Townsend Letter publishes “Deja vu at the FDA”

Cover of December 2011 issue of Townsend Letter

I was just recently informed that the December 2011 issue of Townsend Letter – The Examiner of Alternative Medicine, which is just now arriving in the mailboxes of subscribers, published an article I wrote and published here at resistance is fruitful earlier this year. The article, entitled  “Deja vu at the FDA”, is not available online at Townsend Letter, but can be read in its entirety here on my blog, of course.

According to their website, Townsend Letter “publishes a print magazine about alternative medicine. It is written by researchers, health practitioners and patients. As a forum for the entire alternative medicine community, we present scientific information (pro and con) on a wide variety of alternative medicine topics.”

Deja vu relates my realization that we AIDS activists may have been at least partially responsible for helping the FDA become such a powerful force in American health care choices by demanding fast track approval of drugs:

By committing outrageous acts and civil disobedience, we gave the pharmaceutical industry even more control over what was supposed to be an independent agency serving the public good by protecting consumers against dangerous drugs. The early signs of this co-optation are obvious, in hindsight. AIDS activist leaders from ACT UP (New York) soon found themselves in lucrative positions with new pharma-backed  “grassroots” organizations, such as POZ and AIDSMeds, promoting the wonders of an assembly line of new drugs developed with a single purpose in mind:  changing clinical markers on relatively new laboratory tests, such as CD4 and PCR viral load, that are rarely, if ever used to evaluate the immune health of the general population. The trade-off is that today, the number one cause of death of poz people are non-AIDS-defining cancers and liver failure.

To say I’m flattered and honored to have something I’ve written published in Townsend Letter would be an understatement.  Other contributors to the December issue include such notables as Gary Null and Mike Adams.

 

 

 

Wait... there's more!

  • 97

    97. That’s my latest CD4+ count, less than half the count from six weeks ago.

    That’s it. I have tried as many alternative treatments as I can think of to reverse the decline. I will be starting my third round of pharmaceutical ARVs as soon as I can get a prescription and fill it.

    This decision has been a long time coming, and in hindsight, I probably should have restarted a few months ago. There’s nothing magical about 97, or being below 100, but it’s as good a breaking point as any. I’ve long argued that there are two things to keep in mind about CD4 counts: one is the long-term trend; the other is single- or low double-digit counts.

  • Reduce AIDS drug toxicity and side effects

    I embarked on my third course of ARVs since 1998. For ten of the sixteen years I have been HIV-positive, I was able to manage well enough without ARVs and I continue to believe there is no reason for otherwise healthy HIV-positive—let alone negative—gay men to take these drugs. To those who want to wave a recent study about the benefits of early intervention in my face, I would ask them why they put so much faith in a science that has utterly failed us to date.

  • The truth about Truvada: PrEP won’t stop AIDS

    I’m willing to grant that gay men are entitled to use PrEP… provided they have access to all the information they need to make an informed decision. Informed consent has been a hallmark of the HIV and AIDS research and prevention efforts for three decades, and that shouldn’t be waived for the campaign favoring PrEP.

    Gay men deserve to know that all the claims for Truvada reducing the risk of acquiring HIV-positivity  are based on trials—funded by Gilead—that emphasized the importance of using condoms…

  • Confessions of a heretic AIDS dissident

    You might not know it from reading the comments left here on my blog, but there are more than a few AIDS dissidents who really don’t like how I think or what I write about.

    There’s a whole thread on a very popular Facebook page called “Rethinking AIDS”, discussing my open letter to Dora. Last I looked, that thread had nearly 100 comments, and very few of those comments were about Dora, Ruggiero or the defense of academic freedom.

    No, the gist of the thread was whether or not I am in “the AIDS Zone.” It seems that because I did not use “air quotes” around the term “HIV disease”, I’m not really an AIDS dissident. Others took issue with my post for daring to publish that some AIDS Rethinkers hold a very narrow view about “HIV” and “AIDS”, while others of us are merely “questioning” the whole affair. None of them chose to comment directly to me here.

    Some of the most visible and vocal Rethinkers seem intent on imposing their own “beliefs” (another loaded term that deserves quotes) on the entire movement. There has long been a tendency to try to impose a sort of litmus test to determine whether or not one is a true “AIDS dissident”.

    Since I first met the AIDS dissident community via the AIDS Myth Exposed forums—since renamed Questioning AIDS—several years ago, I’ve become aware of several of the various factions, distinctive personalities and divisions within that broad group. Now I’m finding it ironic just how guilty some of these people are at their own version of “bone-pointing”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *