HAART is toxic: Mainstream concedes it, in backhanded ways
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2011/12/30
Just as it’s rare to find “HIV” mentioned without the add-on of “AIDS” or “the virus that causes AIDS”, so it’s rare to see antiretroviral drugs mentioned without the adjective “life-saving”. Yet the technical mainstream literature is replete with backhanded admissions that antiretroviral drugs are highly toxic.
What do I mean by backhanded? Making the admission in such a way that it seems like not an admission.
For example, in what the Journal of Infectious Diseases labeled a “Major Article”, Walensky et al. calculated “The survival benefits of AIDS treatment in the United States” (194  11-19) without claiming any survival benefit for the use of AZT from its introduction up to its approval in 1994 for prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Yet when mainstream researchers are confronted with dissident statements about the lack of life-saving benefit of AZT and its toxicity, they resist ferociously by every conceivable evasive maneuver.
I’ve just come across another choice example of admitting in one context what in other contexts is not admitted. The activist gurus of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) have long castigated President Mbeki and others for not providing the life-saving benefits of antiretroviral drugs to South Africans. But now the very same self-appointed experts, in collaboration with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have asked the Gates Foundation not to support a clinical trial in which the relative benefits of tenofovir are to be compared with stavudine at 20 mg dosage — because stavudine is so toxic!
Mbeki was President of South Africa from 1999 to 2008. Had he bowed to TAC activists, he would have been providing this highly toxic stavudine to his fellow country-people, because stavudine has been one of the staples of antiretroviral treatment since the mid-1990s. It was approved for adults in the middle of 1994, and for children in the latter part of 1996. In 1998 it was recommended for antiretroviral treatment at dosage of 40 mg for body weights > 60 kg and 30 mg for <60 kg (MMWR 47, RR-5, 24 April). The Treatment Guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health have sanctioned use of stavudine as first-line or alternative ever since, despite the pleas by the World Health Organization cited in the TAC/MSF letter to the Gates Foundation.
The letter says, “In 2004, stavudine was removed from the list of preferred first-line antiretroviral drugs recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services”. That might mislead unwary readers into thinking that stavudine had been removed from all recommended uses, whereas in fact it continues to be listed in the Treatment Guidelines as an available alternative. Thus the Guidelines of 1 December 2009 include the following:
“The 2NN trial compared efavirenz and nevirapine, both given with stavudine and lamivudine, in treatment-naïve patients. Virologic responses were similar for both drugs, although nevirapine was associated with greater toxicity and did not meet criteria for noninferiority compared with efavirenz”, illustrating that stavudine was by no means regarded as beyond the pale.
Note too the mention of toxicity of nevirapine. Dissidents have long protested the use of nevirapine and AZT as the standard procedure recommended to avoid mother-to-child prevention of transmission of “HIV”, whereas vigilantes like the TAC gurus have consistently supported these uses of these drugs — see for example “Nevirapine, TB, and HIV/AIDS” and “Nevirapine — P.S.”
Of course the Treatment Guidelines do acknowledge the toxicity of stavudine:
— at least in combination with lamivudine. But “Not recommended as initial therapy [emphasis added]” is not at all the same as “Should not be used”.
The 2009 Guidelines also warn that “combined use of didanosine and stavudine as a dual-NRTI backbone can result in a high incidence of toxicities, particularly peripheral neuropathy, pancreatitis, and lactic acidosis . . . . This combination has been implicated in several deaths of HIV-infected pregnant women secondary to severe lactic acidosis with or without hepatic steatosis and pancreatitis . . . . Therefore, the combined use of didanosine and stavudine is not recommended”. Again, “not recommended” is not synonymous with “should not be used”.
Furthermore, “NRTI Substitutions (e.g., changing from zidovudine or stavudine to tenofovir or abacavir): This may be considered for a patient who has no history of viral resistance on an NRTI-containing regimen” (p. 74) illustrates that both zidovudine (= AZT) and stavudine continued, in 2009, to be standard components of antiretroviral cocktails.
Beyond that, the dangerous combination of didanosine and stavudine continues to be recommended as a possible last resort:
So by 2009 there were certain caveats to the use of stavudine, by contrast to the “strong recommendations” for its use in earlier years, even in the deadly combination with didanosine:
In February 2001, the Treatment Guidelines “strongly recommended” stavudine “for initial treatment of established HIV infection”, in combination with “didanosine or lamivudine plus efavirenz or indinavir”.
Again in July 2003, The “Recommended Combination Antiretroviral Regimens” included “Efavirenz + (zidovudine or tenofovir or stavudine) + lamivudine as preferred initial NNRTI-based regimens (except for pregnant women)”.
In October 2005, it was downgraded to ordinary, not strongly recommended:
“NNRTI-Based Regimens — Efavirenz + (didanosine or abacavir or stavudine) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) (except during pregnancy, particularly the first trimester, or in women with high pregnancy potential)”. However, it was still lauded for efficacy: “The most experience with efavirenz, demonstrating good virologic responses, has been shown in combination with 2-NRTI backbones of lamivudine plus zidovudine, tenofovir, stavudine, abacavir, or didanosine”. “Alternative PI-based regimens may include: . . . all used in combination with zidovudine or stavudine or tenofovir . . .”.
For “Selection of Dual Nucleoside ‘Backbone’ as Part of Initial Combination Therapy” the recommendation was “(Zidovudine or tenofovir) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) as the 2-NRTI backbone of choice as part of some combination regimens. . . . (Stavudine or didanosine or abacavir) + (lamivudine or emtricitabine) may be used as alternative 2-NRTI backbone combinations”.
“It may be necessary to prescribe alternative NRTIs for some patients because of side effects of these agents, such as bone marrow suppression with zidovudine and the increasingly reported toxicities including lipoatrophy and symptomatic lactic acidosis with stavudine”.
A backhanded admission that AZT/ZDV suppresses the bone marrow — an admission that was not made, of course, when Duesberg said it and pointed out that this kills the immune system, so that the drugs produce the very disease they are supposed to treat.
Given the acknowledged toxicities, why are antiretroviral drugs continuing to be administered?
Because of their supposed effectiveness — effective in lowering “viral load”, that is: “Both the tenofovir + lamivudine combination and stavudine + lamivudine combination are highly and durably effective when used in combination with efavirenz, with data up to 144 weeks . . . . In this study, patients randomized to the stavudine + lamivudine arm experienced more adverse effects including peripheral neuropathy and hyperlipidemia”. “The combined use of didanosine and stavudine as a 2-NRTI backbone can result in a high incidence of toxicities, particularly peripheral neuropathy, pancreatitis, and lactic acidosis . . . .This combination has been implicated in several deaths in HIV-1 infected pregnant women secondary to severe lactic acidosis with or without hepatic steatosis and pancreatitis . . . . In general, a combination containing didanosine and stavudine should be avoided unless other 2-NRTI combinations have failed or have caused unacceptable toxicities, and where potential benefits outweigh the risks of toxicities”.
“Avoided unless” once again falls far short of condemning the use.
Evidently the “operation” is a success if it kills “HIV”, even if the patient also dies in the process.
Note the shameless evasion or disclaiming of responsibility in weasel-expressions like “where potential benefits outweigh the risks of toxicities”. How might one practice that? By spelling out what the risks actually are and what the benefits are supposed to be — what are the odds ratios? For absolute risk and absolute benefit? Does anyone do that for patients?
Note too that “not recommended” is the Treatment Guidelines’ backhanded way of acknowledging dangerous toxicity. Stavudine went from “strongly recommended” merely to “not recommended” and “alternative” when other things don’t seem to work. Yet the TAC/MSF letter cites copious evidence that stavudine is so toxic that it shouldn’t be used even at half the original dosage, even in a clinical trial where incipient adverse events would be closely monitored. That’s because “For good reason, tenofovir has become the gold standard for today’s first-line antiretroviral therapy”.
That surprised me, since I had blogged about the toxicity of tenofovir already 4 years ago: “To avoid HIV later, damage your kidneys and liver now”; “Tenofovir and the ethics of clinical trials”; “Kidney-disease denialism (a special case of HAART denialism)”: “increasing exposure to tenofovir was associated with a higher incidence of CKD [chronic kidney disease] . . . . Nephrolithiasis was seen in up to 27% of patients treated with indinavir . . . and there are numerous studies . . . demonstrating that tenofovir is associated with impaired kidney function”.
Not that I claim to have discovered the toxicity of tenofovir — it’s noted in government sources:
as well as by the manufacturers:
Stavudine was highly recommended for antiretroviral treatment for about a decade and is still in use, though it was soon found to be so toxic that TAC/MSF describes it as unacceptably toxic — by comparison to tenofovir, which has been known for years to cause serious liver damage and lactic acidosis, both potentially fatal. But then, as noted in the manufacturer’s warning above, these toxicities are associated with all nucleoside analogues (NRTIs).
How many people were killed or maimed by stavudine during the decade or so when it was strongly recommended and used routinely?
TAC/MSF are correct: “There is therefore no good reason why a properly informed patient should want to enrol in this study” [of tenofovir vs. 20 mg stavudine]. But they ought to have made that more general:
A properly informed “HIV-positive” patient
would refuse antiretroviral drugs altogether.
The TAC/MSF letter stretches over 4 pages and is a cornucopia of other deficiencies. To support their claim of tenofovir’s superiority, for instance, they cite an article just published “ahead of print” — when anyone who understands science knows that no just-published claim is to be taken seriously until others have confirmed it. The letter refers to the “Serious adverse event” of mitochondrial toxicity, without acknowledging that this serious adverse event is characteristic of ALL antiretroviral drugs. That’s been known for a long time: “Hidden in plain sight: The damage done by antiretroviral drugs”.
I’m left with a curiosity about the social psychology of all this. What could stimulate this group of people to compose so pompous and unwieldy a petition whose only purpose is to give preference to one highly toxic drug over another highly toxic drug?
I think this illustrates how addled brains become when they have been so indoctrinated as to lose the ability to weigh the actual evidence.
Or, as I’ve mused before, behold what cognitive dissonance does to true believers.
This entry was posted on 2011/12/30 at 9:59 pm and is filed under antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, Legal aspects. Tagged: Médecins Sans Frontières, stavudine, Tenofovir, Treatment Action Campaign. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.