| ||||||
 |  |
|  | | | |
| Farber | Joyce Ann Hafford was thirty-three years old and had always been healthy…Hafford was on the drug regimen for thirty-eight days…[on] July 25, Hafford was summoned back to the hospital after her lab reports from nine days earlier were finally reviewed. She was admitted to the hospital's ICU with “acute and subacute necrosis of the liver, secondary to drug toxicity, acute renal failure, anemia, septicemia, premature separation of the placenta,” and threatened “premature labor.” She was finally taken off the drugs but was already losing consciousness.Hafford's baby, Sterling, was delivered by C-section on July 29, and she remained conscious long enough not to hold him but at least to see him and learn that she'd had a boy…In the early morning hours of August 1, Rubbie and her mother got a call to come to the hospital, because doctors had lost Hafford's pulse. Jermal was sleeping, and Rubbie woke her own daughter and instructed her not to tell Jermal anything yet. They went to the hospital, and had been there about ten minutes when Joyce Ann died. |
| Gallo | Farber describes the death of one patient and implies this is relevant to the science of HIV. To try to get readers to conclude that an ARV related death can be generalised to conclude that the risks of ARVs outweigh their benefits is misleading and unscientific. HIV is a life-threatening condition. The drugs used to treat it are imperfect but have been shown beyond reasonable doubt in numerous clinical trials and analyses of large numbers of patients in real-world settings (operational cohorts) to reduce the risk of illness and death. They are associated with side-effects. The same scenario applies to chemotherapy for cancer; patients take drugs that cause nausea, vomiting, hair-loss etc, because to do so is preferable to dying from cancer. Clinical trials, or meta-analyses of clinical trials, have demonstrated direct clinical benefits, i.e. fewer AIDS-related illnesses or deaths, for a number of ARVs, including AZT6, lamivudine7, didanosine8 , stavudine9, nevirapine10 , efavirenz11 and others. As ARVs began prolonging the lives and reducing the illnesses of people with HIV, it became the standard of care. In recent clinical trials the control group has to be given this standard of care for ethical reasons. Consequently progression to AIDS or death is unusual in recent clinical trials. Therefore scientists use what are called surrogate markers, CD4 and viral load counts, to determine drug efficacy. These surrogate markers are highly correlated with disease progression. 12 A meta-analysis of ARV trials has demonstrated that they have a profound effect on reducing progression to AIDS or death. 13 Furthermore, in practice, ARVs have been shown to reduce illness and deaths in industrialised and developing countries around the world irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, age and recreational drug use. We have included a sample of these in the endnotes. 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 |
| Farber | First of all, Joyce Ann Hafford was not a “patient”, she was a healthy pregnant woman who once tested positive on an HIV test, before she was unceremoniously killed. I didn’t “imply” anything by describing her death–I described her death, as it happened. I wasn’t “trying’ to “get readers to conclude” anything on the tortured scoreboard of ARV treatment choices that TAC et al believe is the only possible reason for reportage. I am not a treatment advocate. I don't work for TAC, and I don't work for the AIDS industry. I told the story because it happened. I felt the story said something about the current state of HIV culture, which has seemingly lost sight of the goal not to kill the patient. To date, no remorse has been expressed to Hafford's family from any of those responsible for her death, and no compensation has been offered. The only additional shock the family could possibly receive is to now learn that international AIDS "treatment activists" have declared Joyce Ann's death not "relevant to the science of HIV." That statement is sociopathic–bereft of all empathy. This is what I have long suspected AIDS treatment activists to be and this is what they say, in their own words, when given a chance to say something about this tragic death. Here, by contrast, is what Joyce Ann's sister, Rubbie King, said, in a letter to Harpers: "I miss her every day. I have not visited her grave or put flowers on it since we laid her to rest on August 6, 2003. The pain is so deep. Almost three years later, just thinking of her brings tears to my eyes. She was an incredible person, not a lab rat." |
| RA | The death of a single person in a clinical trial should be cause for concern, not for a cover-up. The death of Joyce Ann Hafford is not more or less important than the deaths of women and babies in the Uganda trials of the same drug but due to the poor management of that trial, and because these women are in a poor country far away, they remain anonymous. If known, their tragedies would be just as sad as the death of Hafford. |
| Refs. |
|
| RK | To Whom It May Concern: My name is Rubbie N. King. I am the sister of Joyce Ann Hafford, now deceased. I am forever grateful to Harper’s Magazine and the writer, Celia Farber for the article in the March, 2006 story, “Out of Control, AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.” In early April, my sister was diagnosed HIV positive. She learned of this diagnosis in the early stages of her pregnancy. The opportunity to minimize or stop the transmission of the disease to her unborn baby was presented by her physician. She agreed to engage in the clinical trial study, PACTG 1022. Her therapy included Viramune (Nevirapine) and Combivir. From the early onset, I was concerned about the medications because there were no warnings with the Viramune. In addition to the unaccounted for warnings, when she began taking the drug, she experienced an allergic reaction almost immediately. She phoned her doctor. It was never suggested to her to stop taking the medicine. The idiots took her off the drugs when she was in life threatening danger. Unfortunately for her, it was too late. My sister delivered a 4 lb. 8 oz. baby boy. One she named while she carried him in the womb. She was the mother of an older son, who was then 13 years of age. She died three days later from the poison prescribed to her from the professionals who know medicine best. She never held her son. Her oldest son lost his best friend and the only mother he would ever have. A group of scientist and doctors who hide behind the shield of the NIH, government immunity and the other radicals that decide that they have more power than God were responsible for the underreporting of the deaths related to the Uganda study. This underreporting was the means by which the federal government would pour more funds into the study of AIDS. What I later learned, Boehringer Ingelheim and a few of the other doctors, employees of the NIH, made deals to hide the truth about the toxicities of Nevirapine and AZT. They received millions of dollars to lie (withhold information) to the FDA and the American public. My sister’s life meant nothing. In fact, my sister was just another single black guinea pig, whose life was deduced to nothing more than a “oops, not much we can do about dumb docs,” a quote from Ed Tramont, Director of the NIH. While this hit home for my family, I am left raising her two children, because what happened to her was no more than a “simple mistake” according to Tramont. It is the attitudes of the people like Robert Gallo MD, Nathan Geffen, Gregg Gonsalves, Richard Jefferys, Daniel R. Kuritzkes MD, Bruce Mirken, John P. Moore PhD, Jeffrey T. Safrit PhD and others like these people who misconstrue fact with fiction in that your goal is to minimize the importance of life and the quality of it. Medical science has not found the cure for the common cold. How in the hell can you refute the science that creates controversy as to the truth about AIDS and the HIV Virus. Science as we’ve all learned is not exact. This is why research is continued; findings are reported. While its ok to disagree, it is equally important to look at the whole picture absent the almighty dollar. It is critical that all information, good, bad, or indifferent be reported so that it sparks more research to answer the how and why. Money cannot be the motivator behind what gets reported and what doesn’t. The Bible says, the love of money is the root of all evil. It is heart breaking to have lost my sister at the tender age of 33. I miss her every day. I have not visited her grave or put flowers on it since we laid her to rest August 6, 2003. The pain is so deep. Almost three years later, just thinking of her brings tears to my eyes. She was an incredible person, not a lab rat. I am appalled and outraged at the attack Celia and Harper’s Magazine received because of an article. I sense that there was a bit of truth reported based upon the need to rebut the story and to discredit Dr. Duesberg. Nothing sparks hatred more than truth, perhaps more dumb docs. My sister was robbed of her life. Some quack doctors played God. Sterling will never know what a wonderful Mom he had. Sterling was robbed of the love only his mother could have showered on him. Jermal, her oldest son works even harder in school to make the memory of his Mom meaningful. He’s excelling and doing well. His mother would have been so proud. But you no nonsense “AIDS researchers” robbed her of that too. To Celia and Harper’s thank you. Thank you for caring enough to tell the truth. Thank you for dignity and respect. My family and I appreciate you bringing this to light. This story was not fiction. It was about a real person. It was about my friend, my confidant, my sister, Joyce Ann Hafford. Sincerely, Rubbie |