AIDS Conspiracy - Just A Theory

by John S. James

AIDS CONSPIRACY - JUST A THEORY?

by John S. James<br> for SF Sentinel<br> Copyright 1986 by John S. James;<br> permission granted for non-commercial use.

We keep hearing more today about AIDS conspiracy theories. While this writer finds problems with most of the germ warfare scenarios, the other kind of allegation - severe and perhaps deliberate mismanagement of the public-health response to the epidemic - is hard to refute.

The evidence supports an urgent call for action by physicians, scientists, AIDS organizations, church and civic groups, and others. For the real value of a conspiracy theory is to wake us up to today's holocaust and to augment ongoing efforts to save lives.

This article looks briefly at the germ warfare theories, and then examines in depth the unconscionable neglect and mismanagement of AIDS treatment research. Related topics, such as the swine flu theory, official neglect or mismanagement of prevention, education and patient support efforts, or the drastic cutbacks in Federal support for public health, are beyond our scope here.

GERM WARFARE THEORIES

These theories view AIDS as a weapon, developed by someone's germ warfare experiments and released accidentally or deliberately. Proponents have done an excellent job of collecting background information on germ warfare and how it may relate to AIDS. Rather than reviewing this information in detail, we will tell you where to obtain it for yourself (1). There are problems with the germ warfare theory. Almost all the evidence supporting it concerns only the possibility that germ warfare may have happened, not whether it actually did. The key technical issue is whether anyone knew enough to have created the AIDS virus.

The hardest task in generating a new human disease would be to get it spread as an epidemic. It would be easier to concoct a disease for delivery to the battlefield, to kill people there and then die out. It would be even easier to start an epidemic with an existing disease, which can already spread from one individual to another - the hardest thing for a disease to do. But creating the AIDS virus and making sure it worked would have taken many human experiments which would have killed the people involved. Every test would have taken months or years because of the long incubation period. Bureaucrats would be afraid to approve a project that would kill human subjects. It's hard to believe that an effort of this scale could have been accomplished by a small group without management authorization.

The other problem with the germ warfare theory is that it doesn't lead us to any productive action now. Even if true, it would be almost impossible to prove. Even if proved, we could only punish the guilty, not save lives.

The germ warfare theory, then, distracts from a better use of our energies. There is another possible conspiracy which, if proved, could wake people up from a terrible silence and neglect which now prevails.

MISMANAGEMENT OR SABOTAGE OF TREATMENT RESEARCH

This writer's previous articles have documented an appalling consistency of neglected treatment opportunities, leads not followed up, and lack of priority on saving lives. We don't have the smoking gun - proof of public policy made for the deliberate purpose of letting people die. But there is no excuse for continuing to leave treatment research to "the experts", without independent monitoring and overview. The experts are focused on their own specialties and constrained in many ways by those who control their funding, who have agendas of their own. When we look at some specifics to follow, keep in mind these general patterns, which prevail almost without exception: * The only AIDS treatment research seriously pursued by established institutions concerns options which will not be widely available to physicians for a long time, at least a year and probably several years.

(Many developments in conventional treatments for opportunistic infections do become available sooner, but these do not address the underlying condition of AIDS, and do little to change the ultimate outcome.)

* Even the superstars of AIDS research (let alone the unknowns) must continually plead for money to keep their work alive. They are kept on short leashes. They therefore do not criticize what is going on, but stick to their own specialties; they act only under guidelines with prior institutional approval. Suppliers who sell drugs or equipment to doctors know that in any field there are only a handful of leaders, and thousands more who follow the prevailing conventional wisdom. These followers do not evaluate new treatments on their merits. And in today's science and medicine, the leaders are those able to bring big money into their institutions. They remain leaders only so long as they remain acceptable to the political forces which control that money.

* AIDS organizations have done excellent work in prevention, education, and support. But they have neglected to monitor what is going on in treatment research. In leaving the research to the experts, then have contented themselves with the image of brilliant scientists working day and night to find a cure.

The result? No one is watching. There is unbelievable mismanagement which could never have been so bad under an informed public.

THE SQUANDERED TREATMENTS

Here are some of the ignored opportunities and mismanaged treatments that have been described in depth in earlier installments of this column:

* BHT has proved effective against every lipid-coated virus tested, both IN VITRO (in a laboratory dish) and IN VIVO (in animals or humans). The AIDS virus is lipid coated, but no one has tested BHT with AIDS IN VITRO or IN VIVO, and we know of no institutional plans or effort to do any such test.

We aren't claiming that BHT necessarily works for treating AIDS or ARC. But when so much evidence suggests that it might, why is there no institutional interest in finding out? This case is one of many which shows that U.S. public policy treats the AIDS epidemic as less than an emergency.

* AL 721 shows considerable promise as both an antiviral and immune enhancer; its action is different from other drugs and thus doesn't completely fit the above categories. Since AL 721 is composed entirely of ingredients found in food, and appears to be completely safe, it should have been tested immediately. But AL 721 has been withheld from physicians pending proof of effectiveness. It took most of a year just to start the first preliminary test on a handful of subjects, and it may take years more before physicians are allowed to use their professional judgement on trying AL 721 for their patients.

* AZT may be the best AIDS treatment to date, although it may have serious side effects. We hereby publish - apparently for the first time anywhere - the fact that AZT has a hidden history, blacked out of all current scientific and popular articles about it. Eight years ago several published papers described its antiviral effects, and named the same mode of antiviral action being discussed today. Today's work represents little scientific advance over eight years ago; it only adds the performance of obvious tests with the AIDS virus and with AIDS/ARC patients.

The public believes that Burroughs-Wellcome developed AZT; instead what the company did was to keep everyone else away by buying up the worldwide patent rights, and the world supply of the key ingredient used in its manufacture. (The company deserves credit, however, for bringing the compound to public attention; otherwise, it might have been lost.) The serious ethical concerns with the conduct of the current clinical trials on AZT have been documented elsewhere (2).

* Intravenous gamma globulin has shown good results in treating pneumocystis and other opportunistic infections - despite the paradox that the patients already had gamma globulin levels which were too high. Gamma globulin infusion should be considered for toxoplasmosis, a brain infection which is becoming more prevalent and is hard to treat with drugs now employed. Doctors can use gamma globulin routinely - its intended use is for immune deficiencies other that AIDS - but only a handful of AIDS or ARC patients have received it. Apparently, no one has promoted it to doctors; the manufacturer is prohibited from doing so because its use for AIDS/ARC is not officially approved. Obtaining such approval would take much time and money.

* Natural therapies - ranging from well-known ones like vitamin C and garlic to newer botanicals like shiitake and chlorella - clearly deserve attention. But they have been almost completely ignored by institutional AIDS research.

By contrast, some natural remedies for other conditions - such as the herb feverfew for preventing some migraine headaches - have been rigorously tested in patients by simple double-blind trials, and are now known to work. It would be ethically and scientifically justified to test natural remedies in random double-blind trials, with patients who also received all standard medical treatments recommended by their physicians.

We can get solid answers about natural remedies, but to get them fast requires financial and policy support for doctors and scientists who can do the work. In the U.S., such support has been virtually nonexistent. (The study of feverfew and headaches was done in England.)

RUMORS OF WORSE

We have heard credible, but unconfirmed reports of worse mismanagement. We are publishing these reports so that others who have additional information can help us confirm or disprove them.

* Several years ago, a government committee of scientists reviewing research grants may have been ordered to not fund any AIDS research, as Congress was under pressure from a fundamentalist campaign. The scientists reportedly complied. Anyone with specific information, especially the names and dates that would identify specific files for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, should contact this writer (3). It is important to put the facts on the record to wake people up to the more subtle forms of sabotage probably happening now.

* In 1985, a disastrous study of the drug suramin is generally agreed to have killed several people. Now this study is being used to impede further research by denying AIDS/ARC patients and their physicians access to other experimental treatments.

Yet, a number of persons close to the suramin trials believe that the deaths and other damage stemmed from dosage and other errors in how these tests were conducted - errors that were preventable based on previously available information. (The doses and other procedures were set centrally, not by the individual doctors or hospitals which ran the trials.)

We need more information. The big concern is to prevent this unfortunate event from causing thousands of additional deaths by impeding AIDS treatment research now and in the future. * We are investigating reports of antivirals virtually unknown in this country. U.S. doctors were reportedly denied permission to test one of them, although other treatments like HPA-23, with less medical merit but widely publicized (due to Rock Hudson's involvement), were quickly approved.

SUMMARY

The mismanagement of AIDS treatment research is far worse than the public - or even AIDS experts - realize. The incidents we have cited appear to be only the tip of an iceberg. We must have independent analyses of treatment research and related policy issues and decisions. The official experts are too close to their own specialties and overly dependent on the continued good graces of funding sources to do this job for us. AIDS activists and organizations who have avoided treatment research because they don't have a scientific background, should realize that they don't need to be experts because the most important need is for organizing. Physicians and scientists already have pieces of the information, and they need someone they can talk to who can put the pieces together and let people know what is going on. Non-scientists can fairly easily grasp treatment-research issues; these don't require an extensive background in biology or medicine.

For several months this writer has published reports of potentially life-saving treatments that have been ignored or grossly mismanaged; no one has yet found any errors in this reporting. What is most unbelievable is that no one else has been bringing out this information. With thousands dead, millions of people affected, and thousands of doctors, scientists and journalists involved, there has been a conspiracy of silence around the central issues of AIDS treatment research.

The consistent, severe mismanagement of this research will stop when doctors, scientists, journalists, and organizers stop passing the buck to other experts, and begin to inform one another and the public.

FOOTNOTES

(1) For background on the germ warfare theory, obtain the AIDS radio tapes from the Committee to Stop the Moral Majority and Fascism, 495 Ellis St. #1271, San Francisco, CA 94102. For information, contact Paul Bernardino, (415) 673-4609.

(2) On the ethical issues underlying the current AZT trials, see the article in DISCOVER magazine, August 1986. On the favored treatment of the late Roy Cohn, who apparently used political influence to get AZT when it was denied to others, see several syndicated Jack Anderson columns in July and August, 1986.

(3) Anyone with information about AIDS treatments and research can contact this writer: John S. James, P.O Box 486, Santa Cruz, CA 95061, or phone (408) 479-9296. You may remain anonymous.

***********************************

This article is the tenth installment in the series, "AIDS Treatment Research", by John S. James.

AIDS Treatment Research is published every other Thursday. It appears in the SAN FRANCISCO SENTINEL, and will be available to other newspapers by syndication. It covers alternative and experimental AIDS treatments.

Periodicals can subscribe to AIDS TREATMENT RESEARCH for $20. per quarter (7 issues); $25. outside North America air mail. This price includes the right to one-time, non-exclusive publication, within 60 days of when you receive the article. Most articles are 1000 to 1500 words; some are longer. Individuals and organizations can subscribe at the same rate.

To subscribe, send $20. to John S. James, P.O. Box 640332, San Francisco, CA 94164. Subscribers will also receive the last three months' back issues at no extra charge.

AIDS Treatment Research is also available online. Permission is hereby granted to upload this article to any online system, provided that no change is made to the text. However, you may add your comments to the beginning or end of this file.