THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 87): The NIH Activists: "Acceptable Risks"?
August 30, 2000
As "The NIH Activists" series unfolds, we will
be treated to an Orwellian view of what happens
when political agendas of disease activism
merge with the pharma-political agenda of one
of the largest bureaucracies on Earth -- the
National Institutes of Health. During the past
few decades of mysterious emerging diseases and
unexplained syndromes, such as the AIDS "plague",
the coincidental evidence of diseases arising
from NIH research blunders, political agendas
and junk science priorities is as compelling,
as it should be embarrassing:
"Suddenly senior officials at the National Institutes
of Health joined activists in berating (New York
Times science reporter Gina) Kolata".
Elinor Burkett
"The Gravest Show on Earth" (page 9):
With a focus on the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Disease (NIAID), we will
discover how AIDS activism became NIH activism,
and how the Directorship of Dr. Anthony Fauci
has become the Dictatorship of the Pathogenic
Disease Thought Police, who dictate the research
and determine which diseases will receive priority
funding:
"Officials of the NIH, the FDA, and other federal
agencies have acknowledged this (activist-driven)
reconfiguration of the "data loop" by appointing
activist-experts to panels that review grants and
research, and the AIDS establishment has been forced
to make room for activists to present papers at
annual international conferences on AIDS."
Stuart Schear, science reporter, MacNeil Lehrer
Report
from "The Press' Own Deficiency Syndrome"
As we take the first step in this journey, we begin
with an introduction to one of Dr. Fauci's favorite NIH
activists: Martin Delaney, the Founding Director of Project
Inform San Francisco, a mysterious HIV-negative figure who
avoids accountability for his claims of representing
some amorphous viral-defined "constituency", despite
the fact that Delaney seems to have nothing at all in
common with his imagined "constituency"; has admitted
pharmaceutical industry funding; has refused to
disclose funding sources; and his endless pleas for
his "treatment" victim's estate donations continue
to cast a ghastly pall over Delaney's agendas du jour.
As we go back to the late 1980s to the early 1990s, we
find ourselves in San Francisco, with Martin Delaney's
megalomania substituting for his lack of medical and
clinical training, as he sets out define the
new standard in clinical trial expediency with
"underground clinical trials" of Compound Q.
Clearly unencumbered by the high-minded notions of the
Nuremberg Code, Martin Delaney dispenses with the "informed
consent" wastes-of-time and plunges into his Compound Q human
experiments. While Kwitny may not have been told of
the hundreds of thousands of dollars Delaney was being
paid from a Swiss pharmaceutical company, it probably
woundn't have mattered if he had, since the only
criteria Kwitny held for heroism was the willingness
to experiment on one's fellow man (that is, as long
as it is someone else laying down their life to find
the cure in time to save your hide).
In retrospect, lets see how the science reporter
for the MacNeil Lehrer Report, Stuart Schear, from
"The Press' Own Deficiency Syndrome" views the
Compound Q Junk Science Jesus that investigative
reporter Jonathan Kwitny canonized in "Acceptable Risks":
"... fearing that official studies of (Compound) Q
would take too long ... Delaney established the
research protocol in the U.S. While they most
certainly hoped that Q would be the long-sought-after
treatment for HIV, Delaney and Corti also wanted to prove
that they could test Q more quickly than the official
researchers running their own trials at San Francisco
General Hospital."
"A whirlwind of media attention descended on Delaney
after two subjects died in the underground trials
of Compound Q -- the first in San Francisco..."
When the NIH Thought Police spin doesn't go well...
"Although some of his complaints seem to be justified,
Delaney comes off as naive. Fair or not, an unofficial
trial is likely to draw more critical attention."
Mother Theresas ... or Pigs of The Plague?
"While one cannot fail to appreciate Kwitny's
sympathy for the sick, his judgment has to be
questioned. Buried -- in the author's Afterword
-- is the significant fact that Delaney and Corti
will share 40 percent of the earnings from the book."
"Delaney's response to (Chicago Tribune's John) Crewdson's
stories of Gallo's alleged breach of ethics seems to have
been myopic: Delaney's sole concern was that Crewdson's
stories might serve as an impediment to research by
Gallo and to an impending deal between Gallo's lab
and a Japanese pharmaceutical firm."
The Idiot's Guide To "Surprising and Pleasing" Control Freaks :
"Delaney called a friend at The Associated Press to complain
about how a very specific aspect of the (Kolata Compound Q)
story was being covered by most papers. Kwitny writes that
Delaney was "surprised and pleased when she arranged for
a toned-down story to go out on the wire, more accurately
reflecting the situation."
John Wayne Gacy sans clown suit ... or Junk Science Jesus?
"Acceptable Risks sometimes has the distinct feel
of hagiography..."
While the close association between NIAID Director
Dr. Anthony Fauci and the AIDS activists found common
ground when the activists eagerly sold out to Fauci's
invitation to join with his NIAID Battlestar in the high
attrition fight against AIDS, it soon became apparent that
Fauci's activists had mutated into NIH activists. Nothing
illustrates this better than when controversy sets off panic
and damage control. For example, as when New York Times' Gina
Kolata reported on the deliberate contamination of
AIDS drug trials by the NIH activists who were
determined to sabotage the "time wasting" trials
by pushing ALL study paticipants to use the drugs
(thus forcing FDA capitulation for drug approval), Kolata
reported the story on page 1. The anti-Kolata outcry by
the "activists" was "suddenly" joined by the NIH "senior
officials" protests, as reported in Elinor Burkett's
"The Gravest Show on Earth" (page 9):
"Suddenly senior officials at the National Institutes
of Health joined activists in berating Kolata".
In "THE PRESS'S OWN DEFICIENCY SYNDROME" review by
Stuart Schear brings us up to date on Delaney, and
those who see the anti-hero for what he is:
"... Delaney has been forced to give up his
executive duties by a disgruntled staff..."
In reviewing the fiction-presented-as-fact from
Jonathan Kwitny's "Acceptable Risks", what has been
most conspicuous about Jonathan Kwitny's skills
as an investigative reporter was their absence.
Certainly with Kwitny's 60-40 profit split from
the book, Schear's concerns about good reporters
producing schlock fiction about medical issues
were well deserved -- and for Kwirty, long overdue,
post-mortem or not, AIDS or not.
Just examine the title of the book, "Acceptable
Risks". As a tale about an HIV-negative hero in
search of drug cures for those with HIV infection,
the fable becomes laughable when the risk-free hero
Delaney bravely dictates the risk mandate of political
correctness for those who, unlike himself,
are HIV-infected. Does Delaney ever have to take
these toxic "life-saving drugs himself? No! Does
Delaney even volunteer himself as an HIV-negative
control for drug toxicity study? Once more: no.
Does Delaney take even the slightest risk? Hell no!
So who gave Martin Delaney the power to decide what
is an acceptable risk for people with HIV? Aside
from Delaney's megalomania, The NIH Thought Police
and Jonathan Kwitny's own desperate search for
answers, apparently nobody.
While we all know that heroes are those who abandon
any notion of harm to themselves as they valiantly
stuggle to save others, this certainly isn't
Delaney. To the contrary, what emerges from a portrayal
of HIV-negative Delaney as the AIDS treatment hero
soon becomes a cartoonish story starved for credibility
and drowning in macabre opportunism.
Given the events in the years that followed, we are
forced to wonder if Delaney was a strategic megalomaniacal
opportunist who was planted in the political AIDS milieu,
if only to defuse the explosive potential of an epidemic
that may have been seeded by the CDC's Hepatitis
B vaccine trials of the early 1980s (but that's
a topic for another time).
Delaney's "takeover" of AIDS politics was a no-brainer
-- as the "real AIDS activists" died off, that left
the loudest HIV-negative mouth on the block in charge
by default.
Some were beginning to wonder if Delaney was even gay
as he claimed, especially since Delaney remained a
stranger to a San Francisco gay scene far too ravaged
by disease to have noticed. Fifteen years later,
nobody has a clue, and nobody seems to care any more
than they would about who Bigbird might sleep with,
and for good reason.
So let's look at the "Acceptable Risks" fantasy and see
if we can ask the questions Jonathan Kwirty never
could:
Did drug smuggler Delaney's admitted opium injection habit
lead to the "endings in his feet (being) permanently damaged"?
Was Delaney truly "cured" of his purported near-fatal
encounter with Hepatitis B in a clinical trial which left
only one survivor -- Martin Delaney -- "cured" at the cost
of a rather conspicuous limp from toxic drug neuropathy?
Were ANY these unverified background claims for the
Martin Delaney true, especially when Delaney fortifies
himself from even the slightest scrutiny?
Aside from Saintly insinuations, Kwitny leaves us wondering
why Martin Delaney would be the only human on the planet
to be cured in a clinical trial of progressive Hepatitis B
infection that Delaney's purported doctors claimed would kill
him in a matter of a few short years. Unbelievable,
or simply cartoonish, Kwitny's award-winning investigative
talents were simply on vacation.
As to Delaney's purported "gay lover" who was claimed to be
a "B movie actor" (from Sausalito?), isn't is rather
convenient that after his purported death from AIDS,
Delaney refused to identify him on the basis of
"protecting his privacy"? (Protecting whose privacy,
Mr. Delaney -- yours or the privacy of a dead toon?).
Of course, Kwitny went along with the fiction, allowing
it to become a puff piece for a risk-free drug activist
pseudo-hero who cut a 60/40 deal with Kwitny on
the profits from the fable.
Ironically, Kwitny may have been driven by his own
demons -- and his own "unexpected demise" from
an unspecified cancer in 1998 has many wondering
if Kwitny was on the AIDS drug cocktails which
are associated with a 400% AIDS cocktail-related
increase in lymphoma rates. When investigative
reporters get cancer, everybody knows exactly what
kind of cancer. Sam Donaldson's encounter with
melanoma, for example -- no secret. But when Kwitny's
professional judgement goes on vacation when he
writes about AIDS drugs, one must take a hard look
at his sudden and unexpected death from "cancer"
just a few years later, and just after he switched jobs.
One must ask: "Who was Jonathan Kwitny writing
"Acceptable Risks" for, if not himself"?
Do we believe any of the other fictional portrayals of
Delaney, or are they also too cartoonish, given the
complete lack of evidence that sustains Delaney's
notorious phobia for public accountability that we have
witnessed on the internet newsgroups in the mask of
cowards "gangbang", "Jack in Texas", "DaveT",
"Dgiunti", and other obvious accountability-phobic
masquerades of equal Delaney viciousness with his
flair for character assassination and intimidation?
To conclude, here are few excerpts from Stuart Schear,
Science Reporter, MacNeil Lehrer Report from
"The Press' Own Deficiency Syndrome" as Schear
skewers Jonathan Kwitny's tabloid writing and
deals with the devil in "Acceptable Risks":
"In the early 1980s Martin Delaney was a successful business
consultant. He had suffered severely from chronic
hepatitis, a frequently fatal liver infection rampant in the
gay community at that time. Delaney benefited from an
experimental treatment which unfortunately left the nerve
endings in his feet permanently damaged. Nonetheless, this
lifesaving treatment shaped Delaney's positive views of
experimental treatments. When his lover became ill with HIV,
Delaney turned his considerable intelligence and will to
procuring AIDS treatments. His role in the search for AIDS
treatments grew rapidly, and in 1985 he founded and became
executive director of Project Inform, a San Francisco-based
foundation that provides information on treatments for AIDS
to tens of thousands of people around the world. Recent
reports suggested that Delaney has been forced to give up
his executive duties by a disgruntled staff, but he
continues to represent Project Inform as its founding
director."
Delaney: NIH Activist of FDA Antichrist?
"Focusing his efforts on reforming the drug approval
process in the U.S., Delaney has played a pivotal role
in persuading the FDA and the biomedical research
establishment to rewrite the rules for approving and
granting access to treatments for life-threatening
illnesses."
Kwitny's Personal AIDS Drug Agenda?
"Delaney and Corti are clearly Kwitny's heroes; indeed,
they are two of the most important figures among the
new breed of activist-experts. Kwitny's comments on drug
regulations in his Afterword explain his unstinting
admiration for both men. However, the author reaches
beyond the position staked out by his subjects and
offers his own libertarian view of drug approval. He
argues that the FDA should simply gather and provide
consumers with reliable information about the safety
and efficacy of treatments."
Delooney Toons...
"As for the media, Kwitny offers some keen observations
about how Delaney, one of the most astute AIDS
activists, assesses members of the press. Often Delaney
characterizes journalists as bunglers and obstacles
and, less frequently, as allies and friends. Some
are seen as pliable, while others are viewed as dangerous,
even destructive."
"Of all the journalists written about in Acceptable Risks,
the hardest hit is Gina Kolata of The New York Times.
Kolata is consistently viewed by Delaney and Kwitny as a
reporter who can't get a story straight. Delaney has
nothing but disdain for her, but fears her critical page-one
power. Kolata's list of sins, as seen by Delaney, is too
long to enumerate here. However, he is absolutely convinced
that she is profoundly biased in favor of traditional
research and drug approval. He thinks this is particularly
true of her coverage of the Compound Q story."
"Derived from a Chinese cucumber root, this compound was
thought to be a possible treatment for AIDS, even by
establishment researchers. However, fearing that official
studies of Q would take too long, Delaney and Corti
followed their usual division of labor: Corti traveled to
China and obtained a supply of Compound Q; Delaney
established the research protocol in the U.S. While they
most certainly hoped that Q would be the long-sought-after
treatment for HIV, Delaney and Corti also wanted to prove
that they could test Q more quickly than the official
researchers running their own trials at San Francisco
General Hospital."
"A whirlwind of media attention descended on Delaney
after two subjects died in the underground trials
of Compound Q -- the first in San Francisco, the
second in New York. According to Delaney, there
was no proof whatsoever that Q had killed them,
and he reminded journalists that many people in
AIDS studies die for reasons unrelated to treatment.
Kolata, however, linked the deaths directly to Q.
Delaney believes that Kolata applied a double standard
by asking questions of him that she had never asked
of traditional researchers regarding official research
studies of such drugs as AZT. In essence, Delaney
makes the brief that Kolata seeks opportunities to
discredit nontraditional researchers and displays too
great a loyalty to officially sanctioned work. Although
some of his complaints seem to be justified, Delaney
comes off as naive. Fair or not, an unofficial trial
is likely to draw more critical attention.
"On the opposite end of the journalistic spectrum from
Kolata were reporters who saw it Delaney's way. Like
an astute politician, Delaney made every effort to put
the best spin on any story related to his work. Kwitny
recounts how, during the Q controversy, Delaney called
a friend at The Associated Press to complain about
how a very specific aspect of the story was being covered
by most papers. Kwitny writes that Delaney was "surprised
and pleased when she arranged for a toned-down story to
go out on the wire, more accurately reflecting the situation."
Gallo and David Ho are on Project Inform's Board of Directors
"Delaney's view of the work of John Crewdson of the Chicago
Tribune is telling about the activist's single-minded view
of every issue. Crewdson has aggressively pursued the
controversy over the role of Dr. Robert Gallo, of the
National Cancer Institute, in discovering HIV. Delaney's
response to Crewdson's stories of Gallo's alleged breach
of ethics seems to have been myopic: Delaney's sole concern
was that Crewdson's stories might serve as an impediment to
research by Gallo and to an impending deal between Gallo's
lab and a Japanese pharmaceutical firm."
"The greatest shift of power occurred when activists, Delaney
and Corti among them, took on the task of gathering their
own data, conducting their own analyses, and critiquing and
contributing to the conclusions of establishments
scientists. Officials of the NIH, the FDA, and other federal
agencies have acknowledged this reconfiguration of the
"data loop" by appointing activist-experts to panels that
review grants and research, and the AIDS establishment has
been forced to make room for activists to present papers at
annual international conferences on AIDS."
Copyright, W. Fred Shaw, 2000, All Rights Reserved