
Accord| ng to a HcGraw~H| | | story:
A ne| | come spokesman sa| d the company | s re| t~
erat| ng recent comments by | ts d| rector oI research
| n the U. S. , Or. Oav| d barry, t hat |od and Orug
Adm| n . app rova| Ior u se on a symptomat| c H| V~
pos| t| ve pat| ents wou| d b ' a matter oI mont hs .
1 7
Sumr
At t h| s po| nt , the best ava| l ab| e | nIormat|on | nd| ~
cates that A/ T w| l | cau se cancer | n human s. Other
tox| c| t| es oI A/ T are severe and we| | ~establ | shed. On
the other hand, not one s| ng| e sc| ent| I| ca| l y cred| bl e
study demnst rates that A/ T has beneI| ts oI any k | nd.
ThereIore, pat| ents w| th ' A| OS' or ' ARC' , as we| l as
peop| e who are mere| y ' H| V~| nIected' , have noth| ng to
ga| n and everyt h| ng to | ose by tak| ng A/ T.
1
1 6
| et er H . Ouesberg, ' Human | mmunodeI| c| ency
v | r u s and acq u | red | mmunodeI| c| ency syndrome: Cor~
re| at|on but not cau sat| on' , | roceed| ngs oI the Nat|on~
al Academy oI Sc| ences, |ebruary 1 8 .
1 7
HcGraw~H| | | News , 5 Oecember 1 8 .
1 1 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: 1HE A/ T STORY
VI I I . U.S. Cuts AZT Dos In Half
The |od and Orug Adm| n| strat|on [ |OA) announced
on 1 7 ) anuary 1 0 that t he recommended dose oI A/ T,
the on| y Iedera| | y approved drug Ior A| OS ' , wou | d be
cut | n ha| I . The o| d dose was 1 ? 0 0 m| | | | grams per day.
The new dose w| | | be on| y ha| I that: 600 m| | | | grams per
day aIter one month at the o| d dose oI 1 ? 00 m| | ~
| | grams. The |OA has ordered changes | n t he | abe| s
on A / T [ a| so k nown as z | dovud| ne or Ret rov| r ) to
represent the new recommendat| on.
|or some t | me pr| or to the | OA' s announcement,
doctors who t reat ' A| OS' pat| ent s had been exper| ~
ment| ng w| th |ower doses, | n an eIIort to avo| d t he
s| de eIIect s oI t he drug. At the o| d dose oI 1 ? 00
m| | | | grams, about ha| I oI a | | A| OS ' pat| ents had been
unab| e to to| er at e A / T ' s ext r eme tox | c | ty, wh| ch
cau sed severe anem| a, as we| | as muscu| ar pa| n and
at rophy [ wast| ng away) and damage to t he k| dneys,
| | ver , and nerves.
Hea| th and Human Serv| ces Secretary Lou | s Su| | | van
sa| d | n a statement that the change ' means t hat Iewer
pat| ents may have to d| scont| nue A/ T t herapy becau se
oI ser|ou s s| de eIIects.
The new dose recommendat| on was based on govern~
ment press re| eases I rom | ast summer, wh| ch a| | eged| y
showed t hat the | ower dose was ] u st as eIIect | ve as
the h| gher, wh| | e caus| ng Iewer ser| ou s s| de eIIects.
These ' pre| | m| nary I | nd| ngs have not yet been wr| tten
up, | et a|one pub| | shed |n a reputab| e sc| ent| I | c ]ou rna| .
Nor have any hard data been re| eased. Th| s pract| ce
oI ' sc| ence by press re| ease was sharp| y cr | t | c| zed | n
the pages oI the New York Nat | ve, as we| | as | n an
ed| tor| a| | n t he L ancet , one oI t he wor| d' s most pres~
t| g| ou s med| ca| ]ou rna| s.
Accord| n g to t hos e ' p re| | m| nary I | nd| ngs , near| y
ha| I oI those rece| v| ng t he h| gh dose ( 1 ? 00 m| | | | grams)
h ad s| de eIIects that were so ser|ou s they had to
U. S. CUTS AZ T OOS E | N HAL | 1 1 5
di sconti nue AZ T t reatment. At t he same ti me, I ul l y a
quarter oI t hose recei vi ng t he |ow dose al so had to
di scont i nue t reatment , Ior the same reasons.
| t i s i mportant to note t hat the ' beneIi t s ' oI AZ T
r emai n u n s u bs t ant i at ed by sci ent i Ii ca| | y credi bl e re~
sea rc h . T h e s t udi es a| | eged| y demnstrati ng AZ T' s
' beneIi t s ' have been very bad. The |hase | | t ri al s ,
whi ch were the basi s oI | OA approval oI AZT, were
demon s t r ab| y I r audu| ent , as we| | as i nval id t hrough
pervasi ve s| oppi ness.
The | OA' s act ion was hai l ed by ' A| OS acti vi sts' as
bei ng ' good news ' , whi ch i n a way i t was. As wi t h
any poi son, t he | ess the better , and l oweri ng the dose
oI AZ T means l ess i mmedi ate i n ury to the unIortunate
pati ent s taki ng he drug. On the other hand, the bad
news i s that the l ower dose wi l | enab| e much l arger
nu mbe r s oI peop l e to t ake AZ T, thereby exposi ng
themse| ves to the chroni c [ l ong~term) toxi ci ti es oI t he
dr u g. Accordi ng to t h e best i nIormati on we have,
wh i c h i n c | udes rodent carci nogeni ci ty studi es and i n
vi t ro st u di es i n vol vi ng h u man cel l s , the long~term
_
quences oI AZ T t herapy wi l l very l ikel y i nc| ude
cancer.
The new recommendati on means t hat the market Ior
AZT wi l l be expanded, despi te the Iact t hat i ndi vi dua|
pati ents wi l | consume l ess on a dai | y bas i s . Thi s poi nt
was made at a noi sy annua| meeti ng oI nel | come | L C,
the bri ti sh parent company oI bur rough s nel l come. Si r
A| I red S h ep per d, t he ne| l come chai rman , announced
that on ? ) anuary 1 0 t he |OA woul d recommend
whet her AZ T shou |d be prescri bed Ior symptom| ess H| V
c a r r i e r s , who ar e es t i mated to number up to two
mi | | ion wor| d~wi de, as compared to on| y ? 00, 000 wi t h
the I u| | ~b| own syndrome. Si r A| I red stated:
ne are hopeIu l t hat wi t hi n a very short ti me
th i s drug wi l | be abl e to p| ay a part i n the therapy
oI a broader group oI H| V~i nIected peop| e. [ Reuter
di spatch, 1 6 ) anuary 1 0 ]
1 1 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Thanks to the sa| es oI A/T, wh| ch amunted to
$ ? ? 5 m| | | |on | ast year , t he | ast two years have been
ver y good I or ne | | come. ne | | come made pre~tax
proI | t s oI $ 4 6. 4 m| | | |on |n t he year to ?6 Augu st 1 8 ,
on sa| es oI $ ? . J 4 b| | | |on. | n 1 8 8 ne| | come made pre~
tax proI | t s oI $ J 6 7 . ? m| | | |on on sa| es oI $ ? . 0 8 b| | | |on.
However , what ' s god Ior ne| | come | s not neces~
sar | | y good Ior human be| ngs. At | east the | OA | s
mv| ng | n the r| ght d| rect| on. The| r new recommenda~
t |on |s ha| Iway to the opt | mum dose oI A/ T: none|
1
A/ T |OR HE AL THY |E O|L E
1 1 7
I X. AZT For Healthy Pele
An adv| sory comm| ttee oI t he |od and Orug Ad~
m| n| st rat |on [ |OA) recommended on Tuesday, J 0 ) anu~
ary 1 0, that the use oI A/ T [ or Ret rov| r ) be greatl y
expanded. At present , A/T | s oII| c| al l y recommended
onl y Ior pat| ents who have T~4 cel l counts below ? 0 0,
or who have been d| agnosed as hav| ng A| O5 . The
comm| ttee' s recommendat|on was t hat A/ T be approved
Ior t reatment oI the est| mated one~hal I m| l l |on or more
peopl e |n the Un| ted States who have s l | ght l y subnor~
mal T~4 cel l count s [ bel ow 5 00 ) and who have an~
t | bod| es to the human | mmunodeI| c| ency v| r us [ H| V~1) ,
a ret rov | r u s t h at | s oII| c| al l y, t hough probabl y er~
roneous l y, cons| dered to be the cause oI A| O5' . | t | s
al most al ways t h e pol | cy oI the | OA to Iol l ow t he
recommendat| ons oI | t s adv| sory comm| ttees.
Act ual l y, many heal thy t hough pos| t| ve gay men
are al ready tak| ng A/ T, |n t he bel | eI that the drug
w| l l del ay an | nev| tabl e progres s| on to A| O5 [ a bel | eI
wh| ch | s not supported by sc| ent| I| c ev| dence) . The
new recommendat | on , | I adopted by t he |OA, w| l l
gr eat l y ex pand t h e ma rket Ior A/ T | n two ways.
| | rst , | t wou l d overcome the rel uctance many phys| ~
c| ans have about prescr| b| ng a h| ghl y tox| c drug Ior
any but desperatel y s| ck pat| ent s. Second, | t wou l d
I ac | l | t at e payment Ior A/ T t reatment, cur rentl y es~
t | mated at $ 4, 000 per year , I rom Hed| ca| d and I rom
pr | vate heal th | nsu rance pl ans.
The Ant | v| ral Orugs Adv| sory Comm| ttee reached | ts
dec| s |on on the bas| s oI two stud| es , sk| mpy and | n~
coherent summat |ons oI wh| ch were promu l gated l ast
summer t hrough government press rel eases. Al l egedl y,
H | V~pos | t | ve peop l e g| ven A/ T were l ess l |kel y to
develop A| O5 or to become s| ck, | n ways t hat were
not cl earl y deI| ned. These prel | m| nary I | nd| ngs have
not yet been wr | tten up, l et al one publ | shed |n a
reputabl e sc| ent| I | c ou rnal . No adequate desc r| pt|on oI
1 1 8 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
t he stud| es' des| gn and methodology has been publ | shed.
No hard data are ava| l abl e anywhere. And yet t he
comm| ttee, on the bas | s oI government~| ndustry say~so
~~ w| t h out ever see| n g t h e or | g| n al [ and pos s| bl y
apocryphal ) data ~ recommended that a h| ghl y tox| c
drug be g| ven , on a l | Iet| me bas| s , to peopl e who are
perIectl y heal thy.
The comm| ttee seems to have taken a l | ght~m| nded
approach to the ext reme tox| c| ty oI A/ T. The drug
can cau se l | Ie~t h reaten| ng anem| a, severe muscul ar pa| n
and at rophy, and damage to the l | ver, k| dneys , and
ner ves . | n add| t |on , ou r best | nIormat |on | nd| cates
t hat l ong~ter m u se oI A / T w| l l resu l t | n cancer.
bu r rou gh s nel l come, the manuI act urer, recentl y an~
nounced t hat the| r drug had cau sed cancer | n rodents.
And the resu l t s I rom a standard | n v| t ro test , t he Cel l
T ra n s Ior mat | on Assay, | nd| cated t hat A/T shou l d be
p resumed to be a potent| al carc| nogen. | n a hal I~
hearted acknowl edgement oI these probl ems, t he com~
m| ttee stated:
nh| l e t h| s beneI| t has been cl ear l y establ | shed
[ not true] , t he comm| ttee emphas| zed t he need to
car eI u l l y st u dy and document the potent| al r| sks
a s soc| ated w| th prol onged z | dovud| ne therapy, es~
pec| al l y t hose rel ated to the drug' s cancer~caus| ng
potent| al , and any poss| bl e un| que eIIect s on wo~
men' s Iet uses and ch| l dren. [ Quoted |n A| press
rel ease oI J0 ) anuary 1 0. )
Cons| der| ng t hat noth| ng | s known about t he l ong~
term eIIects oI A/T t herapy, t he comm| ttee' s recom~
mendat| on | s I r | vol ou s. No human be| ng has t aken A/ T
Ior more t han th ree and a hal I years. V| rt ual l y no
pat| ents have been abl e to take what was or| g| nal l y t he
Iu l l dose oI A/ T, 1 ? 00 mg. per day, I or more than a
I ew mont h s w| t h out r equ | r | ng t r a n s I u s | ons and/or
d| scont| nuance oI t he drug. The acute or short~term
tox| c| t| es oI A/ T are horr| bl e enough . The chron| c or
A/ T |OR HE ALTHY | EO|L E 1 1
l ong~t er m tox | c| t| es have yet to be d| scovered, and
there |s no reason to be opt | m| st | c.
The Press
O| spatches I rom t he As soc| ated | ress and Reuter
| nIormat|on Serv| ces were at l east suII| c| entl y ob]ec~
t | ve to d | sc u s s t h e | s s ue oI A/ T' s cancer~caus| ng
potent| al . Th| s was not t he case w| th such A| OS~Hob
toad| es as G| na Ko| ata and H| chae| Spector.
Kol ata' s story | n the New York T| mes [J 1 ) anuary
1 0 ) | s wr| tten w| th her cu stomary s| opp| ness. |or
| n st ance , s h e wr | te s : ' The agency [ |OA] cur rent l y
recommen ds t h at peop | e t ake A/ T once the| r T~4
count s Ial l be|ow ? 00, t he po|nt at wh| ch t hey are
con s | dered to have A| OS. The COC ' s su rve| | l ance
deI| n| t|on oI A| OS' may have changed several t | mes,
but | am not aware t hat a T~4 cel | count below ? 0 0
qual | I| es Ior an ' A| OS' d| agnos| s .
At some l ength Ko| ata mul l s over t he quest| on oI
wh et h er a p at | ent on long~term A/ T t herapy m| ght
deve| op A/T~ re s | st ant s t ra| ns oI t he A| OS v| rus .
Nowh e r e, however , does s he broach t he Iar more
| mportant | ssue oI A/ T' s tox| c| t | es or | t s potent| a| to
caus e cancer. | gnor| ng such unp| easant th| ngs she
concl udes her account w| t h t he sycophant| c assert|on
that ' becau se the drug de| ays the progress oI A| OS | t
woul d | mprove the qua| | t y oI a pat| ent ' s | | Ie and shou | d
b used when T~4 ce| l s drop.
H|chae| Spector' s art| c| e | n the nash| ngton |ost | s
l ess I l aky, but h e a| so Ia| | s to ment|on the | ssue oI
cancer . Th| s | s t ru| y amaz | ng. Here | s a drug, be| ng
recommended Ior hea| thy peopl e, w| t h the expectat|on
that they w| l | have to take |t Ior the rest oI t he| r
|| ve s . The best ava| l ab| e | nIormat| on | nd| cates that
long~term use oI the drug w| | l cause cancer. And
reporters | | ke Kol ata and Spector don' t cons| der t h| s to
be newsworthy.
On the | ssue oI cancer: nou | d A/ T st | | | have been
app roved by t h e | OA |I t he rodent carc| nogen| c| ty
1 ? 0 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T S TORY
stud| es had been I| n| shed I| rst , as they were supposed
to have been l Oo any oI the A| OS ]ou rna| | st s even
th| nk about such t h| ngs l
Ramificatis For Business
The comm| ttee' s recommendat| on doesn' t make sense
| n sc| ent| I| c terms, and | t doesn ' t make sense | n human
terms. but | n market | ng terms, | t | s r| ght on the
mark. The | OA' s dec| s |on two week s ago to recom
mend cutt | ng the recommended A/ T dose |n ha| I | s
c| ear | y part oI the same market| ng st rategy, | n wh| ch
b u r rou gh s ne | | come and t he | OA ar e accomp| | ces.
L ower | n g t he dose means t hat most hea| t hy peop| e
wou | d be ab| e to w| t hstand the acute tox| c| t| es oI A/T,
t h u s mak | n g | t pos s | b| e to

mmend | ong~t er m
treatment . Th| s po| nt was made by S| r A| I red Shep~
perd, the cha| rman oI ne| | come |L C [ the br | t| sh~based
parent company oI bur rough s ne| | come) when he an~
nounced t hat on ? ) anuary 1 0 t he |OA wou| d
recommend wh et h er A/T s hou | d be prescr| bed Ior
symptom| ess H| V~pos| t| ve peop| e [ est| mated to number
u p to t wo m| | | |on wor| d~w| de, as compared to on| y
? 00, 000 w| th t he I u| | ~b| own syndrome) . | n the unc~
tuou s words oI S| r A| Ired:
ne are hopeIu | that w| t h| n a very short t| me
th | s drug w| | | be ab| e to p| ay a part | n the therapy
oI a broader group oI H| V~| nIected peop| e. [ Reuter
d| spatch , 1 6 ) anuary 1 0 ]
| t | s est| mated that there are I rom 5 00, 000 to
65 0 , 000 potent| a| customer s Ior A/ T |n the U. S.~~
peop| e who are H| Vpos| t| ve and have T~4 ce| | counts
be|ow 5 00. However, there | s a ser|ou s , though not
| nsuperab| e, market| ng prob| em here. Host and perhaps
nea r | y a| | oI these targeted consumers are unaware
that they carry ant| bod| es to H| V. On top oI that,
they don' t Iee| s| ck [ probab| y becau se they ar e | n Iact
per Iect | y hea| thy) . How | s bu rroughs ne| | come to
pe r s u ade them to take an expens| ve drug, w| t h no
A/ T |OR HE AL THY | EO|L E T ? T
sc| ent | I| ca| | y estab| | shed beneI | t s, t hat w| | | g| ve t hem
v| o| ent headac h e s , des t roy t he| r bne marrow, and
cause the| r musc| es to sh r | veI up How, | ndeed
Th e an s wer | s to conduct a mass| ve propaganda
campa| gn among members oI ' h| gh r | sk groups' [ mean~
|ng pr | mar | | y us : gay men ) to persuade them to take
the H| V ant| body test. Those who test ' pos| t| ve' w| | |
then be counse| | ed to have T~ce| | test s done regu | ar| y,
under t he care oI an enab| | ng phys| c| an. Those whose
T~4 ce| | s drop be|ow 5 0 0 at some po|nt ~~ whether
I rom a co| d, anx| ety, or whatever ~~ w| | | be sub ected
to I urther counse| | | ng. They w| | | be to| d that they are
suIIer| ng I rom | nIect|on w| th a dead| y v| r us, that t he| r
| | | ness | s | ncu rab| e and | nvar| ab| y Iata| . However, t he
' god news' | s t hat A/ T w| | | 'de| ay the progress| on' ,
and t hat w| t h | uck t he pat| ent may be ab| e to su rv| ve
Ior a number oI year s. ' H| V | s a manageab| e d| sease'
| s one oI the new s|ogans.
Th| s campa| gn has a| ready been go| ng I u| | steam Ior
severa| month s. Such gay qu | s| | ng groups as | roect
| nIorm and Gay Hen' s Hea| th C r| s | s , and such wr| ters
as H| chae| He| | qu | st | n t he Advocate, have o| ned the
bandwagon. A typ| ca| ad | s one that appears | n the ?6
) an u a r y T 0 | s s ue oI t h e Connect | cut magaz| ne,
Het ro| | ne [ ' News Ior the Gay Commun| ty' ) .
| I t he |OA adopt s the recommendat| on oI the ad~
v | sory comm| ttee, wh| ch |t probab| y w| | | , t hen most
doctors w| | | Iee| ob| | ged to have t he| r gay ma|e pa~
t| ents tested Ior H| V ant| bod| es, and |I ' pos| t| ve' , Ior
T~4 count s. The unIortunate pat| ents who qua| | Iy w| | |
then be put on A/T. The| r hea| th w| | | deter| orate, but
a| ways | n | | ne w| th the phys| c| an' s percept|on that A/T
| s 'de| ay| ng the progress|on' .
The new |OA recommendat| on w| | | a| so ensu re pay~
ment I or A/ T, t hrough e| ther pub| | c or pr | vate | n~
su rers. | I t h| ngs go as p| anned, T 0 ought to be a
very god year Ior ne| | come, ust as T 8 was. | n
T 8 wor| dw| de sa| es oI A/ T were ? ?
g
m| | | |on do| | ar s,
| nc| ud| ng T 48 m| | | |on do| | ar s | n t he U. S. a| one.
1 ? ? |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
[ bel ow | s the ad I rom Het rol | ne: ]
The U. S. Government Recommends H. l . V. Anti ~body Tes
i ng.
[ b| g Oeal )
| ro]ect | nIorm oI San | ranc| sco Recommends
H. l . V. Ant| ~body Test| ng.
[ How Comel )
Gay Hen' s Heal th Center oI New York C| ty Now
Recommends H. | . V. Ant| ~body Testi ng
Ior Earl y | ntervent |on and Treatment.
nHAT ARE YOU nA| T| NG |ORl
| ree anonymou s H| V ant | ~body test| ng. No wai t| ng
Ior appo| ntment s . Oay and eveni ng hou r s. Cal l the
HartIord Heal th Oept. at 7 ? ?~6 7 4 ? .
Ramificatios For Gay Men
There are esti mated to be 40, 000 peopl e tak | ng A/ T
i n the Un| ted States. Host oI these are gay men. |or
two and a hal I years | have been doi ng my best to
warn oI the dangers oI A/ T, and | have persuaded a
lot oI peopl e not to take i t . The Iact remai ns t hat
tens oI thou sands oI gay men are now tak | ng A/ T, and
many tens oI thou sand more wi | l take | t |I the | OA
goes t hrough w| th | ts new recommendat| on. They wi l l
t r ust thei r doctor s, the ' gay l eader s , t he government,
and burrough s nel l come. | t i s hard Ior the mi nd to
grasp the horror oI what i s happeni ng.
| do not t h| nk the next Iew years w| l | be good Ior
us . A genoc| dal campa| gn has been l aunched aga| nst
gay men, w| th the I ul l col l aborati on oI ou r gay dupes
and t rai tors. The A| OS Hob i s tryi ng to po| son us ,
p sychol ogi c a l l y and physi cal | y. ne' ve got to I| ght
back ! OON' T TAKE THE TE S T|
1
A ' STATE O| THE ART' A/ T CON| E RE NCE 1 ? J
X. A state Of The Art AZT Coferece
(Or The Banality Of Evi l )
L a st weekend | t r ave| | ed to nash| ngton, OC to
attend a ' State oI the Art ConIerence on A/ T Therapy
Ior E a r | y H| V | nIect|on' , sponsored by the Nat | ona|
| nst | tute oI A| | ergy and | nIect|ou s O| seases [ N| A| O) ,
he| d | n the Nat | ona| | nst| tutes oI Hea| th [ N| H) head~
quarters |n bethesda, Hary| and on J Harch 1 0. The
pu rpose oI the conIerence was descr| bed as Io| |ows | n
a N| A| O press re| ease:
Th e conI erence goa| | s t h e deve| opment oI
spec| I | c recommendat|ons Ior the use oI A/ T [ z | do~
vud| ne) by phys| c| ans who care Ior pat| ents w| th
ear | y H| V | nIect|on. A pane| oI A| OS researcher s,
commu n | t y p h y s | c | a n s , s t at | st | c | a n s, and ot her
expe r t s w| | | rev| ew data I rom c| | n| ca| tr| a| s and
other re|evant stud| es oI A/T. Ou r| ng the | ast hou r
oI t he meet|ng opportun| t| es w| | | be prov| ded Ior
quest |ons and comment s I rom the aud| ence.
The t | m| ng oI the conIerence co| nc|ded Iortu| tou s| y
w| th a dec| s |on oI the |od and Orug Adm| n| st rat|on
the day beIore [? Harch T 0) to approve t he u se oI
A/ T Ior hea| thy peop| e hav| ng ant | bod| es to the ten~
dent| ou s| y named human | mmunodeI| c| ency v| r us [ H | V) ,
a| so known a s t he ' A| OS v| rus ' . n| th t he new recom~
mendat|on, phys| c| ans w| | | be encou raged to have t he| r
' h | gh r | sk ' pat | ent s [ | | ke gay men ) tested Ior H| V
ant| bod| es, and then to prescr|be A/ T Ior those pa~
t | en t s who test pos| t | ve and whose T~4 ce| | s drop
be|ow a count oI 5 0 0 ce| | s per cub| c m| | | | | | ter oI b| ood
[ a count wh| ch | s s| | ght| y be|ow norma| ) .
A test| mon| a| to t he drug was g| ven by no | ess a
pub| | c oII| c| a| t han Hea| th and Human Serv| ces Sec re~
tary Lou| s Su| | | van, who sa| d:
The stud| es and the change | n | abe| | ng mean that
better t reatment can now be oIIered to thousands
1 ? 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
oI peopl e at ear| | er stages oI i nIect ion w| t h t he
A| OS v| r us beIore thei r heal th deteriorates cr| t| ca| ~
l y.
1
The |OA dec| sion to recommend A/ T Ior long~term
u s e by h ea l t h y peop | e goes together wi t h another
recent |OA deci sion to ha| ve the recommended da| l y
dose oI A/T t o 600 m| | | i grams per day. |r| or t o t he
dose reducti on, A/ T' s acute toxi ci t| es were so great
t hat Iew i I any pati ent s cou l d take the drug Ior more
t han a I ew mont h s w| t h out requi r| ng t ransIu si ons,
d| scont | nuance oI the dr ug, or both. A/ T | s now t he
mst tox| c dr ug ever prescr| bed Ior long~term u se.
Th e conI erence con s i st ed mai nl y oI s l i de ta| k s,
accompani ed by someti mes desu| tory di scus s| on. N| A| O
h a s promi sed to Iurni sh a wr| tten document on the
conIerence, whi ch | ' | l revi ew | I and when | rece| ve | t.
| n th| s ar ti cl e | ' | l desc r| be the general natu re oI the
conI er ence, Iol lowed by hi gh l i ghts oI i ndi vi dua| pre~
sentati ons.
Manipulating Grup Cossus
The conc| us|ons oI the conIerence were obv|ou sl y
determ| ned wel l | n advance. The pane| oI expert s,
aIter rev| ew| ng data Irom s l | de tal ks, were supposed to
b| ster t he |OA dec| s ion oI t he previ ou s day by re~
commend| ng to phys| c| ans t hat t hey shou l d g|ve A/ T to
H| V pos| t | ve members oI h | gh r | sk groups wi t h T~4 ce| |
counts be|ow 5 00.
The pane| was stacked, | nasmuch as | t contai ned no
cr i t| cs, but many advocates oI A/ T. The panel mem~
bers Iel | i nto two mai n segment s. The I| rst segment ,
comp r i s i n g t h e ma]ori ty oI panel | st s , were | ndepen~
dent s, who were w| l | | ng to be persuaded one way or
anot her. The other segment consi sted oI hard~core
A/ T part| sans , p| ayers on t he bur rough s~ne| l come team
1
' A| OS Orug' , As soc| ated | ress, J Harch 1 0.
A ' STATE O| THE ART' A/ T CON| E RE NCE 1 ? 5
[ and presumab| y payro| | ) . The strugg| e was unequa|~~
as L en| n IorceI u| | y demnst rated, bot h |n t heory and | n
p r act| ce, a d| sc| p| | ned and sur rept | t|ou s m| nor| ty can
power I u | | y p reva | | aga | n st a I ragmented and unor~
gan | z ed ma]or| ty. The | ndependent s were concerned
w| th t he trut h , as we| | as t he we| Iare oI t he human
be| ngs to whom A/ T m| ght be prescr| bed, and so they
were proper| y hes| tant or caut |ou s at t | mes. The A/ T
part| sans had no such | nh | b| t|ons . t hey acted | n con~
cert , and |n | | ne w| th a c| ear and pre~determ| ned goa| .
Hy presence wa s regarded a s a th reat by t h e or~
gan| zers oI the conIerence, and w| th good reason. |
have now wr| tten mre on A/ T than any other wr | ter
| n the wor| d, and | am one oI the very Iew wr | ters
[ | n c | ud| ng ) os eph Sonnabend, |eter Ouesberg, Ce| | a
| a rber , | an Young, br| an Oeer , Kat| e L e| shman , and
Gary Nu| | ) who have dared to expose the | | es support~
| ng th | s dead| y nost rum.
|or severa| days beIore the conIerence | had car~
r| ed on d| scu s s|ons w| th t he organ| zers over whether |
cou |d ga| n adm| ttance to t he ma| n conIerence rom, or
be re| egated to an 'overI |ow room' I rom wh| ch | cou | d
' obs erve the proceed| ngs by c| osed c| rcu| t te| ecast.
Th ey | n t r ans| gent | y | ns| sted on the | atter. nhen |
a r r | ved at t h e con I erence, severa| tense| y oII| c|ou s
Iema| es were ready and wa| t| ng. One oI t hem | nIormed
me t hat an 'overI|ow s| tuat |on' ex| sted, and t hat |I |
even attempted to take a |ook | ns| de the ma| n rom,
guards wou | d be ca| | ed. Another wrote my name on a
wa| t| ng | | st. Adm|tt| ng temporary deIeat , | went | nto
t h e ' over I | ow room , and wa tched the I| rst t hree
p re sent at | ons on t he te| ev| s| on screen. The v| sua|
qua| | ty was so por t hat | t was | mposs| b| e to read the
numbers t hat appeared on t he s| | de tab| es. Hav| ng a
v|ew oI t he dor, | cou | d see person aIter person be| ng
adm|tted | nto the ma| n rom, even two hou rs aIter t he
conIerence had begun. Then, du r| ng t he m| d~morn| ng
break , one oI my co| | eagues, who had s| mp| y wa| ked
| nto t he ma| n room, | nIormed me t hat , I ar I rom an
1 ? 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
'overI|ow s| tuat |on' , t here wer e at l east t h ree dozen
empty seat s. n|t h a rush oI adrenal | n, | gat hered up
my gear and wal ked | nto t he ma| n rom. No one
attempted to stop me, and Ior the rest oI t he day |
wa s ab| e to obse rve l | ve h u man be| ngs present| ng
| eg| bl e [ | I somet| mes dub|ou s ) | nIormat|on.
S| |de tal ks are, by t he| r very nat u re, a Iorm oI
p ropaganda. | t | s a| most | mposs| bl e to comprehend,
eval uate, and reta| n the data that are I| ashed on t he
screen. One cannot , as when read| ng a deta| | ed wr| t~
t en report , d| g | n, go back and Iorth over metho~
do| ogy, t ab| e s , gr ap h s , et c . | n st ead, | nIormat|on
washes over one, t he cr | t| ca| Iacu | t| es are du| l ed, and
one ends up accept| ng t he general | t| es and concl us| ons
that are oIIered by the presenter.
| n sp| te oI t he one~s| ded pl ann| ng oI t he conIer~
ence, the des| red consensu s was not reached, and a
cou p l e oI bombshel l s went oII . beIore go| ng | nto
h| ghl | ghts oI t he presentat|ons, | ' d | | ke to g| ve cred| t
to C har| es C. ) . Carpenter, | roIes sor oI Hed| c| ne at
brown Un| vers| ty, who d| d a good ]ob oI cha| r| ng t he
conIerence. Carpenter was I a| r and | mpart| al , and d| d
hi s best t o ma| nta| n standards oI c| v| | | ty among t he
panel | st s .
Margaret Fishl
Hargaret | | sch| | s one oI t he stars on the bur~
rou g h s~ne l l come team. She coord| nated t he I raud~
r| dden |hase | | A/ T tr | al s, wh| ch | anal yzed two and a
ha| I years ago.
?
nhen | spoke to | | sch| on a prev|ou s
occas| on, she was unabl e to answer some very s| mp| e
quest |ons about a report wh| ch she herse| I had al l eged~
?
Nat| ve | ssue ? J 5 . Another h| ghl y cr| t| ca| rev| ew
oI the |hase | | tr | al s was wr| tten by )oseph A. Son~
nabend, ' Rev| ew oI A/ T Hu l t | center Tr| a| Oata Ob~
t a | n ed Under t h e | reedom oI | n Ior mat | on Act by
|ro]ect | nIorm and ACT~U| ' , A| OS |orum, ) anuary 1 8 8 .
A " STATE O| THE ART" A/ T CON| E RE NCE T ? 7
l y wr| tten, and she reIerred me to bur rough s ne| l come
Ior answer s. | t | s scanda| ou s t hat someone oI her
ca| | ber shoul d have been al |owed to superv| se c| | n| ca|
tr| a| s | n the I| rst p| ace, l et a| one to cont| nue todo so.
| | sch l ' s I| rst s l | de ta| k was on " N| A| O A| OS C| | n| ca|
Tr| a| s Group | rotocol 0 1 6: The SaIety and EI I | cacy oI
A/ T | n the Treatment oI |at | ents w| th Ear| y ARC. " | n
t h | s study pat| ents w| th " ear| y ARC' were t reated w| th
A/T, and al | eged| y rema| ned | n better hea| th than d| d
pat| ents who rece| ved a pl acebo. nhen | commented
on t h| s study | ast August, | wrote:
The study des| gn was rotten at | t s core t hrough
s heer su b] ect | v| t y. The " exc| t| ng" resu | t s were
based ent | rel y on perce| ved progress|ons I rom m| | der
to more ser|ou s symptoms ~ on progres s| ons I rom
gray to gray. | I no one at N| A| O even knew what
the qu a| | Iy| ng symptoms were, one can on| y | mag| ne
the cogn| t | ve chaos that must have preva| | ed | n t he
I | el d, when phys| c| ans had t o dec| de | I a part | cul ar
con I | gurat|on oI symptoms qua| | I| ed as m| | d ARC,
ser |ou s ARC, A| OS , or none oI these.
J
Not h | ng |n | | sch | ' s presentat|on shed | | ght on t h| s
cent ra| probl em. | nterest | ngl y, much oI t he c| a| med
eII| cacy oI A/ T |n t h| s study was based on resu l t s
I rom t he now~d| sc red| t ed p~? 4 ant | gen test, about
wh| ch more | ater.
| | sch | b| | the| y d| sm| s sed A/ T' s tox| c| t| es by cl a| m| ng
the drug was " remarkabl y wel | tol erated" . A| t hough
Iat| gue, mal a| se, nau sea, and hematol og| c abnorma| | t| es
were Iound more I requentl y | n the A/ T than | n the
pl acebo group, al most al l pat| ents tak| ng a |ow dose
were ab|e to to| erate the drug ~~ accord| ng to | | schl .
Ha r gar et | | sc h l | at er gave a second s| | de ta| k ,
ent | t | ed " N | A| O A| OS Cl | n| ca| Tr | a| s Group | rotoco|
0 0 ? : The SaIety and EI I| cacy oI A/ T |n t he Treatment
J
Nat| ve | ssue J J T .
1 ? 8 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
oI |at| ents w| th |ost | | rst Ep| sode |C|. " | | sch| sa| d
th | s was a brand new study: " | a| most Iee| || ke the
b| rth oI a baby| ' [ No, | a m not k| dd| ng. S h e rea| | y
d| d say t hat . ) Th e po| nt oI t h|

tudy was to compare

the eII| cacy oI a |ow dose ( 600 mg./day) w| th t hat oI
a h| gh dose [ 1 ? 0 0 mg. /day) oI A/ T | n pat| ents who had
h ad one ep| sode oI pneu mocyst | s car| n| | pneumon| a
[ |C | ) . Apparent | y t he |ow dose was ] ust a s eIIect| ve
as t he h| gh dose, and w| th | ess hemato| og| c tox| c| ty.
On t he who| e, A/ T d| d not do a very good ]ob oI
" extend| ng t he | | ves" oI t he pat| ent s | n | rotoco| 00? .
AIter two years oI treatment, 66 to 7 ? percent oI t hem
were dead.
No report has been wr| tten or pub| | shed on e| ther
oI these stud| es. | reIu se to comment on them I urther
unt| | | can |ook at a proper report | n a peer~rev| ewed
]ou rna| . | rom a comp| ete wr| tten report an ana| yst
can ana| yze methodo|ogy, study des| gn, or data ~~ but
he cannot ana| yz e the genera| | t| es and sn| ppets oI
| nIormat|on t hat are tossed out | n a s| | de ta| k. based
on || sch | ' s past record, no research |n wh| ch she has
t aken p a r t s hou | d be accepted w| thout cons| derab| e
skept| c| sm.
Paul Volbrding
|au| Vo| berd| ng I rom San | ranc| sco was another oI
the bur roughs~ne| | come stars. H| s ta| k, dua| | y presen~
ted w| th Stephen Lagakos oI the Harvard Schoo| oI
|ub| | c Hea| th , was ent| t| ed, " N| A| O A| OS C| | n| ca| Tr| a| s
Group | rotoco| 0 T : The SaIety and EII| cacy oI A/ T
Ior Asymptomat | c H| V | nIected | nd| v| dua| s. Th| s , oI
cour se, was t he theme oI the conIerence. The a| | eged
resu| t s I rom | rotoco| 0 1 had prev|ou s| y been promu | ~
gated | n a sk| mpy and | ncoherent N| A| O press re| ease
on T 7 August T 8. At the t | me | character| zed t h| s
A ' S1A1E O| 1HE AR1' A/ T CON| E RE NC E 1 ?
p r act | c e a s ' 1h e gr eat A/ 1 scam: resul t s w| thout
dat a' .
4
A| l eged| y, H| V pos| t | ve | nd| v| dual s on e| ther a |ow
or a h| gh dose oI A/ 1 were l ess | | ke| y to deve|op
A | OS t h an were t hose on pl acebo. UnIortunate| y,
Vol berd| ng and Lagakos d| d not present suII| c| ent data
to support t h| s conc| us|on.
However , a number oI | nterest| ng statements were
made dur | ng t he| r presentat|ons. One oI the pat| ent s
was mu rdered dur| ng t he cou rse oI t he study. Vo| ~
berd| ng adm| tted to a ' st rong susp| c|on t hat most oI
the pat| ents knew whether t hey were gett| ng A/ 1 oI
pl acebo. 1he " su sp| c|on was st rengthened by the Iact
t hat pat| ent s on pl acebo were Iar more l |kel y to drop
out oI the study. | n other words, t he study was not
rea| l y b| | nd, as |t was des| gned to be| 1he st udy was
thereIore | nva| | d on t h| s bas| s a| one.
Stephen Lagakos gave an excruc| at| ngl y | nept per
Iormance. 1he numbers he presented were | l | eg| bl e on
t h e t e| ev | s | on screen | was watch| ng at t he t| me.
However , he showed a | | ne chart dep| ct| ng CO4 counts
over t | me by t reatment group. A gl ance was enough to
show t hat there was no c| ear pattern, and the d| I~
Ierences were tr| v| a| . 1h| s | s what he shou| d have
sa| d. but | nstead he tal ked endl essl y about a mean| ng~
l ess chart .
Ou r| ng a break Vo| berd| ng tol d me that a report on
| rotoco| 0 1 was " | n the process oI be| ng rev| ewed' ,
and t hat he hoped | t wou | d be pub| | shed son. | | ne.
nhen | see the report | ' | | comment on t h| s research
Iu rther.
5
4
Nat | ve | ssue J40.
5
1he art| cl e was pub| | shed ust as t h| s book | s
go| ng to press. |au l A. Vo| berd| ng, Stephen n. L aga~
kos, et a| . , / |dovud| ne | n Asymptomat| c Human | m~
[cont| nued )
T J 0 |O| SON bY |RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
S | nce Vo| berd| ng and L agakos, as we| | as | | sch| ,
I r equ en t | y made r eI er ence to resu | t s on t he p~? 4
ant i gen test , as a measure oI A/T' s eII| cacy, a br| eI
di scussion on t h| s top| c | s | n order.
The Disreite P-24 Antige Test: A Digressi
As readers oI the Nat| ve are aware, t he p~?4 ant| ~
gen test | s unva| | dated ~ | t | s not known exact| y what
the test measu res, or how accu rate| y | t measures | t .
Over two year s ago, Harvey b| a| y, Research Edi tor oI
b|o/Techno| ogy, wrote an ed| tori a| | n whi ch he assa| | ed
the uncr| ti ca| use oI t he test , the shoddy peer~rev| ew
standards oI med| ca| ]ou rna| s, and the gu | | | b| | | ty oI t he
press.
6
b| a| y demonstrated t hat the c| a| med resu| t s
I rom t he p~?4 ant i gen test , as reported | n recent
med| ca| ]ou rna| s, cou | d not pos s| b| y be true.
5
[ conti nued)
mu nodeI| ci ency V| ru s | nIecti on: A Contro| | ed Tr| a| | n
|ersons w| t h |ewer t han 5 0 0 CO4~|osi ti ve Ce| | s per
Cub| c H| | | i meter ' , New Eng| and ) ou rna| oI Hedi c| ne, 5
Apr | | 1 0.
| n br| eI , t he research i s unacceptab| e. The authors'
| gnor ance oI e| emen t a ry stat i st | cs i s beyond be| i eI.
None oI the| r tab| es show bases or make sense. ni | | y~
ni | | y t hey compare percent s w| t h raw numbers.
Huch oI the art| c| e cons| st s oI crude spec| a| p| ead~
| ng. As support Ior the ' beneI| t s ' oI A/ T, t he authors
ci te the Iraudu| ent |hase | | Tri a| s [ Ch apter | | ) and the
shoddy A/ T su rv| va| study [ Chapter V) , a| ong w| th t he
r| d| cu|ou s | i z zo study [ p. ?T ) . However, t hey don' t
even ment| on the Iar superi or Oou rnon study [ p. 1 J 8 ) .
| n no way does t h| s art| c| e demonst rate beneI i t s oI
A/ T t reatment Ior asymptomat| c, H| V~i nIected persons.
6
Harvey bi a| y, ' Commentary: nhere | s the V| ru s l
And nhere | s t h e |ress l ' , b| o/Techno| ogy, |ebruary T 8 8.
A " STATE O| THE ART" A/ T CON| E RE NC E 1 J 1
A year | ater the em| nent mo| ecul ar b| o| og| st, |eter
Ou esberg, | n h | s mag| ster| al reIutat|on oI the hypo~
thes| s t hat H| V | s t he cau se oI " A| OS' , demonstrated
the wort h l essness oI the p~? 4 ant | gen test , po| nt| ng
out that, amng ot her t h| ngs:
A| | stud| es on p ? 4 report A| OS cases t hat occur
w| thout p?4 ant | genem| a, | nd| cat| ng t hat p?4 | s not
necessary Ior A| OS. They a| so report ant| genem| a
w| thout A| OS , | nd| cat| ng t hat p ? 4 | s not suII| c| ent
Ior A| OS
_
| n t he 1 4 Oecember 1 8 | s sue oI the New Engl and
) ou r na| oI H ed| c | n e, t wo ar t | c l es and an ed| tor| a|
appeared, wh| ch attempted to show that, cont rary to
the arguments oI Ouesberg, H| V rea| | y | s b|ochem| ca| l y
act | ve, and thereIore m| ght st| | | be e| t her a cau se or
the cau se oI " A| OS' . both art| c| es demonst rated t hat
resu | ts I rom the p~?4 ant| gen test were mean| ng| ess.
8
| n an ed| tor| al , Oav| d bal t| more wrote:
| I t h | s new approach [ to drug test| ng] | s to
s ucceed, accurate ear| y markers oI drug eII| cacy
w| | | be oI great val ue. None oI t he cur rent | y
ava| | ab| e " s ur rogate markers are compl ete| y sat | s~
Iactory |n t h| s regard. Oetectabl e quant| t| es oI p ? 4
ant | gen are Iound | n onl y a I ract|on oI | nIected
persons and, as shown by Ho and Combs and the| r
7
| et e r H. Ou es ber g, Hu man | mmunodeI| c| ency
V | r u s and Acqu| red | mmunodeI| c| ency Syndrome: Cor
re| at|on but Not Cau sat| on , | roceed| ngs oI t he Nat |on~
al Academy oI Sc| ences , |ebruary 1 8 .
8
Oav| d O. Ho et a l . , " Quant| tat|on oI Human | m~
munodeI| c| ency V| rus Type 1 |n the b|od oI | nIected
|ersons " , New Engl and )ou rna| oI Hed| c| ne, 1 4 Oecem~
ber 1 8 .
Robert n. Coombs et a | . , " || asma V| rem| a | n
Human | mmunodeI| c| ency V| ru s | nIect |on , | b| d.
1 J ? |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
coworker s, correl ate porl y w| th t he presence or
amount oI repl | cat | ng H| V.

Hy po| nt, t hen , | s that much oI t he A/ T research

Ior the past th ree years has rel |ed upon resu l t s I rom
the p~? 4 ant | gen test ~ a test wh| ch | s now adm| tted,
even by advocates oI t he H| V hypothes| s, t o be worth~
l ess.
A d| gres s| on w| th| n a d| gres s| on: The New Engl and
) ou rnal oI Hed| c| ne has agreed to run a l etter I rom
|eter Ouesberg repl y| ng to the art| cl es by Ho, Combs,
bal t| more, and |e| nberg. | n sc| ent| I| c, as opposed to
propagand| st | c terms, the H| V hypothes| s has not yet
r| sen I rom t he grave.
Jon D. Hamilt
The ma]or bombshel l oI the conIerence was deton~
ated by ) ohn O. Ham| l ton, a soIt~spoken gentl eman who
| s |roIes sor oI Hed| c| ne at Ouke Un| vers| ty. H| s tal k
was ent | t l ed, " Veterans Adm| n| st rat|on Study
1
? 8 . A/ T
T reat ment oI A| OS and ARC , |art 1 : Treatment oI
|at| ents w| t h ARC. Th| s was a l arge case~control
s t udy eva l uat| ng A/ T t reatment ( 1 5 00 mg./day) oI
pat| ents whose T~4 counts were between ? 0 0

and 5 00.
The pr| nc| pal endpo| nts were A| OS , deat h , or both.
Al though Ham| l ton was not abl e to rel ease spec| I | c
data, ow| ng to a r ul e wh| ch some med| cal ou rnal s have
[ | I dat a I rom a study have been made publ | c, t he
art| cl e | s automat| cal l y re]ected) , he d| d g| ve t he maor
conc l u s | on s . nh et h e r l ook | n g at su rv| val , cl | n| cal
beneI | t s, qual | ty oI | | Ie, or any other measu re, there
was no ev| dence t hat A/ T had beneI| t s oI any k | nd.
Ham| l ton ' s concl u s|on, understated but author| tat| ve,
was t h| s :

Oav| d bal t | more and Hark b. |e| nberg, " H| V Re~

veal ed: Toward a Nat ural H| story oI the | nIect| on " , | b| d.
A ' STATE O| THE ART' A/ T CON| E RE NCE 1 J J
| n concl u s| on. ne hope t h| s panel w| l l acknowl ~
edge the uncerta| nt| es d| scus sed today, and t hat the
mes s age to pat| ents and pract| t|oners w| l l reI l ect
the l ack oI | nIormat |on | n many areas.
Th| s was the l ast t h| ng the bur rough s~nel l come Hob
wanted to hear. nhy shou l d a phys| c| an prescr| be a
tox| c drug Ior long~term u se | I t he drug has no bene~
I | ts at al l l Several t| mes as Ham| l ton was speak| ng,
Ha rgar et | | schl , whether I rom nervou sness or boor~
| shness, went | nto ep| sodes oI sn| cker| ng. Th| s may be
her mode oI reIutat| on. Over two years ago, when |
asked her | I she had read |eter Ouesberg' s art| cl e | n
C ancer Res ear ch r eI u t | ng t he H| V hypothes| s, she
responded by sn| cker| ng.
Under sharp quest| on| ng I rom the A/ T advocates,
Ham| l ton expressed conI| dence | n h| s study, wh | ch was
c a reIu l l y des| gned and had l arge sampl es. He con~
s| dered |t most unl |kel y t hat the resu l t s wou l d change
apprec| abl y over t | me.
Mitchell Gail
The most l ud| c rou s presentat|on oI t he conIerence
wa s g | ven by H | t c h e l l Ga | l , a ' Hed| cal Stat| st| cal
| nvest| gator' w| t h t he Nat |onal Cancer | nst| tute [ NC | ) :
' Recent OeI | c| t s | n the | nc| dence oI A| OS ' . He t r| ed
to make t he utterl y preposterou s case t hat A/ T t her~
apy shou l d be g| ven cred| t Ior the Iact that the | n~
c| dence oI A| OS | s go| ng down.
nel l now, | have been argu| ng Ior th ree years t hat
the COC proect |ons oI A| OS | nc| dence were Iar too
h| gh.
1 0
| demonst rated a year and a hal I ago that t he
| nc| dence oI A| OS was dropp| ng.
1 1
Unt | l ust recentl y
publ | c heal t h serv| ce oII | c| al s s| mpl y den| ed al l t h| s~~
1 0
Nat| ve | ssue ? 0 J .
1 1
Nat| ve | ssue ? 86.
1 J 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
t hey sa| d t hat the est| mates were accurate and t he
| nc| dence was not dropp| ng. However, | t | s now cl ear
t hat the COC pro]ect|ons I or 1 8 8 and 1 8 were I ar
too h | g h , and everyone want s an ex p| anat|on [ as
though | t were not |n t he natu re oI ep| dem| cs to peak
at some po| nt )
nhatever the expl anat|on may be, | t cannot be A/ T,
wh| ch has onl y recent l y been g| ven to sma| | number s
oI " asymptomat| c" peop| e.
AZT an Cancer
K ennet h Aye r s , Sen| or Tox| co|og| st at bu rrough s
ne| | come, spoke on " A/ T Carc| nogen| c| ty" . He d| s~
c u s sed t h e r ecent rodent carc| nogen| c| ty stud| es, | n
wh| ch A/ T cau sed vag| na| tumors | n m| ce and rat s.
Ayers d| d a competent ]ob oI present| ng t he I| nd| ngs,
a| though , be| ng on the payrol l oI bur rough s~nel l come,
he tended to downpl ay the| r s| gn| I | cance.
Some oI h | s | nIormat| on went beyond t hat wh| ch
was ava| | ab| e | ast Oecember, when | reported on these
I| nd| ngs.
1 ?
|or exampl e, back | n Oecember apol og| st s
Ior A/ T, such as ) ames Hason oI the |ub| | c Heal th
Serv|ce or Hat h| | de K r| m oI Am|AR, cl a| med t hat the
A/ T doses g| ven the rodent s were I ar h | gher than the
equ| val ent human doses. | argued at the t| me t hat t h| s
cou l d not be true, s| nce at such h| gh doses t he rodents
wou | d al | have per| shed I rom anem| a. Now | t t urns out
that the | nIormat|on g| ven | n the press had been qu| te
| ncompl ete. | n bth rodent stud| es, t he doses oI A/ T
had to be shar pl y reduced " | n t he | nterest oI |ong~term
su rv| va| " . | n t h e study on rat s , t h e doses were re~
duced sharp| y aIter 0 days , and had to be reduced
even I urther aIter ?7 days .
Aye r s exp|ored t he quest|on oI how A/T cau ses
vag| nal cancer | n rodents, and | ncl | ned to the hypo~
thes| s t hat cancer resul ts I rom loca| contact oI vag| nal
1 ?
Nat| ve | ssue J 4 8.
A STATE O| THE ART" A/ T CON| E RE NC E 1 J 5
t | s sue w| th u r| ne w| th h| gh A/ T concent rat| on. | n~
t er es t | n g l y , rodent s absorb much l ess A/ T than do
human be| ngs. nhereas rodent exc rete 0/ oI the A/ T
they are g| ven , humans excrete onl y ? 0/. ThereIore,
the system| c, as opposed to l ocal | zed, tox| c| t| es oI A/ T
may be much worse | n humans than | n rodent s.
Ayers correctl y stated that the s| gn| I| cance oI the
rodent car c| nogen| c| ty stud| es was: an | nd| cat|on oI
general carc| nogen| c r| sk |n humans. He t hen went on
to character | ze A/ T as a weak rather t han a general
carc| nogen , and to cl a| m t hat " there are other drugs
t hat cau se cancer | n an| mal s , but are st| l l | n common
use at the d| sc ret|on oI the phys| c| an and the pat| ent.
He Ia| l ed to ment |on what those drugs m| ght be, and
wh et h er t h ey a re p r es c r | bed Ior long~term u se |n
heal thy peopl e.
Amaz| ngl y, Ayers d| d not even ment|on t he resu l t s
oI the Cel l TransIormat|on Assay, wh| ch was perIormed
over th ree years ago. | n t h| s standard |n v| tro test
ut | l | z| ng human cel l s, A/ T proved to be h| ghl y pos| t| ve,
| nd| cat| ng, | n t he words oI t he |OA tox| cology anal yst ,
t hat A/ T shou l d be " presumed to be a potent| al car~
c| nogen . bu rrough s~nel l come | s wel l aware oI t h| s
I| nd| ng, as | t | s al l uded to [ | I crypt| cal l y) | n t he A/ T
[Ret rov| r ) entry | n the |hys| c| an' s Oesk ReIerence. | n
a conIerence devoted to eval uat| ng the mer| ts oI l ong~
term A/ T t herapy, |n a presentat |on devoted to " A/ T
Carc| nogen| c| ty , t h e Ia| l ure to d| scuss or even ment|on
the Cel l Tran sIormat |on Assay |s depl orabl e, and can
onl y be regarded as a del | berate | ntent to dece| ve on
the part oI bur rough s~nel l come.
Douglas Richm
Oougl as R| chman I rom San O| ego | s al so on the
bu r rou gh s~ne l l come t eam, h av| ng been a pr| nc| pal
| nves t | gat or | n t h e | h ase | | tr | al s. However, h | s
presentat|on , A/ T Res| stance , was not very encou r~
ag| ng Ior the A/T advocates. | n br| eI , he reported
that H| V does develop res| stance to A/ T over t| me,
1 J 6 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
and there ar e many unanswered quest |ons | n th| s area.
Obv|ou sl y, Ior those who bel | eve that H| V | s the cause
oI A| OS" , such res| stance wou l d not bode wel l Ior
long~term therapy.
Disussio Amg the Panel
Host oI t he aIternoon was devoted to d| scu s s|on on
var|ous top| cs among t he panel . ) ay SanIord, | res| dent
and Oean oI t he Un| Iormed Serv| ces Un| vers| ty oI the
Heal th Sc| ences, made a key po| nt: | I t he progres s| on
rate [ Irom H| V | nIect| on w| th low T~4 counts to A| OS )
| s so low anyway [ 4/ or l ess ) , | s | t real l y ] ust | I| ed to
g| ve A/T on a mass scal el None oI the A/ T advo~
cates attempted to answer h| m.
Ne| l Sch ram, a gay phys| c| an I rom |al os Verdes,
Cal | Iorn| a, emphas| zed t hat hasty dec| s| ons [ l | ke tak| ng
A/ T) shou l d not be made on a s| ngl e CO4 count, as
such read| ngs normal l y go up and down | n the cou rse
oI a day, and t rans| ent | nIect| ons l |ke Il u can greatl y
l ower the CO4 counts. He added t hat many pat| ent s
look upon t he| r CO4 counts | n absol ute terms, and are
unaware oI the expected day~to~day and hou r~to~hou r
var| ance |n these read| ngs.
On the top| c, " Hon| tor| ng oI |at | ent | mmune Sta~
tu s " , the p~? 4 ant| gen test was desc r| bed as hav| ng no
pract| cal val ue by th ree oI t he panel members. No one
deIended the test.
| n the d| scuss| on, " | n| t| at |on oI A/ T Therapy" , Ne| l
Sch ram d| ssented I rom the encroach| ng consensu s t hat
A/T shou l d be g| ven to al l H| V pos| t| ve | nd| v|dual s
w| t h T~4 counts below 5 0 0. He sa| d he d| dn' t know~
that the Veterans Adm| n| st rat|on study had changed h | s
m| nd, and h e wa s no l onger w| l l | ng to say that A/ T
shou l d be g| ven to those w| t h T~4 counts between ? 00
a n d 5 0 0. Sch ram' s caut|on wa s | mperm| ss| bl e, and
| mmed| at el y h e c ame under attack I rom | | schl and
Vol berd| ng. | | sch| character | zed Sch ram' s hes| tat|on as
"dangerou s " , and sa| d t hat " ne must rel y on the data
beIore us " [ mean| ng presumabl y the unpubl | shed data
A " STATE O| THE ART" A/ T CON| E RE NCE 1 J 7
I rom Vol berd| ng and hersel I ) . Anthony |auc| then
ent ered t h e Iray, s| d| ng w| th | | sch| and Vol berd| ng
aga| nst Sch ram. Accord| ng to |auc| , t hose who start
A/ T ear| | er [ when the| r count s are h| gher) do better
t han those who start A/ T | ater.
Th| s was rather an ug| y ep| sode, and | th | nk t hat
homophob| a pl ayed a rol e | n the contempt w| th wh| ch
t h ree st r a | gh t s [ | | sc h l , Vo| berd| ng, and |auc| ) ad~
dressed a gay man. |ortunatel y other panel members
came to Sch ram' s deIense ~ Robert Couch , | roIes sor
and Cha| rman oI the Oepartment oI H| crob|o|ogy and
| mmunol ogy at the bay| or Co| l ege oI Hed| c| ne, po| nted~
| y tol d t he A/ T gang t hat Ne| | Sch ram was not the
onl y one w| th m| sg| v| ngs over the b| anket recommenda~
t| on. ) ay SanIord and Geral d |r | edl and, |roIessor oI
Hed| c| ne and Ep| dem|ology and Soc| a| Hed| c| ne at the
Al bert E| nste| n Col | ege oI Hed| c| ne, a| so supported the
caut|on oI Sch ram and Couch . | | sch| responded by
p| ead| ng w| th t he panel to ' G| ve the pos| t| ve message
[ presumab| y mean| ng to recommend A/ T) .
The d| scuss| on, " The Hanagement oI H| V | nIected
| nd| v| du a | s on A/ T Therapy' , was l argel y concerned
w| th what to do about t he tox| c s|de eIIects oI A/ T.
anem| a, neut ropen| a, myopathy [ a muscul ar d| sorder ) ,
etc. Here the d| scuss|on became very unreal : whether
to reduce doses , or to d| scont| nue therapy, whether to
resume therapy, and at what doses, and so on. To
pose such a quest| on | s to answer | t: nhat shoul d be
done |I t he adm| n| st rat |on oI a tox| c drug has cau sed a
pat | ent to become anem| c, or h | s muscl es to ache
v| o| ent | y and shr | vel up l How much common sense
does | t take to make a dec| s| on l
Pubic Disussio
As t | me was runn| ng short, onl y a hal I hou r was
ava| l abl e Ior pub| | c d| scu ss| on. | put my name | n
ear| y, and ought t o have been the t h| rd person | n l | ne.
However , a woman depos| ted more s| | ps oI paper on
the Cha| rman' s pod| um, and then Anthony |auc| went
1 J 8 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
up and rear ranged the sl | ps. n| th about I | ve m| nutes
to go, |t d| dn ' t look as though | wou l d be al lowed to
speak , so | went up to the pod| um and expl a| ned to
Charl es Carpenter that | thought | was next. | Iound
the sl | p w| th my name on | t on the bottom oI the p| l e,
and handed | t t o h| m. He t hen cal l ed on me, and |
| nt roduced mysel I and sa| d someth| ng l | ke t he Iol low~
| ng.
| ' d l | ke to express my concern | n two areas.
| | r s t , caut | on | s needed rega rd| n g t h e c h ron| c
tox| c| t| es oI A/ T. ne do not know what the long~
term s|de eIIect s oI t h| s drug are |n human be| ngs.
ne shou l d not m| n| m| ze the potent| al oI A/ T to
cau se cancer. | was shocked that the tox| col og| st
Irom bur rough s~nel l come d| d not even ment |on the
resu l ts oI the Cel l Tran sIormat | on Assay, wh | ch was
per I or med we l l ove r th ree years ago. | n t hat
st andard | n v| t ro test oI carc| nogen| c| ty, | nvol v| ng
human cel l s , A/ T was Iound to be h| ghl y pos| t| ve.
The resu l t s mean, | n the words oI an | OA tox| colo~
g| st , that ' A/ T shou l d be presumed to be a poten~
t| al carc| nogen. bur rough s~Gel l come | s wel l aware
oI these resu l t s, as a reIerence to them appears | n
the Ret rov| r entry | n the |hys| c| an' s Oesk ReIer~
ence.
S econd, sk ept| c| sm | s needed regard| ng unpub~
l | s h ed data pu rport | ng to show beneI| t s oI A/ T.
|or one t h| ng, there are stud| es that show no long~
term beneI| ts oI A/ T therapy. A case~contr
_
study
conduct ed | n |r ance by Oou rnon and col l eagues
Iound that the very, very s l | ght ' beneI | t s" oI A/ T
van| s h ed and wer e u t t er l y nonex| stent aIter s| x
mont h s.
1 J
And today we have heard t hat a Veter~
1 J
E . Oou rnon et al . , ' E IIects oI / | dovud| ne [ A/ T]
| n J65 Consecut| ve |at| ents n| th A| OS or A| OS~Re| ated
Compl ex' , The L ancet , J Oecember 1 8 8.
A " STATE O| THE ART" A/ T CON| E RE NCE 1 J
an' s Adm| n| st rat| on study Iound no beneI | t s at a| |
I rom A/ T therapy.
| n add| t | on, we need to be skept| ca| because
many oI the stud| es a| | eged| y demonstrat| ng A/T' s
beneI| t s were very bad research. | ' ve done an
ana| ys | s oI t he |hase | | t r| a| s, wh| ch were the bas| s
Ior A/ T' s approva| , u s| ng document s the |OA was
Iorced t o re| ease under the | reedom oI | nIormat|on
Act. | n t hat study, s| opp| ness and cheat| ng oI a| |
k| nds was to| erated. Among t he many s| ns t hat
were comm| tted aga| nst t he eth| cs oI sc| ence, t he
| nvest| gators de| | berate| y used data t hat they knew
were I a| se. On| y one word |s adequate to descr| be
such research . That word | s | RAUO.
Colusis
The A/ T conIerence enhanced my apprec| at|on oI
Hannah Arendt ' s ph rase, the " bana| | ty oI ev| | ' . Host
oI t h e par t | c| pants | n the conIerence were not | n~
tr | ns| ca| | y ev| | . Some oI them were weak , conIorm| st,
su scept | b| e to peer pressu re or br| bery. but the ma~
]or| ty were god peop| e do| ng t he| r best to make Ia| r
and rat| ona| dec| s| ons based on t he | nIormat| on ava| |~
ab| e to t hem.
Never t h e | e s s , t h e pane| member s wer e | ead| ng
p | ayer s | n a monumenta| | y ev| | program ~~ the ter~
ror | z| ng and po| son| ng oI gay men and other members
oI " r| sk groups " . Hany thou sands oI peop| e may d| e
becau se oI t he act|ons oI t he pane| , coup| ed w| th the
|OA dec| s |on oI the prev|ous day to recommend A/ T
Ior hea| thy peop| e.
Ev| | peop| e do ex| st , and some oI t hem were present
at the conIerence ~ peop| e whose unchecked egocen~
t r | sm has made them | nd| IIerent or even host | | e to the
we| Iare oI t he| r Ie| |ow human be| ngs. but Ior the
most pa r t , t h e t r | umph oI ev| | Io| |ows when good
peop| e rema| n s| | ent.
1
1 4 0 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
XI . Excerpt Fr Interview With Peter Duesbrg
1
1 J ) une 1 8 7
) ohn L aur| t sen: | n New York | know one person
who' s |n a terr| bl e d| | emma. He knows many other
|nAs | n New York, who have to| d h| m that, accord| ng
to the grapev| ne, A/ T | s po| son ~~ t hat most pat| ent s
treated w| th A/ T Iee| worse, cont rary to the propa~
ganda, and that there are terr| bl e s| de eIIects.
|eter Ouesberg: | t a po| son. | t | s cytotox| c.
) L : H| s doctor has | ns | sted he go on A/ T.
?
Con~
s| der| ng that | t' s not proven that H| V ~~ or Ior t hat
matter any v| r us ~~ | s the cause oI A| OS , what | s t he
good oI g| v| ng A| OS pat| ents t h| s k| nd oI t reatment l
|O: A/ T l nel | , to put |t as k| nd| y as pos s| bl e,
t h | nk | t ' s h| gh| y | r respons| bl e. | cou l d go I urther.
Even | I t he v| rus were the cause oI t he d| sease, the
onl y t| me that A/ T cou l d poss| bl y | nterIere w| th the
| nIect |on wou l d be dur | ng the phase when the v| r us
makes ONA. The A/T | s an | nh| b| tor oI ONA. So | n
eIIect | t cou l d be l | ke a ' morn| ng aIter' p| l l ~~ | I you
knew you were | nIected the n| ght beIore, and took t he
A/T, you m| ght have a chance oI h | tt| ng t he v| r us.
but | t a| so h| t s al | other ONA that | s made. | t | s hel |
Ior t he bne marrow, wh| ch | s where t he T and b cel | s
are made. | t ' s hel l Ior that. | t has a s l | ght preIer~
ence Ior v| ra| ONA pol ymerase, compared to cel | ul ar
ONA po| ymerase, based on |n v| tro stud| es onl y, but
t h at ' s cer t a| n| y not abso| ute. | t k | | l s normal cel | s
1
Nat | ve | ssue ? ? 0.
?
The person d| d go on A/T, and d| ed l es s t han a
year l ater.
OUE S bE RG | NTE RV| E n. 1 J ) UNE 1 8 7 1 4 1
qu | te, qu| te extens| ve| y. And cons| der| ng the s| ze oI
t he target ~ t he norma| c| | s are so much b| gger than
the v| rus ~~ even | I A/ T has a preIerence Ior the
v| rus, you w| | | hurt the norma| ce| | s no end. That' s
guaranteed. That you hurt the v| r us | s rat her hypo~
thet | ca| . Certa| n| y by t he t| me a pat| ent has symptoms
oI the d| sease, g| ven the |ong | atent per|od oI the
d| sease, and g| ven the Iact that t he v| r us | s | nact| ve
even | n t he acute Iorm oI the d| sease, | see no rat |on~
a|e Ior t reat| ng w| th A/T. Cons| der| ng t hat the v| r us
has a| ready been | n an A| OS pat| ent Ior I| ve years ,
and there' s no ev| dence t hat | t' s mak| ng ONA at t hat
t| me, | th | nk t hat g| v| ng A/ T | s h | gh| y | r respons| b| e.
There was a ta| k here two month s ago, and the
speaker cou | dn ' t exp| a| n the rat| ona| e Ior t reat| ng w| t h
A/T. He d| dn' t know. So | sa| d, ' nhy don' t you u se
asp| r | n l ' And everybdy | aughed. He had no an swer.
He got mad at me. He | s a doctor, m| n| ster| ng to the
s | ck , s ee| ng peop| e d| e, and doesn' t under stand the
bas| s Ior | t a| | .
) L : | underst and there are a| most no data on A/ T.
The doub| e~b| | nd st udy was prematu re| y aborted aIter
on| y I | ve and a ha| I month s. They have not even
t racked t he peop| e I rom t hat study who are st| | | t ak | ng
A/ T, so we have no | dea what percentage oI them are
st | | | a| | ve. They have no data on what percentages oI
pat| ents suIIer I rom spec| I | c s| de eIIects.
PO: There are not even any good an| ma| stud| es.
L ater t hey c| a| med resu | t s I rom m| ce t hat were treated
I| rst and then | nocu| ated w| th t he v| r us. There |t
c| ear| y has an eIIect . but t hat ' s when you get h| gh
v| r us t | ters and you know you ' re shoot| ng up now. but
I | ve year s | ater l There' s no bas | s Ior do| ng so, be~
cau se the ONA | s made by then. The v| r us | s ] ust
s| tt| ng there and mak| ng RNA I rom ex| st| ng ONA. And
the drug | s on| y go| ng to hurt you.
1
T 4 ? lO| SON bY lRE SCR| lT| ON. THE A/ T STORY
leter Ouesberg
l roIessor oI Hol ecul ar b| ology, berkel ey
lhotograph J une T 8 7 by ) ohn L au r| tsen
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY
1 4 J
XI I . Kangaro Court Etioloy
A " S c | ent | I | c | or um on t h e E t | o|ogy oI A| OS " ,
sponsored by t h e Amer| can |oundat| on Ior A| OS Re~
search [ Am|AR) , was he| d on Apr | | 1 8 8 at t he
George nash | ngton Un| vers| ty | n nash| ngton, O. C. | n
t he words oI t he Am|AR " Iact sheet " , t he |orum was
" convened to c r | t | c a | | y exam| ne t h e ev| dence that
h u man | mmunodeI| c| ency v| r us [ H| V) or other agents
g| ve r | se to the d| sease comp| ex known as A| OS. Oata
I rom | aboratory, c| | n| ca| , and ep| dem|o| og| ca| research
w| | | be presented and eva| uated. The Iorum seek s no
consensu s , | nstead | t | s des| gned to perm| t d| scus s|on
among experts on the conc| u s|ons the Iacts perm| t.
As one oI the 1 7 ]ou rna| | st s who were pr| v| | eged to
at t end, | |ooked Iorward to the Iorum as the I| rst
opportun| ty Ior an open d| scus s| on oI the pros and
cons oI the hypot hes| s that H| V | s the cause oI A| OS.
E ver s| nce Sec retary Heck | er announced | n 1 84 t hat
the cau se oI A| OS had been d| scovered, H| V has been
accepted as the cau se |n t he absence oI any conv| nc| ng
prooI t hat | t

. The |ub| | c Hea| th Serv| ce and t he

rest oI the med| ca| estab| | shment have acqu| esced | n a
" | rooI by |roc| amat |on" . The Iorum oIIered the I| rst
opportun| ty Ior |eter Ouesberg, | roIessor oI Ho| ecu| ar
b|o|ogy at the Un| vers| ty oI Ca| | Iorn| a at berke| ey, to
con I ront member s oI the " A| OS estab| | shment " over
t h e | r H | V hypothes| s. [ Readers oI t he Nat| ve are
aware t hat over a year ago Ouesberg prov| ded a com~
prehen s| ve and cogent| y argued reIutat|on oI the H| V
h ypot h e s | s , a n d t h at t h e " A| OS estab| | shment " has
| ntran s| gent| y reIu sed t o rep| y t o h| s cr| t| que.
1
)
Oes p| t e t h e se pra| sewort hy | ntent|ons, t he Iorum
appea r s to h ave had a h| dden agenda: to d| scred| t
Ou e s ber g. E ven H| c h ae| Specter , a reporter who
1
Nat| ve | ssue ? ? 0.
1 44 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
toad| es to t h e A| OS establ | shment " and | s b| tterl y
opposed to Ouesberg, adm| tted that the Apr | | meet | ng
"was b| l | ed as a sc| ent| I| c Iorum on the cause oI A| OS
but was real l y an attempt to put Ouesberg' s t heor| es to
rest.
?
The Iorum represented several steps Iorward, and
severa| backward. At | east the | ce has been broken,
and the cau ses oI A| OS are now an acceptabl e top| c
Ior publ |c d| scuss|on. nh| | e no bl ows were st ruck ,
some oI t he H| V protagon| st s Iel | be|ow t he standards
oI c | v| | | t y t h at ar e ex pect ed | n sc hol ar| y debate.
Not h| ng part| cu l ar l y new was sa| d, and there was | | ttl e
oI t he g| ve and take that character | ze genu| ne sc| en~
t| I| c d| al ogue. At the same t| me, the pos| t|ons oI both
s | des have become more sharp| y deI| ned, |t | s now
c| ear what d| rect|ons Iutu re debate shou l d take.
On the whol e, | regard the Iorum as a v| ctory Ior
Ouesberg. The Iorum was a wel |~orchest rated med| a
event, heav| l y stacked aga| nst h| m, and he tok a |ot
oI abuse. Neverthe| ess , he stod by h| s guns, he d| d
not recant [ as he apparent| y was expected to) , and to
the more d| scern| ng part| c| pants, he exposed the bank~
ruptcy oI the argument s cur rent| y advanced | n Iavor oI
the H| V hypot hes| s. At al l t | mes Ouesberg reta| ned
god manners and a sense oI humor, |n the Iace oI
| nvect| ve, | nsu l t s, and cl own| ng I rom h| s opponent s .
beIore go| ng | nto what each oI the pane| | st s sa| d,
| ' d l | ke to d| scuss a coup| e oI genera| | s sues wh| ch
came to the Iore: Koch ' s |ost u|ates and the nat ure oI
sc| ent | I| c ev| dence.
Koh' s Postulates
The Iorum was haunted by the specter oI Robert
Koch, and t he postu | ates t hat he Iormu | ated Ior " es~
t abl | s h | n g t h e s pec| I| c| ty oI a pathogen| c m| cro~or~
?
H| chae| Specter , " |anel Rebut s b|o| og| st ' s C| a| ms
on Cause oI A| OS " , nash| ngton |ost , 1 0 Apr | | 1 88.
KANGAROO COURT E T| OL OGY
1 4 5
gan | s m" . |or a centu ry, med| cal sc| ence has used
Koch ' s postu l ates as the standards Ior prov| ng that a
part | cul ar m| cro~organ| sm cau ses a part | cul ar d| sease.
The I| rst |ost u| ate requ| res t hat the m| crobe be Iound
| n a| | cases oI the d| sease, the second, t hat the m| ~
crobe, hav| ng been grown | n pure cul t ure, be | n] ected
| nto su scept| b| e an| mal s w| th t he resu| t t hat the same
d| sease | s produced, and t he t h| rd, t hat the m| crob| a|
agent create the d| sease upon t ransIer I rom an| ma| s
made | l | by | nocul at |on.
Ouesberg has taken the pos| t|on t hat Koch ' s I | r st
|ostu l ate shou | d be amended |n a conservat| ve d| rec~
t |on, so that the m| crobe must not on|y be present | n
al | cases, but must a| so be b|ochem| ca| l y act | ve t o a
c| | n| cal l y rel evant degree. H| s rat| onal e | s t hat pre~
sent~day technol ogy makes |t poss| bl e to see v| ruses
t hat wou | d have rema| ned unknown and undetectabl e
onl y ten years ago. |t | s now poss| b| e to | dent| Iy a
v| r us t hat | s present |n on| y one |n 1 00, 000 T~ce| | s .
So | t | s not enough to detect a m| c robe, | t must be
proven t hat the m| crobe | s do| ng someth| ng harmI ul ,
and to a suII| c| ent degree, t hat | l | ness resu | ts. Oues
berg has al so commented, t hat | I Koch ' s I| rst |ost ul ate
| s not sat | sI| ed, there | s no need to bother about t he
rema| n| ng post u | ates.
The H| V advocates , on the other hand, now w| sh to
rev| se Koch ' s | n a more perm| ss| ve d| rect| on: | t wou l d
no l onger be necessary to I | nd the m| crobe | n a| | cases
oI the d| sease. Here corre| at|ons between m| crob| a|
ant | bod| es and t he progress|on oI the d| sease wou | d be
su
]
| c| ent. H| V cou | d be proved " ep| dem| o| og| ca| | y" to
be the cause oI A| OS.
Act ual | y, t he H| V advocates tal ked out oI both s| des
oI t he| r mouth s w| th regard to Koch ' s post u| ates. On
t h e one hand, they d| sparaged t hem as | n need oI
" mod| I| cat| on" [ read: abandonment ) , on the other hand,
they were do| ng the| r best to come up w| t h data t hat
woul d sat| sIy at | east the I | rst postul ate, wh| ch | s
t roubl esome because | t amounts to god common sense.
1 4 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
Public Vs. Private Facts
Ouesberg has based h | s cr| t| que oI the H| V hypo~
thes| s on a thorough rev| ew oI the pub I |shed | | terat ure
on A| OS. | n the cou rse oI the debate, |t appeared
that the H| V advocates are t ry| ng to shore up the| r
ar gument s by rev| s | ng t h e I act s , part | cu| ar| y w| th
regard to the cruc| a| quest|ons oI whether or not H| V
| s ever b| oc h em| ca | | y act | ve | n peop| e w| t h A| OS
[ |nAs ) , and whether or not H| V can be detected | n a| |
|nAs.
Sever a| t | mes Ouesberg was accu sed by Anthony
|auc| and n| | | | am Hase| t| ne oI hav| ng based h | s argu~
ments on research that was "out oI date" . Ouesberg
rep| | ed that some oI the key I | gures he c| ted had been
used recent | y by members oI the A| OS estab| | shment,
and that he |ooked Iorward to read| ng report s oI any
new data.
A Iundamenta| d| IIerence | n ph| |osophy | s | nvo| ved
here, one wh| ch needs to be art| cu| ated. On severa|
occ a s | ons Ou esberg and h | s supporter , Harry Rub| n,
as ked |auc| or Hase| t| ne Ior reIerences to back up
assert|ons they had made, and t hey were rude| y re~
buIIed. bot h Ouesberg and Rub| n be| ong to the o| d
scho| , accord| ng to wh | ch Iact s are not ent | re| y " rea| "
unt| | they have been pub| | shed. Sc|ent | st s are expected
to make the| r data ava| | ab| e, together w| th a deta| | ed
des c r | pt |on oI methodo|ogy, so t hat other sc| ent| st s ,
work| ng | ndependent | y, cou | d attempt t o rep| | cate t he
exper |ment s and ver | Iy the resu | ts. Sc| ence | s thus a
pub| | c act| v| ty, where sc| ent| st s check out each other' s
work | n a mutua| endeavor to estab| | sh t he trut h.
UnI ort unate| y, government sc| ent| sts and others | n
the A| OS estab| | shment have somet| mes been mot| vated
by cons| derat|ons other than the trut h . |n t he | nter~
est s oI proI| t , prest| ge, and pub| | c re| at|ons , t hey have
resorted to secrecy and decept| on. A case | n po| nt | s
t h e we| | ~doc u mented ep| sode | n wh| ch Robert Ga| | o
KANGAROO COURT E1| OLOGY
1 4 7
at t empt ed to steal cred| t I rom the r rench Ior the
d| scovery oI t he " A| OS v| ru s .
3
Th e d| I I erence | n p h | l osop h y needs to be em~
phas| zed. Ouesberg, bas| ng h | s arguments on publ | c
I act s , wa s cou nt ered by |auc| and Hasel t| ne, who
reIerred to the| r own pr| vate Iacts. Now, | t | s pos~
s| bl e t hat Ouesberg' s publ | c Iacts may be wrong, and
t hat Ha se l t | n e ' s and | a u c | ' s pr| vate Iact s may be
correct. but even | I t hat were the case, | t wou l d be a
grave | n] ust| ce to Ouesberg to cr | t| c| ze h| m Ior hav| ng
used publ | c | nIormat| on. nhen Ouesberg | ns| st s upon
reIerences, he | s not qu| bbl | ng, he | s act| ng |n the best
t rad| t|on oI sc| ence.
Harld Ginsrg
The panel was moderated by Harol d G| nsberg, |ro~
Ies sor oI Hed| c | ne and H | c rob| ol ogy at Col u mb| a
Un| vers| ty. He began by say| ng that record| ng oI the
Iorum wou l d not be perm| tted, al though there wou l d be
an oII| c| al t ranscr| pt oI the proceed| ngs, and that the
pu rpose oI the Iorum was to " d| scus s | n an | nIormal
and I r | endl y manner the et| ol ogy oI A| OS. He then
went | nto a presentat |on oI h | s own. AIter conced| ng
that "the pathogenes| s oI H| V | s st| l l pretty much a
bl ack box , he d| scus sed the character | st| cs oI several
v| ral d| seases , | ncl ud| ng | nI l uenza, pol |omyel | t| s , meas~
l es, herpes s| mpl ex, and hepat | t | s b. He emphas| zed
t h at n eu t r a l | z | n g ant | bod| es cou l d be present when
d| sease occur s , and d| d not necessar| l y prevent v| ru ses
Irom be| ng present | n the blood.
G| nsberg' s comments served to set the stage aga| nst
Ou es ber g by topp l | ng a s t r aw dummy represent| ng
sel ect| ve statement s , torn out oI context , wh| ch Oues~
berg had made on ant | bod| es. | t became obv|ou s t hat
the Iorum wou l d not Iavor I ree and | mpart| al d| scuss| on
oI t h e | s s u e s ~~ an | mpart| al d| scuss|on, aIter al l ,
3
The New Sc| ent| st , 1 ? |ebruary 1 8 7 .
1 4 8 |O| SON bY |RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
requ| res an | mpart| al moderator. | t was al so obv|ou s
t h at t h e H | V protagon| st s wou l d employ | nIormat|on
over|oad as a propaganda techn| que. nh| l e G| nsberg' s
comments were tr ue enough , so Iar as t hey went, t hey
wer e most | y | r re| evant to the cent ral | s sues oI t he
debate. Neverthel ess, they conveyed the | mpress|on
that a vast body oI know| edge argued aga| nst Oues~
berg' s cr| t|que oI the H| V hypothes| s. Nov| ce repor~
ters, st ra| n| ng to take | n a| l oI G| nsberg' s | nIormat|on
[ w| thout t he a| d oI tape recorder s) , ended up w| t h
l | tt| e space | n the| r heads Ior the rel evant | ssues.
Marcel Beluda
The next speaker was Harcel be| uda, | roIes sor oI
|at ho|ogy at the Un| vers| ty oI Cal | Iorn| a at Los An~
gel es. H| s presentat|on deal t w| t h the comp| ex struc~
tu re and reproduct|on cycl es oI ret rov| ru ses , and what
ru | es a ret rov| r us wou l d have to Io| |ow | n order to
cau se d| sease. He sa| d that, w| th regard to Koch ' s
I | r st |ost u l ate, ret rov| ral ONA shou l d be present | n
1 0 0/ oI the cases, and t hat | t was a ser |ous weakness
| n | dent | Iy| ng H| V as t he et| ol og| cal agent t hat t h| s
requ| rement cou | d not be sat | sI| ed.
bel uda' s presentat|on was comp| ex and h| gh| y nu~
anced , and he ran out oI t| me. Neverthe| ess, h | s
concl ud| ng statement came out cl ear and st rong. ' ne
mu st reso| ve t h e ' b| ack box' H| V b| o| og| ca| phenome~
non.
Harry Rubin
Har ry Rub| n, | roIes sor oI Ho| ecu l ar b|ology at the
Un| vers| ty oI Ca| | Iorn| a at berke| ey, was one oI t he
p|oneers | n t he I | e| d oI ret rov| ro|ogy. Twenty years
ago Rub| n was k | ng oI the I| el d, he t ra| ned many oI
the sc| ent | st s who are today t he wor| d' s l ead| ng ret ro~
v| rol og| sts.
Rather than d| scus s| ng t he | nt r| cac| es oI mol ecu| ar
b|o|ogy, wh| ch he was as qual | I | ed t o do as anyone,
Rub| n went | nstead to the heart oI the matter: t he
KANGAROO COURT E T| OLOGY
1 4
conceptual probl ems oI | OS. Rub| n sa| d t hat he was
d|stu rbed by the s| mpl | c| ty oI the causal exp| anat | on
that had been put Iorward. An enormou s comp| ex| ty oI
d| sease states const | tute the A| O Syndrome, no Iewer
1 h an ? 0 d| IIerent d| seases are c| ass| I | ed as " A| OS" .
C a r t es | a n r edu ct | on | sm ~ ~ t he not |on t hat compl ex
phenomena can be reduced to a s| ng| e cau se ~~ d| dn' t
make mu c h sen se | n t h | s context. The s| mpl | st| c
not|on oI a s| ngl e d| sease ent| ty cau sed by a s| ngl e
v| rus | gnored the ro| e p| ayed by the cond| t|on oI the
host ~ the compl ex, | | Ie~l ong | nteract|on between the
host , the env| ronment, and m| crobes.
|or Rub| n a red Il ag went up when he | earned that
burk| tt ' s l ymphoma was c| ass| I | ed al ong w| th the many
other man| Iestat| ons oI A| OS. He recal

| ed that Ior
many years attempt s had been made to expl a| n bur~
k| tt ' s l ymphoma and other cancers | n terms oI v| r uses ,
w| th s uch cand| dates as Epste| n~barr v| r u s proposed.
The general l y Iavored exp| anat |on came to be ch romo~
soma| abnorma| | t| es. And now, apparent| y, " H| V | nIec~
t|on" | s supposed to be a cau se oI some cancers.
Rub| n sa| d t hat the s| mpl | st| c H| V cau sa| exp| ana~
t| on ra| sed a |ot oI quest |ons, and recal | ed a theory
t hat was popu l ar ? 0 years ago to expl a| n the or| g| n oI
cancer. The " | mmune su rve| l l ance theory" hel d that
t he body somehow | ost | t s | mmune capac| ty and, | n
consequence, | ts ab| l | ty to ho| d down cancers. The
theory | s no l onger tal ked about ow| ng t o exper| ments
on a~thym| c m| ce, known as " nude m| ce" . [ L ack| ng
thymus g| ands , nude m| ce cannot manuIactur e T~ce| | s ,
and thereIore l ack a cel | u| ar | mmune system. ) nhat
d | s sol ved t h e " | mmune su rve| l l ance theory" was t he
d| scovery t hat nude m| ce, wh| l e su scept| b| e to many
d| I I er ent d| seases, had no h| gher | nc| dences oI any
cancer t han d| d m| ce w| th normal | mmune systems. So,
Rub| n asked, how can we tal k abut " | mmune deI| c| en~
y as be| ng respons| b| e Ior t he cancers that are con~
s| dered to be part oI the syndrome known as " A| OS " l
1 5 0 HO| SON bY HRE SC R| HT| ON. 1HE A/ T STORY
Harry Rub| n
H roIessor oI Hol ecul ar b|ol ogy
Un| vers| ty oI Cal | Iorn| a, berkel ey
Apr | l 1 8 8
Hhotograph by )ohn L au r | tsen
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY
1 5 1
Rub| n concl uded by say| ng that he Iound any s| ngl e
cau se oI t h e enor mou s compl ex oI d| seases to be
ser|ou s| y | nadequate. nh| | e he was not w| l l | ng cate~
gor | ca| l y to ru l e out t he poss| b| l | ty t hat H| V m| ght
p l ay some rol e | n some cases, he was " not ready
bl andl y

accept |t a
_
e s| ngl e cau se oI a| l oI t he
d| sease compl ex. Rub| n posed the quest|on, to what
ex tent | s t he v| r us | tsel I an opport un| st| c | nIect| on l
He Iound | t | r responsi bl e to Iocus excl us | ve attent |on
on the putat | ve v| ral cau se wh| l e Ia| l | ng to address the
assoc| ated pract| ces oI h| gh r | sk groups [ heavy u se oI
recreat| onal dr ugs, overuse oI ant| b|ot | cs , prom| scuou s
sexual behav| or) wh| ch are themsel ves known to com~
prom| se the | mmune system.
| n the quest |on per|od Iol l ow| ng Rub| n' s presenta~
t| on, n| l | | am Hasel t| ne bl unt| y chal l enged Rub| n on the
| s sue oI h| gh~r| sk behav|or , and asserted that the best
corre| at |on w| t h A| OS | s " ev|dence oI v| ra| | nIect| on" ,
and t hat there were many | nstances oI A| OS | n persons
w| th no known r | sk Iactors. Rub| n repl | ed t hat the
sero|og| ca| ev| dence seemed to argue aga| nst H| V, s| nce
| n many |nAs ne| ther ant| bod| es nor v| r us cou l d be
detected.
bel u da t hen | nt er vened , appa r ent l y annoyed by
Hasel t| ne' s bel l | gerence, to state that somet| mes even a
s | n gl e except | on | s suII| c| ent to d| sprove a theory.
H| V ant| bod| es are reportedl y Iound | n 0/ oI |nAs ,
but what about the other 1 O/ l Th| s | s t he cr ux oI
the matter " , bel uda sa| d, t he v| r us cannot be Iound | n
al | cases oI A| OS. "
|auc| responded to bel uda by say| ng that a god l ab
was abl e to | sol ate the v| r us | n 0~100/ oI t he cases,
that there was " no quest |on about | t . |auc| d| d not
p rov| de a r eI er ence to publ | shed data, nor d| d he
| nd| cate what the good l abs" were, or how exactl y
t hey d| IIered I rom the not~so~good | abs.
1 5 ? |O| SON bY | HESC H| |T| ON. THE A/ T STOHY
Peter Duesrg
S | nc e Ou e sber g' s p res ent at | on covered a |ot oI
ground, | ' | | try to summar| ze ] ust the ma| n po| nts here.
To u nderstand the Iu | | scope oI h | s arguments, h | s
| atest art | c| e shou | d be consu | ted.
4
bas| ca| | y Ouesberg argued t hat H| V does not have
the phys| ca| propert| es to cause d| sease, | et a| one the
devastat| ng patho|ogy assoc| ated w| th A| OS. The H| V
hypot h e s | s | s Iraught w| t h cont rad| ct| ons [ or " para~
doxes " ) , |t v| o| ates the r u| es t hat a| | other m| crobes
Io| |ow when t hey cause d| sease, | ndeed, t he hypothes| s
somet| mes v|o| ates the pr | nc| p| e oI causa| | ty | t se| I .
Ou esberg began by attack| ng the preva| | | ng hypo~
t h e s | s. t hat H| V k| | | s T~ce| | s aIter a b| zarre | atent
per |od oI 5~8 years. Th| s cannot be tr ue, he sa| d,
becau se ret rov| r u ses do not k| | | ce| | s ~~ | n Iact, ret ro~
v| r u s es make ce| | s grow I aster. The " A| OS v| ru s"
hypot hes| s | s now t he bas | s Ior over $ 1 b| | | |on research
eIIort s annua| | y, mak| ng | t the most expens| ve v| r us | n
h| story. The H| V hypothes| s | s the bas | s Ior the " A| OS
test " , wh| ch | s | n Iact on| y a test Ior H| V ant| bod| es.
Ant| bod| es, wh| ch Ior ? 0 0 year s have been | nterp reted
as god news, are now | nterpreted as a prognos| s Ior
deat h . |os | t | ve res u| t s on the ant | body test have
resu | ted | n su| c| des and broken marr| ages, t hey wou | d
be t h e bas | s Ior deny| ng res| dence | n Ch| na. The
presence oI H| V ant| bod| es | s now be| ng u sed to ] ust | Iy
t reatment w| th A/ T, wh| ch has one known eIIect . to
stop ON A s ynt h e s | s , t he ob| | gatory consequence oI
| ncorporat| ng A/ T | nto a human ce| | | s e| ther a dead
or a mutated ce| | .
The A| OS v| r us" hypothes| s | s based on| y on cor~
re| a t | on ~~ between H| V ant | bod| es and A| OS ~~ a
4
|eter Ouesberg, " Human | mmunodeI| c| ency V| r us
and Acqu | red | mmunodeI| c| ency Syndrome. Corre| at |on
but Not Cau sat| on " , | roceed| ngs oI t he Nat|ona| Acade~
my oI Sc| ences, Vo| . 86, |ebruary 1 8 .
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY 1 5 J
cor r el at | on |n the ne| ghborhood oI 800/ [ They
never say 1 00/ ) . And even | I the cor re| at|on were
1 00/, t h| s wou l d not prove causal | ty. | u rther, an~
t| bod| es are not the same as t he v| r us | t se| I , wh| ch | s
so ext remel y d| II| cul t to detect t hat onl y t h e most
expens| ve l aborator| es | n the country are capabl e oI
do| ng so, and even then, onl y |n about ha| I oI the
casesoI A| OS .
Al l k nown v | r u se s [ po| |o, hepat| t| s , et al . ) ar e
b|ochem|ca| l y act| ve when they cause d| sease. They
have to k | l | or | ntox| cate more ce| l s t han t he host can
regenerate. |aradox| ca| l y: H| V | s | nact| ve and l atent,
even | n pat| ents who ar e dy| ng I rom A| OS. A v| r us
cannot cau se harm w| thout do| ng someth | ng. Al though
v| r u se s can go t h r ough per| ods oI l atency, ne| ther
herpes nor any other v| rus | s | nact| ve at the t| me t hat
|t cau ses d| sease. H| V act| vel y | nIect s Iewer than one
| n 1 0, 000 T~cel l s , even | n Iatal cases oI A| OS. Th| s | s
t r | v| a| , t h e equ | val ent oI l os| ng one drop oI b|ood
every day.
V | r u se s cau s e d| sease beIore, not aIter ant| v| ral
| mmun| ty. Th| s | s why vacc| nat|on work s. |aradox| ~
ca| l y: H| V | s sa| d to cau se A| OS onl y aIter a pecul | ar
| atent per |od oI 5 to 8 year s.
m
H | V | s a ret rov| rus , and ret rov| r u ses do not k | l l
ce| l s. On t h e contrary, they depend on | | v| ng ce| l s to
reproduce. Th| s | s why ret rov| r uses were the most
pl au s| bl e v| ra| carc| nogens |n | res| dent N| xon' s nar on
Cancer " . |aradox| cal | y: t he ret rov| r us ca| l ed H| V | s
sa| d to cau se A| OS by k | l l | ng T~ce| l s. | n Iact , Robert
Gal | o and other s have observed that T~cel | s |n cul tu re
p roduce much more v| r us t han | s ever produced | n
A| OS pat| ent s , yet su rv| ve | ndeI| n| tel y, deve|op| ng | nto
| mmorta| l | nes.
No k nown v | r u s d | sc r | m| nates between men and
women , or between het erosexual s and homosexual s.
|aradox| ca| l y: even e| ght years | nto the ep| dem| c , A| OS
shows an absol ute preIerence Ior men [ ? /)
T 5 4 HO| SON bY HRESC R| H1| ON: 1HE A/ 1 S1ORY
1he t ran sIu s|on cases have been u sed as an argu~
ment Ior the H| V hypothes| s, yet tran sI us |ons do not
d| sc r | m| nat e between H | V and a | | ot h e r m| crobes,
tox| ns, etc. t hat ar e | n t he bl ood. 1hat the t rans~
Iu s|on argument | s not st rong, but tenuou s , | s shown
by the contro| group oI T 4, 000 hemoph| | | acs | n t he
Un| ted States who are ant| body pos| t| ve, yet on| y 3 0 0
(
?/) oI whom have developed any oI the many symp~
toms oI A| OS. 1he low | nc| dence | s even more st r| k~
| ng | n l | ght oI the Iact t hat hemoph| | | acs are a con~
gen| tal l y s| ck l y popul at| on, onl y a Iew years ago, t he| r
average | | Ie expectancy was 1 1 years. | u rthermore, | t
| s now th ree years s| nce the H| V ant| body test came
| nto u se to sc reen bl ood. ne shou l d have seen at l east
a l evel | | ng oII oI the t ransI us|on cases , but contrary
to expectat|ons , t hey have ] ust doubl ed.
Accord| ng to bas| c l og| c, a v| r us or other pathogen
wou | d at l east have to be present when |t cau ses
d| sease. 1h| s | s Koch ' s I| rst postu | ate Ior | dent| Iy| ng a
cau sat| ve pathogen, wh| ch states t hat t he presumed
cau sat| ve agent must be present |n al | cases oI the
d| sease. However, H| V can onl y be | so| ated | n 5 0 / oI
A| OS cases. A| though there are unpub| | shed observa~
t| ons that the I | gure can be pu shed up to 1 00/, t h| s | s
not cons| stent w| th the Iact t hat pro~v| ral ONA cannot
be detected |n a substant| a| proport|on oI A| OS cases.
Gal | o cou l d onl y detect pro~v| ra| ONA | n 1 5 / oI A| OS
cas es . A r ecent art| cl e | n Sc| ence reported be| ng
unab| e to detect pro~v| ral ONA | n a s| gn| I| cant number
oI A| OS cases, even u s| ng t he most sen s| t| ve tech~
n| ques.
Ou es ber g posed the quest |on, why | s the " A| OS
v| ru s hypothes| s so popul ar , | n t he Iace oI so many
paradoxes l He suggested t hat t h| s was due to two
probl ems | n the I| e| d:
One: H rogres s | n b| o| og| ca| thought has not kept up
w| the rap| d progress | n technology. Onl y ten years
ago, sc| ent | st s wou | d never have detected a | atent v| rus
that | s onl y act | ve | n one out oI every T 00, 000 1~cel l s.
KANGAROO COUR1 E 1| OLOGY T 5 5
\| th the| r l | m| ted tol s, Koch or |asteu r or Enders or
Sab| n were Iorced to l ook Ior m| crobes at cl | n| cal l y
rel evant t | t er s. | ndeed, Koch ' s I | r st post ul ate needs to
be amended now, |n l | ght oI the technology oI t he
pr e sen t , to state t hat pathogens must not onl y be
detectabl e, by the most sens| t| ve techn|ques ava| l abl e,
but must al so be b|ochem| cal l y act| ve | n more cel l s
than the host can spare or regenerate.
1wo: A| OS | s a syndrome, not a s| ngl e | nIect| ou s
d| sease. 1he spect rum oI d| seases | s t r ul y | mpress| ve
yet s u c h t h | ngs as l ymphoma and Kapos| ' s sarcoma
cannot be attr | buted to | mmune deI| c| ency, as | s shown
by the exampl e oI the nude m| ce. Nor does | mmune
deI| c| ency expl a| n dement| a.
| n short, the one~v| r us, one~d| sease concept | s hard
to reconc| l e w| th the A| OS s| tuat|on , al though peopl e
woul d l | ke to see | t that way. A| OS propaganda has
t r an sIo rmed a l at ent , non~cytoc | dal ret rov | r u s , a
' Sl eep| ng beauty' , | nto a v| c|ou s k | l l er v| r us. A| OS
propaganda has reduced a compl ex syndrome to a s| ngl e
d| sease ent | ty w| th a s| ngl e cause. nhat we need to
do | s l ok at ' r| sk behav|or' , wh| ch may hol d the keys
to the many d| seases oI A| OS.
Anthy Fauci
Ant hony |auc| , O| rector oI the Nat| onal | nst | tute oI
Al l ergy and | nIect| ous O| seases [ N | A| O) , has become
t h e most p u bl | c l y p rom| nent member oI t he ' A| OS
establ | s hment ' , oIten quoted | n the press and Ieatu red
on tel ev| s| on shows. H| s presentat |on, wh| l e asp| r| ng
to be a po| nt~by~po| nt rebuttal to Ouesberg, cons| sted
ma| nl y oI d| sconnected assert|ons, del | vered |n a tone
oI pet u l ant | nd| gnat| on. Ep| dem| ol og| cal stud| es con~
ducted |n San | r anc | sco and unpubl | shed l aboratory
reports seemed to be the bas| s oI most oI h | s state~
ments. So Iar as | cou l d tel l , he under stod v| rtual l y
none oI Ouesberg' s arguments, whatever el se |auc| may
be, he | s not a ph| losopher.
T 5 6 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
| t | s not t rue, |auc| sa| d, t hat H| V | s | nact| ve,
somet| mes there are bu rst s oI act| v| ty . | t | s Ial se to
say t h at not h | ng | s h a ppen | ng: H| V | s | ns| d|ou sl y
des t roy| ng t he | mmune system | n asymptomat| c but
| nIected peopI e.
The A| OS v| r us | s un|que | n that | ts ma] or target | s
the | mmune system | t sel I. The d| sease | s not H| V
| nIect | on, " | t | s the opport un| st| c | nIect|ons and neo~
pl asms t hat k | l l t he | nd| v| dual . Auto~| mmune pheno~
mena, etc. can al so be taken | nto account , |n add| t|on
to the d| rect cytoc| dal eIIect , wh | ch | s c| ear| y demon~
st rated |n v| t ro. The mac rophages can serve as a
reservo| r , where the v| r us can h| de out w| thout be| ng
detected by the | mmune system.
Accord| n g to Ou e sbe r g, | I you ' re | n Iected t h| s
mean s, hurrah , you r body has won | Th| s I l | es nega
t| vel y |n the Iace oI the data, t hat w| t h| n I | ve year s,
0 /
oI seropos| t| ve | nd| v| dua| s w| l | have del eter| ou s
eI I ec t s on t h e| r | mmu ne system [ based on an un~
pub| | shed San | ranc| sco study] .
|auc| countered Ouesberg' s po| nt on d| scr| m| nat| on
by say| ng t hat the po| nt was t he mechan| sm oI t rans~
m| s s | on . R | sk beh av| or s | mp l y meant com| ng | nto
contact w| th the v| r us. He t hen asked a ser| es oI
abu s | vel y r h et or | ca| qu es t | on s : nh at k| nd oI r| sk
behav|or , he demanded, " does the | nIant born oI an
| nIected mot her havel " And what about the 5 0~year~
ol d woman who rece| ved a b| ood t ransIu s| on I rom an
| nIected donor l [ The answer to t he I| rst quest |on | s :
T ) | n t he decade oI t he A| OS ep| dem| c, t here have
been on| y a Iew hundred reported cases oI | nIants w| th
A| OS, ? ) | nIants ar e not yet | mmunocompetent , and 3 )
v| rt ual l y a| l | nIants w| th A| OS were born to mothers
who were drug abu sers ~~ as everyone ought to know,
drugs cau se b| rth deIects. The answer to the second
quest|on |s that a 5 0~year old woman who requ| res a
bl ood t ransIu s|on | s a| ready at r | sk , and t hat b|ood
transIu s|ons | nvol ve mass| ve exposure to m| crobes and
tox| ns oI al | k| nds . )
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY
1 5 7
|auc| addressed t he quest | on oI Koch' s I | rst postu~
| ate by assert| ng that ' god l abs' cou | d I | nd the v| r us
| n 0~ 5 / oI t he cases ~ t hat | t was t o much to
expect 1 00/, becau se any techn| que has a l | m| tat| on.
He con c l u ded by say| ng, ' The data st rongl y, | I not
overwhe| m| ng, | nd| cates [ s| c] t hat H| V | s t he cause oI
A| OS. [ Th | s | s a step backward ~~ onl y a Iew weeks
ago, | auc| Iound the ev| dence "overwhel m| ng" . )
| n t h e quest |on per|od, be| uda asked | I t h e ev| dence
were suII | c| ent that H| V | s necessary Ior the devel op~
ment oI A| OS. |auc| repl | ed t hat he hoped t he ep| ~
dem|o|og| st s wou l d answer t hat quest |on.
Wil liam Hasltine
n| l | | am Hase| t| ne, Ch| eI oI the L aboratory oI b|o~
c h em| ca| H h a r maco| ogy at the Oana |arber Cancer
Center oI Harvard Hed| cal School , appeared to be an
angry man. H| s presentat|on was devoted l argel y to
personal attacks on Ouesberg, |n a manner wh| ch two
oI my co| | eagues descr| bed as ' brut al ' and " v| c|ou s " .
Hasel t| ne' s anger can probabl y be attr | buted to Cel | a
| a r ber ' s | nt e rv | ew w| th Ouesberg | n S H | N [ ) anuary
T 8 8 ) , | n wh| ch Ouesberg stated:
m
n| | l | am Hase| t| ne and Hax E ssex, who are two oI
the top I | ve A| OS researcher s | n t he count ry, have
m| | l |ons |n stocks |n a company t hey Iounded t hat
has developed and w| l l sel l A| OS k| t s t hat test Ior
H| V. How cou l d they be ob]ect| vel
nh en Cel | a |arber contacted Hase| t| ne, h e conI| rmed
h | s and E ssex' s bus| ness arrangement w| t h Cambr| dge
b | o~S c | ence, a company t hat sel l s H| V test| ng k| t s.
Sa| d Hasel t | ne: " | deepl y resent the | mpl | cat|on t hat my
bu s| ness | nvestments have aIIected my work.
5
5
Cel | a |arber , [ | nterv| ew w| th Ouesberg) " a. | .d. s . :
nords | rom the | ront " , S H| N , ) anuary T 8 8 .
T 5 8 |O| SON bY | RESC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
Ha sel t | ne accused Ouesberg oI ser |ous conIu s|on
and m| srepresentat|on oI Iact " . He sa|d that when
rat| onal arguments don' t hol d up, Ouesberg " has re~
sorted to personal attack, he has | mpugned t he mot| va~
t| ons oI | nd| v| dual s and | nst| tut|ons.
Hasel t| ne asserted t hat H| V | s demonst rabl y cyto~
pat h| c" , though he d| dn' t say how.
He quoted Ouesberg as hav| ng sa| d t hat ant| bod| es
were good news . Not so, sa| d Hasel t| ne, to be
ant | body pos| t | ve |s very bad news Ior the heal th oI
the | nd| v|dual .
Hasel t| ne sa| d | t was not t rue that there was no
detectabl e v| rem| a |n A| OS pat| ent s, and sa| d he woul d
show a sl | de " w| th the cu rrent percept|on w| th regard
to v| rem| a du r| ng the l ater cou r se oI | nIect|on, one
sees r| s| ng ant| genem| a | n most persons | nIected.
He attacked Ouesberg' s " paradox" , t hat the A| OS
v| ru s seemed to be abl e to d| scr| m| nate between boys
and g| rl s , by say| ng that t h| s was not tr ue out s| de the
U. S. ~ | n AIr| ca, about equal numbers oI men and
women devel op A| OS. [ He seemed obl | v|ous to t he
paradox t hat a m| crobe shou l d be abl e t o d| scr| m| nate
| n one country, but not | n anot her . )
Accord| ng t o Hasel t| ne, Rub| n and Ouesberg were
conI u sed about nude m| ce, wh| ch | n certa| n cl asses
were capabl e oI " mount| ng a v| gorou s | mmune res~
ponse" .
1he most dramat| c moment | n t he Iorum came when
Hasel t| ne began show| ng h | s sl | des, |t deserves a separ~
ate sect|on:
Hasltine' s Fake Slid
|n present| ng h | s I| rst sl | de, Hasel t| ne sa| d:
1h| s g| ves us a summary oI the v| rol ogy. Or.
Ouesberg asserts that du r| ng t he l ater phases oI the
d| sease one does not see I ree v| r us | n c| rcu l at| on.
Th at | s not gener a l l y reI l ected | n the pat| ent s.
Ou r| ng the l atter phase oI t he d| sease, t he bl ack
l | ne represents e| ther v| r us t | ter or v| ral ant| gens
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY T 5
d| rect l y detectabl e | n the c| rcul at |on. | t r | ses l ater
| n the d| sease. That r| se | s concom| tant w| th the
per |od when T~cel l s Ial l . So | t | s not the case, t he
central assert |on he has made | n h| s arguments, t hat
one does not have v| rem| a.
At t h| s po| nt Ouesberg asked, ' nhy are there no
un| t s on t hat s l |de l ' Hasel t| ne' s response was, ' Oon' t
| nterrupt me, | d| dn' t | nterrupt you . Ouesberg repl | ed,
' | merel y asked why the sl | de has no un| t s on | t.
Hasel t| ne angr| l y reIu sed to answer t he quest |on, and
the cha| rman | ntervened, say| ng t hat quest|ons wou l d
have to wa| t unt | l the presentat|on was I | n| shed.
|erhaps Ouesberg ought to have wa| ted, but one can
understand h | s | mpat| ence. n| tness| ng a Iast~Ilow| ng
st ream oI propaganda, he spotted someth | ng t hat was
obv|ou sl y wrong, and wanted t o conI ront | t beIore the
moment was l ost . That h| s su sp| c|ons were more than
] ust | I| ed became cl ear l ater.
| n t he quest|on per|od Iol l ow| ng Hasel t | ne' s presen~
tat|on , Harry Rub| n asked Hasel t| ne |I he cou l d prov|de
a r eI erence Ior h | s statement that nude m|ce were
capabl e oI mou n t | n g a v| gorou s | mmu ne response.
Ha s el t | ne sa| d t hat there was a l arge l | terat ure on
nude m| ce. ' | I you haven' t read | t, how can | d| scus s
| t w| t h you l . Rub| n gent l y repl | ed t hat perhaps he
had, but t hat he had onl y asked Ior a reIerence.
Ouesberg then requested t hat the sl | de be shown on
the sc reen aga| n, and asked | I | t were an acc| dent t hat
the sl | de had no un| ts on | t . [ See photograph oI s l | de.
The vert| cal axes have no un| t s, and the ch ronolog| cal
notat|ons on the hor| zontal ax| s are g| bber | sh . ) Hasel ~
t| ne was unabl e to answer the quest|on h| msel I, and
asked Or. Robert RedI| el d oI the nal ter Reed Army
Research | nst| tute, s| tt| ng |n t he aud| ence, to expl a| n
how t he s l | de was prepared. RedI| el d sa| d somet h| ng
to the eIIect t hat ' d| IIerent measu rement s were u sed' ,
a gros s l y | n adeq u at e e x pl anat |on. nhen Ouesberg
per s | st ed, Hasel t| ne became t rucu l ent , and sa|d t hat
Ouesberg shou l d read the l |terat ure, because there were
T 60 HO| SON bY H HE SC H| H1| ON. 1HE A/ 1 S1OHY
1he Iake s| | de. No un| t s on the y axes and
g| bber | sh on the x ax| s.
KANGAROO COURT E 1| OLOGY
T 6T
d| IIerent meas ures that cou l d be used. n| th no sat| s~
Iactory answer Iorthcom| ng, t he cha| rman moved on.
The truth about the Sl | de n| thout Un| t s came out
| n the even| ng, at a party at the home oI Or. Har r | s
Coul t er [ au t hor oI A|OS and Syph| | | s: The H| dden
L | n k ) . | n a r e| axed and conv| v| a| mod, RedI| e| d
adm|tted, | n t he presence oI Ouesberg, Rub| n, myse| I ,
and several other w| tnesses, t hat the graph had been
prepared to | l | ust rate a theoret| ca| poss| b| | | ty. | t had
no un| t s on | t Ior the s| mp| e reason t hat | t was nOt
based on any data at a| | . | n other words, the sl | de
was a Iake.
l t | s d| II| cu| t to t h| nk oI an | nnocent exp| anat|on
Ior Hase| t| ne' s behav| or. | I he d| dn' t know what the
s| | de meant , or whether or not | t was real , t hen he
shou l dn' t have used | t. Hase| t| ne presented the s l |de
as though | t represented sc| ent| I| c I | nd| ngs, whereas | t
real | y represented specul at |on. | t | s not unIa| r to cal |
th| s k | nd oI m| srepresentat|on, I raud. Nor | s | t mak| ng
too much out oI one Iake s| | de. | I someone w| | l cheat
|n | | ttl e th| ngs, he w| | l cheat |n b| g t h| ngs as wel | . | n
my bok , Hase| t| ne has IorIe| ted h | s cl a| m t o sc| ent| I| c
cred| b| | |ty.
Warre Winkel stein
na r r en n| nkel st e| n , | roI es sor oI b|omed| ca| and
Env| ronmenta| Hea| th Sc| ences, School oI |ubl | c Heal t h,
Un| vers| ty oI Ca| | Iorn| a at berke| ey, gave a ta| k en~
t | t | ed ' E p| dem| o| og| c a l Obse r vat | ons on the Cau sal
Nat ure oI t he Assoc| at|on between | nIect| on by the
Hu man | mmunodeI| c| ency V| rus and the Acqu| red | m~
munodeI| c| ency Syndrome' . He was t he onl y pane| | st
to prov| de pr | nted cop| es oI h | s t a| k, someth | ng much
apprec| ated by us ]ourna| | st s .
b r | e I l y, t he po| nt oI n| nke| ste| n' s presentat|on | s
that Koch ' s post u l ates shou l d be superseded by new
s t andar ds Ior es t abl | s h | ng t h e c a u s a | r e| at | ons h| p
between m| crobes and d| sease, and t hat these standards
1 6? |O| SON bY |RESC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
shou | d be based upon " ep| dem| o| ogy" , or , as | t were,
cor re| at| ons oI var|ou s k | nds.
n| nke| ste| n and co| | eagues | n San | ranc| sco, under
the ausp| ces oI |auc| ' s Nat| ona| | nst | tute oI A| | ergy
and | n Iect | ous O| seases , stud| ed a samp| e oI s| ng| e
men , ? 5~5 4 years oI age, over a per |od oI th ree and a
h a | I yea r s . Oat a were co| | ected on H| V ant| body
s t at u s ove r t | me , on p rogress|on to A| OS , and on
var|ous other c| | n| ca| parameters.
1hey Iound that none oI t he heterosexua| ma| es and
none oI the gay men who rema| ned seronegat| ve deve| ~
oped A| OS, whereas 1 3 / oI the men who were seropos~
| t| ve upon entry | nto the study, and 8 / oI those who
became pos| t| ve du r| ng the cou rse oI the study deve| ~
oped A| OS. |urther , they Iound t hat a progress| ve
dec| | ne |n T~4 ce| | s occur red among those who were
seropos| t | ve.
1hey conc| uded that ep| dem|o| og| ca| data I rom the| r
st udy, toget her w| th data I rom a re| ated San | ranc| sco
study [ conducted among a cohort oI gay men recru| ted
I rom VO c| | n| cs | n 1 7 8 Ior a hepat | t | s b study) ,
s uppor ted t h e h ypot h e s | s oI a c ausa| assoc| at| on
between H| V | nIect|on and A| OS .
A| | | n a | | , a gr | m s cenar| o, accord| ng to wh| ch
test| ng pos| t| ve Ior H| V ant| bod| es wou | d t r u| y be a
" prognos| s Ior deat h" . | am skept| ca| , but as a su rvey
research proIess|ona| | reserve t he r| ght to w| t hho| d
]udgment unt | | | have seen I u| | reports on both San
| r anc | sco stud| es. At m| n| mum such report s wou| d
have to | nc| ude Iu | | descr| pt |ons oI methodo|ogy, a| |
quest | onn a | r e s , r ecord| ng Iorms , and I| e| d mater | a| s,
samp| | ng procedures, and computer tabu| at| ons.
At any rate, | do not accept the propos| t|on t hat
Koc h ' s pos t u| at es shou| d be abandoned |n Iavor oI
ep| dem| o| og| ca| cor re| at|ons . 1h| s wou| d be a step
backward, a step away I rom sc| ent| I| c r| gor, a stop
towards | mpress|on| sm and conIus| on.
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY T 6 3
Murray Gardner
Hu r r ay Ga r dner , Cha| rman oI t he Oepartment oI
| at hol ogy, Un | ve r s | t y oI Cal | Iorn| a at Oav| s , spoke
about l ent | v| r uses and an| mal s . The man | s apparentl y
a Ia| l ed standup comed| an. Ou r| ng h| s presentat|on he
danced back and Ior t h beh| nd the tabl e, gest u r | ng
w| l dl y, u rg| ng the aud| ence to l augh al ong w| th h| m at
t h e absu rd| ty oI doubt| ng, even Ior a moment , that
H| V was the cau se oI A| OS. ne were tol d that the
an| mal s had ' l | ttl e under stand| ng oI co~Iactor s' , that
the| r d| seases had " noth| ng to do w| th l | Iestyl e' , and
so on. Gardner had begun h | s cl own act even ear l | er ,
mak| ng Iaces dur | ng Rub| n' s presentat| on.
V | r t u a l l y noth | ng Gardner sa| d was rel evant, and
l | ttl e was memorab| e, except perhaps a Iew m| stakes.
A s l | de oI h | s reIer red to the ' pathogen| c| ty oI new
H| V stra| ns , e.g., H| V~? " . Th| s | s wrong: H| V~T and
H| V~? are not d| IIerent stra| ns oI each other, they are
comp l et el y d | I Ie r ent v| r uses, they d| IIer |n genet| c
structu re by up to 60/, they do not have a cl osel y~
rel ated common ancestor.
On t h| s bas | s Or . )oseph Sonnabend | n New York
C| ty has Iormul ated an ' evol ut | onary argument' aga| nst
t h e H| V hypothes| s, wh| ch r uns roughl y as Iol lows.
There | s no l onger ust one A| OS v| r us " , there are
several , perhaps as many as Iou r or I| ve at l ast count.
| t | s now cl a| med that both H| V~T and H| V~? are
capabl e oI caus| ng A| OS , a d| sease wh| ch al l egedl y
appeared | n the worl d Ior the I| rst t| me onl y a Iew
year s ago. However , v| r uses are product s oI evol ut|on,
and very anc| ent ~~ there | s no such t h| ng as a " new'
v| r us. The p ropos| t|on that, w| th| n the space oI a Iew
year s, two d| IIerent v| r uses, each capabl e oI cau s| ng
the same new d| sease, shou l d have come | nto be| ng, or
shou l d have gone I rom an an| mal reservo| r to su scep~
t | bl e h u man pop u l at | on s , | s beyond the bounds oI
probab| l | ty.
Ga r dner concl uded h | s presentat|on by w| nk| ng at
the aud| ence. | t rem| nded me oI one c r| t| c' s comment
1 64 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
on a cheap| y made horror mov| e, t hat the zomb| es were
| ess I r| ghten| ng than the attempts at humor.
Rer Detels
Roger Oete| s , |roIes sor oI |ub| | c Hea| t h, Un| vers| ty
oI Ca| | Iorn| a at Los Ange| es, began h | s ta| k by say| ng
t h at | t was god to cont| nue quest |on| ng udgments.
| n context, th| s amunted to an apo|ogy to Ouesberg
and Rub| n Ior the rudeness w| th wh| ch they had been
treated. |t was a grac|ou s gest ure on h | s part.
Oet e | s d | s c u s sed the San | ranc| sco ' Hu | t| ~Center
A| OS Cohort Study' , | n wh| ch an annua| ' attack rate'
oI 5 / was Iound among the seropos| t| ve gay men stud~
| ed. That | s , each year 5 / oI the seropos| t| ves came
down w| th A| OS. [ Harry Rub| n was to po| nt out | ater,
that | I T ~3 m| | | |on Amer| cans are seropos| t| ve, accord~
|ng to COC est | mates, and |I t he annua| attack rate | s
5 /, s| mp| e ar | thmet| c | nd| cates t hat every year 5 0, 000
to T 5 0, 000 peop| e ought to deve|op A| OS . )
Ou r| ng t h e quest|on per|od, pathogenes| s was men~
t| oned aga| n , and Hase| t| ne entered the I ray, | ns | st| ng
t hat t h e r e were p | ent y oI mec h an| sms that cou | d
exp| a| n pathogenes| s , and that | t was not necessary to
d| scuss | t .
Questios Fr The Audience
Th e I | r st a ud| ence part| c| pant was Harvey b| a| y,
Research Ed| tor oI b|o/Techno|ogy. H| s remark s can
b Iound | n more deta| | | n an ed| tor| a| | n t he |ebruary
| ssue oI b|o/Techno|ogy
6
. The g| st | s t hat severa|
r ecent a r t | c | es h ave c | t ed ant | genem| a I| nd| ngs to
suggest that H| V may, aIter a| | , be act| ve du r| ng t he
Iata| , | ate stages oI A| OS. However, t he papers con~
t a | n s er | ou s mat h emat | c a | and ot her d| screpanc| es.
b| a | y ma| nt a| ned t h a t | t wa s t h e respon s| b| | | ty oI
6
Harvey b| a| y, ' Commentary. nhere | s t he V| ru s l
And nhere | s the | ress l ' , b|o/Techno|ogy, |ebruary 1 88.
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY
T 6 5
sc| ent| st s , as wel l as ]ournal | st s , to lok at data cr| t| ~
cal l y and ask the hard quest|ons.
Th e second s peaker I rom the aud| ence was Or .
Har r | s Coul ter, who asked whether I | nd| ngs I rom t he
San | ranc| sco C| ty Cl | n| c study, based on a sampl e oI
gay men who had hepat | t | s b, and who were h | ghl y
prom| scuou s and heav| l y | nto recreat| onal drugs, cou l d
b extrapol ated to al l oI t he peopl e | n the U. S. who
were se ropos| t| ve. The ep| dem| ol og| st s were e| ther
unabl e or unw| l l | ng to answer h | s quest | on. Coul ter
pers| sted, ask| ng the quest|on | n several d| IIerent ways ,
each oI wh| ch was perIectl y cl ear. but t he A| OS
expert s" cou l d not respond. Th| s was t rul y amaz| ng,
Ior the quest |on was one oI the most bas| c | n al l oI
stat | st | cs: How representat| ve | s a sampl e oI a par~
t| cu l ar un| verse l Can one proect I| nd| ngs I rom the
sampl e to t he target un| versel
Next Or . Nat han| el L eh rman spoke, emphas | z| ng t he
need to re~ex am| ne the et| ol ogy oI A| OS , not onl y
bec aus e oI t h e qu est | ons r a| sed by Ouesberg and
other s, but becau se | t s ep| dem|ology | s Iar more con~
s| stent w| t h a tox| c | l l ness t han w| th an | nIect| ou s one.
How cou l d A| OS be onl y an | nIect|on, and spread| ng so
rap| dl y, when, accord| ng to Su rgeon General C. Everett
Kop, H. O. , not one oI 7 5 0 acc| dental | nocul ees w| t h
t he bl ood or body I l u | d s oI k nown A| OS pat| ents
developed the d| sease, and onl y t hree then developed
ant| bod| es to H| V l
Chem| cal causes oI | mmune deI| c| ency, stated L eh r~
man, have long been known, and one group oI chem| ~
cal s , known to produce | mmune suppress|on, may be a
cau se oI A| OS | n the homosexual commun| ty: | nhal ed
n| tr| tes , or " popper s" . Coul d other chem| cal s al so be
| n vol ved | n produc| ng | mmune suppress| on and A| OS l
L eh rman concl uded by say| ng t hat the poss| b| l | ty t hat
c h em| cal tox | c | t y p l ays a s| gn| I| cant causal rol e | n
A | OS ought to be | n vest| gated, and t hat add| t| onal
met hod s | n d| agnos| ng, t reat| ng and research | ng the
syndrome shou l d be adopted. One such step wou l d be
T 6 6 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
s pec t rophotometr| c and s| m| | ar | nvest | gat| on oI A| OS
pat | ent s I or u n u s u a | , | mmune~suppress| ve substances
w| t h| n the| r bod| es.
| spoke next , and sa| d | t was h| gh t | me t hat those
who advanced the hypothes| s t hat H| V was the cau se
oI A| OS shou | d pub| | sh a monograph | n an appropr| ate
]ou rna| , wh| ch wou |d br| ng together a| | t he ev| dence
s u ppor t | ng t h e| r hypothes| s, wh| ch wou | d take | nto
account the cr| t| ques made by Ouesberg and other s ,
and wh | c h wou | d conta| n proper reIerences Ior a| |
assert|ons made. Then | sa| d t hat t he ep| dem| o|og| ca|
r es ear ch on A | O S h ad been very por, comp| ete| y
u nacceptab| e by the standards oI proIes s|ona| su rvey
r es ear c h . E ve r s| nce T 8 4 , |ub| | c Hea| th Serv| ce
s u r veys h ave concen t r at ed on| y on such th | ngs as
"modes oI t ransm| ss| on" , or " r| sk Iactors Ior serocon~
ver s|on" , as a res u| t oI wh| ch we know a| most noth| ng
about t he character | st | cs oI |nAs . ne have no | dea
what the | V drug u sers w| t h A| OS are | | ke, other t han
the " r| sk group" | abe| t hat has been s| apped on them.
|| na| | y, | sa| d | t was d| sgraceIu | that A/ T was st| | |
be| n g mar ket ed, a po| sonous drug w| thout a s| ng| e
sc| ent| I| ca| | y~estab| | shed beneI| t . nhen wou | d the A| OS
es t ab| | s h ment adm| t that t he A/ T t r| a| s , on wh| ch
approva| oI the drug was based, were I raudu| ent l
7
| | n a | | y , H | c h ae| Spect e r , a repor t er I rom t h e
nash| ngton |ost , demanded t hat Ouesberg g| ve h| m a
yes or no answer to the quest| on, " Oo you st| | | ma| n~
ta| n that someone shou| d be over]oyed to I| nd out he
| s pos| t| ve l " nhen Ouesberg pau sed, the way one does
when conI r onted w| t h an obs t r eperou s bar ba r | a n ,
Specter started ye| | | ng, "Answer the quest |on | Yes or
Nol nhy won' t you answer the quest | on l " Ouesberg,
when he got a chance, rep| | ed t hat he wou | d answer
the quest| on, but | n h| s own words, not Specter' s. The
nuances oI h| s answer wer e not apprec| ated.
7
Nat | ve | ssues ? 3 5 and ? 5 8.
KANGAROO COURT ET| OLOGY
1 6 7
Suning Up
|or the debate on the cau se[s) oI A| OS to move
Iorward, a number oI quest| ons oI Iact must be re~
sol ved, w| t h proper reIerences g| ven Ior al | assert|ons:
Ooes H| V k| l | cel | s | n v| vol | I so, howl | s H| V
real | y " more compl ex | n | t s genet| c makeup t han any
ot h e r k nown ret rov | r u s [ a s a s se r ted | n Am|AR' s
" Rev| ew oI Operat|ons: T 8 5 ~1 8 6" ) l | rom what per~
centage oI |nAs can H| V be | sol atedl | rom what
percentage oI |nAs can pro~v| ral ONA be detectedl
nhat | s the deI| n| t|on oI a " good l ab" l | s v| rem| a
Iound | n |nAs l | I so, what v| rus t | ters are obta| ned,
when , how, etc . l Are there [ as as serted by Gal | o et
a l . ) bot h pat hogen | c and non~pathogen| c stra| n s oI
H| V l | I so, how do they d| IIer l Can " nude m| ce"
real l y mount a v| gorous | mmune response [ as asserted
by Hase| t | ne) l | s a Iu l l report ava| l abl e on the ep| ~
dem|o|og| cal research conducted | n San | ranc| scol
The Iorum exposed the bank ruptcy oI t he arguments
used by t he H| V advocates. On| y a I ew week s ago
they were trott| ng out at l east hal I a dozen specu l at| ve
mec h a n | sms to expl a| n how H| V m| ght cau se A| OS,
du r| ng t he Iorum, such specul at| onre abandoned,
and t he oII| c| al l |ne was , " ne don' t need to expl a| n
pathogenes| s. The " A| OS v| rus crowd cannot agree
on even the most cruc| al quest| ons oI Iact , as | nd| ~
cated above. At one moment H| V | s Ieroc| ousl y k | l | | ng
T~ce| l s, the next moment , " A| OS expert s" are desper~
at el y s c roung| ng a round I or " | n d| rect mechan| sms " .
" Ep| dem|ol ogy" has been ca| l ed | n as a l ast d| tch eIIort
to rescue the H| V hypothes| s , and yet the ep| dem|o|ogy
conducted by t he A| OS establ | shment to date has been
qu | t e bad , total | y unacceptabl e by t he standards oI
proIess| onal su rvey research [ oI wh| ch " ep| dem| ol ogy" | s
a subspec| es ) . nh| l e t he San | ranc| sco stud| es may
" st rongl y support" the H| V hypothes| s , they cou l d not
p rove | t , even |I the data were correct [ and t h| s
cannot be determ| ned unt| | a proper report | s | s sued) ,
1 68 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
becau se there rema| n al ternat | ve expl anat| ons to ac~
count Ior the correl at |on between H| V ant| bod| es and
A | OS namel y, t hat H| V | s | tsel I an opport un| st| c
| nIect|on | n t he A| O Syndrome, that H| V | s a marker
Ior A| OS.
| am more conv| nced t han ever that H| V | s not t he
cau se oI A| OS. | I t he H| V advocates were sure oI
t he| r hypothes| s , they wou l d want to enl | ghten Oues~
berg and the rest oI us , they woul d want to publ | sh
the| r argument s | n a proper sc| ent| I | c ]ou rnal , compl ete
w| th reIerences. They wou l d not need to resort to
stonewal l | ng, decept | on, and personal abuse.
1
OUE S bE RG | N1 E RV| E n. ? 5 HARCH T 0 T 6
XI I I . Excerpt Fr I nterview with Peter Duesbrg
? 5 Harch T 0
|ol low| ng | s an excerpt I rom an | nterv| ew t hat took
pl ace |n New York C| ty on ? 5 Harch T 0. At a Iorum
the prev|ous even| ng Ouesberg had presented h | s ' R| sk~
A| OS ' hypot hes|s , wh| ch he has Iormul ated as an al ter~
nat| ve to the preva| l | ng ' H| V~A| OS ' hypothes| s.
1
1he ' R| sk~A| OS ' hypothes| s recogn| zes t hat A| OS '
| s oII | c| al l y deI| ned by the COC as any oI over two
dozen ol d d| seases | n the presence oI ant | bod| es to
H| V, a probabl y harml ess ret rov| r us. | t suggests t hat
d| IIerent r| sk groups and d| IIerent | nd| v| dual s may be
gett | n g s | ck | n d| I I e r ent way s and I or d| I I erent
reasons. ne shou | d exam| ne the r| sk s t hat | mp| nge on
t h em. 1 h e r e may be very good and even obv|ou s
rea son s wh y | n t r avenou s dr ug u ser s, a very smal l
subset oI gay men, a very smal l percentage oI hemo~
ph| l | acs , a m| nuscul e number oI t ransIu s| on rec| p| ent s ,
and a m| nuscul e number oI ch| l dren have gotten s| ck | n
ways t hat qual | I| ed Ior a d| agnos| s oI ' A| OS ' .
J ohn L au r | t sen . ne s hou l d be open~m| nded, but
somehow drugs make sense to me [ as a cau se oI A| OS ] .
|eter Ouesberg. | t ' s better than that. ne have 3 0 /
conI| rmed | V drug u ser s , recorded by the COC. 1hat' s
a very so| | d l | nk. 1hey are | n] ect| ng hero| n, probabl y
on a da| l y bas | s , | n m| l | | mol ar amounts. 1o | gnore
that , or not to cons| der that, as a Iactor oI d| rect or
| nd| rect | mmune suppress|on, | s at l east negl | gent I rom
a chem| cal po| nt oI v| ew.
1
See |eter Ouesberg, ' A| OS. Non~| nIect| ou s OeI| ~
c| enc| es Acqu| red by Orug Consumpt |on And Other R| sk
|actor s' , Research |n | mmuno|ogy, T 0, 1 4 T [ | n pres s ) .
T 7 0 |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
J L . or sch| zoph ren| c.
|O. And A/ T ~ we don' t need to ask any I urther.
| t was awarded the Nobel pr| ze Ior k | l l | ng cel l s.
J L . Th| s br| ngs up anot her th | ng. The A| OS ep| ~
dem| c appears to have peaked a| ready, probab| y about
|n the second part oI T 88.
?
but |I 5 0 , 000 or more
peopl e w| th H| V ant | bod| es are tak | ng A/ T, then there
may be anot her upsw| ng |n | nc| dence, | I these peop| e
end up be| ng l | sted as ' A| OS cases .
| O. They w| | l have to be. Cl ear| y. They w| l l be
perIect A| OS cases. The| r | mmune systems w| | l be
| ntox| cated by A/ T and they w| l l be ant | body pos| t| ve.
That ' s the deI| n| t |on oI an A| OS case.
) L : R| ght. And yet | t wou | d real | y be A/ T po| son~
| ng. Now, l et ' s tal k about A/ T. They' ve begun g| v| ng
| t to perh aps ten s oI thou sands oI peopl e who are
heal thy but have H| V ant| bod| es. nhat ' s the prognos| s
go| ng to be Ior them.
|O. | do not see how t hey cou l d poss| bl y su rv| ve
| t, | n the l ong run. So the prognos| s | s c| ear ~~ e| ther
a Iast or a sl ow death oI the | mmune system, or death
al together, becau se al l grow| ng cel | s w| l l be k | l | ed by
| ncorporat| on oI A/ T. A/ T | s a ONA cha| n term| nator.
That ' s what | t was des| gned Ior. So | don ' t th | nk
an ybody cou l d s u s t a | n t h at Ior a very | ong t| me.
Va r | at |ons may ex| st | n the ab| l | ty oI | nd| v| dual s to
take | t up, becau se A/ T, |n order to get | nto t he ce| l s,
needs to be phosphoryl ated, and that | s done by en~
zymes that are cal l ed k | nases and peopl e apparent | y
d| IIer w| th regard to k| nases ~~ at l east cel | s | n cu| ~
?
5ee ) oh n L a ur| t sen , ' Oebate Over A| OS | nc| ~
dence' , Nat | ve | ssue 3 6 3 .
OUE S bE RG | N1E RV| En. ? 5 HARCH T 0 T 7 T
t ure do and an| mal s do, and l | kel y peopl e do too. And
those who have l ess k | nases won' t take A/ 1 up wel l .
1hey' I I essent| al l y p| ss | t out ~ l uck| l y. 1hey wou l d
be more res| stant. And other s, who do take A/ 1 up
wel l , wou l d be more sens| t| ve and wou l d be | ntox| cated
much more eIIect | vel y and much more d| rectl y.
J L : A ONA cha| n term| nator ~~ what are the conse~
quences oI t h | s l
|O. | t ' s embar rass| ngl y cl ear. | t | s s| mpl y stopp| ng
the growth oI ONA. And you have to compl ete ONA
cel l synthes| s. Cel l d| v| s| on | s based on doubl | ng ONA,
wh| ch | s t h e central mol ecu l e oI l | Ie. | t conta| ns a l l
the genet | c | nIormat |on.
the cel l | s not v| abl e.
| I you don' t compl ete that,
| t w| l l d| e. 1he | nIormat |on
about an organ| s m | s wr| tten down |n a code that we
cal l ONA, the ch romosome or nucl e| c ac| d. | I t hat
bok | s n' t compl etel y wr| tten, you are | ncompl ete, you
are not v| abl e. You can onl y l | ve |I everyth| ng that | s
needed Ior a pr| mate | s | n every s| ngl e cel l oI you r
bdy ~ t hat makes you )ohn L au r | tsen. | I onl y hal I a
copy | s there, then you are no l onger J ohn L au r| t sen.
1hen there | s onl y hal I a cel l , and most l | kel y that
cel l w| l l be dead, becau se | t l ack s | mportant th | ngs
t hat | t needs Ior | ts surv| val .
) L . So bas| cal l y, the very natu re oI A/ 1 | s to ter
m| nate || I el | s that too strongl
|O. No. 1o term| nate I | v| ng cel l s. And oI cou rse
to term| nate l | Ie | s a secondary consequence. 1he pr| ~
mary target | s to k| I I al l cel l s that are | n the process
oI d| v| d| ng. 1hat what A/ 1 was developed Ior, to k | l l
cancer cel l s. And a s we al l know, chemotherapy | s
a| med at grow| ng cel l s. 1he beneI| t | s t hat we k | l l t he
tumor cel l s. 1he heavy pr| ce we pay | n al l chemother~
apy | s t hat al l normal cel l s grow| ng at the t| me w| l l
al so be k | l l ed. |ortunatel y, you can oIten regenerate
T 7 ? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
the normal ce| | s , and l you are | ucky, t he tumor w| l |
not be regenerated. | n real | ty though , you oIten get a
rem| s s | on. Th e tumr w| l | be reduced to a sma| l
number oI ce| l s, and then w| l | come back. And then
t h pat | ent needs a second round oI chemot herapy.
but the pr| nc| p| e | s to k| | l everyt h| ng that' s grow| ng at
the t| me, and hope you w| pe out t he enemy better than
you r I r | ends.
) L : | thought t hat chemot herapy was u sua| l y g| ven
Ior a rel at | vel y short per|od oI t| me.
|O. |t | s . You cou l dn' t susta| n | t any |onger. You
hope to w| pe out the tumor |n t hat short t | me, and
hope Ior the pat| ent to regenerate.
) L . And yet A/ T, a Iorm oI chemotherapy, | s be| ng
g| ven now, on a ? 4~hou r bas | s , w| t h the | dea that
peopl e w| | l take | t as |ong as t hey | | ve.
|O: Yes ~ t hat |s s| mpl y | ncomprehens| bl e to me.
cannot come u p w| t h a rat|ona| expl anat |on.
haven' t heard one. | n Iact , t hey al ways avo|d one~~
t h ey keep say| ng |t has been shown emp| r| cal | y to
pro| ong l | Ie. That | s very d| II| cul t Ior me to accept.
| ' m t ry| ng to take the data Ior what they are, and to
cr| t| c| ze them on the bas| s oI | ntr | ns| c | ncons| stenc| es,
but th| s one | s| mpl y can' t accept. | cannot see how
ONA cha| n term| nat|on cou l d prol ong | | Ie, ONA be| ng
the bas| s oI l | Ie. How ONA cha| n term| nat |on c

oul d
pro| ong | | Ie | s very d| II| cul t Ior me to understand, | n
Iact, | mposs| b| e.
) L . | agree, and we know t hat the |hase | | tr | al s
ere I raudu l ent. There' s no n| ce way to put | t. they
were I r audu | ent . And so, not on| y | s t he theory
beh| nd A/ T wrong, but the ' I| nd| ngs support | ng |t are
phoney as wel | .
| NCOH| ETE NCE | N A| OS E | | OE H| OLOGY T 7 3
XI V. I netee In AIDS Epidioloy
Speech To |orum On Cau ses OI A| OS
bronx Commun| ty Co| | ege, T 6 Oecember T 88
| n t h e d| scou rse on ' A| OS ' , t h e word, ' ep| dem| ol ~
ogy' , | s u sed a great deal . Al though the word | s not
cl ear| y deI| ned, most ep| dem|o|ogy cons | st s o! what |
wou l d ca| | ' su rvey research' . Th| s | s my I | e| d, one | n
wh| ch | have two decades oI exper| ence. And so | am
on home ground | n cr| t| c| z|ng ep| dem| o| og| cal research
done by the Center s Ior O| sease Cont ro| [ COC ) and
ot her branches oI the |ubl | c Hea| th Serv| ce [ |HS ) .
Those oI you who are Iol l ow| ng the debate over
whether H| V | s the cau se oI ' A| OS' have probab| y read
~ or ought to read ~ t he debate t hat appeared | n the
? ) u l y T 8 | s sue oI Sc| ence. | n that | s sue, |eter
Ouesberg argued that ' H| V | s Not the Cause oI A| OS ' ,
and h e was opposed by n| | | | am bl attner, Robert Ga| | o,
and Howa rd Tem| n , wh o a rgued t hat ' H| V Causes
A| OS ' . E ach s| de was perm| tted a rebutta| . | n the
decade that t he A| OS ep| dem| c' has been w| th us , t h| s
| s t he on| y t | me that members oI t he ' A| OS estab| | sh~
ment ' have condescended to deIend the H| V hypothes| s
|n open debate. And Ga| l o & Co. | ost , | n no uncerta| n
terms. They d| d not even attempt to respond to Oues~
berg' s ma| n argument s , and had to Ia| l back upon ad
hom| nem attack s and I | | msy appeal s to ' ep| dem|ology
_
| n h | s rebutta| Ouesberg stated t hat ep| dem|o|ogy was
not suII| c| ent t o prove that H| V was t he cau se oI
A| OS ' , t hat cor rel at |on | s not t he same as cau sat| on.
Th| s | s correct , and one oI the I| rst th| ngs a stu~
dent l earns | n study| ng stat | st| cs: Cor re| at |on | mp| | es,
but does not prove cau sat| on. E ven | I there | s a
st rong corre| at |on between two or more th | ngs, | t | s
st | l l necessary to d| g | n and prove, by wh atever means
are appropr| ate, that the rel at |onsh| p | s one oI cau se
and eIIect.
T 7 4 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |1| ON. THE A/ T STORY
| ' m go| ng to go one step I u rther and argue that,
not onl y | s ep| dem|ology not suII| c| ent to prove t hat
H| V cau ses ' A| OS ' , but t hat the ep| dem| ol ogy ~~ or
s u r vey research , as | t were ~~ done by government
s c| ent| st s' | s very bad. The| r work has been I ar
below the standards oI proIes s|onal su rvey research. |
somet | mes brood over whether the| r shortcom| ngs are
due to d| shonesty or to | ncompetence, and concl ude~~
bt h | 1hey are d| shonest and t hey are | ncompetent.
And the| r | ncompetence st retches al l the way I rom the
COC , whose per |od| c reports oI su rve| l l ance | nIormat| on
reveal t hat they are unaware oI the most el ementary
stat| st| cal convent|ons , to the New York C| ty Heal th
Oepa rtment, wh| ch [ desp| te several |h . O. ' s | n the| r
ranks ) have not yet mastered grade school ar| thmet| c.
| rom the very beg| nn| ng, the |ubl | c Heal th Serv| ce
was determ| ned to construct A| |S' as a new d| sease
cau sed by a new | nIect |ou s agent. Accord| ng to the
oII| c| al parad| gm, ' A| OS' | s a s| ngl e d| sease ent| ty w| th
a s| ngl e cau se, wh| ch | s an | nIect|ou s agent , wh| ch | s a
newl y d| scovered ret rov| r us now known as H| V~T . | n
Iact , not a s| ngl e one oI these propos| t| ons has been
est abl | shed sc| ent| I| cal l y. Not one oI the two dozen
d| seases |n the syndrome | s new. Ne| ther | s | mmune
deI| c| ency new, and | t | s wel l known t hat the cond| t |on
can have many cau ses, I rom chem| cal s, to mal nut r| t| on,
to bad genes, to rad| at| on, to ol d age. 1he preva| l | ng
' A| OS' parad| gm cons| sts oI unsupported assumpt |ons~~
the products oI dub| ous research , oI a sel I~perpetuat | ng
del us |onal system, oI endl ess re| terat|on | n the popul ar
and ' sc| ent | I | c' l | teratu re.
| began to study the A| OS ' l | terat ure | n T 8 3 ,
be| n g par t | c u l a r l y | mpr es sed t h at ' A | OS' was nOt
behav| ng l | ke an | nIect|ou s d| sease. Over t| me, t he
proport |ons oI A| OS ' cases accounted Ior by each oI
the ' r| sk groups ' rema| ned al most constant.
| have anal yzed the proport|ons oI ' A| OS' cases
accounted Ior by each oI the r | sk groups at two
po| nts | n t | me: as oI Oecember T 84 and then more
| NCOHH E1E NCE | N A| OS E H | OE H| OLOGY T 7 5
than I | ve years l ater, as oI |ebruary T 0.
T
| n these
I | ve years the number oI ' A| OS' cases | ncreased more
than I | Iteen~Iol d [ Irom 7 6 0 |n T 84 to T T 7 , 7 8 T | n
T 0 ) , and yet the proport| ons oI the var|ou s r | sk
grou p s r ema | n v | rt ual l y | dent| cal . | t | s cl ear that
' A | OS ' | s compartmental | zed, conI| ned al most ent| rel y
to two ma| n groups : gay men and | nt ravenou s drug
u se r s [ | VOUs ) . 1h| s | s t he cent ral ep| dem|ol og| cal
puzzl e oI A| OS ' , and | t must be expl a| ned. | I A| OS'
| s real l y an | nIect| ous d| sease, why | s | t not spread| ngl
1he compartmental | zat |on oI A| OS' st rongl y suggest s
t hat env| ronmental [ or ' l | Iestyl e' ) Iactors p| ay a rol e
| n cau s| ng t he syndrome, e| t her as pr| mary causes or
as ' co~Iactors' .
| t became apparent as earl y as T 84 t hat the ep| ~
dem|ology oI ' A| OS' was more cons| stent w| th a tox| ~
colog| cal model than w| th an | nIect| ou s d| sease m
g
e| .
| began to Iocus upon the very heavy ' recreat |onal
drug' u se Iound among certa| n subset s oI gay men, and
| n part | cul ar upon one drug: ' poppers' or n| tr| te | n~
hal ant s . 1h e u se oI t h| s drug has been conI| ned
al most ent| rel y to gay men. Al l oI you | n the aud| ence
who are gay men know what poppers are. 1he rest oI
you have probabl y never heard oI them. | ' l l expl a| n.
Hoppers are l | ttl e bottl es conta| n| ng a l |qu| d m| xture
oI | sobutyl n| t r| te and other chem| cal s. nhen | nhal ed
] u s t beI ore or ga s m, popper s seem to enhance and
prol ong t he sensat| on. Hoppers Iac| l | tate anal | nter~
cou r se by r el ax | n g the muscl es |n the rectum and
deaden| ng the sense oI pa| n. 1hey are add| ct| ve, at
l ea st p s ychol og| cal | y, and some gay men have

een
known to snort them around the cl ock. Some A| OS
pat| ent s ' , | n New York and San | ranc| sco, had popper
btt l es on the tabl e by t he| r death bed, t hey cont | nued
to | nhal e t hem as l ong as they cou | d breathe.
T
| have updated the data and the graph Ior t h| s
bok.
TOTAL UNITED STATES AIDS CASES
By Risk Group
1 98- 1 99
Risk Group Proporions Have Hardl Changed In Five Years!
(If AIDS Is Infectious, Wh Isn't It Spreading?)
Percen O AID Caes
70
6
5
4
3
2
10
0
Gay
Me
I D
Ur
(
G
Tras
l & fi
IVU*
Risk Groups
He
ph iliac
*Untl 19 t C cunt t ol a "i men.
**Includ Ha, 'e u c, piic, a '/unkn'.
Al
O*
A o 31 D. 19
N ' 7,6
A o 12 Feb. 19
N ^ 1 17,781
Grh b Jhn Lurn
..
'
0
"
0
V
0
z
O
-
"
;
m
V
n
;
"
-
0
z
-
I
m
)
N
-
V
-
0
;
-
| NCOHH E TE NC E | N A| OS E H | OE H| OLOGY T 7 7
The |od and Orug Adm| n| strat|on [ |OA) has re~
peatedl y reIu sed to regul ate poppers, g| v| ng the excuse
that every bottl e oI poppers was l abel l ed e| ther ' rom
oor | zer ' or ' | ncense . Now, t here |s no ev| dence that
anyone ever u sed poppers as ' | ncense' , and the most
pa r s | mon| ou s e x pl anat | on Ior the | OA' s ' hands~oII'
pol | cy wou l d be br| bery, t he |OA has Ior many decades
been a notor|ou sl y corrupt agency.
?
| have col l aborated s| nce 1 8 3 w| th Hank n| l son, a
gay act | v| st | n San | ranc| sco, who |n 1 8 T Iounded t he
Comm| ttee to Hon| tor the E IIects oI Hoppers. | n T 8 6
we publ | shed a bok together [ Oeath Rus h: Hoppers &
A| OS ) , |n an attempt to al ert gay men to the dangers
oI poppers.
A s u mmary oI the med| cal case aga| nst poppers.
Hopper s are | mmunosuppress| ve. They cause anem| a,
!ng damage, ser |ou s sk | n bur ns, and death or bra| n
dmage I rom card|ovascu l ar col l apse or st roke. Hop~
pers cau se genes to mutate and have the po

ent| al to
cau se cancer by produc| ng deadl y N~n| t roso compounds.
Hoppers have been u sed succes sIu l l y to comm| t su| c| de
[ by dr | n k | n g ) and mu rder [ v| ct| m gagged w| t h sock
soaked w| t h popper s ) . There are st rong ep| dem| ol og| cal
l | nks between the u se oI poppers and t he devel opment
oI A| OS, and espec| al l y Kapos| ' s sarcoma [ KS ) . A s| x~
?
5ee Horton H | n t z , by H res c r | pt | on Onl y [ A
report on the Un| ted States |od and Orug Adm| n| st ra~
t|on , t he Amer| can Hed| cal As soc| at|on, pharmaceut| cal
manu I act u r e r s , and ot h e r s | n con nect|on w| th the
| rrat| onal and mass| ve u se oI prescr| pt |on drugs that
may be wort hl es s , | n] u r| ou s , or even l ethal ) , boston,
T 67 .
) ames S. Tu rner, The Chem| cal |east. Th e Ral ph
Nader Study Group Report on |od H rotect| on and the
|od and Orug Adm| n| strat| on, New York , 1 70.
1 7 8 HO| SON bY HRESC R| HT| Ox . THE A/ T STORY
Iold dec rease | n the | nc| dence oI KS over the past I| ve
years para| | el s a sharp dec| | ne | n the use oI poppers.
Obv| ou s l y poppers are not the cau se oI ' A| OS ' ,
s | nce t h ey were not u s ed by

h e non~homosexual
' A| OS' cases . However, the drug | s c| ear l y hazardou s
to the heal th and h| gh on the l | st oI probabl e co~
Iactors Ior caus| ng ' A| OS' .
Al though there | s a very powerIu l connect |on bet~
ween ' A | O S ' and dr u gs, the COC has cons| stentl y
obscu red the connect|on. |or severa| years the COC
p re sented | t s su rve| | l ance stat | st | cs u s| ng a so~cal l ed
' h | e r a rc h | c a l presentat |on' . They | | sted t he l argest
' r| sk category' I| rst . homosexual /b| sexual men. Then
they l | sted the next | argest category, | nt ravenou s drug
users [| VOUs ) , but they counted peop| e here onl y | I
they had not al ready been counted | n t h e I | rst cate~
gory. nhat t h| s d| d was to submerge the overl ap
grou p . | VOUs who were a| so gay men, these were
cou nt ed as ' homose x u a | /b | sexua| men ' , but not as
| VOUs . As a resu l t oI t h| s stat| st| cal obscu rant| sm,
t h e COC ' s tabl es showed | VOUs as compr| s| ng onl y
about 1 7 / oI the ' A| OS' cases, whereas | n Iact they
compr|
g
ed at | east ?5 /. The COC I| na| l y abandoned
t h | s Ior m oI stat| st| ca| t r | ckery aIter an art| c| e oI
m| ne expos| ng | t was publ | shed |n hal I a dozen gay
newspaper s.
3
| n l | ght oI the compartmenta| | zat | on oI ' A| OS ' , |t | s
r easonabl e to h ypot h e s | ze that the drugs u sed by
| VOUs made them s| ck , e| ther as so| e cau se or as
cont r| but | ng co~Iactor. However, the government has
done everyt h| ng | t can to suppress t h| s hypothes| s.
The OfI| c| al | | ne | s that ' A| OS' | s cau sed so| e| y by
an | nIect | ou s agent , H| V~1 , and that | V drug u ser s
became | nIected' by shar| ng need| es. UnIort unate| y
3
) ohn L au r | tsen, ' COC ' s Tabl es Obscure A| OS/~
Orugs Connect|on' , |h| l ade| ph| a Gay News, 1 4 |ebruary
1 8 5 .
| NCOH| E TE NCE | N A| OS E | | OE H| OLOGY T 7
Ior t h| s hypothes| s , there | s no ev| dence t hat al l , or
even most , | VOUs w| th ' A| OS' ever d| d share needl es.
| t has s| mp| y been assumed, but the research has never
been done to ver | Iy t he assumpt |on. To be s ure, we
know t hat some | VOUs do share needl es. but we a| so
know t hat many | VOUs have never shared needl es, and
Ior very good reasons. |or many decades t hey have
been we| | aware oI t he dangers oI gett| ng such deadl y
d| seases as serum hepat | t | s t h| s way. And bes| des, why
shoul d they share needl esl An add| ct w| th a $ 6 0 a
day hab| t can certa| nl y aIIord a one~t | me purchase oI
$ ? Ior a needl e. The research to determ| ne whether or
not al l | V drug u sers w| t h A| OS' actual | y had shared
needl es wou | d be s| mpl e, st ra| ght Iorward, and | nexpen~
s| ve, and | t | s | ncomprehens| bl e why such research has
not been done.
Hero| n and ot h er dr u gs | n ect ed by | VOUs are
known to be | mmunosuppress| ve and ot herw| se danger~
ous. | t | s bl atant| y probabl e that the dr ugs themsel ves
[ not shared need| es) are the reason t hat | VOUs are
deve| op| ng ' A| OS' . |or many decades | VOUs have
been dy| ng oI pneumon| a. Th| s | s noth| ng new. Or.
|ol l y Thomas , oI the New York C| ty Heal th Oepart~
ment , has adm| tted that an | VOU w| th pneumon| a and
H| V ant | bod| es wou | d be counted as an ' A| OS' case,
w| th the assumpt |on t hat H| V was the sol e cau se~~
however , |I the same | VOU had pneumon| a but no H| V
ant| bod| es, |t wou l d be assumed that the drugs were
the cau se. And yet there wou l d be no d| IIerence | n
the cl | n| cal proI | | es: oI the ' A| OS~pneumon| a' case or
the ' drugs~pneumon| a' case.
| t | s amaz| ng and dep| orabl e that so many A| OS '
gr ou p s a n d p u bl | c h ea l t h depar tment s have | s sued
post e r s and brochures d| rected to | VOUs , tel | | ng | n
great deta| l how to ster | l | ze needl es. The message | s
c| ear: cont | nue shot | ng u p dr ugs, but pl ay | t saIe by
ster| l | z| ng you r need| es. [ Orugs ara saIe, but need| es
are dangerou s . ) Th| s | nsan| ty | s tak| ng pl ace | n t he
m| dst oI a so~cal | ed ' nar Aga| n st Orugs' |
1 80 HO| SON bY HRESC R| HT| ON. THE A/ T STORY
by deI| n| t|on a| l oI the | VOUs w| t h ' A| OS' were
drug u ser s. And yet , I rom t he meager | nIormat|on we
have, | t | s poss| b| e that near| y a| | oI the gay men w| t h
A| OS ' were al so drug u ser s. Research ought to have
been done years ago to I | nd out the character| st| cs oI
peopl e w| t h ' A| OS' [ HnAs ) w| t h| n each oI the r | sk
groups . As | t | s , we know v| r tual | y noth| ng about the
| VOU, t ransIu s| on, or hemoph| l | ac cases, other t han the
' r| sk group' | abel that has been s| apped on t hem.
A l | t t l e | n Iormat |on about gay men w| t h ' A| OS'
comes I rom a study oI t he I| rst 50 gay men w| th
' A| OS' , conducted by the COC | n 1 8? ~1 8 3 .
4
| n t h| s
study, t he ' A| OS' cases were compared w| t h cont ro| s
dr awn I rom pub| | c venerea| d| sease c| | n| cs and I rom
p r | vat e p r act | c es . The cont rol s t u rned out to be
a| most comp| ete c|ones oI t he cases, w| t h one excep~
t| on: they d| d not have ' A| OS' ~~ yet . Neverthe| ess,
the contro| s were Iar I rom heal thy, and a number oI
t h em deve| oped ' A| OS' short| y aIter t he study was
comp| eted.
Never | n t he| r report d| d t he authors even attempt
to expl a| n what they had | n m| nd when t hey des| gned
the| r study, a| though t hey d|d adm|t t hat there was an
| n h e r ent b| a s t owards un| ty. | n other words, t he
tendency wou l d be Ia| se| y t o over| ook r| sk Iactors t hat
were rea| . | n the| r own words:
The expected | mpact oI t hese potent| a| prob| ems
| n contro| sel ect|on and cl ass| I| cat|on wou | d be to
m| n | m| z e d| I I erences between cases and cont ro| s
rather t han t ocreate Ial se d| IIerences.
Th e onl y s | gn | I | c ant d| I I erence t h at the | nves~
t| gators were abl e to | dent | Iy between cases and con~
4
Harol d ) aIIe et a| . , ' Nat |ona| Case~Contro| Study
oI Kapos| ' s Sarcoma and Hneumocyst | s car | n| | Hneumo~
n| a |n Homosexual Hen. Hart 1 , Ep| dem| o| og| c Resu l t s ' ,
Annal s oI | nterna| Hed| c| ne, Augu st 1 8 3 .
| NCOH| ETE NCE | N A| OS E | | OE H| OLOGY T 8 T
t ro| s concerned the number oI sexual partners. The
A| OS cases had had more sexual partners per year,
a| though the cont ro| s had al so been remarkabl y prom| s~
cuou s. |or several year s t h| s ' I| nd| ng' Iormed the so| e
ba s | s oI t h e government' s r| sk reduct|on gu| del | nes.
They sa| d, ' To avo|d gett| ng A| OS , reduce you r number
oI sexual partner s. Surel y t h| s adv| ce was | nane.
Cons | der| ng the Iata| I | aws | n sampl e des| gn and
sel ect|on, ana| yses based on compar | sons between t he
' A| OS' pat| ent s and t he cont ro| s Ia| l | nto the category
oI ' garbage | n, garbage out ' . The comparat| ve data
are worthl ess. However , t he government researcher s
wer e wrong t o pl unge | mmed| atel y | nto a comparat| ve,
case vs. cont rol anal ys| s. A proIess|onal anal yst wou l d
I| rst | ok at the data on the ' A| OS' cases monad| cal l y
[ by t hemsel ves) . nhen t h| s | s done, t he I | nd| ngs are
very | nterest| ng | ndeed.
nhen we |ok at the data on the A| OS ' cases
mon ad| cal | y, we ask t he quest | ons, ' nhat are these
peopl e l |kel nhat are t he| r character | st | c s l ' And the
answer t hat comes out oI t h| s research | s t hat these
I| rst S O gay men w| th ' A| OS' were h| gh| y prom| scuou s,
that they had had many, many venereal d| seases, over
and over aga| n, t hat they had been t reated | nnumerabl e
t | mes w| th broad~spectrum ant| b|ot| cs, powerIu l ant| ~
paras| te drugs, etc. , and, perhaps most | mportant, that
they were heavy drug abusers.
The maor| ty oI these gay men w| th A| OS ' had
u s ed at l ea st h a l I a dozen d| I I erent ' rec reat|onal
drugs ' , some oI wh| ch are very dangerou s. Nearl y al l
oI t hem were users oI poppers, al cohol , and mar| uana,
and a ma or | t y were a l so u se r s oI amphetam| nes,
coca| ne, L SO and quaal udes. Other drugs I requent l y
used were et hyl ch l or| de, barb| t urates, HOA, and phen~
cycl | d| ne. One~s| xth oI t hem were u sers oI | nt ravenou s
drugs, | ncl ud| ng hero| n.
L ook | ng at t h| s proI | | e, | t | s not su rpr| s| ng t hat
these men got s| ck . Rather , |t woul d have been amaz~
| ng | I any oI t hem had rema| ned heal thy. There | s
1 8 ? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
on| y so much abuse that a body can take. These data
ought | mmed| ate| y to have prompted an | nvest| gat| on
| n to t h e rol e t h a t r ec r eat | onal and med| ca| drugs
pl ayed | n cau s| ng gay men to devel op ' A| OS ' . but no.
T h e so l e conc l u s | on t h e gover nment r esea r c h er s
reached was to tel | gay men: ' Reduce your number oI
sexua| partner s | '
Another examp| e oI bad su rvey research w| t h d| re
consequences | s a COC study wh| ch pred| cted that /
oI those who

were seropos| t| ve [ | . e. , who had an~

t | bod| es to H| V~1 ) wou| d go on tOeve|op A| OS ' .
| ' ve wr| tten an extens| ve expos
5
oI t h| s study, so
won' t go | nto | t now, except to say that | tal ked to
the th ree authors oI the study, and they agreed w| th
me t h a t t h e | r r esearch d| d not support the ' /'
concl u s|on. Neverthel ess, the /~w| | l ~develop~' A| OS'
nonsense | s st | l | be| ng band| ed about | n the med| a, and
| s be| ng used to scare perIect| y heal thy peopl e | nto
tak| ng the po| sonous drug, A/ T.
6
On the top| c oI A/T, | have cop| es here oI the
expos | d| d on the |OA~conducted A/ T t r| a| s , wh| ch
were t he bas| s oI the drug' s approva| .
7
| t wou| d be
| nadequate mere| y to ca| | the t r | al s ' |nva| | d' . They
were Iraudu| ent . Th| s we know I rom document s t hat
the |OA was Iorced to rel ease under the | reedom oI
| nIormat |on Act . Among many other k | nds oI sl opp| ~
ness and m| sconduct , the Iederal | nvest| gators know| ng~
l y u sed data that they knew were Ia| se. And they
gave two excuses Ior us| ng Ia| se data. E xcuse number
one: | I t hey d| dn' t use the Ia| se data , t hey wou l d have
h a rd l y any sub] ect s l eIt . And excu se number two.
us| ng the Ial se data d| dn' t rea| l y change the resu| t s
5
Chapter | | | , ' The Ep| dem|o| ogy oI |ear ' .
6
Nat| ve | ssue ? 7 6 .
7
Chapter 1 1 , ' A/ T On Tr | al ' .
| NCOH| E TE NCE | N A| OS E | | OE H| OLOGY T 8 3
very much. Needl ess to say, these are the excu ses oI
Io| s and scoundrel s. No eth| cal sc| ent| st wou l d ever
know| ng| y u se Ia| se data.
To sum up: at t h| s po| nt we don' t know exact l y
what ' A| OS ' | s , or what cau ses | t. ne' d better I| nd
ou t . A| | reasonabl e hypotheses ought to be i nves~
t| gated ~ we' ve had too much prematu re cl osu re, to
many specul at |ons that have oss| I| ed | nto dogma. How~
ever, | be| | eve that some day |t w| l | be establ | shed
that ' A| OS ' | s not a s| ng| e d| sease ent| ty, but rather
d| vers cond| t|ons, t hat ' A| OS ' has mul t | pl e causes, oI
wh | c h t h e most | mpor t ant are chem| cal s [ | ncl ud| ng
med| cal and rec reat|onal drugs ) . The truth w| l l be
known eventua| l y. |or r| ght now, we know more than
enough to ] u st| Iy proc| a| m| ng an u rgent warn| ng to gay
men, |V drug u ser s, and other s: Oon' t u se dr ugs| And
don' t take A/ T|
1
1 84
|O| SON bY | RE SC R| | T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
APPENDI X: Articles by John Laurits fr the New
Yor Native
1 2~2 5
August 1 8 5
|oppers and A| OS: The Sc| ent | I| c Overv| ew
~15 Oecember 1 8 5
The A| OS~Orugs Connect|on
| ss ue 1 84 . 2 7 October 1 8 6
Koch ' s |ost u| ates Rev| s| ted. Another L ok at the
A| OS V| rus ' || asco
| ss ue 2 0 J . Harch 1 8 7
C aveat E mptor. The Report oI the Nat |onal Academy
oI Sc| ences on A| OS | s || | l ed n| th H| s| nIormat| on
| ss ue 2 1 5 . 1 ) une 1 8 7
| | r st Th | ngs | | rst. Some Thought s on the ' A| OS
V| rus ' and A/T
| ss ue 2 2 0: 6 ) ul y 1 8 7
Say| ng No To H| V: An | nterv| ew n| t h | roI. |eter
Ou e sber g, nho Says, '| nou| d Not norry About
be| ng Ant| body |os| t| ve' [ Repr| nted, w| t h correc~
t| ons , |n Ch r | stopher St reet , | ssue 1 1 8, Oecember
1 8 7 )
| ss ue 2 J 5 : 1 October 1 8 7
A/T o n Tr| al . O| d the |OA Ru sh to ) udgment~
And Thereby | urther Endanger the L | ves oI Thou~
sands oI |eopl el
| ss ue 2 4 0. 1 6 November 1 8 7
berkel ey backs Ouesberg: | ress Rel ease C| tes Two
^rt | cl es ReIut| ng H| V As the Cause oI A| OS
ART| C L E S | ROH THE NAT| VE T 8 5
| ssue ? 4 J : Z Oecember T 8 Z
) os eph C a | | s | or Handatory Test| ng: |rost| tutes ,
C rackdowns on Commerc| al Sex E stab| | shment s on
Heal th Comm| ss| oner' s Agenda
| ssue ? 4 6. ? 8 Oecember T 8 Z
A/ T Update [ al so comment on Ouesberg, Ca| | Iorn| a
Hont h| y art| c| e)
| ssue ? 5 0. ?5 ) anuary T 8 8
The Amsterdam ConIerence
| ssue ? 5 4 . ? ? |ebruary T 8 8
The H| V Oebate
| ssue ? 5 5 : ? |ebruary T 8 8
Non~Responses to Ouesberg
| ssue ? 5 8. ? 8 Harch T 8 8
A/ T . | at rogen| c Genoc| de
| ssue ? 6J : ? Hay T 8 8
The Rac| sm Connect |on [ A rev| ew oI A| OS , AI r| ca
and Rac| sm by R| chard C. and Rosa| | nd ) . Ch | r| ~
muuta)
| ssue ? 64: Hay T 8 8
Kangaroo Cou rt Et| o| ogy. Am|AR Ho| ds a |orum to
O| scred| t Ouesberg, but n| nds Up ConI| rm| ng Shab~
b| ness oI " | rooI' oI H| V as So| e Cause oI A| OS
| ssue ? 6 : 6 ) une T 8 8
A/ T O| s| nIormat|on
| ssue ?Z J . 4 ) u | y T 8 8
L atex L unacy
| ssue ? Z 6: T August T 8 8
The Ep| dem|o|ogy oI |ear
T 8 6 |O| SON bY | RE SC R| |T| ON: THE A/ T STORY
| ssue ? 7 6. T August T 8 8
Heal th Oepartment Cut s ' H| V | nIect|on" E st | mate | n
Hal I
| ssue ? 8 T . 5 September T 88
| ncompetence As Usual
| ssue ? 8 J . T September T 8 8
Hore S l opp| ness | rom the NYC Heal th Oepartment
| ssue ? 8 5 . J October T 8 8
Ep| dem|ol ogy | n Graph| cs
| ssue ? 86. T 0 October T 8 8
A| OS | nc| dence Oropp| ng
| ssue ? 8. ? ) anuary T 8
On The A/ T | ront : |art One
| ssue J00. T 6 ) anuary T 8
On The A/ T | ront: |art Two
| ssue J 08. T J Harch T 8
|oppers. The End oI an E ra
| ssue J T 7 . T 5 Hay T 8
A ConIerence on Hol | st| c Heal th
| ssue J ? J . ?6 ) une T 8
ConI us|on | n the H| V Rank s
| ssue J ? J . ? 6 ) une T 8
The || rst Gay L | berat|on | ront Oemonst rat|on
| ssue J J T . ? T August T 8
Sc| ence by | ress Rel ease
ART| C L E S | ROH THE NAT| VE T 8 7
| ssue J J ? : ? 8 August 1 8
GHHC Announces Campa| gn To Encou rage H| V An~
t| body Test| ng ~~ Adopts Haor |ol | cy Sh| It
| ssue J 40. J 0 October 1 8
A/ T and Cancer
| ssue J 4 8 . 1 8 Oecember T 8
A/ T Cau ses Cancer: bu rroughs nel l come | s sues Ad~
v| sory
| ssue J 5 4: ? ) anuary T 0
U. S. Cut s A/ T Oose | n Hal I: bur rough s nel l come
Con s | der | n g Recommend| ng A/ T Ior Symptoml ess
H| V~| nIected |eopl e
| ssue J 5 6. 1 ? |ebruary 1 0
Hore Sc| ence by | ress ConIerence: |OA Comm| ttee
Recommends A/ T |or Heal thy |eopl e
| ssue J 6 T . T Harch T 0
A ' State oI t he Art' A/T ConIerence
| ssue J 6 J . ? Apr | l T 0
Oebate Over A| OS | nc| dence
| ssue J 6 7 . J 0 Apr | | 1 0
A/ T natch: New Research Ooes Not |rove EII | cacy
1 88 |O| SON bY | RE SCR | |T | ON. THE A/ T STORY
I nx of Nams
Al tman, L awrence 5 6
Arendt , Hannah 1 J
Ayer s, Kenneth 1 J 4~1 J 5
ba| t| more, Oav| d 1 J 1 ~1 J ?
barry, Oav| d 1 7 , 60, 7 6, 8 ? , 8 4, 1 1 J
bel uda, Harcel 1 4 8, 1 5 1 , 1 5 7
bessen , L au ra 1 01
b| a| y, Harvey 1 J 0, 1 64~1 65
b| attner, n| | | | am 5 8, 1 7 J
broad, n| l | | am J ?
broder , Samuel 1 , , 1 0? , 1 0
Ca| | en , H|chael 5 , 60, 6 ? , 6 8
Campbel | , Ouncan 1 0?
Carpenter , Char l es 1 ? 6, 1 J 8
Casarett, L ou | s 8
Chernov, Harvey 1 ? , ? 0, 44, 46, 4~ 8 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 7 , 1 08
Ch| r| muut a, R| chard and Rosal | nd 1 85
Combs, Robert 1 J 1 1 J ?
Coper , E | | en 1 4~1 5 , 1 7 , ? 0 , J 0, J ? , J 4 , 4J
Couch , Robert 1 J7
Cou l ter, Har r | s 1 61 , 1 65
C reagh~K| rk, Terr| ? ? , 7 ? , 7 6 , 7 8~80 , 8 5 , 8
Oarrow, n| | | | am 4 , 5 ?~5 6
Oeer , br| an 1 0, 1 ? 5
Oel aney, Hart | n ? 6 , 65~ 66, 6 8~6
Oetel s , Roger 1 64
O|ogenes 1 00~1 0 1
Ooug| as, |aul 6 ~7 0
Oou l l , )ohn 8
Oou rnon , E . 1 J 0, 1 J 8
Ouesberg, |eter 7~8 , 1 0~1 ? , 1 8, ? 5 , 5 0~5 1 , 5 8 , 7 ?~7 J ,
, 1 0? , 1 1 ?~1 1 J , 1 ? 5 , 1 J 1 ~1 J ? , 1 40~1 48 , 1 5 ?~1 5 8,
1 60~1 6 1 , 1 64~1 66, 1 6 8~1 7 J , 1 84~1 8 5
Echenberg, Oean 5 5
Enders, )ohn 1 5 5
E ssex , Hax 1 5 7
|arber , Cel | a 1 0, 1 ? 5 , 1 5 7
| NOE X 1 8
|auc| , Anthony 1 0?~1 0 J , 1 J 7 , 1 4 6~1 4 7 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 5~1 5 7 ,
1 6 1 ~1 6?
|e| nberg, Hark 1 J 1 1 J ?
| | sch | , Hargaret 1 J , 1 5 , 1 7 , ? 6~? 7 , J ? , J 6, 64 , 7 1 , 1 0?
1 0J , 1 ? 6~1 J 0, 1 J J , 1 J 6~1 J 7
| r| ed| and, Geral d 1 J 7
Ga| l , H| tche| | 1 J J~1 J 4
Gal |o, Robert 5 8, 1 4 6, 1 5 J~1 5 4 , 1 67 , 1 7 J
Gardner , Hu rray 1 6J~1 64
Garl and, ) udy 5 8
G| ngel l , barry 60
G| nsberg, Haro| d 1 47 , 1 4 8
G| enn , | reder| ck 6?
Grossman , Ron 6 7~6
Ham| | ton , )ohn 1 J ?~1 J J
Hase| t| ne, n| l l | am 1 ? , 7 J , 1 4 6~1 47 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 7~1 6 1 , 1 64 ,
1 6 7
Hauptman , L awrence 1 7 , J 0
Heck| er, Hargaret 1 4 J
Hel bert , Hatthew 1 01 ~1 0?
Hel l qu | st , H|chae| 1 ? 1
H| | t s , |h| | | p 1 0 6, 1 1 0
Ho, Oav| d 1 J 1 ~1 J ?
Horw| tz , ) erome 108~1 1 0
) aIIe, Haro| d 1 80
) eremy 6 1
) oseph , Stephen 5 1 , 1 85
Koc h , Robert 1 44~1 4 5 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 7
KO| at a, G| na 1 1
K r| m, Hat h| l de 1 J 4
L agakos, Stephen 1 ? 8~1 J 0
L ambert , bruce 5 1
L ange, H| chael 66~6
L eh rman , Nat 1 6 5~1 66
L e| shman, Kat| e 1 ? 5
L en| n 1 ? 5
L u | , Kung)ong 4, 5 ?5 J , 5 5~5 6
Hason, ) ames 5 1 , 1 04~1 0 5 , 1 1 0, 1 J 4
Henge| e, )oseI
1 0 |O| SON bY | RESC R| | T| ON. THE A/ T STORY
Het roka, Cra| g 64
H| ntz , Horton 1 7 7
H| tsuya, H| roak|
Hyer s , Char| es
Nu| | , Gary 40, 1 2 5
Nu| l , Steven 4 0
O' L ough| | n, Ray 1
|asteu r , L ou| s 1 5 5
|eabody 1 00
|| nsky, L aura 64, 6~7 0
|| z zo, |h| l | p 2 1 , 1 J 0
RedI| e| d, Robert 15 , 1 6 1
Reger , |au| 5 0~5 1
R| chman , Ooug| as 1 J~1 5 , 1 7 , 2 6~2 7 , J 2 , J 6, 64, 7 1 ,
1 J 5~1 J 6
Rub| n , Harry 1 4 6, 1 4 8~1 5 1 , 1 5 8~1 61 , 1 6J~1 64
RutherIord, George 4, 5 2 , 5 5~5 6
Sab| n, Al bert 1 5 5
SanIord, ) ay 1 J6~1J7
Sch ram, Ne| | 1 J 6~1 J 7
Scott 6 1
Shepperd, Al I red 1 1 5 , 1 2 0
Sm|th , |eter 106
Sonnabend, )oseph 1 J , 65~6, 7 2 , 8 8 , 1 0J , 1 2 5~1 2 6, 1 6J
Specter , H| chael 4 8~5 1 , 5 J~5 4 , 5 8, 1 4 J~1 44, 1 66
Stal ey, |eter 1 1 0
Stevens, Cl add 5 7
Su| | | van , L ou | s 1 1 4, 1 2 J~1 2 4
Taub, Kenny 62~6J
Tem| n , Howard 5 8, 1 7 J
Thomas, |ol l y 1 7
Turner, ) ames 1 7 7
Varchoan , Robert
Vol berd| ng, |au| 1 2 8~1 J 0, 1 J 7
nade, N| cho| as J 2
ne| sbu rger, ) ohn 8
nh| te, | an 1 1 2
n| l son, Hank 2 4, 40, 1 7 7
n| nkel ste| n, nar ren 1 61 ~1 62
nol Ie, S| dney 4
Young, | rank 4
Young, | an 1 ? 5
| NOE X
Inx of Subjets
ACTG |rotocol 00? 1 ? 7~1 ? 8
ACTG | rotocol 0 1 6 0, 1 ? 7
ACTG |rotocol 0 1 8 ~ ? , 1 ? 8~1 J 0
Aesop |abl e 1 7
A| OS as non~| nIect|ou s 1 65 , 1 6 , 1 7 4~1 7 5
1 1
A| OS as s| ngl e d| sease ent | ty, cr | t| que oI concept 1 4 8~
1 5 1 , 1 5 5 , 1 7 4 , 1 8 J
A| OS cases, character | st | cs oI 1 6 , 1 81 ~1 8?
A| OS Coal | t|on To Unl eash |ower ( ACT U| ) 65 ~ 66, 8 8 ,
1 1 0, 1 ? 6
A| OS ' r| sk group' anal ys | s 1 6, 1 7 5~1 7 6 , 1 7 8
Amer| can |oundat |on |or A| OS Research ( Am|AR)
1 4 J , 1 6 7
Anecdotal report s , val ue oI ?0~??
Ant| v| ral eIIect oI A/ T not proven 6 6~6 8
A/ T as cause oI A| OS 8, 1 0, 1 70
bu s| ness ( | roI| t s ) 1 1 ?~1 1 J , 1 1 5~1 1 6, 1 ? 0~1 ? 1
Cartes| an reduct|on| sm 14
CO4 count s 1 J 5
Centers Ior O| sease Cont rol ( COC )
H| sl ead| ng stat| st| cs 1 7 8
Case~control study 1 80~1 8?
| gnorance oI stat | st| cal convent |ons 1 7 4
Chemotherapy, A/ T as 7~8, 1 7 1 ~1 7 ?
ONA cha| n term| nat|on 7~8, 1 7 0~1 7 1
Orug regul at| on | n the U. S. J~4
Orugs, rec reat| onal ? J~? 4, 5 5~5 6 , 1 65 , 1 6 , 1 7 5~1 8J
Eth| cal | s sues 4 6~4 7 , 66, 1 0?~1 0J , 1 J
|od and Orug Adm| n| st rat|on ( |OA)
Corrupt|on | n 40, 4, 1 77
Cut s A/ T Oose 1 1 4~1 1 6, 1 ? 4
Orug regul at |on J~4
Recommends A/T Ior heal thy peopl e 1 1 7~1 J
ReIu sal to regul ate poppers 4 0 , 1 7 7
1 ? |O| SON bY |RE SC R| | T| ON. THE AZ T STORY
Gay Hen' s Hea| th Cr| s | s [ GHHC ) 7 0, 8 7
Genoc| de 1 0, T ? ?
H| V hypothes| s , cr| t| que oI 7~8, 1 4J~1 6
Oebate | n Sc| ence 1 7J
E vo| ut |onary argument aga| n st [ Sonnabend) 1 6J
' H| V | nIect|on' [ ant| bod| es) , prognos| s Ior 4 8~5 8, T 61 ~
1 6? , T 8?
| nt ravenous dr ug u sers T 6 , T 7 8~T 7
K| nases 1 7 0~1 7 1
Koch ' s |ostu | ates 1 44~T 4 5 , 1 5 7 , T 61 ~1 6?
Nat |ona| Gay R| ght s Advocates [ NGRA ) , | aw su| t
aga| nst N| H and |OA T
Nat |ona| | nst| tute oI A| | erg| es and | nIect| ous O| seases
[ N| A| O) 8 7 , 0~ 1 , 1 ? J~1 ? 4 , 1 ? 7~T ? 8 , 1 5 5
New York b| ood Center Study 5 6~5 7
Nude m| ce stud| es 1 4 , T 5 5 , 1 5 8, T 60 , 1 6 7
|~? 4 ant | gen test T 8, 64, 67 , 1 ? 7 , 1 J 0~1 J ? , T J 5 , T 64~
T 65
|eop| e n| th A| OS Coa| | t|on [ |nAC ) 5 ~6 J
|hase | | Tr| a| s T J~? 0, ? 5~4 7 , 7 T , 88, T J 0, T J , T 7 ?
Unb| | nd| ng oI J 0~J ? , 66
|h| |osophy. AZ T ? ?~? J , 7 ?~7 J
|h| |osophy: Recovery ? J~? 4
|oppers [ n| t r| te | nha| ant s) 4 0 , 1 7 5 , T 7 7~1 7 8 , T 8 1
| roect | nIorm ? 6 , 6 5 , 8 7
R| sk~A| OS hypothes| s [ Ouesberg) T 6
Stockho| m abst ract s ? 0~? 1 , 68 , 7 1
Su rv| va| Study 1 7 , ? ? , 7 1 ~8 6 , 8 8~8 , 1 J 0
Tox| c| ty oI AZ T T 1 ~T ? , ? 0, ? 5 , 44~46, 4~T 0 J , T T 4,
1 1 8, 1 J 7 , 1 7 0~T 7 ?
Anem| a 44~4 6 ,
Cancer, potent| a| to cause 44, 4~1 00, T 04~T T J , 1 T 5 ,
T T 8, T J 4~T J 5 , 1 J 8
Ch ron| c vs. acute 7~ , 1 1 5 , 1 T 8~T 1 , T J 7
Huscu| ar at rophy 1 00~1 0 ? , 1 J 6~T J 7
Hutagenes| s 5
Tox| co| og| c mode| oI A| OS cau sat|on T 6~1 7 0, T 7 5 , 1 8 J
Venerea| d| seases 5 5 , T 80~T 8 T
Veterans Adm| n| st rat|on Study
1
? 8 1 J T ~1 J ?
PISON BY PRESCRION:
TH AT S'RY
1s is the story of a toxic drug, with no scientically proven benefts,
which is being given to tens of thousands of people, including many
who are perfectly healthy. It is a story of collusion among corrupt
government offcials, incompetent researchers, and an unscrupulous
pharmaceutical company.
John Lauritsen has been active in the gay movement since the time
of the Stonewall Rbellion. He is co-author of The Earl Homosexual
Rights Movement (1864-1935) and Death Rush: Popper and AIDS. A
survey research analyst by profession, his investigative journalism in
to important aspects of the AIDS crisis has won an international
reputation.
"John Lauritsen's book is a masterpiece of critical, scientifc
jouralism-a must for anyone faced with a diagnosis of HIV-antibody
positive, 'ARC,' or 'AIDS.' He deserves a Pulitzer Prize."
-Frank Buianouckas, Professor ofMathematics
"I do not consider any prson well-informed about AIDS unless he has
followed John Lauritsen's incisive reporting."
-Michael Callen, founding member
People With AIDS Coalition,
Ne Trk Community Research Initiative
"It is geod fmally to see in print some hard news of what actually
transpired, rather than the shoddy stuff that passes for journalism
elsewhere.' '
4
Har Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biolog
' ' John Lauritsen is one of the heroes of the epidemic. He is not only
a top-notch investigative reporter. In his own way he is also a scientist.' '
-N. S. Lehran, M. D. , Clinical Directr
(Retired), Kingsbor Psychiatric Centr
' ' John Lauritsen is a tenacious, consistently accurate, and scholarly
researcher. He cares enough to put himself on the fring line, an unen
viable position.' '
-Gar Null, health columnist
' 'AZT is incompatible with life.' '
-Joseph Sonnabend, MRCP AIDS researcher
ISBN 0-943742-06-4 ASKLEPIOS $1 2