January 9, 2012

In 1987, I was asked to debate a group of 6 scientists about the very promising AIDS drug, AZT.  Signs around NYU Medical School exhorted everyone to “Put Time on Your Side”, and the vast majority of activists, including ACT UP, were pushing the government to allocate all available funds to get this drug into as many people as possible who had been diagnosed with AIDS.  I was the only one who was dissenting and there was a simple reason:  I had spoken with John Lauritsen.

Lauritsen, an investigative journalist who wrote for the New York Native in the 1980s and 1990s, knew that AZT was a fraud.  Originally a chemotherapy drug that was rejected due to excessive toxicity, AZT was resurrected for use as an AIDS treatment and fast tracked by the FDA for approval in just six months.  Lauritsen looked closely at the one single study used as a basis for this approval, and found:  “the description of methodology was incomplete and incoherent.  Not a single table was acceptable according to statistical standards – indeed, not a single table made sense.  In particular, the first report, on “efficacy” was marred by contradictions, ill-logic, and special pleading.”  Lauritsen discovered that this poor-quality study was unblinded early, allowing both doctors and patients to know whether AZT or the placebo was being taken, thus completely invalidating the study.  Then the study itself was terminated early, ostensibly so that all participants would be able to take AZT, which appeared so effective at preventing death from AIDS.  The real-life follow up, however, at no time repeated the stunning results of this mangled study.  Instead, according to Lauritsen, “More than 96% of all “AIDS” deaths in the U.S. occurred after AZT was approved for marketing in 1987. Those deaths were not caused by a virus, but by AZT. “