THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 81): Was Fauci's Antiviral Hoax A Cancer Drug Ruse?

August 27, 2000


When the FDA approves a drug for one use, there are
no restrictions for using that drug for any other disease
of medical condition. An approved drug is an approved
drug, period.

But are all drugs approved equally?

What happens when the standards for obtaining a patent
and drug approval for one disease are much
easier than approving drugs for some other disease?

What if the AIDS cocktail drugs were, from the outset,
actually  intended for another disease condition, such as
cancer, or cancer prevention?

  "The standard for drug utility for cancer treatment is now
   pharmacological activity in an animal model, and because
   of lack of an animal model, in vitro (test tube) testing is
   accepted for AIDS."
        
        The Scientist, Vol:12, #7, p. 8
         March 30, 1998

Two diseases. Two vastly different standards for approval.
Once approved, the lower standard now can be used
for the disease requiring the higher standard.


Over the past few years, I have frequently referred to the
AIDS cocktail drugs as "cancer drugs", simply because AZT
came from research at the National Cancer Institute and the
fact that the analogous drugs that followed -- including
the so-called "protease inhibitors" -- were NOT known
for any sort of "antiviral" effect, but rather for the direct
effect that these drugs exert upon cell proliferation ,
and thus the observed suppression of immunity that leaves
AIDS patients feeling better almost immediately (e.g.
selective inhibition of TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-10 etc).

What about the patent history of the protease inhibitor drugs,
which -- surprise surprise -- are no strangers to the cancer
research game (and oh what a game THAT is!).

Further, while the observed clinical effect of these drugs is
as superficial as junk science gets,  I have yet to obtain a
plausible answer to my often repeated question:

  How are immunosuppressive drugs a plausible
  "treatment" for HIV or AIDS, a disease of underlying
   immunosuppression?

While we NOW know that AZT is definitely a cause
of AIDS, the same evidence directly translates to a
presumption of guilt by association for the rest of these
"antiviral" chemotherapies: causes of AIDS, ALL of them!

Were these surreptitious cancer drugs intended for the
breast cancer prevention market?

Has the toxicity level of these human experiments in
homosexual men, drug users and minorities
proven to be too much for cancer therapy?

Of course, where would one find candidates for human
toxicity testing of these cancer drug candidates
if not the human lab rats of the homosexual, ethnic
or drug addicted kind?

And why are these "AIDS drugs" the ONLY treatments for
ANY disease which the US Congress funds with
taxpayer money, and especially with the Republican
party increasing the budget requests for these
drugs in excess of a "tax and spend" liberal Democratic
president since 1996?

Given the reality of so few drugs for cancer and a
truckload full of useless but expensive and life-truncating
drugs for AIDS, were these drugs approved through
acts of subterfuge, fraud and deadly political opportunism,
or did the Republicans change their stance towards
gays, ethnics and drug addicts?

For those who think this is lunacy, can any of you
cite even one single study that shows how test tubes get
infected with AIDS?



W. Fred Shaw, Editor
THE FAUCI FILES

--------
Excerpts from:

Developing data for patenting a drug usually requires
demonstrating pharmacological activity in an animal model.
However, until recently a higher standard of human clinical
studies was required for conditions that have proved refractory
to treatment, such as cancer and AIDS. In a case brought by
researchers claiming drug utility for an anti-leukemia drug
tested in mice, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
set a new precedent, criticizing PTO for confusing the
"requirements under the law for obtaining a patent with the
requirements for obtaining [Food and Drug Administration]
approval" (In re Brana 931393). The standard for drug utility
for cancer treatment is now pharmacological activity in an
animal model, and because of lack of an animal model, in vitro
testing is accepted for AIDS. "

from:

http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1998/mar/opin_980330.html

Volume 12, #7 The Scientist March 30, 1998

Concord And Conflicts Blur Science And Invention

Date:    March 30, 1998
Author:  Fred M. Cowan

The United States patent system, as envisioned by Benjamin
Franklin and provided for in the Constitution, has a mandate to
stimulate innovation and commerce to benefit society. To
accomplish this, inventors obtain patents to protect
intellectual-property rights by creating temporary monopolies
to market inventions without competition. A major tenet that
"Basic research is the source of fundamental knowledge that
eventually leads to innovation, technology development, and
economic growth" (Rep. George Brown, Report of the Task Force
on the Health of Research, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, July 1992) mirrors the motivation for granting
patents.

Patents traditionally have been perceived as the domain of
industry and basic science the province of academia. Some
separation of basic intellectual and commercial interest is
desirable, but when science technologies mature to the point
that they yield inventions of commercial interest,
desegregation becomes inevitable. Over the past few decades,
the boundaries between basic science and invention have
blurred, prompting opposing cries of assault on basic research
by crass commercialism and for more strategic science to
directly benefit society. Science and invention are strongly
rooted in one another and are sometimes considered synonymous,
yet they represent two distinct processes.

Science seeks knowledge and is largely based on formal customs
and conventions, whereas the patent system strives to reward
invention and is founded on law and precedent.

. . .

Developing data for patenting a drug usually requires
demonstrating pharmacological activity in an animal model.
However, until recently a higher standard of human clinical
studies was required for conditions that have proved refractory
to treatment, such as cancer and AIDS. In a case brought by
researchers claiming drug utility for an anti-leukemia drug
tested in mice, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
set a new precedent, criticizing PTO for confusing the
"requirements under the law for obtaining a patent with the
requirements for obtaining [Food and Drug Administration]
approval" (In re Brana 931393). The standard for drug utility
for cancer treatment is now pharmacological activity in an
animal model, and because of lack of an animal model, in vitro
testing is accepted for AIDS.

.  .  .

(The Scientist, Vol:12, #7, p. 8, March 30, 1998)