"At 35 pages, the rebuttal is unreadable and unpublishable."

March, 2006
South Africa

Lively Stir, But Little Sign Of Enlightenment
By Anita Allen

Journalist Celia Farber's article "Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science," in the March issue of Harper's magazine, is creating a lovely stir. (1) Let's hope that fairness, accuracy and balance prevail. Lickety-split, there was a rebuttal of the Farber piece by no less than Robert Gallo, MD, John P. Moore, PhD, et al, listing 16 misleading statements, 25 false statements, 10 unfair statements and five indicating bias. (2) It's being circulated via the Internet as a "draft for Harper's magazine and public distribution."

I hesitate to quote from it because not only is the subject sub judice in my country with court cases pending, but because giving it any exposure is too much.

As far as the science goes, it's the science of Peter Duesberg, PhD, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, versus the science of Gallo/Moore and associates. Gallo is director of the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland; Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University's Weill Medical College.

On another level, Nathan Geffen, a spokesperson for the South African pro-antiretrovirals activist organization, Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), signed the rebuttal, along with representatives of the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Treatment Action Group, and Marijuana Policy Project.

At 35 pages, the rebuttal is unreadable and unpublishable. It replaces allegedly misleading, false, unfair and biased statements, with more of the alleged same - and one wonders what contribution the marijuana project made. Gallo was invited by South African President Thabo Mbeki to serve on his AIDS Advisory Panel. Gallo turned down the invitation - rudely - and alienated many in the process. He wouldn't defend his science face-to-face; now he tries to do it in Harper's.

Good luck to Harper's editor. No number of alleged discrepancies negate the central theme of Farber's report - the human story of people like Farber's Joyce Ann Hafford, unknowingly (and as Farber recounts, illegally) on trials of highly toxic drugs, which no manufacturer claims can cure AIDS or halt the replication of HIV.

Gallo et al would have us believe it is "beyond doubt" that death from HIV/AIDS is a far greater risk than antiretroviral (ARV) side effects. Well, in an average six years, everyone who goes the route of ARVs is dead. The shortest death I know of is 19 days. Some people don't like the odds, especially when they hear there's no statistics on the longevity of those who choose other treatments and the relative effects of treatments.

Gallo et al can't afford to go that way. How can they advocate trials that would negate their science? As for the public alliance of Gallo/Moore/TAC et al - old arguments, obsolete science, nothing new. They're chasing the wrong enzyme.

In the quiet halls of science, winds of change are blowing.

References:

1. The New York Times. "An Article in Harper's Ignites a Controversy Over HIV," March 13, 2006.
2. http://www.tac.org.za. Click on "Rebuttal."