challenges.rethinkers.net/Moore-Perth.html
Since in our view at present no evidence exists that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus, we see no reason for AIDS patients to be treated with antiretroviral drugs. We did write a critical analysis on the use of AZT as an antiretroviral agent when we showed that, given its pharmacological properties, it is not possible for it to have an antiretroviral effect. We have also presented evidence that AZT and nevirapine do not prevent mother-to-child transmission. However, we never advised that antiretroviral drugs should never be prescribed since up till now the possibility had not been excluded that they may have clinical benefits acting by means other than as antiretroviral agents. However, given the latest publication on HAART, this may not be the case.
theperthgroup.com/LATEST/RATPGCommentary.html
all drugs have a benefit/risk ratio. Anti-cancer chemotherapy is a well known and appreciated example. Although benefit/risk ratio for ARVs has not been documented in randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials they
(a) do not invariably cause serious toxicities;
(b) may benefit certain individuals, sometimes dramatically.
Our view there is no proof for the existence of “HIV” does not preclude beneficial effects of these drugs. Drugs have many effects, ARVs included. Our view merely means beneficial effects, if any, must result from non-retroviral mechanisms.
theperthgroup.com/PG_Statement.pdf
We do not condemn the use of “antiretroviral” drugs (ARVs) in the treatment of AIDS. There are a number of reasons for this:
(a) We have not studied the scientific literature.
(b) Since in our view “HIV” has not been proven to exist there can be no antiretroviral drugs. However, this does not mean such drugs cannot or should not be used to treat AIDS. They may induce effects by means other than “anti-HIV”.
For example, if the French scientist Jean Umber is correct, protease inhibitors are reducing agents and thus may act as anti-oxidants. There is also evidence that both reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors have multiple pharmacological actions including “Apoptosis Enhancers, Antibacterials, Antifungals, Antimalarials, AntiSARS and Anti-Influenza Agents ” and “antitumor”.
It is simplistic to dismiss ARVs on the basis of their toxicities. All drugs are toxic to greater or lesser degrees and the decision to use a particular drug is based on the clinician’s assessment of its benefit/toxicit y ratio. Although we are not familiar with the literature we know HIV experts claim ARVs are efficacious and recommend their use. There are even dissident physicians who think there are situations that warrant their use. It is also a fact that most of the ARV treatments have been trialled in gay men and the same experts who recommend their use in this group have published data showing their efficacy is problematic in those countries with the greatest AIDS burden.
As May et al state in 2006 in Lancet: “The discrepancy between the clear improvement we recorded for virological response and the apparently worsening rates of clinical progression might be related to the change in the demographic characteristics of study participants, with an increasing number of patients from areas with a high incidence of tuberculosis. For example, in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study there was a steady increase in the number of patients from sub-Saharan Africa. These patients were younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to have been infected heterosexually than other study participants. Also, they had lower CD4 cell counts at presentation, and the most frequent AIDS -defining event was tuberculosis. Similar trends have been seen in other European countries and in North America”.
