portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage global


Latest AIDs unraveling news

Collation of recent links especially some mainstream ones as the HIV paradigm continues to fall over.
Some of the latest HIV holes to hit mainstream media...
There is a huge story in this and it's unraveling somewhat.
Thought it may be of interest, a couple of links?

What killed Mandela's son?

Officials warned of concerns about AIDS drug 13 Dec.2004
AIDS Orphans story on BBC
AIDS Orphans story on Fox
South Africans rap U.S. health officials for actions on drug
An Eyewitness Account of Gross Irregularities and Medical Incompetence in the Early Clinical Trials of AZT
Neville Hodgkinson article on AIDS tests in Business Magazine

Interview with AZT inventor by Anthony Brink
Kim Marie Bannon lawsuit against HIV test.
Interview with Anthony Brink Sept 2004 mp3 sound
Dissident List
This is a list of almost 1100 people who have questioned some or all
of the connection between HIV and AIDS, including a large number of doctors and scientists. For each person their credentials are listed.

add a comment on this article

Thank you! 17.Jan.2005 02:59

Tony Blair's dog

Great reading.

"This is a list of almost 1100 people who have questioned some or all
of the connection between HIV and AIDS, including a large number of doctors and scientists. For each person their credentials are listed."

Don't miss to hover over the bright blue parts in the headline on that page.

Now don't say that doctors are without a sense of humor ;-D

GREAT POST 17.Jan.2005 20:50

Paul King

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print

Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)

Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.

The entire package insert can be downloaded from

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'

Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.?

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.

At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing.

This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests? is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor
Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford.

The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed.
Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.

Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up negative just to be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of potential life-altering situations.
"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away.

Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

Corruption at the very top 19.Jan.2005 02:01



Two top scientists - Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and his deputy, H.
Clifford Lane - are among 916 government researchers who have been
receiving royalties on experimental drug treatments without disclosing
those royalties on their annual ethics forms or on experimental patient
consent forms. The practice is legal, though NIH says it has now
drafted a policy to require disclosure.

Health officials say the current and former employees are collecting
royalties on drugs or medical inventions they developed while working
for the government. The royalties are paid by drugmakers licensed to
produce the drugs. Some $8.9 million in royalties was paid to
government-employed drug inventors in 2004; the average royalty per
inventor was $9,700.

Below is an example of royalties received by Fauci and Lane on the
interleukin-2 AIDS regimen, an experimental treatment for patients with
HIV that they invented. Fauci has said he donates all his royalties to
charity, while Lane has opted to keep his.

Royalties Paid on Interleukin-2 AIDS Regimen Since 1997

Fauci Lane

1997 $23,606.13 $23,606.13
1998 $3,066.67 $3,066.67
1999 $3,066.67 $3,066.67
2000 $3,066.67 $3,066.67
2001 $3,066.67 $3,066.66
2002 $3,066.67 $3,066.66
2003 $3,066.67 $3,066.66
2004 $3,066.67 $3,066.66

Source: National Institutes of Health

Feds Failed to Disclose Financial Interest


Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Government scientists have collected millions of dollars
in royalties for experimental treatments without having to tell
patients testing the treatments that the researchers' had a financial
connection, according to documents and interviews.

The personal royalties are legal, though the researchers developed the
treatments at government expense. But the Health and Human Services
Department promised in May 2000 that scientists' financial stakes would
be disclosed to patients, a pledge that followed an uproar over
conflicts of interest and mistakes in federal experiments.

The National Institutes of Health says it didn't implement a policy to
order the disclosure until last week, shortly after The Associated
Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

"Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly. But as soon as
Director (Elias A.) Zerhouni found out about it, he ordered it done
immediately," NIH spokesman John Burklow said.

The nearly five-year delay means hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in
experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the
researchers' financial interests.

"It's hard for patients to make an informed decision when they don't
have all the information," said Bill Allison of the Center for Public
Integrity, which monitors the ethics of government employees.

"When a doctor says, 'Here, try this experiment, it is safe, or it will
help,' and the patient isn't aware he has a financial interest in the
outcome of that treatment, it in essence is taking advantage of someone
by not letting them have all the information," Allison said.

In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty
payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working
for the government, according to information obtained by AP. They can
collect up to $150,000 each a year, but the average is about $9,700,
officials said.

In 2004, these researchers collected a total of $8.9 million. Only a
dozen received the legal maximum.

The government owns the patents and the scientists are listed as
inventors so they can share in licensing deals struck with private
manufacturers. In addition to the inventors' take, the government
received $55.9 million in royalties for the same inventions and put
that money back into research.

The arrangements can create concerns about conflicts.

For instance, two top managers in NIH's infectious disease division
have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an
experimental AIDS treatment they invented. At the same time, their
office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on
patients across the globe, the records show.

Such research helps bring the treatment closer to possible commercial
use, which could in turn bring the researchers and NIH higher

Except for patent records and scientific journals, the patients have
had no easy way of learning about the researchers' financial stakes.

That's because NIH told doctors not to report royalties on their
government ethics disclosure forms and did not require the royalties
listed on patient consent forms until last week's policy.

Fifty-one NIH royalty recipients are currently involved in clinical
research involving the inventions for which they are being paid,
meaning they'll be affected by the new policy, according to the
information obtained by AP.

Among them are National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Director Anthony Fauci and his deputy, H. Clifford Lane.

The two managers have received $45,072.82 each in royalties since 1997
for an experimental AIDS treatment known as interleukin-2 that they
invented with a third NIH doctor, Joseph Kovacs, the records show.

The government has licensed the commercial rights to that treatment to
drug maker Chiron Corp., and Fauci's division subsequently has spent
$36 million in taxpayer money testing the treatment on patients in one
experiment alone.

Known as the Esprit experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research
projects in NIH history, testing interleukin-2 on patients at more than
200 sites in 18 countries over the last five years.

Both doctors said they were extremely sensitive about the possibility
of an appearance of a conflict of interest and took steps on their own
to address it even as they waited for their agency to do what they
believed should have been done all along - fully disclose the payments
to patients.

A panel of peers from the National Cancer Institute was brought in to
approve the Esprit project because Fauci and Lane were in a position to

Fauci, an internationally known expert on illnesses from the flu to
AIDS, said he originally refused to take the royalties but was told he
legally had to accept them. So he has donated all the money to charity.

"I'm going to give every penny of it to charity ... no matter what the
yearly amount is," he said.

Fauci also said he once tried to report his payments on his federal
financial disclosure report, which is available to the public, but was
told to remove them because NIH considers the money federal
compensation, not outside income.

Lane keeps his royalties but said he occasionally gave patients
scientific journal articles that noted he was listed on the patent for
interleukin-2. "I believe patients should know everything that might
influence their desire to be participants in research," Lane said.

Both acknowledged they were unwilling to tell interleukin-2 patients
about the royalties on consent forms until NIH developed its policy.
Both will do so from now on.

"We were reluctant to make a formal policy until the broad policy came
down from the department and NIH," Fauci explained.

Their case illustrates the gulf between what the government promised
nearly five years ago in the midst of controversy and what actually has
been done.

Then-Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala pledged in May
2000 that the government would develop policies to require "that any
researchers' financial interest in a clinical trial be disclosed to
potential participants."

Congress, concerned by reports of conflicts of interest and
researchers' conduct in several high profile experiments, was told the
changes would happen. The government first published guidance for the
disclosure in January 2001.

Current HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson issued new guidance this May
that again clearly cited "compensation that may be affected by the
study outcome" and "proprietary interests in the products, including
patents, trademarks, copyrights or licensing arrangements."

NIH, however, didn't order the disclosure until last week's policy.


Documents:  http://wid.ap.org/science/royalties.html
National Institutes of Health:  http://www.nih.gov