AIDS fact or Fraud?

[dannno]

I was going to write up a full-fledged rebuttal of Null's thesis, but I think Dr. Barrett has done a good job.

He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment. His series on "The Politics of Cancer," which was published in Penthouse magazine in 1979 and 1980, promoted unproven methods that he said were being "suppressed" by the medical establishment.

--Dr. Barrett

You really believe what Dr. Barrett has to say?!!! He's obviously an establishment lackey, and all he is doing is assassinating Null's character and doesn't say anything about the details of his findings. Same thing Mr. Chameloen here is doing. Not impressive. Not one bit.

 

[roho76]

 

[Mini-Me]

It'll mean alot fucking more if you actually read a position held by just one these guys, dissect it for yourself then research the result and bring something on your own to the table here. You can read for example alittle about the mechanisms involved just using wikipedia. One thing I wonder about is if the difference in transmission between men and women has to do a bit with different hormonal regulation of the autoimmune system. Testosterone seemingly inhibits part of the cytokine production cycle. Maybe the high levels plasma testosterone in men naturally impair the spread of different elements involved with HIV transmission in the autoimmune system. So taking this a step further would possibly tweaking the hormones in a common BC pack to reduce testosterone clearance in women provide a similar benefit? Simply allowing them to keep this level higher for a bit longer might provide an edge there without too many side-effects.

From a neutral observer with no strong opinion about AIDS, I must say that neither dannno nor Agent Chameleon have been very fair to each other in this thread. On one hand, Agent Chameleon has been casually throwing around strong words like "insane" to describe Duesberg's hypothesis, yet until post 44, he refused to discuss the subject or point out a single supposedly "obvious" flaw in Duesberg's logic or methodology that would in any way support the implied charge of quackery. On the other hand, after repeatedly criticizing Agent Chameleon for refusing to discuss the subject, dannno proceeded to ignore post 44, wherein the Wikipedia copy/paste provided a seemingly valid counterargument to the "anti-retroviral drugs cause AIDS" hypothesis. I was really hoping this would be an interesting discussion I could take something from, but it's turning into nothing more than a playground fight. :-/

On the subject of the Barrett article, I have to agree with dannno that it was an obvious hit piece. Barrett makes his own unabashedly pro-establishment bias known by an early line in which he apparently dismisses some valid concerns that a lot of people have:

He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment.

While this was a factual statement, it was transparently loaded with silent ridicule. That said, despite Barrett's agenda, his obvious bias, and his apparent refusal to question the wisdom of dubious practices like food irradiation...he nevertheless raises some important skepticism about the effectiveness of Null's own products, which may very well be snake oil (and of course, that means that people should be just as wary of Null's motives as those of the pharmaceutical establishment).

Anyway, my instincts tell me that tmosley is probably right: That HIV is almost certainly a prevailing cause of AIDS, but that it may not necessarily be the only cause. After all, at the most basic level, AIDS is not some specific microorganism in and of itself; rather, it is a syndrome defined by a ravaged immune system. Just as much as there's apparently a significant correlation between HIV and AIDS (though perhaps not a 1:1 relationship), I can also see how extreme malnutrition might cause similar immunodeficiency symptoms to those the scientific community associates with HIV. It's also interesting that AZT usage has similar symptoms to AIDS itself: For all I know, it may be that AZT fights HIV infections while ironically producing some of the same symptoms as a side effect (though perhaps not to such a deadly degree, considering its recorded moderate effectiveness over a placebo). Anyway...I just wish there was less fighting and more discussion.

 

[tmosley]

Anything specific about AIDS in there, or was it just some people's opinions and accusations that you agreed with? That's all I could find.

You must not be very familiar with character assassination methods. You should study the Clintons, they are the best.

Scientists generally don't participate in character assassination. They prefer to snipe at someone's positions until they either fall apart, or prove immune to discreditation. That's why scientific theories are so hard to overturn, because there are literally thousands of scientists trying to do just that EVERY SINGLE DAY.

You get politics mixed up with science, just like the politicians do. Good thing you're not in charge, or, much like South Africa under Mbeki, we'd have a fresh outbreak of AIDS which would take a long time to recover from.

This isn't a bunch of handwaving. It's refutation by empiricism and logic, just the same as what happens within scientific circles every day.

Also, I did end up writing a full fledged response in the other thread, thanks to sam (I think that's his name), who was kind enough to lay out the arguments of the denier's positions for me to snipe at. That is how science is advanced. Hypotheses are proposed, tested, questioned, discredited, reworked, improved, expanded, etc, until they are so powerful and predictive that no further refinement is needed (hasn't happened yet, although the Laws of Thermodynamics are pretty close).

 

[sam9657]

Anyway, my instincts tell me that tmosley is probably right: That HIV is almost certainly a prevailing cause of AIDS, but that it may not necessarily be the only cause. After all, at the most basic level, AIDS is not some specific microorganism in and of itself; rather, it is a syndrome defined by a ravaged immune system. Just as much as there's apparently a significant correlation between HIV and AIDS (though perhaps not a 1:1 relationship), I can also see how extreme malnutrition might cause similar immunodeficiency symptoms to those the scientific community associates with HIV. It's also interesting that AZT usage has similar symptoms to AIDS itself: For all I know, it may be that AZT fights HIV infections while ironically producing some of the same symptoms as a side effect (though perhaps not to such a deadly degree, considering its recorded moderate effectiveness over a placebo). Anyway...I just wish there was less fighting and more discussion.

This is a good point. But the AIDS establishment's positions is that HIV is the one and SOLE cause of AIDS. How much does is make sense to give AZT (very powerful chemotherapy not even approved for cancer treatment) to Africans who are barely getting enough food or clean water? Instead of helping them you are going to kill them.

Also the AIDS dissident movement does not deny that there may be a correlation between HIV and AIDS, but correlation does not equal causation. For example a chronic drug users who shares needles may be infected with HIV along with a host of other virus. According to the establishment when this person is diagnosed with AIDS HIV is assumed to be the cause rather then the chronic drug usage.

 

[Mini-Me]

This is a good point. But the AIDS establishment's positions is that HIV is the one and SOLE cause of AIDS. How much does is make sense to give a AZT (very powerful chemotherapy not even approved for cancer treatment) to Africans who are barely getting enough food or clean water? Instead of helping them you are going to kill them.

I agree here, and I think it's pretty silly and closed-minded for the establishment to proclaim with any degree of certainty that a particular collection of symptoms (which is really all that AIDS is) could only possibly ever be caused by one specific virus. You make a good point about AZT as well: Although it was tested to slightly improve survival over a placebo, the results may be quite different for people who are unusually starved or dehydrated in comparison to the test group...and whenever you're going to be distributing drugs to emaciated people (with bodies so unlike those of test subjects), it does seem as though it would be much wiser to first perform separate tests for them.

 

[sam9657]

I agree here, and I think it's pretty silly and closed-minded for the establishment to proclaim with any degree of certainty that a particular collection of symptoms (which is really all that AIDS is) could only possibly ever be caused by one specific virus. You make a good point about AZT as well: Although it was tested to slightly improve survival over a placebo, the results may be quite different for people who are unusually starved or dehydrated in comparison to the test group...and whenever you're going to be distributing drugs to emaciated people (with bodies so unlike those of test subjects), it does seem as though it would be much wiser to first perform separate tests for them.

Hmm.. how much do you actually trust the clinical trials? AZT was not originally intended to treat AIDS but rather cancer. Eventually it was deemed to toxic for cancer treatment. Here is one HIV positive mother, diagnosed in 1992, who refused to take AZT. 15 years later she has gotten married had two healthy children and her husband is HIV negative. Also her daughter Eliza Jane did not die of AIDS but rather an allergic reaction to amoxicillin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

In fact there are many more people HIV + people who have refused HIV treatment, opting for a healthy life style instead who have been perfectly healthy.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

 

[M House]

U know instead of accepting the diagnosis she risked the health of her children, both by having them and breast feeding. She could have adopted which you know would've been like the responsible thing to do. Just reading about her daughters death sickens me. She did not test her after birth and she breast fed when she was HIV +. I don't know what to say....

 

[sam9657]

U know instead of accepting the diagnosis she risked the health of her children, both by having them and breast feeding. She could have adopted which you know would've been like the responsible thing to do. Just reading about her daughters death sickens me. She did not test her after birth and she breast fed when she was HIV +. I don't know what to say....

There is no evidence that her daughter had HIV or AIDS, but rather an allergic reaction to amoxicillin.

Also if you do believe that she is HIV+, why is she perfectly healthy after 15+years. Why does her husband not have HIV? Does not seem to make sense since HIV is supposed to be a deadly disease.

 

[M House]

It's actually more difficult to transmit HIV female to male than vise a versa. Hence why I made my post about possible hormonal implications.

 

[Mini-Me]

Hmm.. how much do you actually trust the clinical trials? AZT was not originally intended to treat AIDS but rather cancer. Eventually it was deemed to toxic for cancer treatment. Here is one HIV positive mother, diagnosed in 1992, who refused to take AZT. 15 years later she has gotten married had two healthy children and her husband is HIV negative. Also her daughter Eliza Jane did not die of AIDS but rather an allergic reaction to amoxicillin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

In fact there are many more people HIV + people who have refused HIV treatment, opting for a healthy life style instead who have been perfectly healthy.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

In general, I trust clinical trials more than I trust anecdotal evidence, since anecdotal evidence and personal accounts can't really say much about your odds. Of course, the more valid survival stories there are, the more likely it becomes that they're not just all lucky flukes, etc. In terms of clinical trials, my acceptance of them really depends on exactly who is doing the trials, how many independent trials have been conducted, etc...which is why I was hoping dannno would address Agent Chameleon's Wikipedia argument about clinical trials. For instance, I certainly wouldn't trust any trials performed by Monsanto that show how "perfectly safe" all their chemical products are.

 

[sam9657]

It's actually more difficult to transmit HIV female to male than vise a versa. Hence why I made my post about possible hormonal implications.

Ok why is Christine perfectly healthy today after refusing her supposedly life saving meds?

 

[M House]

She might not have gotten HIV as there is a barrier between maternal blood and fetal blood. But it's often compromised. She might also have it time will tell.

 

[sam9657]

In general, I trust clinical trials more than I trust anecdotal evidence, since anecdotal evidence and personal accounts can't really say much about your odds. Of course, the more valid survival stories there are, the more likely it becomes that they're not just all lucky flukes, etc. In terms of clinical trials, my acceptance of them really depends on exactly who is doing the trials, how many independent trials have been conducted, etc...which is why I was hoping dannno would address Agent Chameleon's Wikipedia argument about clinical trials. For instance, I certainly wouldn't trust any trials performed by Monsanto that show how "perfectly safe" all their chemical products are.

FDA DOCUMENTS SHOW FRAUD IN AZT TRIALS

By John Lauritsen

New York Native 30 March 1992

After an arduous three-month battle with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I have finally obtained documents which describe in detail many acts of fraud committed in the conduct of the Phase II AZT Trials. It was on the basis of the Phase II Trials that AZT was approved for marketing by the FDA in 1987.

Anyone who requests government documents under the Freedom of Information Act should be aware that he's in for a hard time. If the requested documents are completely innocuous, then the government will probably lose them through incompetence. If the documents are not innocuous, then dilatory tactics of every kind will be employed, on top of the usual incompetence. If the documents should eventually be found and released, they will be heavily censored.

On 12 December 1991 I filed my request with the FDA's Freedom of Information Staff, asking for various documents pertaining to the multi-center Phase II AZT trials conducted in 1986. My requests comprised the "Establishment Inspection Report" on the Boston center, written by FDA investigator Pat Spitzig, and two sets of minutes, written by Jackie Knight and Mary Gross. Three weeks after filing my request I got an acknowledgment. When I called the woman who sent it to me, she said that all three of my requests had been found, and I would get them soon. A few days later a form letter arrived from another woman, stating that none of my requests could be found, and my search had been completed. I began calling around until finally I got a Freedom of Information specialist within the FDA, Liz Barbakos, who went to bat for me. With her help, the people in Boston were able to re-find the Establishment Inspection Report by Pat Spitzig, and the people in Maryland (the FDA's headquarters) were able to re-find the Jackie Knight minutes, though not those by Mary Gross. Barbakos said I should receive them in a few days.

Weeks went by, and nothing arrived. I called Barbakos again, and she investigated. She called back to explain that the Jackie Knight minutes would be sent immediately, and that Barbara Recupero in Boston had had the Spitzig report on her desk for two weeks, and was waiting for her supervisor to give the OK before sending it. The next morning I got a conference call, with Liz Barbakos and Barbara Recupero on the other end. Barbakos said she wanted me to hear what Recupero had to say. Recupero said that she had no idea what document I was referring to. I then called Pat Spitzig, the author of the Boston Inspection Report, who called Liz Barbakos and told her exactly what the document was. This put an end to the stonewalling, and I received the 76-page report. Almost every page was heavily censored. Obviously my difficulty in obtaining the document had nothing to do with problems in finding it-they knew where it was all the time. Rather, the difficulty derived from the FDA's unwillingness to let the document see the light of day, and the various censorship decisions that needed to be made once they realized that further stonewalling would be counterproductive.

The Mary Gross minutes are another story. On the first four times I called her, she was always "away from her desk", and my calls were not returned. On the fifth try I finally got her, and expressed my disbelief that she should be unable to find her own minutes of a very important meeting. The next day she called to say that something I said had triggered her memory, and she had found the minutes. She then faxed them to me, and I found that they consisted of a half page of nothing. For reasons I'll explain later in this article, I do not for one minute believe the minutes she sent me are genuine. Indeed, I regard the phony minutes I received as one more form of censorship, one more way the FDA has of circumventing the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act.

...

Here is rest of article.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlfraud.htm

 

[sam9657]

She might not have gotten HIV as there is a barrier between maternal blood and fetal blood. But it's often compromised. She might also have it time will tell.

Come how long do we have to wait? Another 10 years, 20 years when she dies from old age and call it death by AIDS?

 

[M House]

Um WTF is old age to you?

 

[PatriotOne]

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Null is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about. He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment.

So much for Barrett's credibility. Seems Barrett doesn't know WTF he is talking about.


FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children

David Gutierrez
Natural News
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008

http://www.naturalnews.com/024993.html

For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.

“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”

The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.

“Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.

“It’s a watershed moment,” said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.

Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.

So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.

Even the FDA’s new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.

Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.

In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency’s position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.

The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.

Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA’s failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.

“This is your classic failure to act,” federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.

As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.

“This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings,” Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely

“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski said.

 

[M House]

Ugh, guys you don't need anyone to tell you to avoid mercury as its harmful to your body and should be avoided. Not handling HIV responsibly is another matter. No she doesn't have to take pills but she has every duty to be responsible to her children. Having the ability to pass on any sorta significant virus to your children is a concern. Just look up pictures of babies who get sick with Herpes virus at birth. Many people can live for along time with HIV but it doesn't mean that it lacks the ability to significantly harm others.

 

[lucius]

Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a pro-fluoridation spin-doctor as well...

My link beats your link!

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Who is Stephen Barrett?

by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

[From] Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis Ch 17

Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, helped in the preparation of the 1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. He has close ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of the FDA award for "quack-busting" and is a coauthor, along with William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers' Guide to Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation. He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on Science and Health.

A glimpse into his character can be gained through his habitual use of words to mean their exact opposite. For example, in an article entitled "Poison Mongers," Dr. Barrett refers to people who are trying to stop the addition of fluoride, a poison, to the water supply as poison-mongers. Now a monger is one who sells something, e.g. a fishmonger is a person who sells fish. Therefore, it is quite evident that a poison-monger is a person who sells poison. Thus, one opposed to having fluoride added to the water supply is exactly the opposite of a poison-monger. The word usage of Dr. Barrett is comparable to the process called "Newspeak" described in George Orwell's 1984, where what is true becomes false and what is false becomes true. The first few paragraphs of Dr. Barrett's article "Poison-Mongers" is the best example of how Dr. Barrett has used "Newspeak."

"In hundreds of American communities citizens have voted against healthier teeth.
"Why?
"They were confused by poison-mongers.
"These alarmists in our society are using confusion and a scare vocabulary as weapons against fluoridation. They are cheating all of us, but especially our children.
"The benefits of fluoridation are supported by 10,000 scientific studies which prove the poison-mongers are wrong.
"What do the poison-mongers say?
"Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a 'pollutant'.
"Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a poison'.
"Instead of the big truth, that fluoridation has never harmed anyone, they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments."

This article was published in newspapers across the country and was printed in the November 1976 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association. It has also been used by the U.S. Public Health Service in its 'education' of Congressmen and in its campaign to get various areas around the country fluoridated.

A closer look into Dr. Barrett's personality can be obtained by examining his correspondence in 1972 with a group of people in Minnesota interested in stopping fluoridation. On March 8, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote to one of these people, saying:

"I read your letter in Prevention [magazine] with some interest. There have been other attempts to defeat the fluoridationists in court but most have failed. Before investing money, I would like to have full details of what you plan."

Thanks, Stephen J. Barrett, MD."
In another letter to these people, dated April 4, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote:

"Thank you for your recent telephone call. I am sorry that I could not immediately make the financial commitment which you requested. I know how enthusiastic you are and did not want to raise your hopes until I had a chance to discuss the matter with my group.

I am part of a group which is vitally concerned about fluoridation and which has raised a considerable amount of money. We are not yet sure whether it would be more practical to lobby or to go to court in Pennsylvania. The reason your lawsuit interests us is because it might be more practical for us to join your effort rather than go it alone.

"Thus we would need to have a detailed, written description of the plans of your suit. Our attorneys would then be in a position to study how it would effect Pa. law and also to estimate the chances of your suit being successful. We would also need some detail as to how the Attorney General's favorable attitude will be used to advantage without this becoming apparent to the American Dental Association.

"We realize you are hesitant to say too much about your plans. On the other hand, we could not make a total commitment unless we had full knowledge of what we would be getting for our investment. We realize this asks a lot of you. On the other hand, we think we have a lot to offer.

"You may be assured that whatever information you send us will be handled with appropriate discretion.

"Sincerely yours, Stephen Barrett, M.D."
On April 12, 1972, he wrote another letter to Miss Mary Bernhardt, the person at the American Dental Association responsible for promoting fluoridation, and related the following:

"Dear Miss Bernhardt:

"At about 6:20 this evening, I received another phone call from Mike Liptak, the organizer of MOFF [Minnesotans Opposed to Forced Fluoridation]. He said that at 4.30, Judge Gordon McRae ordered an injunction 'to keep the fluoride out of Brainerd.'

"He said that there were 1500 people who watched the trial and that the judge had cautioned them about becoming emotional. They were very quiet. The case presented by MOFF included an affidavit from Dr. Waldbott. The attorney general of Minnesota defended and was given 'five days for rebuttal.' According to Mr. Liptak, who again said he went to school with the attorney general, the attorney general said he 'would not furnish a rebuttal'. He merely stated that the new Minnesota law required fluoridation.

"Mr. Liptak added that there was an additional legal action scheduled for September. In about two weeks, 500 local citizens were planning to gather at a meeting where the vice-president of a local bank would get from them '3 year notes for $50 each' to help finance the suit. He explained that such mass action would not get them much publicity in Prevention magazine and the National Health Federation. It was their plan to seek further injunctions of this type with eventual overturning of the new state laws. He again asked me for a contribution, even a token one. He added that there might be money left over for use in another state such as Pennsylvania.

"On 5/14, Dr. Gross will try to contact leaders of the pro fluoridation forces in the Minnesota Dental Society and will also call the American Dental Association attorney. We have Mr. Liptak's confidence and hope to continue to use it to our advantage. Perhaps the dental society should consider entering the suit as a guardian of the children. It might also be helpful if some quick way could be devised to dissuade the Brainerd residents from their imminent investment in foolishness.

"Best wishes, Stephen Barrett, M.D."
Ironically, Dr. Barrett is a co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

Subsequently, he and Mary Bernhardt got together and published a book called The Health Robbers, in which they refer to those opposing fluoridation as health robbers. Excerpts from this book, which consist primarily of the substance of his poison-monger article, were reprinted in newspapers around the country, as well as in Family Health Magazine.

Teaming up with others of his kind, including Drs. Thomas Jukes, Warren Winklestein, and Joel M. Boriskin, Dr. Barrett complained about and tried to prevent Dr. Yiamouyiannis from speaking before the Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley. Together they claimed that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was some disreputable person not deserving a forum at the University of California campus.

In another action, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Boriskin and Dr. William Jarvis, who also is on the board of the National Council Against Health Fraud, wrote letters of complaint to the National News Council concerning an article published in the National Inquirer which pointed out that higher cancer risks were associated with fluoridation.

An indication of how Barrett's 'Newspeak' is passed down the line to local dentists is evident from the experience Dr. Yiamouyiannis had when he was called in by local residents of St. Charles, Missouri for a debate on fluoridation. When Dr. Michael Garvey, a local dentist, heard that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was going to be the opposition speaker, he refused to participate in the debate.

According to the November 12, 1982 St. Charles Post: "Dr. Garvey said American Dental Association Officials had told him, 'running up against Dr. Yiamouyiannis is not recommended'. The man is well-known as an antifluoridation speaker, Dr. Garvey said. 'This guy is a terror.'"

 

[Mini-Me]

FDA DOCUMENTS SHOW FRAUD IN AZT TRIALS

By John Lauritsen

New York Native 30 March 1992

After an arduous three-month battle with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I have finally obtained documents which describe in detail many acts of fraud committed in the conduct of the Phase II AZT Trials. It was on the basis of the Phase II Trials that AZT was approved for marketing by the FDA in 1987.

Anyone who requests government documents under the Freedom of Information Act should be aware that he's in for a hard time. If the requested documents are completely innocuous, then the government will probably lose them through incompetence. If the documents are not innocuous, then dilatory tactics of every kind will be employed, on top of the usual incompetence. If the documents should eventually be found and released, they will be heavily censored.

On 12 December 1991 I filed my request with the FDA's Freedom of Information Staff, asking for various documents pertaining to the multi-center Phase II AZT trials conducted in 1986. My requests comprised the "Establishment Inspection Report" on the Boston center, written by FDA investigator Pat Spitzig, and two sets of minutes, written by Jackie Knight and Mary Gross. Three weeks after filing my request I got an acknowledgment. When I called the woman who sent it to me, she said that all three of my requests had been found, and I would get them soon. A few days later a form letter arrived from another woman, stating that none of my requests could be found, and my search had been completed. I began calling around until finally I got a Freedom of Information specialist within the FDA, Liz Barbakos, who went to bat for me. With her help, the people in Boston were able to re-find the Establishment Inspection Report by Pat Spitzig, and the people in Maryland (the FDA's headquarters) were able to re-find the Jackie Knight minutes, though not those by Mary Gross. Barbakos said I should receive them in a few days.

Weeks went by, and nothing arrived. I called Barbakos again, and she investigated. She called back to explain that the Jackie Knight minutes would be sent immediately, and that Barbara Recupero in Boston had had the Spitzig report on her desk for two weeks, and was waiting for her supervisor to give the OK before sending it. The next morning I got a conference call, with Liz Barbakos and Barbara Recupero on the other end. Barbakos said she wanted me to hear what Recupero had to say. Recupero said that she had no idea what document I was referring to. I then called Pat Spitzig, the author of the Boston Inspection Report, who called Liz Barbakos and told her exactly what the document was. This put an end to the stonewalling, and I received the 76-page report. Almost every page was heavily censored. Obviously my difficulty in obtaining the document had nothing to do with problems in finding it-they knew where it was all the time. Rather, the difficulty derived from the FDA's unwillingness to let the document see the light of day, and the various censorship decisions that needed to be made once they realized that further stonewalling would be counterproductive.

The Mary Gross minutes are another story. On the first four times I called her, she was always "away from her desk", and my calls were not returned. On the fifth try I finally got her, and expressed my disbelief that she should be unable to find her own minutes of a very important meeting. The next day she called to say that something I said had triggered her memory, and she had found the minutes. She then faxed them to me, and I found that they consisted of a half page of nothing. For reasons I'll explain later in this article, I do not for one minute believe the minutes she sent me are genuine. Indeed, I regard the phony minutes I received as one more form of censorship, one more way the FDA has of circumventing the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act.

...

Here is rest of article.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlfraud.htm

WOW. I knew the FDA was corrupt beyond redemption, but I read that article, and the fraud in the AZT trials was just ridiculous. For reference, here is the paragraph from Wikipedia again (the one Agent Chameleon posted):

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo. Among HIV-infected patients who had not yet developed AIDS, placebo-controlled trials found that AZT given as single-drug therapy delayed, for a year or two, the onset of AIDS-related illnesses. The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these placebo-controlled trials effectively counters the argument that AZT causes AIDS.[32]

If citation 32 is referring to the FDA studies, I must give that statement an epic fail award...then again, they could be referring to the supposedly "4000" other studies verifying the safety of AZT that its manufacturer has bragged about. Unfortunately, it's really kind of difficult to tell, because I followed the reference link from the Wikipedia page, and I was directed to this site:
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/
However, after clicking on every link on that page and searching those pages, I found ABSOLUTELY NO reference to placebo-controlled AZT trials that demonstrated increased life expectancy (although I found a few brief secondary references about how it reduced transmission of HIV from mothers to children - of course, who knows how reliable those studies were either). Of course, some of the subsequent pages had links of their own to other ones, and I did not visit every one of them...so the reference to a placebo-controlled study may still be in there. It certainly isn't easy to find though, and if anyone did find it, I do wonder if it would be referring to the blatantly fraudulent FDA study (assuming John Lauritsen is an honest man).