HIV Aids - The Day Of Reckoning Looms For Antiretroviral Lobbyists (Anita Allen)

Author

The Day Of Reckoning Looms For Antiretroviral Lobbyists (Anita Allen)

Alex

2005-11-22, 12:49 pm

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/allen/2005_nov09.html

The Day Of Reckoning Looms For Antiretroviral Lobbyists

By Red Flags Columnist, Anita Allen

Since my last letter, detailing the call by our opposition political party for my banning, there's
been a bit of a wind of change.

It's true that one radio station heeded the call to ban me. On the other hand, another station not
only has allowed me on to the air waves, but various presenters have engaged me in exchanges - and
even allowed me to take questions from listeners. This is a departure from previous practice, where
I was allowed only to make a statement before being cut off air.

The station that banned me transmits on medium wave, and the one where I am being accorded open
access transmits nationwide, so the coverage area couldn't be better.

The fact that our local Freedom of Expression Institute has taken a principled stance against the
call for my banning, along with 11 others, may have something to do with my sudden access to the
airwaves. It may also have to do with South Africans in general having an innate sense of fair play.
Mostly, I think it is a perverse aspect of human nature to be immediately curious about exactly what
it is people like me are saying that warrants a ban.

Anyway, there's been a sea change on at least one channel at our national broadcaster with listeners
calling and actually expressing the hope that I am listening and will phone in and participate. For
the past two weeks, I have been able to phone in several times. The topic has been one I am
delighted is finally getting an airing: the safety and efficacy of antiretrovirals (ARVs).

The most ardent proponent of this class of chemotherapy drugs is a non-governmental organization
(NGO) called Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). (1) Back in 1999, when President Thabo Mbeki first
expressed concerns about the toxicity of these drugs, they were not being dispensed in the public
health system. TAC brought a court action and the high court ruled that, since the drugs were
licensed, they had to be rolled out by government. This finally commenced on April 1, 2004.

From the start, TAC has been synonymous with ARVs. AIDS covers 30-odd diseases, all with their own
drug therapies, but TAC never toyi-toyis for any of these, just ARVs. The one exception was
Fluconazole (aka Diflucan), which TAC leader Zackie Achmat needed for a persistent fungal infection.
In 2000, he made headlines for illegally smuggling in a generic form of the drug; then, somehow, the
Medicines Control Council issued a licence for their distribution, instead of impounding them and
putting Achmat in jail.

After all, it takes a particular kind of monster to incarcerate an HIV-positive person for getting a
cheap version of a drug he needs to manage what is a chronic fungal infection.

The organization has been a boon to the pharmaceutical industry, mainly through the free advertising
generated by a brown-nosing media that follows TAC antics realizing they bring colorful photo
opportunities. For the first time in the history of drug marketing, millions of people know the
brand names of ARVs without a cent being spent on advertisements or freebie inducements to health
professionals.

TAC likes to project itself as civil society's protector against Big Pharma. Its members argue that
they do not receive funding from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and they carefully screen all donors
to make sure that funding is not sourced from drug companies. On radio this week, I was able to
establish that, in fact, a TAC spokesperson, who had just made the claim, had no idea of the source
of funds from its main support base - about R6 million (US$1m) from the Germany-based Brot fuer der
Welt and R4 million (US$660,000) from Cayman Island-registered Atlantic Philanthropies.

TAC also argues that proof of its nonalignment with Big Pharma is that it constantly lobbies for
price reductions, and no manufacturer would support an organization which does this. Again, a red
herring because what Big Pharma has lost in price reductions, it has more than made up in the volume
being sold.

I never forget Durban 2000 - the 13th International AIDS Conference, when members of TAC and its
affiliate ACT-UP swarmed all over drug company stands, first Boehringer Ingelheim and then Merck,
Sharpe and Dohme (MSK). Activists virtually took over, as personnel stood by doing nothing, while
the exhibit was plastered with posters demanding cheaper ARVs.

MSK Africa representative Jeffrey Sturchio was among those standing by and watching as posters went
up denouncing drug manufacturers for not supplying free drugs. I asked him straight out if his
company funded ACT-UP and he started off by saying he wasn't sure because MSD funded many NGOs. When
I refused to accept the fudge and repeated the question demanding a yes or no, he admitted they had
funded ACT-UP, but said he had no idea by how much.

In fact, drug company sponsorship for activists to attend conferences is a tradition, as
award-winning U.K. health journalist Joan Shenton found out at the 1993 Berlin World AIDS
Conference, when the ACT-UP group's fares were paid by another drug company, Wellcome. On camera,
Shenton asked one of the ACT-UP delegates how much money they had received from Wellcome and the
answer was £60,000. It was Shenton's confirmation that prompted my question to Sturchio.

According to its 2004 annual report, which was given a qualified OK by auditors, TAC spent R6.6
million on advocacy, treatment literacy and conference organization, which is a sizeable saving for
Big Pharma. In fact, the relationship between it and TAC is seamlessly synergistic.

TAC funders might also like to know that little of the about R13 million annual funding goes to
acquiring and distributing ARVs. A mere R476,000 in 2004 and R65,000 in 2003.

In the past few months, TAC's focus has been on drumming up a case for the banning of Matthias Rath,
MD, CEO of the Germany-based Rath Foundation, which has established an office in South Africa. (2)
The foundation promotes a local chapter of the Alliance for Health, Peace and Social Justice, which
participated in recent elections in Germany. In South Africa, it employs well-known dissidents David
Rasnick, a member of our Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, and Adv Anthony Brink, author of the book
Debating AZT. All of them hold to alternate theories of AIDS cause, therapy and care with a focus on
nutrition, micronutrients and vitamin supplementation and a history of strong opposition to ARV
therapy. According to TAC, Rath Foundation staff have persuaded patients on ARVs to throw them away
and one such patient has now died.

My main focus at present is to determine what is happening to the now about 100,000 people,
including some 10,000 infants and children, who have been enrolled on ARV treatment programs via the
public health system. After months of trying, I finally got a partial answer to my questions from
our Department of Health. The reply was almost incoherent, but it did quote figures from the
province where TAC is most active, the Western Cape. Apparently, at three months, a total of 4.8
percent of patients died. At six months, a total of 7.2 percent died. In 12 months, a total of 12.2
percent died.

That means that the average longevity of a patient on ARVs could be four years. So much for the
"life-prolonging" and "life-saving" descriptive PR of these drugs. As I pointed out on radio this
week, when a member of TAC was the studio guest, this means the organization is engaged in a
purposeful diversion to one alleged death, when its own therapy has killed hundreds. Just give us
the facts - from your treatments, as well as any other, I told him.

The main story here in South Africa is the efficacy and safety of ARVs, which has yet to be
established anywhere in the world. In this country, we have ongoing what is the biggest ARV trial in
history. So, provided we all pull together and keep proper records, it should not take much longer
to generate real data.

* * *

1. www.tac.org.za
2. www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za

TheRealConspiracy

2005-11-22, 5:49 pm

I love y'all. The entire conspiracy is right there in front of you and
you are too stupid to see it, instead you gnash your teeth at the only
people trying to do something. SPOILER!!!! The real conspiracy is that
Big Pharma doesn't care AT ALL about Africa. Not one teensy tiny bit.
Do you know how much all of Africa accounts for in terms of Big
Pharma's profits? This is from Edwin Cameron's book so I am sure that
you will disregard it but one percent. One percent: the drug companies
care not one wink for Africa. The "conspiracy" is that the west and its
drug companies which supposedly make drugs to prevent and treat illness
no longer operate for any other reason than to squeeze every last dime
out of their coveted patents. This money they then pump back into the
American lobby machine as fast as possible so that the American
government does everything it can to "combat AIDS" in Africa except the
one thing that would help, breaking the patents and allowing any
country that wants to produce and distribute the meds free of charge or
for a minimal charge. So yeah go ahead,that day of reckoning is coming
for us, keep fighting against a group of people who fight for access to
treatment for the poor. As the say in Gangs of New York, "don't worry
we can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half." The
conspiracy is not HIV, the conspiracy is poverty, and with poverty
comes TB, Malaria, HIV/AIDS, and so many other diseases that rich folks
won't stand to die for. Poor folks on the other hand.... So Alex keep
up the noble and good work I hope that your bosses at Big Pharma and
Madison Ave. pay well, and for everybody else that is reading, let me
leave you with this. Everything is Fine, No One is Dying, This is The
Way Things Are Suppose to Be, HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria and Poverty are a
Myth. Everything is Fine, Go to Work, Go to Sleep.....

Moira de Swardt

2005-11-23, 12:50 am

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message

> The Day Of Reckoning Looms For Antiretroviral Lobbyists
> By Red Flags Columnist, Anita Allen

> The fact that our local Freedom of Expression Institute has taken
a principled stance against the
> call for my banning, along with 11 others, may have something to
do with my sudden access to the
> airwaves. It may also have to do with South Africans in general
having an innate sense of fair play.
> Mostly, I think it is a perverse aspect of human nature to be
immediately curious about exactly what
> it is people like me are saying that warrants a ban.

It wasn't a ban, it was boredom.

> Anyway, there's been a sea change on at least one channel at our
national broadcaster with listeners
> calling and actually expressing the hope that I am listening and
will phone in and participate. For
> the past two weeks, I have been able to phone in several times.
The topic has been one I am
> delighted is finally getting an airing: the safety and efficacy of
antiretrovirals (ARVs).

Finally? The South African government has done this one to death.
Sadly that's meant both literally and figuratively.

> The most ardent proponent of this class of chemotherapy drugs is a
non-governmental organization
> (NGO) called Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). (1) Back in 1999,
when President Thabo Mbeki first
> expressed concerns about the toxicity of these drugs, they were
not being dispensed in the public
> health system. TAC brought a court action and the high court ruled
that, since the drugs were
> licensed, they had to be rolled out by government. This finally
commenced on April 1, 2004.

In very limited circumstances to very few people at very few sites.

> From the start, TAC has been synonymous with ARVs. AIDS covers
30-odd diseases, all with their own
> drug therapies, but TAC never toyi-toyis for any of these, just
ARVs. The one exception was
> Fluconazole (aka Diflucan), which TAC leader Zackie Achmat needed
for a persistent fungal infection.
> In 2000, he made headlines for illegally smuggling in a generic
form of the drug; then, somehow, the
> Medicines Control Council issued a licence for their distribution,
instead of impounding them and
> putting Achmat in jail.

The health system provides many of the drug therapies for the OIs
associated with AIDS. Why would one toyi-toyi for a drug one
already receives? Bear in mind that many of the pain relieving
drugs for opportunistic terminal cancers are very cheap, but the
ARVs which would prevent those cancers in the first place have not
been cheap to buy, are not cheap to prescribe, are not cheap to
monitor and were not (and still are not in most places and cases)
available. TB is treated free. Bactrim is issued prophylactically.

> After all, it takes a particular kind of monster to incarcerate an
HIV-positive person for getting a
> cheap version of a drug he needs to manage what is a chronic
fungal infection.

These drugs are now provided by the health system.

> The organization has been a boon to the pharmaceutical industry,
mainly through the free advertising
> generated by a brown-nosing media that follows TAC antics
realizing they bring colorful photo
> opportunities. For the first time in the history of drug
marketing, millions of people know the
> brand names of ARVs without a cent being spent on advertisements
or freebie inducements to health
> professionals.

Millions of people? Come off it. Most South Africans couldn't tell
you what "ARV" stands for. If you could find me ten people
(including HIV positive ones) in an entire shopping mall (at
Christmas time) who could name any three drugs used in a triple
therapy regimen I will be surprised. Maybe, just maybe you could
find ten people who are actually taking these drugs who can tell you
their brand names. But the stigma in South Africa is so great that
they wouldn't own up to it in a shopping mall poll.

> TAC likes to project itself as civil society's protector against
Big Pharma. Its members argue that
> they do not receive funding from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and
they carefully screen all donors
> to make sure that funding is not sourced from drug companies. On
radio this week, I was able to
> establish that, in fact, a TAC spokesperson, who had just made the
claim, had no idea of the source
> of funds from its main support base - about R6 million (US$1m)
from the Germany-based Brot fuer der
> Welt and R4 million (US$660,000) from Cayman Island-registered
Atlantic Philanthropies.

And this allegation is proved by ...?

> TAC also argues that proof of its nonalignment with Big Pharma is
that it constantly lobbies for
> price reductions, and no manufacturer would support an
organization which does this. Again, a red
> herring because what Big Pharma has lost in price reductions, it
has more than made up in the volume
> being sold.

Volume? How many people are on ARVs in sub-Saharan Africa?
Including Botswana which is the only place other than South Africa
where the government has a declared policy of providing ARVs when
needed.

<Snip irrelevant stuff>

> According to its 2004 annual report, which was given a qualified
OK by auditors, TAC spent R6.6
> million on advocacy, treatment literacy and conference
organization, which is a sizeable saving for
> Big Pharma. In fact, the relationship between it and TAC is
seamlessly synergistic.

Advocacy, treatment literacy and conferences are the purpose of TAC.

> TAC funders might also like to know that little of the about R13
million annual funding goes to
> acquiring and distributing ARVs. A mere R476,000 in 2004 and
R65,000 in 2003.

As much as that? And for an organisation which makes no claim to
provide ARVs or other drugs!

> In the past few months, TAC's focus has been on drumming up a case
for the banning of Matthias Rath,
> MD, CEO of the Germany-based Rath Foundation, which has
established an office in South Africa. (2)
> The foundation promotes a local chapter of the Alliance for
Health, Peace and Social Justice, which
> participated in recent elections in Germany. In South Africa, it
employs well-known dissidents David
> Rasnick, a member of our Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, and Adv
Anthony Brink, author of the book
> Debating AZT. All of them hold to alternate theories of AIDS
cause, therapy and care with a focus on
> nutrition, micronutrients and vitamin supplementation and a
history of strong opposition to ARV
> therapy. According to TAC, Rath Foundation staff have persuaded
patients on ARVs to throw them away
> and one such patient has now died.

Hopefully without passing on resistant strains of HIV to other
people.

> My main focus at present is to determine what is happening to the
now about 100,000 people,
> including some 10,000 infants and children, who have been enrolled
on ARV treatment programs via the
> public health system. After months of trying, I finally got a
partial answer to my questions from
> our Department of Health. The reply was almost incoherent, but it
did quote figures from the
> province where TAC is most active, the Western Cape. Apparently,
at three months, a total of 4.8
> percent of patients died. At six months, a total of 7.2 percent
died. In 12 months, a total of 12.2
> percent died.

And what were the CD4 counts of the people who were originally
started on therapy? How many opportunistic diseases did they
already have? Which ones? How many of them remained compliant?

It is estimated that the whopping 3% of patients on ARVs will die as
a result of the drug regimen itself. (Dr Gary Hudson, HIV
Clinician). This is a huge figure and would be completely
unacceptable in situations where the person was not already very
sick and the prognosis very poor. 97% of people started on ARVs at
a CD4 count of 300 to 350 and who remain compliant will go on to
live for ten or more years. The mortality rates when the ARVs are
started at a CD4 count of 200 or less as the guidelines in South
Africa's public health system lay down are somewhat higher because
of the onset of some incurable OIs.

> That means that the average longevity of a patient on ARVs could
be four years. So much for the
> "life-prolonging" and "life-saving" descriptive PR of these drugs.
As I pointed out on radio this
> week, when a member of TAC was the studio guest, this means the
organization is engaged in a
> purposeful diversion to one alleged death, when its own therapy
has killed hundreds. Just give us
> the facts - from your treatments, as well as any other, I told
him.

The facts are freely available, not hidden at all. 60% of patients
on ARVs are going to suffer unpleasant side effects ranging from not
severe right through to death. Only 40% of patients on ARVs are
going to manage their HIV without any more hassle than the actual
treatment requires. However, 88% of people on ARVs (your figure
quoted above) are going to live. And your 4 year speculation is
based on an escalation rather than the more accurate acknowledgement
that once someone is on successful treatment they tend to stay on it
for a long time and continue to thrive for many years.

> The main story here in South Africa is the efficacy and safety of
ARVs, which has yet to be
> established anywhere in the world. In this country, we have
ongoing what is the biggest ARV trial in
> history. So, provided we all pull together and keep proper
records, it should not take much longer
> to generate real data.

And the real data is being generated rapidly.

www.haart4africa.com

--
Moira de Swardt
The most beautiful, most intelligent, most amusing, most charming,
richest, most talented woman currently posting to
soc.culture.south-africa