Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!glennc@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu
From: glennc@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2488) Re: (2486) Am I paranoid, or are they just
Message-ID: <39229@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 23 Sep 90 09:14:01 GMT
References: <39094@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 111
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2505

[Amy Francis writes:]

>     I had heard that and always thought the people who said things like
>that were paranoid, but I'm changing my mind.  I know in the car industry
>when a small company makes ground-breaking advances in say, gas milage, it
>*has* been covered up in the past.  I *think* the same is true of power
>companies (ie: buying the rights to revolutionary new technology and
>putting everything in a locked cabinet forever...)  How can we expect
>pharmecutical companies to behave any differently?  They aren't cranking
>out gallons of NyQuil(r) because they hate to see us suffering with the
>sniffles.  Why should we believe that they make any drug (chemotherapy even)
>FOR US!!! It is clear the companies make these drugs to make money, and if
>a cure for a disease (even one as cruel and inhuman as AIDS) were to surface
>AND mean a possible cure for a number of different things (ie: herpes,colds etc
>...) It would probably be financially more astute to supress it.
>
> I have heard the argument that the government would want to supress a cure
>until alot of the homosexuals and IV drug users die (sure, we'll lose a few
>hetero-voters along the way but that's the price you pay for a 'normal'
>America)  My friend 'Dean' went to see Dr. Alonso two weeks before he went
>to mexico to perform the 'hyperthermia' (at the oh so charitable price of
>$50,000.000)  Dr. Alonso told him that the government was blocking the way
>with the treatment on non-KS patients, but had also asked him to perform it
>on a 'foregin dignitary' who has HIV, and that he refused.
>Now, either:
>1) my friend Dean is a liar -- unlikely, as he has no reason whatsoever to lie.
>
>2) Dr. Alonso is a liar -- I can't comment on this
>
>3) The gov't recognizes hyperthermia as a plausible cure for HIV and wants
>   it for its own use and not for the general populace.
>
>Paranoid?  You tell me.

The people working in AIDS research know the face of the deadly epidemic
they're trying to halt.  A medical research team that develops a new
treatment or cure would never let it be hidden for the "economic interests"
of some conglomerate.  While they may have to push uphill against the
FDA, or spend a time in careful clinical trials with their drug, they would 
never let corporate economics dictate whether or not such a discovery was
"locked in a cabinet".  I could argue that corporations wouldn't really
spend millions on research and then just throw away positive results.  Or I
could argue that alot of research is done with government money and lacks
the profit motive.  I could even argue that companies *would* release any
such results as they'd profit from the greatly expanded possibilities for
new drugs or genetic engineering techniques.  But I don't need those points.
Ask any AIDS researcher if anyone's going to lock their discovery away.
It won't happen.

The drug companies are in business to make money.  The early pricing of 
AZT and the problems associated with "orphan diseases" illustrate how
the profit motive can go astray in medicine.  However, pricing your
discovery highly (to recover research costs they said) or avoiding
certain diseases (very rare diseases that you would lose money on finding
a cure for) is a far, far cry from throwing away a life saving discovery.
The people who made the discovery wouldn't allow it.

Dr. Alonso is apparently also in business to make money.  I don't know
anything about Dr. Alonso other than what you've told me, but I do know
something about salesmanship and psychology.  Saying hyperthermia treatment
is being blocked, for the public, while being requested by the government
in private, sends two messages to your friend:
"Your own government secretly believes the value of the treatment I offer,"
and "I am the only hope you have to get that treatment."  Saying this
only helps to convince your friend that spending $50,000 on this small
chance is better than some other choice.  Your friend, reduced to having
only chances, has to then make the choice of which chance to take.

The government has no plan to decimate the gay community.  The worst they
have ever had is a willingness to ignore the problem.  The government is
made up of people representing thousands of interests.  They weigh
the separate interests against each other and move within the framework of
a bureaucracy.  They have gone from complete inaction to making AIDS
research and prevention the most funded effort against any disease in
history.  We now spend more money fighting AIDS than fighting cancer.
Some people claim we still aren't doing enough.  They see those around
them dying and the epidemic spreading.  They spend their time saying
"this is important!" and "people are dying!"  People have started to
hear them.  It is their voice that has gotten AIDS its funding; it will be
their voice that carries the fight into the future.

The FDA is too slow to approve new drugs.  That's a message they've gotten
from AIDS activists and they've begun to react.  Unfortunatly, there are
no easy soluions.  Most new AIDS drugs are toxic.  What is the right dosage
for these drugs?  What is the balance between the toxic side effects and
the theraputic benefits?  Will we kill our patients with the side effects
while trying to save them from the disease?  Is my new experimental drug
going to kill the patient right before some other much more hopeful drug
is discovered?  The patient wants to do something.  He wants to be in a 
trail that may give him some hope.  But the researcher needs to answer
all of the above before he can know he is doing any good.  The FDA,
the researches, and most of all the patients, share this problem.  The 
problem is basic to the research process and won't go away.

I don't think you're being paranoid.  You're too questioning to have
fallen into the trap of paranoia.  What you feel is natural.
When people are trapped, when they are fighting against a foe they
can't fight, they look for foes they can fight.  Any group that has its
back to the wall and feels helpless will come up with conspiracy 
theories.  But be carefull.  What we need is to destroy this disease.
We have to work together to prevent and cure it.  When you march on
Washington, you'll be heard if you say "Look what's happening.  People
are dying.  Lets act.  Lets stop it.  Its important."  If you fall
to paranoia, if you march screaming "Washington is filled with
murderers.  You're all trying to kill us.  You don't care but we're
going to make you," if you do that then people aren't going to listen.

The people of this nation can't afford to stop listening.

Glenn C. Smith
glennc@arrester.caltech.edu