LESBIAN AND GAY HEALTH PROVIDERS: FRIENDS OR FOES?

By John Lauritsen

New York Native 13 Aug. 1990

Does the gay movement really belong to us? The hundreds or thousands of gay groups in the United States, the gay magazines and newspapers, the gay radio and television programs -- is it possible they may be nothing but Potemkin villages? Or even worse, could ostensibly gay groups be collaborating, consciously or otherwise, in our own destruction?

These and even more horrible thoughts were going through my mind as I attended a conference, or rather conferences, of gay health care professionals. Meeting in Washington, DC at the Washington Hilton and Towers were the 12th National and 3rd International Lesbian & Gay Health Conference and the 8th National AIDS Forum, and as a "conference within a conference", the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Alcoholism Professionals.

A great many topics were addressed, including substance abuse, yoga and meditation, grantsmanship, networking, lesbian and gay domestic violence, safe sex, sexual compulsion, therapy for incest survivors/children of alcoholics/etc., and "spirituality". No doubt all of these were worthwhile. However, we live in extraordinary times, and there are two paramount health issues that affect us. The first concerns the etiology of "AIDS": What is "AIDS", and what causes it? We still don't know, and the government and the rest of the AIDS Establishment have consistently lied to us. Whatever the cause or causes of "AIDS" may be, it's not HIV. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis has been definitively refuted by Peter Duesberg ("Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 1989). It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the foolish and falsified HIV-AIDS hypothesis, and move on to find out what the real causes are.

The second paramount health issue concerns the mass poisoning of gay men with AZT. In the United States we are now witnessing the iatrogenic manslaughter of tens of thousands of gay men -- many of whom are perfectly healthy, aside from the presence of harmless HIV antibodies in their blood. These are young men, who ought to look forward to many more decades of life; instead, needlessly undergoing toxic chemotherapy, their prognosis is death from AZT poisoning within a few years.

Compared to these two issues, nothing else (as Humphrey Bogart told Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca) amounts to a hill of beans. It would be overly charitable to say that the conference neglected these issues. In fact, proposals that challenged AIDS orthodoxy were not accepted; the conference was used as a vehicle for promoting AZT therapy for healthy people; and I, when I attempted to speak out against AZT, was shouted down.

This report will discuss the following: the events and workshops I attended; the attempts that were made to silence me; the plans to set up nursing-based AZT clinics; and finally, my thoughts on the need for rationality, civility, and free speech in the gay movement.

Events and Workshops

There is no need to describe all of the various social events, pep talks, and special interest sessions that were held. They covered a broad range, as suffice a few examples: "Leather and Health: Developing Strong Networks", "Spirituality in Counseling Lesbians and Gay Men", "Wet, Wild, and Well: Lesbian Sex in the 90s", "Merging Fear and Intimacy in Lesbian and Gay Couples", "Health, Spirit, and Politics: Service vs. Co-dependency".

A sort of New Age irrationalism pervaded the conference, with much emphasis on meditation, "spirituality", feelings, and so on. The Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the fundamentalist Christian sect, Metropolitan Community Church, was the star of an evening seminar, "Spiritual Wholeness: Metropolitan Community Church's 21-year Perspective with The Reverend Troy Perry". As a long-time secular humanist I regard "spirituality" as an abusive term used to smuggle religion in through the back door, as well as to denigrate rationalists like myself. No matter how its adherents try to redefine the word, "spirituality" is necessarily linked to religion, necessarily hostile to the demands of a logical mind and a healthy body. I am particularly offended by the assertions that "spirituality" is somehow healthy or an aid to healing. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, regarded religion as a pathology (Future of an Illusion), and I think he was right.

Among the workshops I attended was an interesting presentation by psychotherapist Charles Silverstein on "The New Illness Theory of Homosexuality". It seems that a demented East German scientist named Doerner, motivated by a desire to eradicate homosexuality from the face of the earth, is conducting research on fetuses, trying to discover some way of ascertaining the fetus's sexual orientation while there is still time for an abortion. Doerner naively conflates two entirely different things: gender identity and sexual orientation. For Doerner, the butcher the straighter, and that's that. Little does he know. More sophisticated research along similar lines is being conducted by another East German scientist, Meyer-Bahlberg, in New York City. Silverstein emphasized that we have legitimate reasons to be concerned about such research. After commenting that he trusted the police more than some of his psychiatric colleagues, Silverstein observed that, "When treatment is offered for something that is socially unacceptable, people will take the treatment -- and it has nothing to do with efficacy." Lobotomies and aversion therapy are examples.

John Echeverry gave a workshop on "Taking the HIV Antibodies Test: Behavioral Consequences, Patterns of Distress, and Perceptions of Social Support". He presented the results of a study of 350 people tested for HIV antibodies, focussing on changes in sexual behavior, emotional well-being, and perceived social support. There were highly significant racial differences: although the clinic was located in an overwhelmingly Afro-American neighborhood, very few blacks took the test. Most of those tested were white and middle-class. A great deal of psychological stress seemed to accompany all phases of testing, and regardless of the actual results. Peter Duesberg has described the HIV antibody test as "psychologically toxic", inasmuch as positive results have driven people to suicide and caused them to take the ultimately lethal drug, AZT. In Echeverry's study, individuals who tested positive experienced a sharp decrease in social support from their friends, an unfortunate consequence of taking a test with no valid purpose.

Marc Lerro of the Dallas County Health Department gave a charming presentation on "Reaching Street Hustlers with HIV Messages". In Dallas, the hustler bars are old, established institutions, well integrated into the community. The outdoor hustler-cruising areas are also venerable. Life can be hard for the male hustlers, but their environment is far removed from the harshness and brutality that characterize the world of female hookers. (A semantic point: hustlers are always male; hookers are always female. "Hustler" is not a derogatory term: it is the word preferred by hustlers themselves.) The Dallas hustlers apparently take care of themselves, avoiding hard drugs which would interfere with their work. Lerro, disseminating condoms and safe sex information, got along fine with the hustlers, and said, "They were a wonderful group to work with." Lerro asserted that the risk of AIDS related to hustling has been greatly overstated. There are no epidemiological studies, no data, to back up the claims that prostitute sex poses a great danger of contracting AIDS.

Larry Falk is a virologist who until recently was a member of the "Bob Club" -- the select group of individuals who are invited to Robert Gallo's briefings on AIDS. Falk submitted one proposal to the conference, which called into question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis; this proposal was rejected. However, he gave another presentation, "Laboratory Markers for Staging HIV Infection", in which he managed to work in a critique of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Falk pointed out that scientists often held on to untenable hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that the Epstein-Barr virus causes Burkitt's lymphoma, simply because their grants were at stake. Falk believes that AIDS is caused by something transmissible, something which might be either a replicating agent (a microbe) or a non-replicating agent (a toxin). Falk condemned the use of AZT, and came out strongly in favor of non- toxic therapies for AIDS, citing a study by Jon Kaiser in which excellent results were achieved by putting patients on gentle aerobic exercise, good nutrition, and stress reduction, and by eliminating drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol.

In the discussion period following Falk's presentation, one man commented that people now feel they have to take pills for everything: "They have given up faith in their own bodies." Falk handed out two news items which described dramatic recoveries in the absence of any drug treatments. One, from the Chicago Tribune, shows a picture of a woman holding a baby. The caption states:

Mom has a "miracle": Diagnosed last August as having inoperable lung cancer and told she would live only a few weeks without treatment, pregnant Linda Babcock, of Clinton, Ill., nonetheless refused chemotherapy and radiation treatments to shield her unborn baby. Turning instead to carrot juice, vegetables, fruits and water, Babcock, 40, gave birth Friday to a healthy 5-pound, 6-ounce son in Bloomington. Doctors are stunned. "It's a medical miracle; this condition is fatal," said Dr. Harold A Nord, noting that his patient was a 2 1/2-pack-a-day smoker. Said Mom: "Give God the credit."

The other item Falk passed out was an article from the Advocate by Stephan Pardi, "Against All Odds". It is the story of Ron Webeck, who was diagnosed with AIDS early in 1985. He had PML, a brain infection that is considered to be incurable and invariably fatal. As Webeck's doctors gave up on him, he became very angry and gave up on his doctors. This was the turning point. Time went by, and with no medical treatment at all, Webeck got better. His T-cell counts are now normal, he leads an active life, and feels healthy. Webeck gives the medical profession no credit for his recovery:

My continued survival is figuratively grabbing the entire medical community by the shoulders and shaking it and saying, "You sons of bitches, why are you condemning us to death? Why don't you even say maybe we might get better?"

No Free Speech for AZT Critics

My "silencing" occurred at a panel held in the Hilton's ballroom on Thursday, 19 June: "NIAID AIDS Clinical Trials Research Update". The panel consisted of three speakers from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a branch of the Public Health Service (PHS). The speakers, who also chaired the panel, were Jack Killen, Lawrence Deyton, and Judith Feinberg. Most of their presentations consisted of uninteresting and irrelevant propaganda on how new drugs are approved and what a wonderful job NIAID is doing.

In her presentation Judith Feinberg spoke at length about AZT "benefits" that were allegedly demonstrated by two NIAID studies: ACTG Protocol 016 (among HIV-infected individuals with "early ARC") and ACTG Protocol 019 (among asymptomatic (i.e., healthy) HIV-infected individuals.

I was recognized in the discussion period, went up to the microphone, and said that the statements made about AZT could not go unchallenged. The research in question was unacceptable and proved nothing. At this point, when I had spoken for only a fraction of a minute, the heckling began, led by Rodger Pettyjohn, a nurse with AIDS. Anticipating a hard time, I decided to wrap up quickly. I said I had studied AZT for three and a half years, had reviewed all of the major studies, and had written a 192-page book on the topic: 'Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story'. I had reached three main conclusions, which could be stated briefly: "Number one: AZT is a highly toxic drug, the long-term use of which is incompatible with life..." [NO! NO! SIT DOWN! SHUT UP! GO AWAY! SCREECH! HOWL!]

At this point about six people were yelling at me. Pettyjohn's face was contorted with rage, but a man and a woman up front were cool as cucumbers as they demanded I stop speaking. I was determined to make my three points, and still having the microphone, I raised my voice: "Point number two: AZT was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the basis of fraudulent research."

Suddenly the microphone was cut off, and I was left with only my own voice in a large room, facing a mob of six or seven that was determined I should not say even one more word. I was equally determined to make my third point, and for a couple of minutes something like the following agon took place: "I want to make my third point!" [STOP! SIT DOWN! SHUT UP! NO! NO! SIT DOWN! SIT DOWN! SIT DOWN!] "It will take only 10 seconds." [NO! NO! NO!] "Only 10 seconds!" [NO! NO!] "May I have 10 lousy seconds?" [YOU'VE SAID ENOUGH! NO! SIT DOWN!] "10 seconds!"

And then, unexplainably, there was a silence, and I said, "Point number three: There is no scientifically credible evidence that AZT has benefits of any kind. Thank you for giving me a hearing." I went back to my seat and sat down.

Well, I've been shouted down before, and I'll be shouted down again, as long as I continue to speak truths that people are unwilling to hear. It's not very pleasant being treated this way, and for several days afterward I felt as though I had knots in my abdomen. But I don't feel nearly so sorry for myself as I do for the poor guys -- nice, healthy young men -- I met two of them at the conference -- who are being poisoned with AZT right now. Before long there ought to be a broad and powerful anti-AZT movement -- the truth will come out eventually -- but for the present, I'm one of the very few. If I don't speak out, nobody will. And every day the number of AZT victims grows.

I am well aware that what I said was painful for some people to hear -- those who were taking AZT and had faith in it, and also for those doctors, nurses, counsellors, etc. who had prescribed or recommended AZT. It is a terrible thing to be told that one's well- intentioned actions are causing suffering and death for other people.

But free speech is free speech. You either have it or you don't. There can be no excuse for the mob that shouted me down. When someone is recognized during a discussion period, and he speaks relevantly and concisely, then he has the right to say his piece, regardless of whether or not everyone likes what he is saying.

I put the greatest blame for this disgraceful episode on the three NIAID people, who were chairing the panel. These government representatives could easily have controlled the mob by telling them to let me speak. Instead, they conveyed their disapproval of me and their approval of the mob's actions.

That was on Thursday. From then on I was a marked man, and there were three more attempts to silence me. On Friday afternoon, an attempt was made to exclude me from a workshop entitled "Nursing Based AZT Clinic". I'll describe this in a separate section.

The third attempt to silence me came during the Saturday morning Plenary Session: "AIDS Medical Update: Advances in AIDS and Medical Perspectives", which was also held in the ballroom. One of the speakers was Lawrence Deyton of NIAID, who repeated most of the usual lies about AZT, including the benefits demonstrated by NIAID's Protocols 016 and 019. I was recognized during the discussion period, and went up to the mike. Rodger Pettyjohn and a couple of others started yelling, "No! No!"

I said, "I want to say something that may not be popular, but it is important, and I will be brief." Mel Pohl, who was chairing the panel, nodded his head and said, "Go ahead." That abruptly put an end to the heckling, and I made my two-minute speech to an attentive audience.

The last attempt to silence me came on Saturday afternoon, in a workshop conducted by Anna Forbes of ActionAIDS, Inc. of Philadelphia, entitled "Crack, Cocaine and AIDS: Interwoven Epidemics, Interwoven Treatment Needs". Some of what she said was sensible. In Philadelphia, treatment programs for crack addition are grossly inadequate. There is apparently a strong correlation between crack addiction and AIDS -- a correlation that has also been commented upon, if cryptically, by spokespeople of the New York City Health Department. Forbes said that several years ago most of her clients were intravenous drug users. Now many more are users of non-intravenous drugs. Why should this be so? What connection is there between crack use and AIDS?

To answer these questions Forbes put forward a silly bit of disinformation that has also been used in New York City, to the effect that crack users get AIDS because they engage in wildly unrestrained sexual activity and prostitution. Some of them, claimed Forbes, have 40 to 50 sexual partners in a day. At this point a woman in the audience volunteered that crack users gave fifty-cent blowjobs, and she started repeating, over and over, "fifty-cent blowjobs, fifty-cent blowjobs, fifty-cent blowjobs". The rational use of simple arithmetic ought to be sufficient to puncture this particular fantasy. If a piece of crack costs between $5 and $10, then it would be necessary to give 10 to 20 blowjobs in order to buy just a single piece. Do men in need of blowjobs cue up, so that a crack addict can service them in assembly-line fashion? I think not. How long would it take, then, for a crack addict to find 10 to 20 men, give each of them a blowjob, collect fifty cents from each, and finally purchase her piece of crack?

Midway through the discussion period I raised my hand. Forbes looked at me contemptuously, said she had heard me before, that she knew what I was going to say, that it wasn't appropriate for the workshop, and that therefore I couldn't speak. A struggle ensued, and finally it was agreed that I could speak for two minutes. The woman who was fascinated with the 50 cent blowjobs was designated to time me, which she did with strange noises and facial expressions. I said something to the effect that the black leadership in New York City is opposed to needle-exchange programs, and with reason. Quite aside from AIDS, the black community is being devastated by an epidemic of drugs. It is only a hypothesis that intravenous drug users get AIDS from shared needles. Perhaps drug toxicities play a role in making them sick. What we do know is that there is a connection between drug use, both intravenous and non-intravenous, and AIDS. This is the message we should deliver to drug users. Rather than telling them how to soak needles in bleach, we should help them to stop using drugs.

Later in the day I interviewed Bill Scott, President of the National Lesbian and Gay Health Foundation. He apologized to me for the occasions on which I had been denied my right to free speech, and said that next year he would welcome proposals from me on either the causes of AIDS or the dangers of AZT. When I pointed out that not a single talk or workshop in the entire conference had departed from AIDS orthodoxy, he said that proposals are selected by the host agency in the city where the conference is held. This year selections were made by health professionals in Washington, DC -- a large number of whom are probably connected, directly or indirectly, with the government.

To be fair, I will say that the organizers of the conference were not responsible for the silencings. Bill Scott clearly supported my right to express my opinion, and Mel Pohl decisively defended my right to speak without harassment.

A Nursing-Based AZT Clinic

Perhaps the most important, and frightening, workshop of the conference was held on Friday afternoon. Presented by Basil Vareldzis, psychiatrist, and Boris Becker, nurse, it was entitled, "Nursing Based AZT Clinic". The workshop described a clinic being set up at the gay Whitman-Walker clinic in Washington, DC. The clinic has only one purpose: to facilitate AZT therapy by filling prescriptions, counselling patients, evaluating side effects, and so on. Nurses do all of the dirty work, except that psychiatrist Vareldzis is on hand for counselling purposes. If a medical emergency should arise, a patient would be referred elsewhere.

Aside from the two presenters, there were only five of us in the workshop, including myself. We sat in a circle, and began by going around the room and introducing ourselves. When it was my turn I said that I was very interested in the workshop, though I probably wouldn't agree with them, as I had written extensively on the dangers of AZT, and that in the discussion period I would like to say a few words. The presenters were horrified, and asked me to leave, saying that I should find another forum for my ideas, and that the workshop was only for those who wanted to learn about how to set up nursing-based AZT clinics. I replied that a conference organizer had announced that all events were open to everybody, and that the official conference program specifically stated that all events were open to the press. So far as discussion was concerned, I said that I would wait until the end and would be brief, but that I insisted on my right to express an opinion. There was a long pause, and then "peer pressure" was put on me to leave. A woman named Amy Goldfarb sniffed, "I was at another forum where you spoke, and we lost a lot of valuable time because of you." (This referred to the panel where I had to fight for several minutes in order to make a 10-second point.) A smugly bland young doctor in a pink shirt said I really didn't belong there.

When it became clear that I wasn't leaving, Vareldzis tried still another tack. The workshop, he said, would be based on a particular assumption -- namely, on the basis of research conducted by Paul Volberding (NIAID ACTG Protocol 019), that it was a good idea to give AZT to asymptomatic, HIV-infected individuals. Did we all accept this assumption, he asked, looking intently at me. I replied that he was entitled to his assumptions, and I was entitled to mine -- that I had studied Paul Volberding's report in the New England Journal of Medicine, and regarded it as unmitigated garbage.

Becker and Vareldzis then gave up, and went on with their presentation. They appeared to be terrified of my presence, especially when they saw me writing in my notebook. To me this indicates that at some level of consciousness they know that what they are doing is wrong -- they know that the consequences of their AZT therapy will be the deaths of their patients. There is no need to mince words. The patients will die. Speaking from his expertise in both biochemistry and molecular biology, Peter Duesberg has stated, in an interview with me, that for patients on AZT therapy "the prognosis is clear -- either a fast or a slow death of the immune system, or death altogether, because all growing cells will be killed by incorporation of AZT." AIDS researcher Joseph Sonnabend has stated, "AZT is incompatible with life."

The nursing-based AZT clinics appear to be an answer to a marketing problem faced by Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT. It seems that in many parts of the country, there is a long waiting period, up to six months, to be admitted to a full-service clinic. In those six months, a number of things might happen. The truth might come out about AZT's toxicities or fraudulent research. Or a rival drug might win FDA approval. Burroughs Wellcome wants to get its profits fast, while the getting is good. Nursing-based AZT clinics mean that patients can be started on AZT immediately.

Suppose that a patient should begin to have doubts about AZT. That's what psychiatrist Vareldzis is there for. The patient is given another opportunity to talk it over, to deal with his anger, pain, or whatever. Vareldzis will counsel him. He will stay on the AZT.

In the discussion period I was grudgingly allowed to speak, and made my two-minute anti-AZT speech. If this continues, I'll become known as the two-minute orator. On Monday, back in New York City, I telephoned Basil Vareldzis in order to ask him some questions. The following interview took place:

John Lauritsen: At your workshop you had a 16-page handout that appeared to be a summary of presentations that were made at the "State of the Art AZT Conference" held in Washington, DC a few months ago.

Basil Vareldzis: Yes, that's what it was.

JL: Who sent it out?

BV: I think Burroughs Wellcome.

JL: Oh really. You will notice that there's nothing in it that is not favorable to AZT.

BV: Well of course.

JL: But the conference did hear testimony that was unfavorable to AZT.

BV: I'm sorry, where'd you get that?

JL: The State of the Art AZT Conference in Washington, DC.

BV: Right?

JL: There was considerable testimony there that was not favorable to AZT.

BV: Right.

JL: But the negative testimony does not appear in your handout.

BV: Right.

JL: So how will patients trying to decide whether or not to take AZT - - how will they find out the other side of the story?

BV: But that wasn't the purpose of this seminar. The seminar is not designed for patients who want to come in and get information about whether they should go on AZT or not. That's not why we do it. That's not the audience, not the target.

JL: Who is the audience then?

BV: The audience is health care providers that are designing a nursing- based AZT follow-up clinic. We're going with the premise there that people have already made that decision, to start AZT. And now we're just looking at ways to follow them.

JL: Well, let me put it differently then. How would someone find the other side of the story? How would you, for example, find out the other side?

BV: The other side? As far as AZT?

JL: Yes, the negative things about AZT.

BV: Any doctor. They're well aware of all the negative things. Any time I talk with one they always tell me about the pros and cons.

JL: I wonder if you really know the negative side of the AZT story. Do you, for example, know the results of the Cell Transformation Assay?

BV: [Pause ... CLICK]

Obviously psychiatrist Vareldzis doesn't want to know the other side of the story. He won't know about the Cell Transformation Assay, the results of which strongly indicated that AZT will cause cancer. This won't stop him, however, from counselling patients who want to know whether they should continue to take their medicine.

Rationality, Civility, and Free Speech

Offenses against free speech have a long history in the gay movement. Perhaps the first time that a gay man spoke out in favor of homosexual rights was on 28 August 1867, when the German scholar, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, went before a meeting of the Congress of German Jurists, pleading for a repeal of all anti-homosexual laws. He was shouted down.

In the early days of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), back in 1969, a cabal of self-styled anarchists decided that the essence of radicalism was to do everything by "consensus", with no votes and no rules at meetings. Success in shouting others down, and in lowering debate to the lowest, most emotional level, were required skills at GLF meetings. GLF members were encouraged -- some would say, forced -- to take part in "consciousness-raising (CR) sessions". CR sessions were a concoction of group therapy and brainwashing. It was forbidden to use logic or talk about facts. You had to "deal with your emotions", to "speak from the guts". As might be expected, those with hidden agendas had a field day in CR sessions. Other people had nervous breakdowns.

GLF was superceded by the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA), whose meetings were conducted strictly according to Robert's Rules of Order. No one was shouted down. Once you were recognized at a GAA meeting, you had the Right To Speak (provided, of course, that you were In Order).

In the early days of the Gay Academic Union (GAU), CR sessions were also obligatory. The GAU women announced they would only work with the GAU men if the men attended CR sessions, in order to "deal with their sexism" and raise their consciousness to a high enough level that they would be worthy to work with the women. So we held our all- male CR sessions. Thought Police attempted to ensure that we talked about nothing except sexism, and how we were oppressive to women, but this was a lost cause. When it became clear that GAU men were talking about all kinds of irrelevant things, the CR sessions were abandoned.

A few years ago, at a gay scholars conference in Toronto, a colleague of mine, one of the most distinguished gay scholars, was heckled when he attempted to present a brief critique of "Social Construction Theory", an ill-defined set of beliefs that was then in vogue among the younger and less knowledgeable gay scholars.

At present, the principle of free enquiry has been violated time and again where AIDS is concerned. In the media, a degree of censorship obtains, on matters of AIDS, that would normally be found only in a totalitarian country in the midst of a war. Those who read only the New York Times, America's premier newspaper, would know almost nothing about the debates over the etiology of AIDS, or the toxicities of AZT.

In the present crisis, we need all the free speech we can get. There is no place for savagery or totalitarianism in the gay movement. *