| ||||||
 |  |
|  | | | |
| Farber | Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can he attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight . And when it comes to Africa, he agrees with those who argue that AIDS in Africa is best understood as an umbrella term for a number of old diseases, formerly known by other names, that currently do not command high rates of international aid. The money spent on antiretroviral drugs would be better spent on sanitation and improving access to safe drinking water (the absence of which kills 1.4 million children a year). |
| Gallo | Farber states “Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight.” This is merely Duesberg's opinion, for which there is not a shred of evidence. The evidence presented or referenced in this document demonstrates that Duesberg is wrong. Does Farber, in fact, disagree with Duesberg? In a recent widely circulated email, she states that her Harper's article “does not, for example, say that all AIDS drugs are ghastly, or worthless. In each article (in the past) where I have addressed HAART I have included, clearly, the fact that the regimens have absolutely helped people who are very sick.” Or does she simply disagree with herself? |
| RA | It is merely the opinion of Gallo et al that Duesberg is wrong in his claim that 75% of AIDS cases in the west can be attributed to drug toxicity because their evidence does not challenge this assertion. It is widely accepted today that Grade 4 Events are more common than AIDS events among those on ARVs, and that the risk of death associated with these events is high. We cannot say whether these people would have progressed to AIDS and died without ARVs as there are no studies to prove this. Studies generally focus on surrogate markers such as CD4 cell counts and ‘Viral Load’ rather than clinical endpoints. Few study, much less recognize, the existence of those who reject ARVs and have remain healthy for up to twenty years, although the term LTNP (Long Term Non-Progressor) has been coined for them. One recent study showed an increase in the death rate of HIV-positive patients from liver disease, although this was masked by the increasing diagnosis of people with healthier immune systems [1]. Another showed that HAART was associated with liver fibrosis, particularly the drug Nevirapine [2]. The increasing mortality from liver disease has been noticed for some time among people taking HAART [3]. Liver disease is an important indicator of drug effects because none of the 30 or so AIDS-defining diseases target the liver so there is confusion between HIV or AIDS drugs as the cause. Only Celia Farber can truly answer the second assertion, however note that not all ARVs are equal. In the past she has reported that some HAART regimens are useful to the very sick because of their broad antiviral, antimicrobial and even antioxidant effects. This does not mean HAART is beneficial for life or that it extends survival in the HIV positive or AIDS patients. Antibiotics and chemotherapy may well be beneficial for short term use but this does not mean they should or can be taken for an entire lifetime. In contrast Farber (along with many others, including many in the mainstream) has been quite clear that AZT monotherapy, the side effects of which are known to mimic AIDS, was deadly. There are no longterm survivors who remained on AZT. Please see Celia Farber, "Disease, Drugs, Denial," New York Press, June 22, 2005 at altheal.org/toxicity/drugsdenial.htm. |
| Refs. |
|