|
SCIENCE
FICTION By
Celia Farber Gear
Magazine March 2000
It's telling, and perfectly
symbolic that when AIDS researcher David Ho's face appeared on the cover
of Time as Man of the Year, 1996, you couldn't see his eyes. Instead, a
colorful swirl meant to represent HIV filled his glasses. George Orwell
used precisely this image -- a man whose eyes are gone, whose glasses have
been filled with the refracting light of his ideology -- to convey the
triumph of politics over truth in his famous essay Politics and the
English Language. Ho, the then newly appointed
director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York, was
suddenly catapulted to a degree of fame that no other AIDS researcher had
ever attained, and gave him an oracular power over the press and the AIDS
community. The relentlessly driven son of Chinese immigrants, he was a man
singularly obsessed with HIV, and his vision was to attack it with a
ferocity never before imagined -- to bomb it with not one drug, or two,
but a literal hail. He popularized and largely pioneered the idea that
would make such pharmaceutical bombing seem rational -- that HIV, far from
being the cryptic, latent, quiet virus most researchers thought it was --
was in fact "replicating furiously," from the very moment of
infection. The immune system, he claimed, fought back valiantly, mass
producing immune system cells in an effort to defend itself, but in the
end, the virus would win the battle, and the immune system would collapse. The only rational attack
therefore, was to begin treatment as early as possible, to defeat the
virus. He was a man of simple concepts, and the one that would alter
history went like this: hit hard, hit early. Ho's seductive experiment,
which spread to newspapers around the world before it was ever completed,
was to knock back HIV to the point of being "undetectable," then
take the patients off the "cocktail" of drugs, with HIV,
hopefully, banished for good. His recipe for a cure, a word that was
heavily implied if semantically avoided, was to create a blitzkrieg of
chemicals -- a mixture of old AIDS drugs like AZT with the new class of
drugs waiting in the pipeline called "protease inhibitors" -- to
annihilate HIV in the bloodstream. Protease inhibitors had been researched
since the early 90s by the major drug companies, several of which came
close to abandoning the effort because the drugs did not work against HIV. But Ho was convinced that
his new approach of mixing several drugs would work where no single drug
had succeeded, and that curing AIDS was a simple matter of eradicating
HIV. Magazines and newspapers
took Ho's central metaphor and reprinted it without a second thought: AIDS
is like a full sink with the drain open; the water pours in from the tap
at a slightly slower rate than it drains away. Eventually, the water --
the T-cells of the immune system -- will drain away enough to cause the
immune collapse known as AIDS. David Ho, Time magazine
gushed, "fundamentally changed the way scientist looked at the AIDS
virus... His pioneering experiments with protease inhibitors helped
clarify how the virus ultimately overwhelms the immune system. "Mathematical models
suggest that patients caught early enough might be virus-free within two
or three years." David Ho, Time concluded,
delivered "...what may be the most important fact about AIDS: it is
not invincible." Based largely on a single
paper -- Ho's 1995 paper -- protease inhibitors received lightening-quick
FDA approval and poured onto the market. The mass media declared AIDS to
be "over," albeit with a question mark floating overhead. A new
euphoria filled the air, and David Ho spawned a multibillion-dollar drug
industry. Amidst the excitement,
something was overlooked. Ho's mathematical model was
wrong. *** The phone rang late one
night and Shawn O'Hearn, 33, a San Francisco HIV prevention worker,
answered it. It was an old friend, a successful dancer who, although he
had tested positive for HIV, had remained in perfect health. Following the
advice of the nation's leading AIDS organizations, he had begun taking a
cocktail of drugs including protease inhibitors, even though he didn't
have any symptoms of disease. Four weeks later, he suffered a stroke. "I'm paralyzed,
Shawn," he told O'Hearn. He'll never dance or even
walk again. This is not a rare story; it
is a common one in the age of AIDS drug cocktails (as the combination
treatments championed by Ho have become known). Such tragedies are seen as
an inevitable "side effect" of a drug regimen so punishing that
an entire surveillance system has been put in place to ensure that people
stick to it. There are computer chips embedded in bottle caps that record
the date and time of each opening. There are beepers, support groups,
buddy systems, observation centers where patients take the drugs while
being watched, and even groups of AIDS professionals who infiltrate
people's social networks to enlist them to help promote and dispense the
drugs. They call it "treatment compliance," and it has largely
replaced Safe Sex as the core social imperative of the AIDS industry. The
goal is to get as many HIV-positive people on the drugs as possible,
whether they are sick or healthy, and to keep them on them, through
debilitating ill effects, which are dismissed as a small price to pay for
the benefit of lowering the amount of virus in the blood. But now, four
years after the initial AIDS cocktail drug hype erupted, the utopian
promise is fast turning into a nightmare. "I started to notice
that more and more friends, young people, were suffering these mysterious
strokes and heart attacks," says O'Hearn, a member of the HIV
Prevention Planning Council in San Francisco. "They are listed as
AIDS deaths. But those are not AIDS deaths, those are drug deaths." San Francisco is a crucible
for the new schism in the AIDS community. The city's AIDS culture has long
been characterized and dominated by the mainstream organizations which
advocate drug regimens for all HIV-positive people. One group that stands in
stark contrast is ACT UP San Francisco. The group has a clientele of about
1,200 people with HIV looking for advice, support, and medical marijuana
to ease their pain. "What is going on?" I ask member David
Pasquarelli. "What are you seeing?" He is quiet for a moment. "Death and
deformity," he says. "Deaths from strokes, heart attacks, and
kidney failure. We've lost probably half a dozen clients from sudden
deaths in the past year. We've also seen at least 30 people that have
distended bellies and hunchbacks from taking the drugs. "I had a guy come in
just last week and he was crying. I said, 'What's wrong?' He said that his
roommate of 10 years had died suddenly, after going on cocktail
therapy." There are facts and figures,
studies and counter-studies, a virtual blizzard of data that could be
arranged to show any number of things. The new AIDS drugs have saved
people's lives: that's one piece of truth. The new AIDS drugs have killed
people: that's another. The new AIDS drugs have damaged and deformed some
people so badly that although they are alive, they wish they were dead. "Everyone keeps saying
these drugs are extending lives and saving lives and we're supposed to
believe it," says Pasquarelli. "I had this woman on the phone
today from HIV Plus magazine and she said, 'Protease inhibitors are
causing people to live longer,' and I said, 'No they're not. Everybody who
is taking protease inhibitors is contributing to one big medical
experiment. And no one knows the outcome of it.'" Pasquarelli's group recently
unearthed a 1997 study by San Francisco Health Department director Mitch
Katz which exposes a shocking statistic which would appear to dispel the
claim that the cocktails have caused AIDS deaths to plummet. Using stored
blood samples and computer analyses, the study, published in the Journal
of AIDS and Human Retrovirology, concluded that new HIV antibody-positive
diagnoses peaked in 1982 in San Francisco -- two years before HIV even had
a name. "There's a big problem
in terms of looking at this as a contagious epidemic," says
Pasquarelli. "HIV positive diagnoses for the past 13 years here have
remained steady at 500 cases a year. People don't look at the chronology
of this, or at the statistics. They just have it in their heads that these
drugs save lives, and that's it." (Katz has since confirmed the group
interpreted his data correctly.) And, Pasquarelli points out,
on a national level, AIDS deaths began dropping at the end of 1994, at
least three years before the drugs hit the market, a fact no one disputes. *** "There is absolutely no
question whatsoever that protease inhibitors have helped people,"
says veteran AIDS doctor Joseph Sonnabend, co-founder of AmFAR, now
practicing in New York's Greenwich Village. "But they've probably
hurt more people than they've helped. That's why it's complicated. The
people for whom benefit has been proven beyond a doubt are really sick
people who would have died without them three years ago. But the target
population for the drug companies are the healthy people, and those people
will almost certainly have their lives shortened by these drugs." It was precisely those
healthy people who were the primary target of David Ho's eradication
campaign. Time enthusiastically exhorted: "HIV-positive patients
would have to start taking the drugs immediately after infection, before
they realize they're sick." Ho's mantra, "Hit hard, hit
early," ushered in a new machismo in AIDS treatment, where people
seemed to measure their own self-worth by how long they could endure the
devastating drugs. "I have personally seen
what was being called the Lazarus effect [where chronically ill people
rise off their deathbeds]," says Dr. Michael Lange, chief of
infectious diseases at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in New York.
"But I would also say that many, many people are being badly harmed
by them. Also, the regimens are so complex and hard to stick with." "In my experience, I
have seen that those who do not take any of these AIDS drugs are the ones
who remain healthy and survive," says German physician Claus
Koehnlein, who recently testified this past December at the trial of a
Montreal woman who refused to give her HIV-positive children cocktail
therapy, and then in a chilling Orwellian scenario, had them taken from
her and placed in a foster home where they are being forced to take the
drugs. "I treat the individual
symptoms -- the whole person, not just the virus. I treat them for
whatever they are suffering from, and that's that. I have not lost a
single patient in seven years and I've never used cocktail therapy." Precisely what it means for
a life to be "saved" is complicated, especially when the patient
was not sick to begin with. As Koehnlein wryly commented, "If you
treat completely healthy people you can claim great therapeutic
success." "The vast majority --
about 75 percent -- of people who go on these drugs are completely
healthy," says Dr. Steven Miles, AIDS researcher and doctor at UCLA
Medical Center. "Large numbers of
people are being inappropriately treated with drugs they don't need. And
their lives are probably being shortened, yes." At Lemuel Shattuck Hospital,
Massachusetts, a review was done on every HIV-positive patient who died at
the hospital between May 1998 and April 1999, and compared to a group of
patients who died in 1991, before drug cocktails were available. Of the 22
"post-cocktail" deaths, half died of liver toxicity from the
drugs, and two more had liver toxicity listed as a secondary cause. The
study concluded that liver toxicity was "now the leading cause of
death among HIV-positive patients at our institution." In other words, allegedly
life-saving AIDS drugs are killing AIDS patients at this particular
hospital. Hospitals around the country
are reporting radical increases in heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and
other complications caused primarily by the drug's interference with the
body's natural ability to metabolize fat. This is also causing the fat
redistribution that leads to humpbacks and huge torso in men, and gigantic
breasts in women. At the same time, fat disappears from the face, arms and
legs, rendering patients stick-like. Holly Melroe, a Registered
Nurse at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, wrote last year in the
Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care that the drug therapies
"may have a greater life-threatening potential than the disease
itself." I spoke to Melroe to see if
she would confirm that statement. "Oh definitely,"
she said. "We are hospitalizing more people now for the side effects
of the drugs, than we are for the infections of AIDS. It's a very
complicated situation." Up to 80 percent of those
patients were found to have dangerously high cholesterol levels, which
have led to heart attacks in many cases. When I comment that it seems
strange for these drugs to continue to be referred to as
"life-saving," she quickly says, "Oh, but they are." The death rate, Melroe
claims, has declined by 80 percent in Minnesota over the last four years. Says Michael Bellefountaine
of ACT UP San Francisco: "People are allowing their bodies to get to
the point where they physically can't handle the pain anymore, because
their neck is being forced downward with these humpbacks. Yet they will
endure it, hoping that the government will pay for, you know, liposuction.
You see plastic surgery ads in the Bay Area Reporter that say, 'Wasting
away? We can make your cheeks look fuller.' "It is absurd. Instead
of telling people to get off the drugs, we tell them to get plastic
surgery! One person told me he feels like his intestines are corroding
from the inside out. These people can't stomach anything. They can't
digest anything. They have internal organ failures. You hear stories of
people who are on their way to work and they just drop dead from a heart
attack. "We are seeing people
who have massive swelling in the face to the point that their eyes, if
they are able to open them, are incredibly sunken. The cheeks and the
forehead are pushed forward. They have these hard, bumpy calcium deposits.
People are bruised, almost raccoon-like around the eyes. They look like
walking skulls." The group runs a medical
marijuana dispensary out of its offices, thereby coming into contact with
scores of people who are on cocktail drugs. They actively
"intervene" and try to convince people to go off the drugs,
citing among other things the fact that they -- the 100-odd members who
adhere to their philosophy -- are all drug free and healthy for several
years. But Bellefountaine says that the fear of HIV is too deeply rooted
in most people. "People are still so afraid of what is going to
happen if they don't take these drugs that they will remain on the
regimens until they literally kill them," he says. Shawn O'Hearn tested
positive for HIV two years ago. He, too, went on a three-drug cocktail
regimen. "I was trying to be a good little boy and make it through
and stay on my regimen. I was taking almost 30 pills a day." Soon his
body was covered in blisters, and he was suffering debilitating nausea. He
quit the drugs after four weeks, and his health returned. "I have many, many
friends on these cocktail regimens," he says, "and some of them
swear by them. But all I know is, I am seeing young people dying of very
weird things that are not AIDS." The new drugs, unlike the
prior generation, AZT, DDI and D4T, are very specific in their ability to
inhibit HIV's crucial protease. DNA and protein are the basics of life,
and protease are what control the proteins, turn them on and off, process
them and so forth. The turning point for the
new drugs came in 1995, when Ho and another scientist, Dr. George Shaw,
co-authored a paper, published in the eminent scientific journal Nature,
in which he detailed his new vision of HIV, AIDS and the immune system. On
the day the paper was published, a press conference was held. The
"new model" was coupled with the new drugs, and a new technology
took center stage -- so-called viral load testing. Rather than focus on
physical symptoms, the new craze was to take the drugs and measure your
viral load (the amount of virus in the blood) and CD4 cells, now
considered a barometer for the immune system's health. The new drug
regimens were supposed to lower the former and raise the latter. The
concept was: beat back the bad guys (HIV-infected cells), and the good
guys (CD4 cells) will win. The central puzzle of HIV
research up until that point had been how the HIV virus could cause AIDS,
when it infected only a trivial number of T-cells -- the cells AIDS
patients were deficient in. As one researcher said, it was a crime scene
with many more bodies than bullets. One leading virologist who
had won tremendous acclaim for having mapped the genetic structure of
retroviruses and had been nominated for the Nobel Prize, Dr. Peter
Duesberg of the University of California-Berkeley, was sufficiently
troubled by this paradox of cell infection that he concluded HIV could not
be the cause of AIDS. For his heretical questioning of the AIDS
establishment, he was condemned, censored in the scientific literature, no
longer funded, and sent into virtual scientific exile. David Ho would never harbor
such thoughts. In fact, his faith in HIV as the singular cause of AIDS was
so deep that he produced buttons which he wore and distributed at an AIDS
conference in 1995 that said "It's the Virus, Stupid" -- a
direct stab at Duesberg. *** Ho is not a mathematician,
but nevertheless he contrived a mathematical model in consultation with
other mathematicians, on which he would base his entire premise. The model
was supposed to demonstrate that HIV killed healthy cells slightly faster
than they were able to replenish themselves, but the math was so dubious
that very few AIDS researchers could grasp it enough to either validate or
reject it. Nobody bothered to try. Instead, it simply floated upward like
a balloon of epiphany, the dawn of a new era. The balloon of hope had many
uses: HIV-positive people could hope for a new lease on life, the drug
companies could sell drugs like never before, and even keep their
customers convinced, through the AIDS care-network itself, that total
compliance with this draconian discipline was the only path to heroic
survival. Miss one pill, the new wisdom held, and HIV, enigmatically, will
"mutate." Ho, whose given name Da-I
translates to "Great One," repeatedly declined to be interviewed
for this story. Those who know him, or have met him, describe him on the
one hand as "a nice guy," and on the other as a man totally
bereft of personality. But whatever his personal characteristics, he
certainly played a pivotal role in not just AIDS history but medical
history. It was at an AIDS science
conference in Florida in the early 90s that Ho, then a virologist of no
particular distinction at UCLA, heard a high-ranking chemist at Abbott
Pharmaceuticals discuss protease inhibitor prototypes. Ho approached the
chemist, Dale Kempf, on an airport check-in line, and told him he had a
theory about "how the AIDS virus worked" and how much more
ferocious it was than anybody realized. "Dale agreed that maybe
we could help each other," Ho later told the Wall Street Journal. By 1993, Abbott had narrowed
its hundreds of prospective compounds down to one, which later became the
most toxic of the licensed protease inhibitors, Norvir. Meanwhile, philanthropist
widow Irene Diamond had fulfilled her late husbands Aaron Diamond's wish
to set up a lavish research lab which would attract some of the best
scientists in the country. "Irene wanted a star," is how Dr.
Steven Miles describes it. She chose the quiet, diminutive David Ho to be
the director of the institute, immediately after meeting him and hearing
about his research. Ho and his colleagues at
Aaron Diamond, Dr. Marty Markowitz, began experimenting with a handful of
patients. They gave them the cocktail therapy, measured their
drug-resistant mutations, and then calculated "how man y virus
particles were churned out each day by infected cells," according to
Michael Waldholz, reporting in the Wall Street Journal. These calculations
led to the infamous math model. The problem is not
restricted to the math model, however -- the very technique that Ho and
Markowitz used to measure and calculate these "virus particles,"
is itself deeply problematic. Is "viral load"
really measuring the amount of virus in one's body? Not according to some
of the scientists who have studied the matter closely. "The only
important question in AIDS is how much infectious virus there is,"
says Harvey Bialy, editor-at-large of the journal Nature Biotechnology.
"Despite all the noise about massive viremia [levels of virus] and
math models coming in from David Ho, the figures remain precisely as Peter
Duesberg published in 1987 when he first critiqued the hypothesis,"
Bialy says. "Only one in 100 T-cells are ever infected, only one in
1,000 are ever making viral proteins, and that corresponds to a tiny
amount of virus present in the blood. Everything else is effectively
neutralized by the immune system. "A viral load of
100,000 corresponds to one or less virus particles, which is the only
medically relevant barometer. That is not enough to do anything. In the
Nature paper, Ho manipulated the picture by using PCR [a technique that
massively amplifies DNA] and passed it off as infectious virus. When I
read it, I said, 'This is fucking nonsense! How do you pass off a
biochemical unit as an infectious particle? This will never fly. But it
flew." Dr. David Rasnick, a chemist
who once worked in diagnostics at Abbott and is an expert on protease
inhibitors, concurs with this view. "'Viral load' is the
most powerful microscope ever developed," he says. "If the only
way you can see something is by using the most powerful microscope, how
clinically relevant can it be? If a person had real viremia you wouldn't
need PCR to see it. Here you're talking about a level of about one virus
particle in a drop of blood! "Here's an example.
When they look for HIV in breast milk, they do 45 cycles of PCR, which is
a 35-trillion-fold amplification, in order to find enough genetic
material. We are at the level of sensitivity of nuclear physics now with
this PCR stuff. And David Ho talks about making HIV 'undetectable?' It
starts out undetectable. That's the whole point. HIV has always been more
or less undetectable. "So they've taken a
number that is next to nothing, and mass multiplied it. But it's still
next to nothing. Just a bunch of numbers that are used to scare people and
make people go on these drugs. "All this stuff about
wanting to get to zero, or to undetectable, is absurd because it implies
that a single particle of HIV is lethal, but it's not. "This is the biological
equivalent of counting bumpers in a junkyard and saying they represent
functional cars." *** In the summer of 1996,
thousands listened to Ho's findings from TV monitors hanging through the
vast conference halls at the International AIDS Conference in Vancouver.
The audience listened with rapt attention as Ho revealed his data: nine
patients, he said, who had been on a combination of drugs including some
of the new protease inhibitors, had "no evidence of the virus in
their bloodstream," after being on the drugs for between 90 and 300
days. Ho calmly repeated his mantra: because of the new drugs, it was
"time to hit HIV, early and hard." "It was just
unadulterated hype. It was preposterous," recalls Dr. Steven Miles.
"It was almost like an instantaneous religion, or a cult, right after
Vancouver. You were either a part of that hit-hard-hit-early religion or
you were not. It split the HIV community." AIDS treatment was in a
depressed state at this time. The results of a devastating study three
years earlier had dashed the long-held belief that AZT could extend life
-- instead, it was shown to shorten life. Many prominent researchers,
deeply alarmed that they had unconsciously given a drug that had done more
harm than good, were abandoning toxic drugs and looking to resolve the
disease by stimulating the immune system instead. But Ho's mathematical model
which "demonstrated" that the virus was "furiously
replicating," made the virus suddenly seem more lethal than ever, and
in the fervor that followed, doctors who advocated being careful and
conservative with drug regimens were seen as foolish pacifists, willfully
surrendering to a vicious enemy. A kind of collective fantasy
formed in the hushed room at the Vancouver conference, as the low-key
scientist unveiled his data, never altering his blank facial expression,
but inspiring a mania with his quiet use of a few new buzzwords:
"eradication," "undetectable." The fantasy was that
the new drugs could eradicate HIV -- get rid of it -- and that once it was
gone, people could stop taking the drugs and live AIDS-free for the rest
of their lives. All agreed that these drugs were not designed for long
term use, that they were way too toxic. Ho cast a powerful spell
over not just his audience, but the world's media, medical community, and
AIDS community. The excitement that emanated from Ho's presentation was
palpable -- it spread like wildfire through the media. Within hours,
people were rushing in to their doctors' offices, begging for
prescriptions. Most of them were healthy. None of them cared about
anything except the new magic word: eradication. "It's not even really a
mathematical model," says Mark Craddock, a mathematician at the
University of Technology-Sydney, referring to Ho's construct. "In my
opinion, it's mathematical junk." Craddock has written several
critiques of Ho's model, and says he cannot comprehend how it was ever
able to gain such momentum. "Ho's equations predict that over the
course of 10 years, an HIV-positive person will produce more particles of
HIV than there are atoms in the universe. There is no way you could make
that much virus." Mathematical modeling of
diseases is a whole area of research unto itself. "It is widely
acknowledged in the mathematical biology community," says Craddock,
"that AIDS has been damn near impossible to mathematically model
properly. No one has succeeded in producing a model that even looks right. "The history of
mathematics is full of things that looked right but turned out to be
wrong. That is why we insist on proof. You have to check every single
detail and make sure it is right. We send a Voyager spacecraft out, and it
arrives within a few minutes of predictions at the planet Neptune twenty
years after it departed. That is because Newton's theory of gravitation
works." An editorial in the February
1998 issue of Nature Medicine by renowned virologist Mario Roederer
pointed out that cocktail therapy does not cause T-cells to increase, but
rather to be redistributed throughout the body -- which is not an
immunological advantage. This had been discovered a year earlier when an
American group of researchers developed a way to "tag" newly
synthesized DNA and isolate T-cell populations. What they found does not
bode well for those who are on cocktail drugs: of three groups --
uninfected people, untreated HIV-positive people, and HIV-positive people
on the drugs -- the T-cells of the ones on the drugs survived the shortest
amount of time. "You don't have to
waste a lot of time on this," says Bialy when I ask him about how and
when Ho's research was refuted in the scientific literature. "The
Roederer piece finished it. Ho is finished. In the scientific world right
now it is firmly established that the model is nonsense." One AIDS researcher and
physician who spoke only on condition of anonymity had this to say about
Ho's theory: "Everybody in the scientific community has known for
years that his HIV model was ludicrously wrong. I remember being at a
conference in Chicago two years ago, and Ho's data was shot to shreds by
one speaker after another. David Ho got up to speak at the end and there
was really nothing he could say." Several researchers
contacted for this piece, even those who had disputed Ho's findings in
print, refused to comment on Ho as a scientist. Others were less intimated
-- or, like Joe Sonnabend, have already been punished for speaking their
mind (Sonnabend has fallen out with two major AIDS organizations he once
worked with) and have nothing left to lose. Sonnabend scowls when I ask
about Ho's math model. "Of course it's wrong," he says
impatiently. "Everybody knows that. It's such way-out bullshit. The
notion of 'eradication' is just total science fiction. Every
retrovirologist knows this. The RNA of retroviruses turns into DNA and
becomes part of us. It's part of our being. You can't ever get rid of
it." I told Sonnabend that I had
heard from researchers -- none of whom would go on the record -- that Ho
had committed what some were calling, at the very least, spurious
research, by withholding a vital finding from the data. In his
experiments, Ho had shown that protease inhibitors, by stopping HIV
allowed healthy CD4 cells to flourish. But what he didn't reveal was that
CD8 cells (which have nothing to do with HIV) also increased. "Yes, he's a
fraud," Sonnabend says, "if a fraud means mediocre
interpretations of the dynamics of T-cell changes in response to therapy.
But, then, who is the fraud? Anybody is capable of having stupid ideas,
but what's unusual is getting them onto the front page of the New York
Times and Time. The real villains are the people in your profession, in my
opinion. The journalists. We have traditionally depended on the press to
protect us from nonsense like this -- not anymore. "Now people who have
feet of clay become oracles thanks to their publicists and the cooperation
of journalists. And the real tragedy is that years have been wasted on
this David Ho eradication hype. What he did was unspeakable. To dangle a
cure in front of such desperate people is the cruelest thing
imaginable." "I heard from a
well-placed source that protease inhibitors were approved by the FDA,
based on Ho's Nature paper," says David Rasnick. "There was
certainly no clinical data that they were effective, and to this day there
is still none." *** The rush to get the new AIDS
drugs on the market caused a near-total disintegration of the FDA drug
approval process. Some of these drugs were approved in a matter of weeks,
a process that normally takes years. But who was going to complain?
Certainly not the recipients of the drugs. They would only complain if the
drugs were not approved fast enough. So protease inhibitors were approved
on small, short trials, in which results were virtually engineered. Data
can be skewed to show anything under such circumstances. Some --
especially AIDS -- drugs these days are tested in the human population --
after they are released. Toward the end of 1997, a
study from Germany showed that almost half of those taking protease
inhibitors had their virus levels increase, not decrease. The authors
wrote: "The success seen in controlled studies is not necessarily
reflected in everyday practice." "These damn things were
released without proper evaluation or testing," says Rasnick, who now
devotes his time to warning people about protease inhibitors.
"Whenever you give a drug, something that is biologically active,
you're going to get some responses. You don't know whether it's going to
be good, neutral or negative. You haven't a clue. That's why previously
the FDA approval process was so laborious. It was to protect people
against these unknowns, these toxicities." A few years before protease
inhibitors came onto the market, Rasnick attended a conference where a
paper authored by a Dr. Paul Saftig, and published in the journal EMBO,
was presented. It had no relationship to AIDS, but nonetheless stayed
vivid in his memory. It was a so-called
"knock-out" experiment, in which scientists totally erase a gene
from an animal, and then gauge what effect it has. The gene is erased from
either a fertilized or non-fertilized egg then implanted, and then the
resulting offspring, if there are any, are studied. "Typically what
happens," says Rasnick, "is that either the animals are born
with absolutely no difference that you detect, or, you don't get any
offspring at all." But this experiment was
highly unusual. In it, scientists removed an aspartyl protease known as
cathepsin D -- one that all humans have -- from the mice. The mice were
all born normal, and for the first three weeks of their lives, appeared to
be thriving. But on the 21st day, every last one of them died. Autopsies showed that the
mice had starved to death. "Their intestines were completely
destroyed," says Rasnick. "Also, they had what the authors
called fulminate loss of T-cells and B-cells. In other words, their immune
systems were shot. "That study was a real
red flag," says Rasnick. "Cathepsin D is the only protease I
know that is absolutely essential for life, so you'd want to stay away
from it. I remember thinking to myself at the time, thank God we are not
working on aspartyl proteases, or making inhibitors for them." When Rasnick began hearing
stories of the chronic diarrhea and wasting syndrome that was among many
problems to afflict people on the new protease inhibitors, he had a
sinking feeling. "I said, 'Oh shit, it's
happening.' You see, there's always crossover. Even though it's not the
target, all of these protease inhibitors also inhibit cathepsin D. The
same aspartyl protease that they knocked out in the mice." "And they're giving
people up to seven grams a day of this stuff. I don't see how anybody can
survive that in the long run. I'd love to see some post-mortems done on
these guys who die on cocktails. I'd like to see what their intestines
look like." Rasnick believes it was a
grave mistake for the FDA ever to approve protease inhibitors for human
use. "I would pull these
protease inhibitors off the market based on the Saftig paper alone." *** In March of last year, a
gathering of the world's leading AIDS researchers convened, as they do
each year, at the elite Chemotherapy of AIDS Conference, known as the
Gordon Conference, in Ventura, California. Nearly half of the 105
people attending were from within the pharmaceutical industry. David Ho
was there, as was Martin Markowitz. Markowitz and Ho received a lot of
publicity for their ongoing study of 27 people on HAART (Highly Active
Antiretroviral Therapy) -- the multi-drug regimen that is now the standard
of care for AIDS patients, both adults and children -- in fact, even
pregnant women. "At last year's
conference, I asked Markowitz if his patients on HAART were doing better,
the same, or worse while on the drugs," says Dr. Rasnick. 'He didn't
say a word. He just stood there. I asked the question three times. This
time I decided not to ask. If his patients had been doing well, I'm sure
he would have let us all know, especially me." Dr. William Cameron, an M.D.
and consultant to the Canadian FDA, "completely demolished the viral
load surrogate marker" as a relevant way to measure health or the
success of treatments, according to Rasnick. He used as an example the
clinical disaster, never reported in the media, of a drug many people were
on years ago called DDI. Over a 12-week study, the drug worked brilliantly
on viral load levels, but shortly thereafter turned out to be virulently
toxic, in fact lethally so. At the highly private conference, where no
press is allowed and attendees are told not to discuss what they hear,
even Ho recanted his central tenant, and said, "Viremia [viral
levels] are not predictive of clinical outcome." "People can have a high
viral load and be healthy and have a low viral load and be sick and
everything in between," says Rasnick. "These guys will admit t
his between themselves, they just don't admit it publicly." Rasnick caught up with
Cameron after his talk. He recounts the conversation. "He said
they're 'living longer' during the era of protease inhibitors, but he said
they 'look like hell.' He said they're wasting away and they just look
like shit. I said, 'Is that because of the drugs?' And he said
'yes.'" *** The AIDS magazine POZ and
others like it are filled with protease inhibitor ads that drastically
contrast with the cruel reality. The ads feature muscular, tanned, and
beautiful people at the peak of their powers: climbing mountains,
sprinting over hurdles, sailing, and generally beaming with life. In reality, three years into
the protease inhibitor craze, most people on cocktail therapy can barely
function. I talked to one of the most well-known protease models, Michael
Weathers, whose handsome face adorns several billboards across America,
and he said that he had not only never taken protease inhibitors, but had
never taken any AIDS drugs. He is perfectly healthy 13 years after
learning he was positive. "They have this rule that they have to use
HIV-positive models for their AIDS drug ads," Weathers comments,
"but they certainly do not use models who are using their drugs. That
would hardly make for effective advertising." The list of side effects
listed by the drug companies themselves in their own ads is so long it
numbers in the hundreds. The toxic effects are so numerous, they have
broken them down into categories. Within each of those body systems, up to
50 specific symptoms are listed. For one of the drugs,
Saquinavir, under "Adverse reactions," are listed:
"intracranial hemorrhage leading to death" and
"pancreatitis leading to death." Leafing through POZ, I read
the fine print that follows every protease ad. In each and every one, it
states that the drugs have killed people. In the advertisement for the
drugs. Yet the accompanying text
warns in parental tones about the importance of staying on the drugs no
matter what. Be smart, one ad for the
Glaxo drug Combivir advises: Without your HIV drugs, there's nothing to
stop the virus from making billions of copies of itself. Next time you're
tempted to skip a dose or two, think again... HIV drugs should be taken on
time, every day. That's the only way known to keep enough of each drug in
your blood at all times to fight HIV. How, I ask Joe Sonnabend,
could all of this hype take place? How could David Ho be made Man of The
Year? How could the eradication theory be extolled? How is it possible if
David Ho's science is as bankrupt as all this? Sonnabend pushes his glasses
up onto his forehead and looks at me almost quizzically. Then he shrugs
slightly. "He had a really good
publicist." *** Ho's publicist was a man
named David Corkery, from the PR firm Fenton Communications. "We took
over to manage the cascade of publicity that ensued after he was made Man
of The Year," says Corkery, flatly refusing to discuss the matter any
further. "David Ho did not create all this," is all he will say,
referring to the hype. I set off in search of
ground zero, a beginning, a place where the tornado started turning. I
call people who work on the inside of the AIDS machine. They all speak --
angrily, but fearfully -- of a pharmaceutical industry that makes its
presence felt to reporters, scientists, doctors, and AIDS activists. As
Dr. Sonnabend put it, "The drug companies are present in some way in
virtually every single moment of my professional career." "It is absolutely
extraordinary," says Dr. Miles, who says he has been on various drug
companies blacklists for saying negative things about their products.
"People don't realize all the myriad ways that doctors benefit from
the drug companies. "For example, let's say
that drug company A likes the message that Dr. C is talking about, they
can give a research grant to Dr. C and because it's listed as a 'research
grant,' people will say, 'Oh well, this is above board,' when in fact it's
nothing more than a glorified under-the-table payment. "Now, let's say that
you are Dr. C, and you have a $250,000 research grant from company A. What
is the likelihood that you are going to say anything bad about their
drugs? Zero. At best you are going to say nothing." Miles has felt the heat of
this situation personally, being one of the few mainstream AIDS doctors
who stood up and resisted the hit-hard-hit-early mania. "Just go to the U.S.
Public Health Service web site. Under federal law they have to disclose
who they have taken money from. It's right there. Some of these doctors
have taken money from 15 to 20 different companies. If 20 companies that
are in the business of making money for drug treatment are giving you
money, can you honestly stand up and say, 'Don't treat!'" Another man, who for years
has worked on the inside of AIDS research, implores me not to print his
name, swearing he will be out of a job immediately if I do. "Look at the media,
that's where it happens," he said. "Look at those earliest
pieces about Ho and the cocktails that ran in the Wall Street Journal.
They are just pure propaganda, pure drug company puff pieces. "And those reporters
won the Pulitzer that year for their AIDS reporting. The pharmaceutical
industry exerts a huge influence on scientists and journalists. "You have to understand
that these AIDS journalists have very close relationships with the drug
companies, with their PR people. That affects how things get reported. I
mean, they fund everything. They fund all the research, first of all.
There is almost no such thing as independent research. All clinical trials
are paid for by the drug companies." He laughs when I express
alarm at this. "My God are you naive! Everybody -- not just David Ho
-- the reporters, the doctors, everybody is part of this system. They're
all part of the same club, and they all play the same game. They all have
the same, big egos. "And nobody --
certainly not the reporters -- is going to stand up and wave their finger
and say, 'This is all a big horrible machine!' You know why? Because
they're all profiting from it. "Every year we go to
these AIDS conferences, and all the professional AIDS-sters come in, all
pumped up. And this is the moment where everybody gets blown. It's just
gross. "Look," he says,
"if it were not for the profit motive, there would be no incentive
for drug companies to make drugs. Drugs come from drug companies. They
don't come from anywhere else. It's an industry, okay? It's just another
industry." Celia
Farber has written on the issues and controversies surrounding HIV,
AZT, and AIDS for more than a decade. She is a regular contributor to
Esquire, Spin, USA Today, and Gear, among other U.S. publications. She is
the mother of one son and resides with her family in New York City. |