PHA-Exchange> New study shows AIDS drugs equally effective as poverty and malnutrition

Mon Apr 8 00:03:33 PDT 2002

Subject: New study shows AIDS drugs equally effective aspoverty and
malnutrition

 Dear PHA>
 We are glad to share this fascinating and very different analysis.  The
friend who forwarded this wrote:  I heard this before but not in these
scientific terms.  If this is true then the world should send all pharma
companies to h... and get on with
what is the govs obligation anyway - improving nutrition and health of
people as their human right.
Please read it carefully and consider how much was invested in creating and
perpetuating the need for ARV.

Annelies (IBFAN)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Crowe" <David.Crowe at cnp-wireless.com>
> To: <AnotherLook at yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> [This analysis refers to, among other things, two studies from Uganda
> that use the same data base and are written by the same authors, but
> apparently draw different conclusions. - David Crowe
>
>
> New study shows AIDS drugs equally effective as poverty and malnutrition.
> [Rodney Richards <drmrsearch at earthlink.net>]
>
> If antiretroviral drugs are dramatically improving survival in those
> infected with HIV, then shouldn't we see dramatically reduced
> survival in those who have no access to these drugs?  Surprisingly,
> this is not what is observed.  In the March 8, 2002 issue of the
> journal AIDS, scientist from the Medical Research Council, and the
> Uganda Virus Research Institute in Uganda (MRC/UVRI), report that
> untreated HIV infected Ugandans are surviving "considerably longer
> than has been expected."(1)
>
> In fact, this is an understatement.  The untreated Ugandans in the
> above study are actually surviving just as long as their medicated
> counterparts in the developed world, according to data published in
> the April 1, 2000 issue of The Lancet.(2)  This latter study was
> conducted by the Collaborative Group on AIDS Incubation and HIV
> Survival Group (Collaborative Group), which analyzed data from 13,030
> individuals (with known dates of seroconversion) from Europe, North
> America, and Australia to estimate time from seroconversion to AIDS
> and death.
>
> Specifically, "median time from seroconversion to death was 9.8
> years"(1) in the Ugandan study, as compared to 10.1 years for aged
> matched individuals in the Collaborative Group study; and median time
> from seroconversion to AIDS was 9.4 and 9.3 years for the two
> studies, respectively (see Note 1).
>
> Even more miraculously, for individuals infected at age 15-24 in
> these studies, 10-year survival was substantially better in
> antiretroviral-free Ugandans than it was in their medicated
> counterparts living in Europe, North America and Australia (78% vs
> 66%, see note 2).
>
> Could it be that these particular rural Ugandans are living in
> abundance with good nutrition and the necessary resources to provide
> for an environment conducive to fending off the opportunistic
> infections waiting to take advantage of their failing immune systems?
>
> The authors give us the answer in a separate report, which was
> published two months earlier under the covers of a different journal
> (BMJ).  "Most of the population" in their study area "lives in
> poverty; food is often in limited supply, there is no electricity,
> and there is poor access to any, let alone clean, water.  Malaria is
> endemic, and infections other than HIV, especially bacterial
> infections, are common."(3)
>
> Interestingly, the BMJ publication doesn't even talk about time to
> AIDS or death.  Rather it focuses on symptoms in these HIV infected
> individuals and paradoxically concludes, "[d]isease progression
> associated with infection with HIV-1 seems to be rapid in rural
> Uganda."  Only in the world of HIV/AIDS can "rapid" disease
> progression be correlated with "considerably longer" survival.  The
> apparently schizophrenic conclusions in these two publications, which
> are derived from the same patient population, are discussed further
> in Note 3.
>
> The authors of the Ugandan study(1) attempt to divert attention from
> the extraordinary survival rates observed in their subjects by
> emphasizing they are, "comparable to survival times.in industrialized
> countries *prior* to the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy."
> (*emphasis* mine)  Well, this is technically true, but only because
> survival times haven't changed since the widespread use of
> antiretroviral therapy!
>
> The Collaborative Group study analyzed data for 13,030 individuals
> who seroconverted in the pre-HIV-era (before 1983), the
> prophylaxis-era (1983-1987), the AZT-era (1987-1990), the
> monotherapy-era (1990-1993), and the combination therapy-era
> (1993-1996); and contrary to all expectations, they inform us, "[we]
> found no evidence of a difference in survival or time to the
> diagnosis of AIDS for individuals who seroconverted in 1983-96."(2)
>
> How can this be?  First, we were told prophylaxis against PCP and MAC
> slows progression to AIDS and death, then we were told AZT
> dramatically slows progression to AIDS and death further yet, and
> then we were told combination therapy dramatically slow progression
> to AIDS and death even further yet!   But, what do we see when we put
> all of this additive benefit together?  Absolutely nothing!
>
> Well this is not quite true, for there was one group in the
> Collaborative Group study that did enjoy significantly better
> survival; namely, those who seroconverted before 1983.  So
> technically, it is not fair to say prophylaxis, mono-therapy, and
> combination therapy did "nothing."  Those who seroconverted in years
> when these drugs were immediately available actually did
> significantly worse.  The authors offer the following incoherent
> rationalization to account for this: "The apparently better survival
> for individuals seroconverting before 1983 may be an artefact,
> because these individuals seroconverted before the discovery of HIV-1
> as the causative agent for AIDS."
>
> Rather than focusing on the fact that their data offers 13,030
> examples demonstrating a complete lack of benefit to any of the
> antiretrovirals used alone or in combination up to 1996, the authors
> instead present this data as a summary of the situation, "before the
> widespread use of [HAART]." Apparently holding out the implication
> that now things are most certainly different.  Yet the authors offer
> no data of their own, or even a reference to a single publication,
> which tells us how patients who seroconverted in the HAART era are
> doing.
>
> Today, nearly two years later, the PubMed data base still list no
> published comments on the results of the Collaborative Group study;
> and I am still unaware of any publication that reports data for
> survival or time to AIDS in persons with known dates of
> seroconversion after 1996, in the era of ostensibly better HAART
> therapy.
>
> Even if such data were to become available, and even if the data
> looked good, were still left with the fact that the 513,486 AIDS
> patients reported to the CDC(4) prior to 1996, needlessly consumed
> billions of dollars worth of useless antiretrovirals that seriously
> compromised their quality, and perhaps even quantity, of life.
>
> Do these more than a half-million individuals, or their families and
> loved ones, deserve to know that all the promised benefits of these
> drugs, which were aggressively promoted by the pharmaceutical
> industry, our public health institutions, and uncritical journalist,
> were nothing more than illusions?  That the only thing real that
> resulted from their dedicated compliance to consuming these chemicals
> was the compromised quality of life and debilitating side-effects
> they suffered?  Or do we simply marginalize and divert attention from
> their senseless pain and suffering by shining the light of hope on
> the new unproven drugs of the HAART-era?
>
> Aside from the tragic story implicit in the results of the
> Collaborative Group study; they do, never the less, help us
> understand why untreated Ugandans are surviving just as long as their
> infected counterparts in the developed world.  Namely, according to
> the Collaborative Group study, the drugs are demonstrably worthless
> at best.  But still, even if these drugs are worthless, shouldn't HIV
> positive Americans and Europeans who have full access to food, water
> and health care still be doing far better than their impoverished
> Ugandan counterparts?  Is there anything that can explain the
> remaining part of this paradox?
>
> The Ugandans enrolled in the above studies did have access to regular
> check-ups, diagnostic testing, and free medication for routine
> health-care, which might have contributed to survival.  However, when
> the researchers studied matched HIV positives outside of the study
> cohort, who did not have access to these amenities, survival times
> were no different.  A "disappointing" finding for which, "we do not
> have a good explanation,"(1) according to the authors.  Perhaps
> access to health-care and medicine is of little use to the
> malnourished with no access to food or clean water?
>
> Perhaps it be possible that the Ugandans in these studies are not
> surviving surprisingly long, but rather, the subjects in developed
> countries on antiretrovirals are actually dying surprisingly fast.
> Perhaps these antiretrovirals are not worthless, but are actually
> harmful to the same degree as poverty and malnutrition.
>
> To check this hypothesis, I would propose giving some of the Ugandans
> in the above studies access to food and water.  I would predict we
> would see their median survival significantly surpass that of their
> medicated counterparts in the developed world.  It's not unethical to
> give Africans food is it?
>
> Summary: Median time from seroconversion to AIDS and death in poor,
> starving rural Africans (without access to health care, purified
> water or electricity) living in the Masaka District of Uganda (where
> malaria, dysentery and measles are endemic) is no different than that
> observed in Europeans, North Americans, or Australians who have full
> access to proper nutrition, health-care, "live-prolonging"
> antiretrovirals, and prophylaxis against opportunistic infections
> (OI)!
>
> Conclusion:  These observations are consistent with the hypothesis
> that antiretrovirals are killing people just as fast as poverty and
> malnutrition.
>
> Rodney.
>
> Notes:
>
> 1.  Progression to AIDS and death in the Collaborative Group study
> was significantly correlated with age at seroconversion. Therefore,
> the authors report disease progression according to age groups.
> Median time to AIDS ranged from 11.0 to 5.0 years for those aged
> 15-24 to 65+, respectively; and median time and death ranged from
> 12.5 to 4.0 years for those aged 15-24 to 65+, respectively.  Based
> on the age distribution of subjects in the Ugandan study (1), age
> matched median time to AIDS and death is calculated to be 9.3 and
> 10.1 years, respectively, in the Collaborative Group study.
>
> 2.  This data is approximated from the graphs in the respective
> publications.  See Fig. 2 in the Ugandan study, and Fig, 1 in the
> Collaborative Group study.
>
> 3.  The Ugandan studies use the WHO Staging system to define disease
> progression. (WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1990; 65:221-8.)  Unlike the
> Bangui definition of AIDS (WHO. Wkly Epid Rec 1986; 61:72-73.), which
> is based on clinical symptoms without an antibody test, the WHO
> staging system requires a positive anti-HIV test.  It then attempts
> to gage disease progression according to four Stages.  Stage 1:
> asymptomatic; Stage 2: mild symptoms, including weight loss of as
> little as 5%; Stage 3: weight loss greater than 10%, or treatable
> opportunistic infections; and Stage 4, which is synonymous with AIDS.
> Stage 4 includes many, but not all of the illnesses used by the CDC
> to define AIDS.
>
> The staging system is progressive, hence when a person progresses to
> a higher stage, they cannot go back even if the condition is
> resolved.  So when the authors report, "only 17% of participants
> remained symptom-free five years after seroconversion," this is not
> striking.  In fact, the vast majority of participants may actually be
> symptom-free as we speak.  A single bout of sinusitis, dermatitis, or
> bacterial infection, or even a 5% weight loss (in a month), over this
> 5 year period leaves the subject classified as symptomatic,
> regardless if they recover or not.
>
> The fact that disease progression to Stages 2 and 3 is remarkably
> rapid, while disease progression to Stage 4 (AIDS), or death, is
> remarkable slow, leaves one wondering, "of what value is this Staging
> system?"
>
> References:
>
> 1. Morgan D et al. HIV-1 infection in rural Africa: Is there a
> difference in median time to AIDS and survival compared with that in
> industrialized countries? AIDS. 2002; 16:597-603.
>
> 2. Collaborative Group on AIDS incubation and HIV Survival including
> the CASCADE EU Concerted Action.  Time from HIV-1 seroconversion to
> AIDS and death before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral
> therapy: a collaborative re-analysis.  Lancet 2000; 355:1131-37.
>
> 3. Morgan D et al. Progression to symptomatic disease in people
> infected with HIV-1 in rural Uganda: prospective cohort study. BMJ.
> 2002 Jan 26; 324:193-6.
>
> 4. CDC. Year end HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1995; Vol 7:No. 2.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Stock for $4.
> No Minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/07SolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> The Official AnotherLook website:
>   http://www.anotherlook.org
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: AnotherLook at yahoogroups.com
>   Subscribe:    AnotherLook-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  AnotherLook-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>   List owner:   AnotherLook-owner at yahoogroups.com
>
> The AnotherLook email chat list site (for reading archives, sharing files,
> etc.):
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AnotherLook
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>