U2 FAQ

Question:

Oh, Fred, Fred, Fred, are you sick or what? Haven’t you got anything better to do? Get a life, Fred, and stop all this frustration your showing. Yours, R

Randolph, You spent an entire Sunday out of your miserable life in "Italy" posting just this type of wonderfully informative and HIV-relevant effluence. What an incisive, yet scientific contribution to those who are seeking information with the looming disaster in the drug business. Isn’t it amazing how much effort is being spent to silence ANY AND ALL dissent that has been posted on this board? What the hell is going on here? Rudolph, do you work for the drug companies? The ACTUP drug weenies? Are you spending all your time piling on these useless posts just to smokescreen the information on this board or wash it out with your feeble-minded meanderings? You admit not knowing anything about HIV, so why are you even here? Why is Carter posting this kind of crap in addition to his mindless peckings which he thinks of as "science"? Why are you guys spending so much time posting all these "fillers"? Do you want everyone to go away? To not see the discussions on this board that have been extremely controversial and embarassing to the drug and AIDS industry? I think that someone like you would fit right in with an effort directed at shutting down this unmoderated board right at a time when the drug companies are about to start their campaign to get the rest of the 600,000 Americans on the poison cocktails — and launch their "cure" on the rest of the world. I have reason to suspect that this may be the case — and will be posting some of the evidence very very soon. In the meantime, I guess I will just have to go back and pull all those scientifically revealing and drug-company-embarassing posts about these horrific drug treatments and repost all of them at once so that EVERYONE will know they don’t work and all the dirty laundry and hang it ALL out on this board again. Then you can start over next Sunday. Then I will repost it again and again — as long as it takes — just to make sure it is in everyone’s face and the science is free to anyone who wants it. And the science is what is relevant to treating HIV, and for people to make the informed "choices" that the sick drug activists keep trying to keep in the dark while promising the "cure" if they can "just keep taking these drugs as long as you can then the virus will be wiped out and you will be just as you were before!!!". So thanks, Randolph. You have helped me identify areas where I (we) can be of most help for those who want real information rather than the drool that you, Carter and the many fratricidal "drug activists" slobber all over the AIDS boards. So once we reload ALL the AIDS boards with the painful and embarassing facts (science), then we’ll wait until you are done embarassing yourself, and then we’ll simply repeat the exercise. In fact, I think I will ask blackdog and all the other Contras to join in and exercise our freedom of dissent that seems to be driving so many right up the wall! W. Fred Shaw

Response:

 I would indeed like to know what the people who edit and put out Continuum make.   Nothing. It is a registered charity.

Surely it isn’t against the law to pay employees of a "registered charity" a wage.  Do you really mean that if we examined a financial statement we would find no monies spent for salaries?

Response:

Oh, Fred, Fred, Fred, are you sick or what? Haven’t you got anything better to do? Get a life, Fred, and stop all this frustration your showing. Yours, R – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB? Cruella Myrder Carter certainly seems obsessed, no? Fred this, Fred that, Fred! Fred! Fred! We all wonder, what is with Cruella? Wouldn’t Cruella be better off twisting the science than worrying about what Fred might think or who Continuum might agree with, or for that matter, who might be tempted by the real possibility that DNCB will keep them alive and well? What haunts Cruella so? Is the middle name "Myrder" only now beginning to disturb Cruella? Is Cruella terrified of being unmasked as a terrible fraud and homophobe? Yes, we have seen how Cruella doesn’t hesitate to plagiarize from ancient immunology textbooks — always eager to take credit for the work of others — always feeling entitled to do whatever is needed for the evil tasks at hand. But Cruella’s entire life is plagiarized. A pathological liar with anti-social tendencies, Cruella pretends to be homosexual, but isn’t — concealing an infectious shame. Angry indeed, Cruella’s "activism" is focused on the annihilation of those who brought the plague to him. "I’ll show them…", Cruella whispers to himself. Hiding among their ranks, Cruella becomes the "expert", the ACTUP New York "activist", and hands out the deadly advice willy nilly — all the while sitting back in his wicker chair, waiting to see who bites the dust, as the saying goes. Hope, there’s always hope for Cruella. Soon there will be a cure, or so he thinks, as he ponders the future, and how many more lab rats — using this combination of alternative "medicine" poisons, or that combination of FDA-approved poisons — will need to die before the "Cure" reveals itself.  Yes… The Cure! It lies out there, somewhere. Out in that mass of humanity that so willingly gulps down the sexy-sounding "cocktails", so gullible are they who remember Cruella’s seductive words: "compassionate use", that’s it, this is "compassionate use". Like the other "drug activists", Cruella won’t take the poison until he is sure, absolutely sure, that this is the right "treatment". So another dismal day closes on Cruella, as he takes a moment away from his flailing on the "net", … for a brief moment, Cruella glances above the hypnotic glow of the computer screen in his dark, rancid New York tenement. Cruella notices the picture of Jesus gazing down upon him, and whispers to himself, "yes, any day now… any day… the cure will reveal itself… to ME!". With an evil grin, Cruella returns to the "net", amusing himself with the many tales of horror that even Josef Mengele couldn’t have possibly imagined. Cruella, reading the recent sci.med.aids injury postings, stares at the word "nevirapine", and slowly a maniacal expression betrays him, realizing that there was something quite different in this desperate cry for help. Cruella quickly reaches for the ACTUP HIV/AIDS drug list he always keeps nearby… "Stevens-Johnson Syndrome….hmmm, what is that?", Cruella says out loud, as he leafs through the pages… a few seconds later and with great delight, Cruella reads:    "The main safety concern was that 6 percent of     individuals who received nevirapine experienced     a severe rash (Grade 3 or 4). 6.7 percent of study     participants discontinued from studies in the     presence of rash. The most serious of these were     instances of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious     rash with erupting boils, necrosis of mucous membranes,     and shedding of sheets of skin, along with generalized     symptoms, with a 5 percent fatality rate. Of the 10     persons on the studies who has contracted     Stevens-Johnson syndrome, there were no fatalities.     Some developed the syndrome gradually and in others it     appeared suddenly." Cruella puts down the list, thinking to himself "that’s another drug combo eliminated … I’m just that much closer to the Cure"… and before turning off his computer and going to bed, Cruella reaches up to the shelf below the picture of Jesus and grabs a small bottle in his hand. Holding the bottle up, examining it, Cruella exclaims "those fools! They would never guess what day this is!!!… its not just Friday… no, this is a very special day of every week in my book … the day I apply my DNCB!". Cruella, shrieking with laughter, reaches for the cotton-tipped applicator…

Response:

 I would indeed like to know what the people who edit and put out Continuum make.  

Nothing. It is a registered charity. They manage to produce a first-class publication, every two months, with a combination of volunteer workers, subscriptions, and donations, with some small assistance from other charitable sources. It is a difficult circle to square, according to the editors, and I believe them. The big-hearted American tradition of personal giving is not as well followed in Europe, which expects good causes to receive official backing, so efforts like Continuum’s deserve particular applause. I haven’t seen Carter’s post yet, but his complaint about the cost of the magazine is strange. Possibly more copies are given away than are received by subscription. I can certainly confirm that they are available freely at Continuum meetings and the lectures they organise in London. A sample copy is sent at no expense to all interested parties. Naturally, they must be people of vast integrity, since any moment science might come up with the crucial experiment or finding which convinces them that HIV causes AIDS,

                 ….sure, any moment now…..                                                    following which they will have write one last editorial explaining that they’ve been wrong, and are going to stop publication and all look for other jobs.  Not.

You produce the science, and they’ll produce the apology. I don’t think any of us will be holding our breath for you. If you haven’t managed it in over a decade, when many people believed in it, what chance do you have now, when no sensible person does?  John —   "I can’t find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of Aids… If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury."            Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate, chemist.

Response:

[...] Incidentally, here in Italy I don’t think viral load is used as the major indicator of HIV positivity as yet. ELISA and the Western Blot are the pointers.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Worse and worse. Have you ever heard of Dr Val Turner?  John —   "They have not proven that they have actually detected a unique  exogenous retrovirus. The critical data to support that idea have  not been presented."                   Prof. J Papadimitriou, Univ of W.Australia

Response:

[edit] Have you read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Dr. Peter Duesberg. I think you will find it a very calm and scientific analysis of the HIV=AIDS philosophy. If you find discussions here a little disconnected and sometimes overheated, I think this book will be the perfect antidote. [edit] – Dave Crowe

Yes, Randolph.  And if you are ever stuck in a garage with a running automobile, try a quart of strychnine with a teaspoon of sugar to cover up your cherry-coloroured cheeks.  I’ve seen it work!  They’ll be dissecting maggots out of your blackened corpse within a fortnight. I guarantee it or your money back.   Dr. Peter doesn’t give refunds.  But the dead don’t seem to mind. Good luck and happy reading. Charlie

Response:

In essence a lot of dithering that boils down to… Cruella’s fixation and anti-DNCB crusade is what we call "Treatment Envy": the overwhelming fear that someone diagnosed with "HIV disease" might actually live a healthy life without disease progression through the use of a treatment that is non-toxic, non-mutagenic, cheap, easily available and worst of all: activates the immune system to control the viral replication and OIs without having to resort to the concentration-camp-in-a-pill so temptingly offered as "cocktails" so that the word "poison" doesn’t occur to the intended victim

dithering snipped Provide the evidence for these assertions. I would be delighted to see that DNCB works. But it doesn’t seem to do very much at all except damage the skin. The fundamental underpinnings of the argument for DNCB are immunologically bankrupt. You’re the advocate for this treatment: provide the proof. And in your orgy of insult, you failed to understand the simple question. Why should anyone do any treatment at all if HIV is harmless or non-existent? Clearly, your alignment with John Blackdog is one of convenience and underscores a desire to smear and not determine the truth of the issues at hand. Obviously, your intent has nothing to do with helping anyone with AIDS survive. It has only to do with persisting in making up lies about other people. The bodies do pile higher. But not because of your opinion or mine. Because HIV destroys most people’s immune systems, resulting in the development of AIDS and this winds up killing people far too soon. DNCB is far too weak to stop this even if that is the only treatment a person chooses to do and it isn’t interfered with by horrible plant lectins found in vegetables or some such. Once again, you evade answering the questions posed. You demand the science, make sweeping declarations and puke out more hollow accusations and snotty insults. Why not just dry up and make your case. Frankly, I believe you are simply discrediting yourself and the treatment you so revere for no good reason.                 George M. Carter

Response:

Oh Fred, you have me wrong. I haven’t any medical training, my formal training is in textual and language analysis as well as in education. I am now working as — for want of other words — a computer programmer. I wouldn’t want to demonize you, Fred. I think you do enough damage to yourself already. I merely have a fair knowledge of the majority view of HIV involvement in AIDS, <etc.

Have you read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Dr. Peter Duesberg. I think you will find it a very calm and scientific analysis of the HIV=AIDS philosophy. If you find discussions here a little disconnected and sometimes overheated, I think this book will be the perfect antidote. It is published by Regnery Press from Washington DC in the US. – Dave Crowe

Response:

Carter) writes: Absolutely. People that spread idiotic notions that sway people to not have safer sex in a slick glossy rag that costs 3 quid in the UK and $5 in the US. As well as the price gouging pharmaceutical companies. There is nothing serious or honest about you, John.            George M. Carter

    I would indeed like to know what the people who edit and put out Continuum make.  Naturally, they must be people of vast integrity, since any moment science might come up with the crucial experiment or finding which convinces them that HIV causes AIDS, following which they will have write one last editorial explaining that they’ve been wrong, and are going to stop publication and all look for other jobs.  Not.                                          Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB? Shall I ask them? You are a reader, by your own account, so you know they cover the subject very well, and in their tradition of allowing all participating and serious contributions. They don’t agree editorially with everything they publish. Even Dr Harris has been published there (unfortunately he picked a fight with a real virologist, on the subject of virology, with predictably bloody results). By all means, ask them. It would be interesting to know. And one would have to wonder why anyone would paint a toxic photochemical and cause skin lesions if there is no such thing as HIV?

Yes! Sorry you missed it when you were supposedly doing all your DNCB "research" in the library T-room, but to answer your query "why" someone might apply DNCB to their skin, it is certainly no surprise that it never COULD have occurred to you that people with "HIV disease" might actually want to live! Having observed Cruella’s miserable and vexatious existence, and powers of projection, I can understand quite well why he feels the need to end all this suffering — and, as an extra bonus, be perceived as a selfless "hero", with all the rewards and privileges that come with self-adulation. Cruella’s idea of research is laughable! Science? Cruella don’t need no damn science! Toxic? No problem with eating a pile of DNA chain terminators and microtubule disruptors with an anti-life attitude — certainly excellent cancer drugs all — but dare to get a little speck of poison ivy on the skin — or horror of all horrors, DNCB — and Cruella becomes hysterical, not because of the silly life-sustaining cosmetic challenge, but simply because the itch reminds Cruella of his most recent encounter with crabs. Cruella’s fixation and anti-DNCB crusade is what we call "Treatment Envy": the overwhelming fear that someone diagnosed with "HIV disease" might actually live a healthy life without disease progression through the use of a treatment that is non-toxic, non-mutagenic, cheap, easily available and worst of all: activates the immune system to control the viral replication and OIs without having to resort to the concentration-camp-in-a-pill so temptingly offered as "cocktails" so that the word "poison" doesn’t occur to the intended victim who is distracted with all the conversation regarding his return to work once the cure takes effect. Inevitably, of course, the victim crashes with one or more of the many horrific "adverse events" that, if he is lucky, will simply leave him looking like the chimney sweep for the  Chernobyl reactor, or hobbling down the sidewalk in crippling pain — all the while feeling that he had no one to blame but himself, simply because the "drug activists" of the Cruella Carter ilk misrepresented these "treatments" as politically correct "choices" — a clever way to distance themselves from any feeling of blame or moral responsibility when the corpses began to pile ever so higher — precisely as they did when the Cruellas of the AIDS world brought forth the mother of all AIDS drugs, A-Z-T. While AZT may have been a flop on the cancer circuit, it provided a false sense of security for at least 10 years, as it garnered enough money to make the careers of legions of ethically-challenged drug company researchers masquerading as "scientists". Certainly, this pharmaceutical folly was able to prove its worthiness as an efficient DNA chain terminator — and from the perspective of the self-loathing Cruella-class drug activist, AZT became the finest accomplise any stealthy serial killer could possibly ever wish for. Or if it is harmless?

Seems like the only thing harmful in this group is Cruella’s blithering drool and his debasement of science. Seems like a bit of a logical disconnect.

Cruella slobbers on the laws of logic, neurotically twisting and turning them to even make a pig in a pink dress look like a hot date. Cruella represents the anti-Cure. If Cruella likes a treatment or thinks it is "scientific" in his pedantic view of nature, one must know with absolute certainty that the exact opposite is the truth and such a "treatment" can be expected to induce death or disfigurement at the soonest possible moment. The essence of Cruella Carter is the antithesis of health. They encourage both sides of the harmless/non-existent debate; probably the only actual scientific question left to be answered in "Aids". There is a fellowship between all serious, honest, people looking to end the "Aids" scandal as quickly as possible. And all of us share a profound contempt for the corrupt exploiters of the vulnerable, the lying crooks who profit from the tragedy. And you know who we mean.

As one will soon see, Cruella’s asserts the heroic, yet typically dyslexic contempt for the views of others, always positioning himself as the "activist", ever ready to begin chanting the sound-bite, bumper-sticker slogans that know no compromise. Absolutely. People that spread idiotic notions that sway people to not have safer sex in a slick glossy rag that costs 3 quid in the UK and $5 in the US. As well as the price gouging pharmaceutical companies.

While Cruella startles us with his shopping acuity and instinct for finance, he once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, snapping away at a couple of quid while holding down the restless skirt beneath the prom dress he wears to the AIDS Prom, year after year, while never failing to go home and copulate with the quarterback for Team Glaxo. There is nothing serious or honest about you, John.

As one might well expect, if Cruella is nothing else, he is predictable. Here, we are yet again treated to Cruella’s crudely tuned powers of projection. As Cruella makes his dramatic departure with a twist of the knife, we are reminded of his sincerity, honesty and genuine concern for "saving lives" as an esteemed member of the community of "Treatment Activists" that, collectively, the ancient Chinese would be compelled to assign the illuminating proverb:                Mouth of Buddha, Heart of Snake W. Fred Shaw

Response:

I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB? Shall I ask them? You are a reader, by your own account, so you know they cover the subject very well, and in their tradition of allowing all participating and serious contributions. They don’t agree editorially with everything they publish. Even Dr Harris has been published there (unfortunately he picked a fight with a real virologist, on the subject of virology, with predictably bloody results).

By all means, ask them. It would be interesting to know. And one would have to wonder why anyone would paint a toxic photochemical and cause skin lesions if there is no such thing as HIV? Or if it is harmless? Seems like a bit of a logical disconnect. They encourage both sides of the harmless/non-existent debate; probably the only actual scientific question left to be answered in "Aids". There is a fellowship between all serious, honest, people looking to end the "Aids" scandal as quickly as possible. And all of us share a profound contempt for the corrupt exploiters of the vulnerable, the lying crooks who profit from the tragedy. And you know who we mean.

Absolutely. People that spread idiotic notions that sway people to not have safer sex in a slick glossy rag that costs 3 quid in the UK and $5 in the US. As well as the price gouging pharmaceutical companies. There is nothing serious or honest about you, John.                 George M. Carter

Response:

Another rebuttal to Shaw. No AIDS relevance here. Another personal attack… Mr. Shaw owes me many apologies for these attacks. He claims I am a pathological liar. At this point, Shaw appears to be nothing more than a pathological fantasist. I am not straight. This particular stab in the dark actually gave me and many friends quite a laugh! You’re losing your touch. I don’t have any anonymous accounts. A lot of people just happen to disagree with you about the drugs–you just say no all you want until you’re blue in the face but people will continue to take them. The tactic you take attempting to frighten people away from them is utterly failed. And unfortunately only serves to detract from a more meaningful dialogue on how best to use them for those who need to. And clearly, some people need to. I visited a friend yesterday who I am astonished is still alive after all he’s been through. DNCB activism is bankrupt. Mr. Shaw, you are a nattering nabob of negativism, and I will continue to respond to each of your nonsense allegations as they arise. Now: will you persist in this nonsense? It helps no one. However, it very clearly constitutes harrassment. You are certainly entitled to express your beliefs about DNCB, the drugs etc. I will object to it. But you do not have the right to persist in these ad hominem attacks, smear tactics and slander.                 George M. Carter

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rudolph, you should try your hand at defining exactly what the "integral role in the AIDS syndrome" you had in mind for good ol’ HIV. Seems the little bugger is smarter than thee and its role keeps dodging the best minds in town, so give this one a whirl: how, exactly does this retrovirus, which everyone in the Big League agrees has no "latency period" — how does this persistent strand of RNA cause what we know of as "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", a disease that, pathologically and temporally, clinically manifests quite differently in nearly everyone? Thus, given these stellar insights, together with the reductionist perversions of "science", why would one dare to treat every single person whose clinical presentation is so different — why would one treat everyone infected with this retrobug exactly the same way? (that is, the "standard of care" that is neither "standard" nor "caring", simply permutations on the tired toxic cocktail theme that is aggressively advancing on the population of healthy victims who will be given two free viral load tests and thus two chances to succumb to the murderous "need" to "hit hard and hit early"). Upon achieving all of these goals, perhaps we return to the very beginning of this thread, (which I started by the way), and take another look at Donald Abrams’ reluctance to employ these cocktails in his practice (as opposed to the doctors who do choose to use these unproven drop-dead treatments which are giving the term "practice" a whole new meaning, so Donald deserves credit for something, I just haven’t figured out what that "something" is). W. Fred Shaw Note: Please do not attempt to categorize or demonize me or my views as heresy — leave that to the anti-intellect bottom-feeders who have George M. Carter (Cruella) as their champion, since these anti-scientific cretins can be dispatched rather easily — I am not taking a position one way or another on the HIV causation theory in THIS post. However, I sense that Rudolph has something real to offer in this area of controversy, and since this post reflects his greatest contribution thus far, perhaps he will elaborate and enlighten us on this exact subject.

Oh Fred, you have me wrong. I haven’t any medical training, my formal training is in textual and language analysis as well as in education. I am now working as — for want of other words — a computer programmer. I wouldn’t want to demonize you, Fred. I think you do enough damage to yourself already. I merely have a fair knowledge of the majority view of HIV involvement in AIDS, the proteins it needs for T lymphocite invasion (do you find it a strange coincidence that those people with abnormal fusin never seem to end up with T cell depletion?), the not so nice protein it produces, the correlation between being HIV positive and developing AIDS no matter what methods of treatment are used — we are yet to see the long term benefits of your gaudily expressed "drop-dead treatments", that for many seem to be a success (in at least holding HIV at bay) so far. As to calling your views heresy, well I have to admit, after reading a few interesting posts by you, I got bogged down in the slush you’ve been hurling and this has turned me off reading anything you’ve written that gives me the idea you’re just going to be pouring shit on your tango partner. So if you get on with nice clear expositions of your views I might be able to get back to following what you’ve actually got to say. Oh, tell me Fred, if your genetic make up is exactly the same as anyone else’s? If not, does that make you not human, or should I have a more generic notion of what makes a being human? Do you dispute that HIV has been isolated? or that HIV has been found present in enormous quantities in nearly all people who have what is called AIDS? Unfortunately, I never got to see the original posting relating to Donny Abrams, I merely noted John, himself, was pushing the death drug approach (that I now see you using) and reacted to that. And from the little I’ve read, there are guarded statements of success for the cocktail treatment. Incidentally, here in Italy I don’t think viral load is used as the major indicator of HIV positivity as yet. ELISA and the Western Blot are the pointers. Hope to see a leaner, meaner W. Fred in the trenches — with less lip and more wit. Yours, R

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually we rather like Fred here, and we respect his knowledge. I can understand your feelings here, but I gather that’s a royal "we". No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. [...] You deny the evidence that the various tropical cocktails are to varying degrees efficacious. Denial is a common response when one has difficulties with reality. I am the last person on earth to deny the efficaciousness of a tropical cocktail. Or that its efficaciousness varies. I lived for seven years in the tropics, and in my experience a base of triple-distilled coconut arrack is impossible to improve upon. Except perhaps with a hint of passion-fruit cordial. (But best avoided in the rainy season, due to the risk of sarcasm.)

Feigned obtuseness will get you nowhere, Johnno old son. Neither will your consistent denial of HIV’s integral role in the AIDS syndrome. R You should try banana brandy, if you want to lose the back of your head fast.

Response:

I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB?

Shall I ask them? You are a reader, by your own account, so you know they cover the subject very well, and in their tradition of allowing all participating and serious contributions. They don’t agree editorially with everything they publish. Even Dr Harris has been published there (unfortunately he picked a fight with a real virologist, on the subject of virology, with predictably bloody results). They encourage both sides of the harmless/non-existent debate; probably the only actual scientific question left to be answered in "Aids". There is a fellowship between all serious, honest, people looking to end the "Aids" scandal as quickly as possible. And all of us share a profound contempt for the corrupt exploiters of the vulnerable, the lying crooks who profit from the tragedy. And you know who we mean.  John — "I have a large population of people who have chosen not to take any antiretrovirals since I’ve been following them–since the very beginning… They’ve watched all of their friends go on the antiviral bandwagon and die, so they’ve chose to remain naive [to therapy]".         Donald I. Abrams, Prof. of Clinical Medicine at UCSF.

Response:

I think the below (which I will leave in all it’s pathetic entirety) does more to answer questions about the focus on science vs personal attack among certain members of this newgroup. This is absolutely gratuitous, and of no use to anybody, HIV positive or negative. It’s not even good literature. If there is some science to be discussed, let’s get on with. Long, torpid posts that invoke the term "heterosexual" as some kind of damning slur go beyond silly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB? Cruella Myrder Carter certainly seems obsessed, no? Fred this, Fred that, Fred! Fred! Fred! We all wonder, what is with Cruella? Wouldn’t Cruella be better off twisting the science than worrying about what Fred might think or who Continuum might agree with, or for that matter, who might be tempted by the real possibility that DNCB will keep them alive and well? What haunts Cruella so? Is the middle name "Myrder" only now beginning to disturb Cruella? Is Cruella terrified of being unmasked as a terrible fraud and homophobe? Yes, we have seen how Cruella doesn’t hesitate to plagiarize from ancient immunology textbooks — always eager to take credit for the work of others — always feeling entitled to do whatever is needed for the evil tasks at hand. But Cruella’s entire life is plagiarized. A pathological liar with anti-social tendencies, Cruella pretends to be homosexual, but isn’t — concealing an infectious shame. Angry indeed, Cruella’s "activism" is focused on the annihilation of those who brought the plague to him. "I’ll show them…", Cruella whispers to himself. Hiding among their ranks, Cruella becomes the "expert", the ACTUP New York "activist", and hands out the deadly advice willy nilly — all the while sitting back in his wicker chair, waiting to see who bites the dust, as the saying goes. Hope, there’s always hope for Cruella. Soon there will be a cure, or so he thinks, as he ponders the future, and how many more lab rats — using this combination of alternative "medicine" poisons, or that combination of FDA-approved poisons — will need to die before the "Cure" reveals itself.  Yes… The Cure! It lies out there, somewhere. Out in that mass of humanity that so willingly gulps down the sexy-sounding "cocktails", so gullible are they who remember Cruella’s seductive words: "compassionate use", that’s it, this is "compassionate use". Like the other "drug activists", Cruella won’t take the poison until he is sure, absolutely sure, that this is the right "treatment". So another dismal day closes on Cruella, as he takes a moment away from his flailing on the "net", … for a brief moment, Cruella glances above the hypnotic glow of the computer screen in his dark, rancid New   York tenement. Cruella notices the picture of Jesus gazing down upon him, and whispers to himself, "yes, any day now… any day… the cure will reveal itself… to ME!". With an evil grin, Cruella returns to the "net", amusing himself with the many tales of horror that even Josef Mengele couldn’t have possibly imagined. Cruella, reading the recent sci.med.aids injury postings, stares at the word "nevirapine", and slowly a maniacal expression betrays him, realizing that there was something quite different in this desperate cry for help. Cruella quickly reaches for the ACTUP HIV/AIDS drug list he always keeps nearby… "Stevens-Johnson Syndrome….hmmm, what is that?", Cruella says out loud, as he leafs through the pages… a few seconds later and with great delight, Cruella reads:   "The main safety concern was that 6 percent of    individuals who received nevirapine experienced    a severe rash (Grade 3 or 4). 6.7 percent of study    participants discontinued from studies in the    presence of rash. The most serious of these were    instances of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious    rash with erupting boils, necrosis of mucous membranes,    and shedding of sheets of skin, along with generalized    symptoms, with a 5 percent fatality rate. Of the 10    persons on the studies who has contracted    Stevens-Johnson syndrome, there were no fatalities.    Some developed the syndrome gradually and in others it    appeared suddenly." Cruella puts down the list, thinking to himself "that’s another drug combo eliminated … I’m just that much closer to the Cure"… and before turning off his computer and going to bed, Cruella reaches up to the shelf below the picture of Jesus and grabs a small bottle in his hand. Holding the bottle up, examining it, Cruella exclaims "those fools! They would never guess what day this is!!!… its not just Friday… no, this is a very special day of every week in my book … the day I apply my DNCB!". Cruella, shrieking with laughter, reaches for the cotton-tipped applicator…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually we rather like Fred here, and we respect his knowledge. I can understand your feelings here, but I gather that’s a royal "we". No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. [...] You deny the evidence that the various tropical cocktails are to varying degrees efficacious. Denial is a common response when one has difficulties with reality. I am the last person on earth to deny the efficaciousness of a tropical cocktail. Or that its efficaciousness varies. I lived for seven years in the tropics, and in my experience a base of triple-distilled coconut arrack is impossible to improve upon. Except perhaps with a hint of passion-fruit cordial. (But best avoided in the rainy season, due to the risk of sarcasm.) Feigned obtuseness will get you nowhere, Johnno old son. Neither will your consistent denial of HIV’s integral role in the AIDS syndrome. You should try banana brandy, if you want to lose the back of your head fast.

Rudolph, you should try your hand at defining exactly what the "integral role in the AIDS syndrome" you had in mind for good ol’ HIV. Seems the little bugger is smarter than thee and its role keeps dodging the best minds in town, so give this   one a whirl: how, exactly does this retrovirus, which everyone in the Big League agrees has no "latency period" — how does this persistent strand of RNA cause what we know of as "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", a disease that, pathologically and temporally, clinically manifests quite differently in nearly everyone? Thus, given these stellar insights, together with the reductionist perversions of "science", why would one dare to treat every single person whose clinical presentation is so different — why would one treat everyone infected with this retrobug exactly the same way? (that is, the "standard of care" that is neither "standard" nor "caring", simply permutations on the tired toxic cocktail theme that is aggressively advancing on the population of healthy victims who will be given two free viral load tests and thus two chances to succumb to the murderous "need" to "hit hard and hit early"). Upon achieving all of these goals, perhaps we return to the very beginning of this thread, (which I started by the way), and take another look at Donald Abrams’ reluctance to employ these cocktails in his practice (as opposed to the doctors who do choose to use these unproven drop-dead treatments which are giving the term "practice" a whole new meaning, so Donald deserves credit for something, I just haven’t figured out what that "something" is). W. Fred Shaw Note: Please do not attempt to categorize or demonize me or my views as heresy — leave that to the anti-intellect bottom-feeders who have George M. Carter (Cruella) as their champion, since these anti-scientific cretins can be dispatched rather easily — I am not taking a position one way or another on the HIV causation theory in THIS post. However, I sense that Rudolph has something real to offer in this area of controversy, and since this post reflects his greatest contribution thus far, perhaps he will elaborate and enlighten us on this exact subject.

Response:

No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following.

I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB?                 George M. Carter

Response:

No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. I’m so glad. Does this mean Continuum agrees with Fred Shaw that HIV causes AIDS? Or does this mean that Fred Shaw thinks HIV is irrelevant and nonexistent? If the latter, then why use DNCB? Do people at Continuum use DNCB?

Cruella Myrder Carter certainly seems obsessed, no? Fred this, Fred that, Fred! Fred! Fred! We all wonder, what is with Cruella? Wouldn’t Cruella be better off twisting the science than worrying about what Fred might think or who Continuum might agree with, or for that matter, who might be tempted by the real possibility that DNCB will keep them alive and well? What haunts Cruella so? Is the middle name "Myrder" only now beginning to disturb Cruella? Is Cruella terrified of being unmasked as a terrible fraud and homophobe? Yes, we have seen how Cruella doesn’t hesitate to plagiarize from ancient immunology textbooks — always eager to take credit for the work of others — always feeling entitled to do whatever is needed for the evil tasks at hand. But Cruella’s entire life is plagiarized. A pathological liar with anti-social tendencies, Cruella pretends to be homosexual, but isn’t — concealing an infectious shame. Angry indeed, Cruella’s "activism" is focused on the annihilation of those who brought the plague to him. "I’ll show them…", Cruella whispers to himself. Hiding among their ranks, Cruella becomes the "expert", the ACTUP New York "activist", and hands out the deadly advice willy nilly — all the while sitting back in his wicker chair, waiting to see who bites the dust, as the saying goes. Hope, there’s always hope for Cruella. Soon there will be a cure, or so he thinks, as he ponders the future, and how many more lab rats — using this combination of alternative "medicine" poisons, or that combination of FDA-approved poisons — will need to die before the "Cure" reveals itself.  Yes… The Cure! It lies out there, somewhere. Out in that mass of humanity that so willingly gulps down the sexy-sounding "cocktails", so gullible are they who remember Cruella’s seductive words: "compassionate use", that’s it, this is "compassionate use". Like the other "drug activists", Cruella won’t take the poison until he is sure, absolutely sure, that this is the right "treatment". So another dismal day closes on Cruella, as he takes a moment away from his flailing on the "net", … for a brief moment, Cruella glances above the hypnotic glow of the computer screen in his dark, rancid New   York tenement. Cruella notices the picture of Jesus gazing down upon him, and whispers to himself, "yes, any day now… any day… the cure will reveal itself… to ME!". With an evil grin, Cruella returns to the "net", amusing himself with the many tales of horror that even Josef Mengele couldn’t have possibly imagined. Cruella, reading the recent sci.med.aids injury postings, stares at the word "nevirapine", and slowly a maniacal expression betrays him, realizing that there was something quite different in this desperate cry for help. Cruella quickly reaches for the ACTUP HIV/AIDS drug list he always keeps nearby… "Stevens-Johnson Syndrome….hmmm, what is that?", Cruella says out loud, as he leafs through the pages… a few seconds later and with great delight, Cruella reads:    "The main safety concern was that 6 percent of     individuals who received nevirapine experienced     a severe rash (Grade 3 or 4). 6.7 percent of study     participants discontinued from studies in the     presence of rash. The most serious of these were     instances of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a serious     rash with erupting boils, necrosis of mucous membranes,     and shedding of sheets of skin, along with generalized     symptoms, with a 5 percent fatality rate. Of the 10     persons on the studies who has contracted     Stevens-Johnson syndrome, there were no fatalities.     Some developed the syndrome gradually and in others it     appeared suddenly." Cruella puts down the list, thinking to himself "that’s another drug combo eliminated … I’m just that much closer to the Cure"… and before turning off his computer and going to bed, Cruella reaches up to the shelf below the picture of Jesus and grabs a small bottle in his hand. Holding the bottle up, examining it, Cruella exclaims "those fools! They would never guess what day this is!!!… its not just Friday… no, this is a very special day of every week in my book … the day I apply my DNCB!". Cruella, shrieking with laughter, reaches for the cotton-tipped applicator…

Response:

Actually we rather like Fred here, and we respect his knowledge. I can understand your feelings here, but I gather that’s a royal "we".

No such relief. Fred has a large and dedicated following. [...] You deny the evidence that the various tropical cocktails are to varying degrees efficacious. Denial is a common response when one has difficulties with reality.

I am the last person on earth to deny the efficaciousness of a tropical cocktail. Or that its efficaciousness varies. I lived for seven years in the tropics, and in my experience a base of triple-distilled coconut arrack is impossible to improve upon. Except perhaps with a hint of passion-fruit cordial. (But best avoided in the rainy season, due to the risk of sarcasm.)  John —   "Keep the hyperbole in perspective," he asked reporters. "There  will be a lot of overstatement of results."      Dr M O’Shaughnessy, Vancouver conference, on anti-HIV drugs.                              quoted by `gangbang’, R.I.P. <sigh

Response:

Dear John, Actually we rather like Fred here, and we respect his knowledge.

I can understand your feelings here, but I gather that’s a royal "we". He has exposed corruption, challenged dishonesty and even forced a particularly unpleasant character to abandon his unsavoury and abusive identity, in a way that many believe deserves applause.

Perhaps, I haven’t been around the list long enough to have noticed: I’ve only seen a very low-grade serial rant on someone else on the list. It’s one of those serials you turn off when you hear the theme music. This is probably not Fred’s aim. In exposing the "Aids" scandal, not all orthodox adherents may automatically be assumed to be dupes and dullards. Some are deeply corrupt and unscrupulous individuals, perfectly prepared to sit by and encourage vulnerable, desperate people to believe themselves living under a death sentence, and to profit from misleading them into commiting involuntary suicide by poisoning with useless toxic compounds.

You have denied the isolation of the HIV virus while supporting the views of a researcher who acknowledges the existence of HIV. You deny the evidence that the various tropical cocktails are to varying degrees efficacious. Denial is a common response when one has difficulties with reality. Conspiracy theories are another well known response. What’s your reason, John? It is not always possible or wise to treat these criminals with kid gloves. Until the law takes over, they have to be arrested by whatever other means are available. A certain verbal robustness in their handling is perfectly reasonable, and nothing to what they must expect in the future. Carry on, Fred Shaw. Just keep carving those notches on your keyboard.

Just keep churning out the turgid prose… Come on, Fred, get back into communication: talk to people not at them. Cheers, R

Response:

Dear Fred, You have proven to have one of the nastiest mouths on this list. I believe that it is not only unnecessary in your communications, but that you help to make reading the list unpleasant. Not even considering the content of your posts, you should understand that the tone of your letters is enough to make many people avoid your postings. This is not your desire. If you toned down the gratuitous insults, you might have a chance of communicating to more than the few. Please think more of your readers. Yours, RR And I don’t think anyone cares about your grudges with George M.

Response:

[ To Fred Shaw: ] You have proven to have one of the nastiest mouths on this list. I believe that it is not only unnecessary in your communications, but that you help to make reading the list unpleasant.

Actually we rather like Fred here, and we respect his knowledge. He has exposed corruption, challenged dishonesty and even forced a particularly unpleasant character to abandon his unsavoury and abusive identity, in a way that many believe deserves applause. In exposing the "Aids" scandal, not all orthodox adherents may automatically be assumed to be dupes and dullards. Some are deeply corrupt and unscrupulous individuals, perfectly prepared to sit by and encourage vulnerable, desperate people to believe themselves living under a death sentence, and to profit from misleading them into commiting involuntary suicide by poisoning with useless toxic compounds. It is not always possible or wise to treat these criminals with kid gloves. Until the law takes over, they have to be arrested by whatever other means are available. A certain verbal robustness in their handling is perfectly reasonable, and nothing to what they must expect in the future. Carry on, Fred Shaw. Just keep carving those notches on your keyboard.  John —   "I think truth can be suspended, re-routed, rejected, for seemingly astonishingly long periods of time. But I think it is kind of like energy. I don’t think it can be destroyed. It is rather like an airplane in a holding pattern and it does have to land somewhere eventually."       Celia Farber, Reappraising AIDS

Response:

writes: The following email from ACTUP San Francisco contains a letter to the editor of the Bay Area Reported by Donald Abrams and was published on November 28, 1996. Bay Area Reporter, November 28, 1996. Letter to the Editor by Donald Abrams Finally, I would like to clarify Mr. Pasquarelli’s comment that I

advise my patients not to take protease inhibitors. As my patients know, I am open to whatever interventions they may desire. An increasing number of patients have chosen to take protease inhibitors and seem to be doing well, thus far. It is true that I personally not enamored with viral load changes as the goal of treatment; I would like to see therapies that truly prolong survival. I also believe that our clinical experience with protease inhibitors as a class has been very short–less than one year since approval–and I do caution patients with high CD4 counts to wait awhile before jumping on the bandwagon to see if the early surrogate marker benefits persist and translate into clinical improvement as well.<    Okay, fair enough– he cautions his patients with high CD4 counts to wait to see if studies show that surrogate markers translate to clinical benefit.  That doesn’t mean he does this with patients with low CD4s, who cannot wait.  It also does not mean he does not approve of the studies whose results he’s waiting to see (obviously). == Bay Area Reporter, November 7, 1996. Letter to the Editor by David Pasquarelli BETA’s pushing of protease inhibitors contradicts recent warnings by Donald Abrams, Head of the FDA Antiviral Committee, that the agents

were not sufficiently studied to be approved. In a startling about-face, this long-time antiviral advocate announced that he advises his patients not to take them<    Wrong, according to Abrams. Of course, since the first fraudulent AZT experiments, all subsequent AIDS drug trials have eliminated the use of a control arm where some HIV-positives are given a placebo.

   There have been 5 placebo-controlled AZT experiments, actually.  Are we do believe all were "fraudulent"?  If ACTUP SF doesn’t believe the results of the AZT placebo trials, who does it bother to call for protease inhibitor placebo controlled trials?  There is no reason to believe that results from these would be believed, either. The standard cry to justify this violation of scientific protocol is that it is "unethical" to withhold "potentially

life-saving treatments" from folks with an allegedly terminal HIV diagnosis. AIDS drug data since AZT’s approval has, without a control arm, been built on an unreliable house of cards. I propose that in order to obtain crucial information on AIDS drugs,

all future clinical trials include a "comparison arm" of HIV-negative individuals dosed with the same chemotherapies as their HIV-infected

counterparts. That way we can document the unknown long-term effects of these miraculous agents on "normal" immune systems.<    Stupidity.   This is like requiring that chemotherapy for leukemia be tested against a control arm of people who are perfectly well. After which, I suppose, we’ll have a scientific study of heart transplant in which there is a control arm of healthy people who are required to have transplants anyway.  Duh.  Nobody is claiming these new drugs are harmless.  They are relatively (not absolutely) without serious side effects.  That’s relative to the old drugs, and relative to the effects you get if you leave end-stage HIV disease untreated. AZT, a nucleoside analog, belongs to a class of drugs that inhibit DNA polymerization by terminating growing DNA chains. The study which demonstrated that AZT might be of benefit was a placebo control trial begun in 1986 involving 288 patients. Although the study was

originally intended to last 24 weeks, it was cut short and unblinded halfway through because of statistically significant differences in deaths between the two groups. Abrams lamented that although "18 more people made it to this

arbitrary milestone of four to eight months after pneumocystis… I didn’t feel that this was showing that we were prolonging survival."<    Comment: Very sloppy editing here in the original piece.  It sounds as though Abrams is talking about the Fischl study in the above, and of course he isn’t.                                            Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

The following email from ACTUP San Francisco contains a letter to the editor of the Bay Area Reported by Donald Abrams and was published on November 28, 1996. Abrams remains consistent regarding the antiretroviral drugs, adding to his prior comments that sent the drug activists into Spin Control overtime. It will be interesting to see how the drug activist simpletons digest and regurgitate Abrams’ latest comments on their captive audience. Finally, Abrams confirms that ACTUP San Francisco has been an effective and growing power in AIDS activism. Certainly, ACTUP SF is a bright light in the dark dungeon of ACTUP drug "treatment activists", who have not only been co-opted by the drug companies, but sit on the boards of the FDA and NIH. The drug "activists" have become the problem, having sold out those for whom they feign concern. Those ACTUPs, TAG, Project Infirm, AIDS Foundation San Francisco, BETA, AIDS Treatment News etc. are NOT street activist organizations by any stretch of the imagination — or even "Treatment Activists", but rather they are Drugs-Into-Bodies Information Nihilists: (1) they advocate drugs into bodies rather than objective     quality information into brains; (2) they prey on fear and loathe the facts; (3) they promote politically correct, yet uninformed "choices",     which are nothing more than drug roulette rather than     supporting critical life-and-death treatment decisions with     informed, objective, scientific and reliable data; and (4) they prefer research which is contaminated by outrageous     conflicts of interests that would land any politician in     jail (drug company researchers ARE politicians in AIDS,     e.g. Volberding, Fischl, Ho, Mellors, ad infinitum…),     rather than clinical trials uncontaminated by fraud,     conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct, which     would result in much higher quality information and disclosures     of ALL study data to support the individual faced with     these treatment "choices". These Information Nihilists (again, drug "Treatment Activists") are simply corporate and government sellouts and reactionary obstructionists who have assumed their own authority in "negotiating" with the drug companies to cut "deals" concerning the post-approval "studies" of the toxic effects of the antiretroviral drugs that they have already dumped on a naive, scared and desperate community with the false, unsubstantiated, and immoral promise of a "cure". ACTUP San Francisco stands alone as the only effective AIDS street activist organization … for now. Meanwhile, Abrams’ comments will again be shock therapy to the drug treatment activist groupies that should be viewed in light of the Nuremberg Trials: nobody on trial for Nazi war crimes really thought they were guilty of anything more than doing their jobs. What they did is truly no different than today’s drug/AIDS Holocaust where those in the "system" simply stand by and remain silent while the drug activist minions scurry about, from one FDA/NIH meeting to another, frantically working to accelerate the drugs-into-bodies process for pure human experimentation. However, the numbers of individuals subjected to such barbaric human experimentation at Auschwitz (approximately 7,000), simply pales in comparison to the number of HIV human experimentation victims today who are being subjected to these unproven, toxic, immunosuppressive and deadly drugs. W. Fred Shaw         Defensive Donny Abrams     To: More lip-service, lies and double-speak from Donald Abrams, San Francisco’s antiviral kingpin. His desperate attempt at revisionist history to paint himself as the patron saint of caution in 1996 doesn’t fly given his ten years of assisting pharmaceutical giants in marketing their pricey poisons. For years he sat on a government panel that dusted-off and approved shelved DNA chain terminators like AZT and now conveniently claims he personally never advocated their use. Still, throughout those personally enriching early years the good doctor did nothing publicly to STOP these poisons from flying right down the throats of the PWA community. Stranger still is that despite his recent backpedaling as an "antiviral advocate" the organization which he chairs, the Community Consortium, has continuously accepted large drug company pay-offs from Glaxo, Roche and others to advertise these agents through public meetings. Meetings where he stood in front of frightened PWAs and used the surrogate marker data he now trashes to defend the dosing of HIV-positives with AZT and other immune-suppressive, toxic chemotherapies. No, Donny, some of us will never forget the part you played in the drug-induced deaths of our brothers, sisters and lovers. If you’re so innocent, let the public take a peek at your stock portfolio. I’m sure that would be much more interesting reading than the hollow, defensive words you write to the B.A.R. Bay Area Reporter, November 28, 1996. Letter to the Editor by Donald Abrams I would like to take the opportunity to correct some of the misinformation in David Pasquarelli’s letter that appeared in the November 7 B.A.R. I do this not to engage in a potentially escalating power struggle with Mr. Pasquarelli and his colleagues, but to provide correct information to your readers who include my patients and friends. I am not now, nor have I ever been, the "Head of the FDA Antiviral Committee." I was a charter member of the Antiviral Advisory Committee from 1989 when it was created through 1992. I have not been a member of the committee for the past four years. The record will show that I was probably the most conservative member of the committee, always cautious regarding the approval of new antiviral drugs on the basis of surrogate marker information alone. Most of my colleagues and patients have appreciated that I have been an aggressive critic of the antiviral literature and not an avid supporter of these therapies. It is ironic that ACT UP San Francisco has chosen on a number of occasions to disrupt meetings where I have attempted to present such views, preventing me from providing a counterpoint to colleagues who may advocate early and aggressive antiviral therapy. Thus I cannot comprehend how I could be labeled "a longtime antiviral advocate." I have not changed my stance over the past ten years, though Mr. Pasquarelli charges me with committing "a startling about-face." Perhaps this is simply the first time that Mr. Pasquarelli has stayed focused long enough to hear what I have been saying. And now he understands that ACT UP San Francisco’s views mirror my own to some extent, my reward is to have my photo plastered all over the Castro captioned "Confessions of a Drug Pusher" and to be verbally assaulted crossing the street by their goons seething, "Asshole, keep your hands off people with HIV, Donald." Can you imagine if we disagreed? Finally, I would like to clarify Mr. Pasquarelli’s comment that I advise my patients not to take protease inhibitors. As my patients know, I am open to whatever interventions they may desire. An increasing number of patients have chosen to take protease inhibitors and seem to be doing well, thus far. It is true that I personally not enamored with viral load changes as the goal of treatment; I would like to see therapies that truly prolong survival. I also believe that our clinical experience with protease inhibitors as a class has been very short–less than one year since approval–and I do caution patients with high CD4 counts to wait awhile before jumping on the bandwagon to see if the early surrogate marker benefits persist and translate into clinical improvement as well. This is very similar to the advice I have been giving my patients for the past ten years. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify an amazing amount of misinformation that Mr. Pasquarelli was able to transmit in one short paragraph. ACT UP, FIGHT BACK, FIGHT AIDS–not each other! Donald I. Abrams, M.D. Chair, Community Consortium Assistant Director, AIDS Program San Francisco General Hospital Professor of Clinical Medicine University of California San Francisco Bay Area Reporter, November 7, 1996. Letter to the Editor by David Pasquarelli So "Fat Cat" Pat Christen thinks a face full of feces is violent? Such militant tactics are quite mild compared to the disastrous effects resulting from SFAF’s hype of unproven AIDS drugs through its Bulletin of Experimental Treatments for AIDS (BETA). BETA’s pushing of protease inhibitors contradicts recent warnings by Donald Abrams, Head of the FDA Antiviral Committee, that the agents were not sufficiently studied to be approved. In a startling about-face, this long-time antiviral advocate announced that he advises his patients not to take them (Tanaka M. "Abrams cautious on use of new AIDS drugs." Synapse. October 10, 1996). Still, BETA urges all HIV-positives to consume these experimental drugs that then cause them to piss out painful, bloody kidney stones. Drugs that destroy the immune system in order to transform the human body into, as GMHC’s Treatment Issues puts it, an "inhospitable environment for HIV." Drugs that kill if inadvertently taken with an allergy pill. "Fat Cat" Pat then claims ACT UP’s actions constitute criminal activity. What’s truly criminal, however, is that mainstream AIDS groups in this city take drug company dollars and conspire with the pharmaceutical industry to exploit individuals who test HIV-positive. Not only does Christen’s organization receive payoffs from Glaxo and Abbott to advertise their products in the pages of BETA. SFAF, in cooperation with other drug thugs like ACT UP Golden Gate and Project Inform, uses its corporate-backed clout to force FDA approval of blood measurements like CD4 counts and viral load as … read more »

Response: