THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 43): Dr. Clerici Responds to The Failed ART Rationale

W. Fred Shaw fredshaw at
Fri Mar 17 12:38:35 EST 2000

THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 43): Dr. Clerici Responds to The Failed ART

March 17, 2000

To illustrate the importance of the Clerici et al study (AIDS, 1/28/00),
as well as the failure of the corporate activists to deal with the
facts, science and issues, the following post stands on its own merit.

W. Fred Shaw, Editor

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:57:06 GMT, in <8arapv$h7$1 at>,
a paid announcement from Pharmaceutical Corporate Activist 
Richard Jefferys of the AIDS Treatment Drug Network 
<richard at>:

>The issue is that you're deliberately
>misrepresenting Clerici's study in support of
>your own agenda.

Let me share Dr. Clerici's response (personal communication) 
to the central issue regarding the failed rationale for using the
HAART drugs (as set forth in THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 38)):


  From AIDS (Clerici et al, 1/28/00):

     "We wanted to show that, despite being highly 
      effective on reducing HIV viral load, HAART 
      does not necessarily augment the immune response."

  Response to Clerici: Yes, but the scientific rationale for 
      using HAART was to reconstitute the immune response by 
      decreasing viral load thus allowing CD4s to increase 
      and be potent weapons--once again--against HIV and 
      other pathogens..

  Answer from Clerici: "... this is exactly the point; you got 
      exactly at the core of the matter: the assumption that the 
      immune system would automatically have been reconstituted 
      once that the virus is suppressed by HAART does not 
      hold true."

Everyone can clearly see that Dr. Clerici and I agree on the 
central theme -- the failed rationale for using HAART, which I 
originally posted in the conclusion of THE FAUCI FILES, 3( 38):

  "To conclude this point-counterpoint analysis, it is essential
   to re-examine the scientific rationale for Dr. Fauci's
   ART "standard of care", which originally focused on
   these drugs as potent weapons that would facilitate
   the reconstitution of the immune response through the
   decrease of the viral load, which, in turn, would
   result in increases of the CD4+ T-cell count."

   "While Clerici et al, Pantaleo et al and others have 
    recently revealed that "HAART (ART) does not necessarily 
    augment the immune response", then this can no longer be 
    a rationale for using HAART when the immune responses 
    required to control opportunistic infections and neoplasms 
    are not only NOT being augmented, but to the contrary -- 
    these immune responses (e.g. including the flu and candida
    antigens, Clerici et al, AIDS, 1/28/00) are being directly 
    suppressed and harmed by ART!"

Once again, I thank Richard Jefferys and his pharmaceutical
corporate sponsors for their help in illustrating their false 
health claims and drug marketing agenda for the Anti-Retroviral 
Therapy (HAART) drugs.

W. Fred Shaw, Editor

More information about the Immuno mailing list