Later, these interferons and natural products were used clinically for the treatment of cancer and HIV/AIDS.
***
After the 2020 publication of our book Plague of Corruption, I was contacted by a long-time veterinary professor, Dr. Joseph Cummins, who spent much of his career studying interferon in animals and humans.
I learned Dr. Cummins was a legendary figure in veterinary medicine, the holder of sixteen US patents and author of sixty peer-reviewed scientific articles, as well as a vital contributor in the field of HIV/AIDS research with leading scientists. Cummins did his undergraduate work at Ohio State University, served as a captain in the US Army, and received his doctorate in microbiology from the University of Missouri. In 1999, Dr. Cummins was named a Distinguished Alumnus from Ohio State University. He was in the very same department at Ohio State where my graduate school friend Kathy went as a professor to start her career after her postdoctoral studies in the lab of Nobel Laureate Howard Temin, discoverer of reverse transcriptase.
Cummins had put together a book about his decades of work in interferon, but thought it needed some work, and did I know a good writer? I put him in touch with my coauthor, Kent Heckenlively, who spent several months getting the book into shape, and it was published in January 2021 under the title The Case for Interferon: How a 1980s Cancer Drug Might Be the Wonder Therapy for the Twenty-First Century.
Maybe there are a few truly independent entities which will honestly look at what original thinkers have to say. I heartily encourage you to pick up a copy of this book.
Unfortunately, my experience of interferon treatment of retrovirus associated diseases, HIV/AIDS and XMRV/MECFS, suffered from much of the same institutional corruption that Joe experienced.
***
I know the public likes to think of scientists as living completely in our heads, but the best of us are also engineers at heart. We like to come up with new approaches to doing things or understanding how new technology can help us answer vexing questions.
Everybody else was looking for interferon in the blood.
But when you understand the mouth and nostrils are the gateway to the interior of our body, you realize that’s exactly where Mother Nature would place some of her best guardians. The battle is being fought first in the respiratory system, and then if that fails, will often move to the bloodstream. Purifying interferons from the continuously growing Namalwa cell line was a significant advance in technology and could and did make the low doses needed for therapeutics affordable.
Several articles stated that while cancer fighting has been grabbing all the headlines, interferon’s potential as a protection against viruses remained powerful. The protein blocks the action of every virus it has been tested against in the lab. It seems to be able to stop some common cold viruses dead in their tracks, and to offer hope for eliminating the dangerous carrier of chronic viral hepatitis.
However, we are constantly told more testing must be done in these areas before interferon’s antiviral potency can be fully judged.
Remember my central belief: that all of nature, plants, and animals are given by God and, as it says in Genesis 1:31, for our good health.
So, why did this effort, started with great fanfare in the 1980s, not come to fruition?
The problem was not with God.
I believe the problem was human intervention.
***
In Joe’s book, there was one story that absolutely mesmerized and haunted me, making me think back on the treatments for XMRV/MECFS, which were denied.
There was Jonathon Kerr out of the United Kingdom, who denied the use of type one interferon for nasal usage in ME/CFS patients.
The biologic therapy, Ampligen, a mismatched double-stranded RNA molecule with immunotherapy and antiviral properties, has been denied approval by the FDA for decades.
There was Robin Weiss, who along with Coffin collaborator Jonathon Stoye, denied the UK trial of type I interferon in ME/CFS patients, while Simon Wessly was pursuing behavioral modification.
Yet in 2010, twenty-five years after it was shown that type I interferon could silence retroviruses, Frank presented the data showing XMRV’s blocked production of type I interferon from plasmacytoid dendric cells, suggesting low dose interferon could stop the transmission of retroviruses. To this day it is still being denied for millions of patients with XMRV/MECFS and their families who may be at risk.
In the spring of 1986, Joe got a call from another veterinarian, Dr. Buddy Brandt, asking how he might dose a large dog with a tumor, using Pet Interferon Alpha. Joe thought the weight reported was at the upper limit for a dog, but still within a believable range.
In truth, there was no big dog.
The “dog” was the veterinarian himself.
Dr. Buddy Brandt had undergone surgery in November 1983 and required multiple blood transfusions. In February 1986, he was diagnosed with AIDS-related complex. Although Joe did not realize Buddy was treating himself with the Pet Interferon Alpha, when he started to get good results, he told Joe. Eventually, Joe and another scientist, Val Hutchison, submitted what was essentially a case report on Buddy to The Lancet, and it was published in 1987:
In late 1983, a 40-year-old man underwent open-heart surgery and complications necessitated many blood transfusions. In early 1984 he was admitted to hospital with pneumonia, and this may have been his first AIDS-related illness. Subsequently, herpes, genital warts, diarrhea, herpes simplex, mouth ulcers, respiratory infections, and weight loss became chronic, and in February 1986, AIDS-related complex (ARC) was diagnosed.
Our patient was a veterinary surgeon. Success with oral human interferon-alpha (IFN-a; pet IFN-a, Amarillo Cell Culture Co) in feline leukemia and his chronic weight loss and depressed T4 lymphocyte counts prompted him to experiment with IFN-a. Self-treatment was followed by a rise in T4 lymphocyte count from 153 to 319 /ul, regression of genital warts, improved appetite, and weight gain.
The interferon treatment was discussed with his physician who discouraged its use, and the treatment was discontinued; his T4 lymphocyte count decreased within six weeks to 146 /ul. His physician prescribed ribavirin for the next 8 months, and during ribavirin treatment the patient experienced weight loss and anorexia, and his T4 count varied from 146 to 218 /ul. In January 1987, his condition deteriorated from ARC to AIDS, according to his primary physician.
At the end of January, 1987, he began a course of low dose (2-4) units/kg body weight per day) oral human IFN-a, and over the past 11 months his appetite has returned, he has gained weight, his herpes simplex and mouth ulcers have disappeared, the genital warts have regressed and recurred, and T4 counts have risen from 210 to 520 /ul. He feels better than he has for 3 years and has been able to maintain the quality of his life and has not been off work for those 11 months …”5
That letter in The Lancet brought worldwide attention to Joseph Cummins and his low-dose interferon treatment. During this time, Joe had also been able to create a partnership with a Japanese company, Hayashibara Biological Laboratories, to produce interferon using Joe’s techniques, which they found to be of exceptionally high quality.
In early 1989, Joe had become so well-known that he was asked to fly to Kenya and meet with Dr. Davey Koech, who was director of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) to discuss plans to provide interferon for a trial of HIV/AIDS patients. This research was completed, and the dramatic results were published in the journal, Molecular Biotherapy, in June 1990. Here’s a section from that article on the results in forty-two patients:
The CD4+ cell count increased in all but 4 of the treated patients; the average increase was 291.1 cells/cu.mm3 after two weeks of natural human interferon treatment. Concurrent with increases in the CD4+ cell count were increases in the KPS [Karnofsky Performance Status – A measure of a person’s ability to perform the daily activities of life. The range is from 1 to 100, with 100 being normal.] Patients experienced dramatic symptomatic relief and all of the patients except
3 had a KPS of 100 after 2, 4, or 6 weeks of human interferon treatment.
The average weight gain of patients after six weeks of oral human interferon therapy was 4.6 kg [a little more than ten pounds] and is in contrast to loss of appetite and other toxic effects associated with high dosage parenteral usages of human interferon. The low dosage and oral administration of human interferon differ in comparison to other human interferon treatment regimens that have been tested in ADS and HIV-1 seropositive patients.6
At the time the study was published, the CD4+ cell count was generally thought to be the most accurate indicator of a person’s health, so the increase in a positive direction was an unmistakably positive sign. I’d also suggest that the increase in being able to attend to the daily activities of life was of great significance. The AIDS drugs which were being given at the time, while having some positive effects, were often causing appetite suppression and dangerous weight loss. Interferon seemed to be an all-around winner.
But the most surprising finding was the apparent disappearance of HIV in a few of the patients, or at least beyond our ability to detect it at that time.
Four patients turned negative for both ELISA and Western Blot by the second week after treatment, and another 4 patients turned negative by the fourth week. These individuals have since remained negative during subsequent follow-ups and have continued to be asymptomatic. This is the first observation where there has been “seroconversion” on both ELISA and Western Blot and clinical improvement resulting, apparently, from therapy.7
But the 1990 study from Kenya was not the first to show the positive benefit of interferon, especially when used in combination with other AIDS drugs. This is how the New York Times described an earlier study when interferon was used in combination with AZT, an early AIDS drug:
In 1990, AZT was the only drug approved for the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, but as many of half the patients cannot tolerate the recommended doses because the drug damages their bone marrow.
In the study, 22 men infected with the AIDS virus took low doses of the two drugs for 12 weeks and the drugs apparently worked together to inhibit the viral infection. For example, six men had viral proteins in their blood when the study began, but those proteins disappeared in three of them. Six of the 22 men no longer had viruses that could be isolated in their blood.8
Because of my PhD thesis, which was in progress, I appreciated the importance of these findings. If we keep the virus latent or silent, the patient lives just like the rest of us. Yet, not only was this safe, low dose treatment denied general use for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, but it has been denied in other diseases associated with retroviruses including ME/CFS and ALS.
The article went on to quote a name which has now become well-known to virtually all Americans:
Dr. Fauci said the growing evidence that interferon is effective against AIDS patients who could not take AZT because of its side effects should consider taking alpha interferon instead of, or in combination with AZT.
“I believe that alpha interferon is very promising,” he said. “Independent studies in the United States and Canada have clearly shown it is effective against Kaposi’s sarcoma and that it had a significant effect,” against the AIDS virus.9
Now, there are some caveats to be certain. Joe always said that interferon should be used in low doses. Sometimes even the low doses that Joe suggested also needed to be cut in half, as was needed in the Kenyan study under Dr. Koech. It may have been that their immune system was in such a weakened state that it simply needed to be brought along a lot slower.
But then everything started to collapse, not because of the failure of the therapy, but because of human institutions.
But interferon keeps finding its way back into the news.
In April 2020, a team from the University of Texas reported in the Journal of Antiviral Resistance that interferon was effective against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The researchers found:
Our data clearly demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is highly sensitive to both IFN-a and IFN-b in cultured cells, which is comparable to the IFN sensitive VSV. Our discovery reveals a weakness of the new coronavirus, which may be informative to antiviral development … Our data may provide an explanation, at least in part, to the observation that approximately 80% of patients actually develop mild symptoms and recover. It is possible that many of them are able to mount IFN-a/b-mediated innate immune response upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, which helps to limit virus infection/dissemination at an early stage of the disease.10
Let’s discuss the importance of these findings. SARS-CoV-2 is very sensitive to interferon, both type A and type B. This may explain why 80 percent of those who contract the virus develop mild symptoms and recover. Their immune system is properly producing interferon in the amounts needed to successfully fight off the virus. I understand it’s one thing to show these results in culture, but what about in human beings?
We saw the dramatic results in HIV/AIDS, especially when interferon was paired with another antiviral. Well, researchers in Hong Kong did that very study and published their findings in The Lancet on May 30, 2020:
In this multi-center, randomized open-label phase 2 trial in patients with COVID-19, we showed that a triple combination of an injectable interferon (interferon beta 1b), oral protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir), and an oral nucleoside analogue (ribavirin), when given within 7 days of symptom onset, is effective in suppressing the shedding of SARS-CoV-2, not just in nasopharyngeal swabs, but in all clinical specimens [bold and underline added], compared with lopinavir-ritonavir alone.
Furthermore, the significant reductions in duration of RT-PCR positivity and viral load were associated with clinical improvement as shown by the significant reduction in NEWS2 and duration of hospital stay. Most patients treated with the triple combination were RT-PCR negative in all specimens by day 8. The side effects were generally mild and self-limiting.11
Makes perfect sense, since the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein contains HIV Env (envelope), XMRV Env, and SARS receptor binding domains. Syncytin is the name of the envelope protein expressed from our endogenous gamma retrovirus, HERV W (the 7C10 antibody used in our original paper reacts with all known polytropic and xenotropic retroviral envelopes). Furthermore, HIV Gp120 sequences were detected in several strains as published and confirmed by our colleague and Nobel Prize laureate, Luc Montagnier. I’ve presented the data supporting this statement publicly since January 2021 and my statements have never been refuted, only censored.
Yet the denial of effective low-cost immune therapies to HIV and XMRV-infected communities, while Fauci simply renamed XMRV/MECFS “long-haul COVID” and forces the 12 percent carrying these viruses to be inoculated, rather than simply providing low-dose, type I interferon, HCQ, or ivermectin, is truly a crime against humanity.
Furthermore, the significant reduction in duration of the RT-PCR positivity was associated with clinical improvement as shown by the significant reduction in symptoms and duration of hospital stay. Most patients were negative by the eighth day of treatment and side effects were mild.
A triple combination of drugs, with interferon at its core, was enough to make most patients RT-PCR negative in all specimens within eight days. This is a tremendous breakthrough. Now that the fear has passed, let’s look at the situation objectively. Eighty percent of those exposed to SARS-CoV-12 will develop only mild symptoms of COVID-19. The 20 percent who do develop symptoms now have a treatment protocol.
In many instances, an obstacle can present an opportunity. Since the regulating agencies have concluded that interferon at a low dose has no effect, it can legally be sold as a food supplement. Food supplements can be used to support “general health” and no other claims are made about this product. Got it? I’ve shown you the published research, but am making no claims other than it may help with your general health. That should satisfy the lawyers.
More than forty years after I first fell in love with the
promise of interferon, that torch still burns bright. The world owes Joseph Cummins a debt of gratitude.
CHAPTER THREE
The Gatekeepers in Science
I’m often asked, “Judy, how do you put up with what they’ve done to you for the past ten years? Has this completely disillusioned you about science?”
My answer to them is, “I’ve been fighting with this misogyny from the beginning of my time in science more than forty years ago.” Sometimes the players change, but often the pattern is just the same.
I’ve mentioned before in my books, as well as earlier in this one, that I was first hired by the NCI as a technician on June 10, 1980 to work in the fermentation chemistries program at Fort Detrick in Maryland. In effect, we were the hired guns, the technicians in the lab, figuring out how to complete the studies of the god-like “principal investigators.” In the public health hierarchy, you should think of the principal investigators as akin to the general of an army. As lab technicians, we were like the boots on the ground. The general might say “I want you to take that hill! Get ready to charge!” and we’d be expected to do it.
But if you’re a smart soldier, you take a look at the hill, note the enemy fortifications and the location of machine gun nests, and say to yourself, “If we charge up that hill, we’re going to get mowed down by those machine guns.”
You then go to your sergeant and say, “Sir, we’re going to get slaughtered if we charge up that hill. But there’s a steep canyon on the other side that’s unguarded and I think we can surprise them.”
Hopefully your sergeant has an ounce of brains and thinks, Do I want to be praised for executing the order exactly as the general gave it, fail to take the hill, and get all my men killed? Or do I want to take the risk the general gets mad I didn’t fulfill the order as he gave it, but I capture the hill and save the lives of my men?
Ending Plague Page 20