There is something deeply wrong with a giant pharmaceutical company spending hundreds of millions of dollars to manipulate women and influence legislation in order to generate a revenue stream of billions of dollars a year for themselves at the expense of a gullible public.
By Gary Null, PhD and Nancy Ashley, VMD
In 1987, I was asked to debate a group of 6 scientists about the very promising AIDS drug, AZT. Signs around NYU Medical School exhorted everyone to “Put Time on Your Side”, and the vast majority of activists, including ACT UP, were pushing the government to allocate all available funds to get this drug into as many people as possible who had been diagnosed with AIDS. I was the only one who was dissenting and there was a simple reason: I had spoken with John Lauritsen.
Lauritsen, an investigative journalist who wrote for the New York Native in the 1980s and 1990s, knew that AZT was a fraud. Originally a chemotherapy drug that was rejected due to excessive toxicity, AZT was resurrected for use as an AIDS treatment and fast tracked by the FDA for approval in just six months. Lauritsen looked closely at the one single study used as a basis for this approval, and found: “the description of methodology was incomplete and incoherent. Not a single table was acceptable according to statistical standards – indeed, not a single table made sense. In particular, the first report, on “efficacy” was marred by contradictions, ill-logic, and special pleading.” Lauritsen discovered that this poor-quality study was unblinded early, allowing both doctors and patients to know whether AZT or the placebo was being taken, thus completely invalidating the study. Then the study itself was terminated early, ostensibly so that all participants would be able to take AZT, which appeared so effective at preventing death from AIDS. The real-life follow up, however, at no time repeated the stunning results of this mangled study. Instead, according to Lauritsen, “More than 96% of all “AIDS” deaths in the U.S. occurred after AZT was approved for marketing in 1987. Those deaths were not caused by a virus, but by AZT. “
Lynn Gannet, a researcher overseeing one of the AZT trials in Syracuse, contacted me and showed me reports proving everything about the study was wrong. She showed me that this entire fast tracking was all political — it was based on a large push by the pharmaceutical company, Burroughs-Welcome, and by the AIDS groups that the Burroughs-Welcome’s foundation was supporting. Gannet stated: “I was an eyewitness to gross negligence and fraud in the Phase III clinical trials of AZT (1987 to 1990). I’ve been saying to people for years that AZT was NEVER proven to be safe or effective. From the particular studies in which I was involved, it would have been impossible to prove anything: the data was such a mess! I now realize that AZT is a deadly poison. All AIDS drug trails since that time have been based on the same flawed model. The big difference is that now there is even LESS meaningful oversight, and even MORE of an economic incentive for physicians to enroll patients. … My belief is that the data which came from the Syracuse site is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS! I would never trust my health or my life to the results of this so-called “research” or in the hands of these so-called “medical professionals.” The level of medical incompetence, unprofessionalism, unethical, dishonest, corrupt, illegal and immoral behavior was shocking and inexcusable. The data was so inaccurate and so full of holes … If there was a rule that could be broken – they broke it! Gannet told me she had attempted to inform those in charge of the study in North Carolina and all way up to the National Institutes of Health of all the violations, but no one was interested in the gross discrepancies she had uncovered.
As we would later find out, this drug was devastating. It was one of the most toxic drugs ever created, yet people were told to take 400 mg four times a day, and that was when we began to see otherwise healthy people who had been diagnosed with AIDS dying quickly. And here’s the irony: the more AZT you took the sicker you got, but the more AZT they told you to take. It would be like taking arsenic and getting sick, and then being told the remedy is more arsenic. This to me was one of the greatest scientific tragedies and frauds in history. The number of people who died from taking AZT ended up in the hundreds of thousands, yet despite this, thousands of new foundations started to emerge promoting AZT. AIDS was redefined as purely a sexually transmitted disease, and people with AIDS were told they had better take AZT or they were going to die.
Yet they never looked at people who had been diagnosed with AIDS and HIV infection who weren’t taking AZT, but instead were taking a natural approach — and were doing just fine. They didn’t want to know about that. It became down and dirty politics. If you went to the conferences on AIDS each year the largest group of people would be the pharmaceutical companies and the AIDS activists who in reality were their supporters. If you were a gay journalist and you didn’t support this approach — and I interviewed many, like Charles Ortlieb, and Neenyah Ostrom of the New York Native — you were attacked. Not only were you attacked for being an AIDS denialist, but you were attacked for promoting the death of people with AIDS by preventing them from taking the therapy that would save their lives. Then all your funding would dry up or your magazines would go out of business. In San Francisco, in LA, no matter where I was, I kept getting the same feedback. And yet the media would not touch this. No one would touch it. The result was only one doctrine, and this became the official doctrine.