AZT For Orphans: The Opportunistic Nature of Drug Testing
Researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital failed to obtain and evaluate whether they had proper consent, information and safeguards for foster children, said the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Human Research Protections, according to an article by Associated Press writer John Solomon.
The investigation followed a scandal that broke when Liam Scheff investigated the New York Incarnation Childrens' Center's use of orphans or rather kids that had been taken away from their mothers, in AIDS drug tests. The toxic drugs "tested" on the orphans were forcefully given - compliance ensured by surgically inserting feeding tubes directly into the stomach of the kids who, most of them, refused to swallow the pills that made them violently sick.
In a new article on GNN.TV, Scheff asks why research centered around two of the most toxic drugs in the entire pharmaceutical arsenal, instead of some more humane but less researched methods of dealing with immune deficiency:"What would life have been like for the orphans at Incarnation Children’s Center if they hadn’t been in used in drug trials? If they hadn’t received AZT and Nevirapine? If they had, instead, been enrolled in progressive, micronutrient studies? If instead of having drug tubes surgically inserted for reasons of compliance, they had been well-fed, well-schooled and nurtured? Would it have been more or less responsible than the current state of affairs?"
We might remind ourselves that there is money in drug testing and there is little or no money in researching nutrition or in saving lives. We need a paradigm change in health.
- - -
The NIH Scandal and the Future of AIDS Research
Fri, 17 Jun 2005
First published on GNN.TV
By Liam Scheff
A federal investigation calls drug trials on orphans unethical. Now what?
The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections investigating the clinical trials on Black and Hispanic orphans at New York’s Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) has found that the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Columbia Presbyterian Hospital acted unethically.
The Associated Press reported Thursday June 16th: “The government has concluded at least some AIDS drug experiments involving foster children violated federal rules designed to ensure vulnerable youths were protected from the risks of medical research.”
ICC began testing drugs on its orphan population in 1992, the same year they became a subsidiary of Columbia University’s Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trial Unit, under Dr. Anne Gershon. The trials were implemented and overseen by a committee, headed at ICC by Dr. Stephen Nicholas. Dr. Nicholas left ICC in the late 1990s and is now Chief of the Department of Pediatrics at Harlem Hospital. In 2003, I went undercover inside the facility and saw the effects of the drugs on the children myself. I broke the story in an article entitled The House that AIDS Built that first ran on Indymedia.org.
Many of the drugs (like AZT and its analogues) that were used in the ICC trials had previously been approved for use in adults and evidenced life-threatening and fatal toxicities.
So why put a drug with severe recorded toxicities into a population of Black and Hispanic orphans?
Moving a drug that is experiencing failure from one population to another may be a way to test the full potential or limits of a drug. But it also artificially sustains the life of the drug by keeping it in research trials – that is, it circumvents a marketplace loss and keeps a questionable product in rotation.
The trials at ICC reflect a second, and perhaps more important trend in pharmaceuticals – the opportunistic nature of drug testing.
Incarnation’s orphans live at the bottom of American class system. Often the children of drug users, they were born into ill health and poverty. Additionally (and like all AIDS patients), these children were, because of their HIV status, written of as a loss by the medical authority, before they even got a chance to live.
AIDS doctors will claim with unquestionable authority that without drugs like AZT, HIV positivity is always a terminal condition, even though HIV testing is a flawed art, at best (see Knowing is Beautiful and Sex Crimes) and even as the research community generally ignores the population of HIV positives who avoid the standard treatments and seek out alternative therapies, often with measurable success.
Why isn’t the NIH interested in competitive AIDS research? That’s the billion-dollar question. That is, if inexpensive micronutrients and competitive disease and treatment models prove more successful than the current research, it will represent a loss of billions for the AIDS drug and research industry.
There is reasonable evidence that we should we be looking outside the current therapies into competitive treatment models. There is also incredible resistance to the idea. Researchers who challenge the current dogma in HIV research quickly find themselves thrown out of the club.
But some studies have gotten through, and the results are enticing.
A 1994 study in the journal Journal of Infectious Diseases found that “The risk of death among HIV-infected subjects with adequate serum vitamin A levels was 78% less, when compared with Vitamin A-deficient subjects.” (J.IF 1994; 171: 1196-1202).
A 1993 study in the journal of AIDS found that vitamin A supplementation increased T Cells and reduced predicted progression to illness in AIDS HIV positive men: “Among well nourished HIV seropositive men who participated in the San Francisco Men’s Health Study, high energy-adjusted vitamin A intake at baseline was associated with higher CD4 cell count at baseline, as well as with lower risk of developing AIDS during the 6 year period follow up” (J.AIDS 1993; 6: 94)
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in the journal Epidemiology noted that better nutritional status equaled better health and prognosis in HIV positive individuals: “HIV infection may be modified by nutritional status…Numerous observational studies report inverse association between vitamin status…and the risk of disease progression or vertical transmission.” (Epidemiology 1998; 9: 457-466).
The study also reported that antibody and PCR tests in pregnant women are also positively affected by basic nutritional supplementation: “Adequate vitamin status may also reduce vertical transmission through the intra-partum and breastfeeding routes by reducing HIV viral load in lower genital secretions and breast milk.” (ibid)
The study concludes: “Vitamin supplements may be one of the few potential treatments that are inexpensive enough to be made available to HIV-infected persons in developing countries.” (Epidemiology 1998; 9: 457-466).
Increased health, Increased T Cells, significant decreases in mortality – and beta-carotene is cheap. Other vitamins including B, C and E have also proven clinically effective in improving the health of HIV-positive and AIDS patients.
But, I forget. AZT is the cure. Anything else is lunacy. Unless, of course, the public demands otherwise.
Kudos is owed to the HHS committee for reviewing the evidence in the Incarnation trials, and to Dr. Jonathan Fishbein of the NIH AIDS clinical trials division, who wrote an official request to Daniel Levinson, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, demanding accountability.
“The HHS has not been policing their work,” Dr. Fishbein told me last week. “They have not been accountable for the money that’s been handed out.”
He continued, “There needs to be an independent, objective review of the medical records of every foster child that has been put into a government-funded AIDS clinical trial.”
Perhaps another motivating force in the HHS ruling was the growing movement of Black civil rights groups (like New York City’s December 12th Movement), who staged multiple protests throughout the winter and spring at Incarnation Children’s Center, and who are now circling around the bigger questions of the reliability of HIV testing, and the allowable toxicities of standard drugs used in AIDS care.
But in all the good news, there has been one significant point missed by the various news agencies that have covered the story:
The drugs used on the kids as part of clinical trials, the drugs that were so toxic, are the same drugs that are still being used daily in adults and children who test HIV positive worldwide.
They are the same ‘life-saving’ drugs – AZT, Nevirapine and the Protease Inhibitors – that we’re in such a hurry to get to poor, rural Africans and Indians who are labeled HIV positive.
So was it the clinical trials in New York that caused the drugs to be toxic? Or was it just the drugs?
The medical literature on AZT, the mainstream media’s “life-saving AIDS drug,” paints a steady picture of toxicity and failure that are difficult to ignore:
In 1987 the New England Journal of Medicine reported that “Anemia [loss of red blood cells] developed in 24% of AZT recipients and 4% of placebo recipients.” And added that “21% of AZT recipients” required “multiple red-cell transfusions,” versus “4% of placebo patients” (NEJM. 1987; 317:192-197)
In 1988, the Journal of Clinical Pathology reported that, “Blood transfusion is often necessary in patients with AIDS, especially in those receiving AZT, a drug which produces severe anemia in a proportion of recipients. Forty nine (36%) of 138 patients treated with AZT required blood transfusion at least once.” (J Clin Pathol. 1988;41:711-5)
Eleven years later, the journal AIDS reported that children born to AZT-treated mothers “are more likely to have a rapid course of HIV-1 infection compared with children born to untreated mothers, as disease progression and immunological deterioration are significantly more rapid and the risk of death is actually increased during the first 3 years of life.” (AIDS, 1999, 13:927-933)
The study noted that “survival probability” – a child’s chance of living – was lower in those born to AZT treated mothers, compared with AZT free mothers. (ibid)
Proponents of AZT claim it offers the possibility of reduction in transmission of HIV from mother to child. But given that children born to mothers on AZT die faster than those not, why are we in such a rush to get the drug into the mouths of pregnant women in the US and Africa?
Or, more to the point, should AZT be the first line defense against AIDS, over-riding even basic necessities, like essential foods, safe drinking water and social and economic support for disenfranchised people?
What would life have been like for the orphans at Incarnation Children’s Center if they hadn’t been in used in drug trials? If they hadn’t received AZT and Nevirapine?
If they had, instead, been enrolled in progressive, micronutrient studies? If instead of having drug tubes surgically inserted for reasons of compliance, they had been well-fed, well-schooled and nurtured?
Would it have been more or less responsible than the current state of affairs?
Liam Scheff is an investigative journalist who went undercover inside the ICC to break this story in 2003. His reporting was featured in a recent BBC documentary “Guinea Pig Kids.” Scheff is currently writing a book on the subject.
17 July 2005 - The New York Times just covered - I suppose 'attempted to bury' would be a better way to say it - the story on Incarnation Childrens' Center in New York drafting orphans into AIDS drug studies or "experimental treatments" and forcing the kids to take the drugs by surgical feeding tube implants. The story was investigated and exposed by Liam Scheff.
Below is Liam's response to the NY Times.
What can I say? At least the "newspaper of note" has to do a hack job on the story, it's no longer possible to just ignore what is posted in various places on the internet...
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005
From: liam scheff
Subject: NY Times "Covers" ICC story - important - please take a minute
NY Times Covers ICC story.. And by Covers - I mean buries.
It's in the Times, so lots of people will skim it.
If you find their reporting lacking in any facts, then please write them a letter at:
The article was written by
Janny Scott and Leslie Kaufman.
They interviewed me, but only used the little bit they needed to make everybody feel good about ignoring the story.
What can you expect? It's the NY Times.
But you can email them a response, if you want to put together a reasonable letter.
My letter can be found here (scroll down the page to number 5)
Guinea Pig Kids in AIDS Drugs Trials
Sam Burcher - Institute of Science in Society
The anti-HIV drugs, AZT and nevirapine, are known to be highly toxic and to cause serious side effects. Despite this, they are still being used in clinical trials involving some of the most vulnerable members of society, pregnant women and newborn babies in Africa, and orphans in the United States.
NIH-Sponsored AIDS Drugs Tests on Mothers and Babies
Sam Burcher - Institute of Science in Society
In December 2004 , the Associated Press claimed that the adverse events in Uganda were censored and unknown to President Bush in 2002 when he announced his $500 million plan to push nevirapine across Africa to a million women a year. But before the plan went into effect, The NIH shut down the Ugandan research until the summer of 2003 to review the science and to make the necessary amends. They asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the case and spent millions of dollars on improving record keeping and safety monitoring. A top NIH disease official reviewing the case concluded that the use of nevirapine even in single doses could confer instant drug resistance to HIV - positive patients, which would prevent the use of any other available antiretroviral drugs for future treatment. Therefore it was unsuitable as a first drug of choice.
Dr. Jonathan Fishbein's fight for medical ethics in AIDS medicine
In December 2005, GNN’s Liam Scheff spoke with NIH whistleblower Dr. Jonathan Fishbein. In an exclusive interview, Fishbein discusses the controversial African AIDS drug trials he exposed, his firing and reinstatement and how medical ethics and the public trust are violated when profit and politics rule the day.
New York Times - Children Die in Aids Drug Trials, but the Drugs are Fine, Fine, Fine
What can I say that Robert Lifton hasn’t written so clearly, and so well already? We are practicing a corrupted medicine. There is a taint of racism running through Aids science. We are over-burdening groups with the permanent and fatal ‘Aids’ diagnosis, based on faulty technology, and an immovable assumption that we then enforce by the overly-toxic regimens you witness above.
How do we propose to save children by first, giving them a death sentence based on faulty and poly-reactive (poly-diagnostic) tests [HIV Tests - Yes, They Do Not Diagnose Nor Are Specific For Only One Condition];
Then enrolling them with or without permission into drug trials with the most severe toxic effects recorded in a pharmaceutical [Nevirapine].
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday June 26 2005
updated on Wednesday December 8 2010
URL of this article:
AZT, Nevirapine - Children In New York Orphanage Given Toxic Drugs
A Catholic orphanage in New York - Incarnation’s Children Center - has allowed its charges, mostly orphans and children removed from their mothers' care, to be used in cruel experiments with drugs that are known to kill most of the patients taking them. This tragedy has taken place under our very noses - we weren't looking. Journalist Liam Scheff has written about this scandal before and you can see that... [read more]
November 05, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Jerndal: AIDS Statistics are 'Smoke and Mirrors' - Epidemic is False Alarm
30 April 2004 - BBC informs us that "Aids has killed 2 million Nigerians", and that another 3.8 million are infected by the HIV virus. Only South Africa and India are said to have more people infected. The article goes on to say that Nigeria "has been criticised for not doing enough to fight Aids" and that a big problem seems to "raise awareness" about the disease. A few days... [read more]
May 06, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing
According to the scientific literature, there is no "gold standard" for HIV tests. Liam Scheff, who has exposed how children are removed from their parents' care and forcibly drugged with highly toxic anti-retrovirals insists that testing for HIV does not mean a thing. A "positive" test result could merely "confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold,... [read more]
January 13, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger
HIV-Aids: A Tragic Error
Recently, a friend from the UK sent a copy of an article published in the Observer, titled: "UK firm tried HIV drug on orphans" which details experiments with toxic AIDS drugs on orphans in New York, involving the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. Reading the article I forwarded to some people, a medical doctor friend has the following to say: "I see nothing wrong with this. At least the children received... [read more]
April 12, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Africa - Nevirapine For AIDS Mothers: U.S. Hid Research Concerns
According to a recent article in the Indy Star, the National Institute of Health did not inform presidential aides about safety concerns that emerged during testing of nevirapine in Uganda. As a result, a U.S. led program distributed the drug to hundreds of thousands of pregnant mothers in Africa. The aim was to stem mother-to-child transmission of HIV, a retro-virus widely believed to cause the symptoms of Aids. U.S. Senator... [read more]
December 14, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
AIDS, Vitamin C and Big Pharma's Dark Secrets
Mark Sircus of IMVA, the International Medical Veritas Association warns that there is a thread of "technology of death" that dates back to pre-World War II times and that seems to be alive to this day. This notion, as strange as it might seem, is not far fetched for those who are familiar with the content of a complaint filed with the International Criminal Court in The Hague by Dr.... [read more]
May 21, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger