MovieChat Forums > Dallas Buyers Club (2013) Discussion > What 'DBC' got wrong about the AIDS cris...

What 'DBC' got wrong about the AIDS crisis (Washington Post)


'Tis the season for Oscar bait, and this year, "Dallas Buyers Club" looks set to get at least a few nominations. The movie stars Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof, a Dallas man who contracts HIV in 1985, when the diagnosis was a death sentence.

After responding poorly to AZT, the first drug approved to treat HIV/AIDS, Woodroof began acquiring unapproved medications from Mexico, Japan and other places around the world, and formed the titular "buyers club" to distribute them to other people in his area, whether the Food and Drug Administration liked it or not.

It's a very-well-made movie, and McConaughey and Jared Leto (who plays a transgender woman named Rayon who partners with Woodroof) give great performances. And the script, which had been written over the course of 20 years and was based in large part on interviews with Woodroof and on his personal journals, is by all accounts an accurate depiction of Woodroof's life. But it risks leaving a false impression of that period in the history of HIV/AIDS, and in particular of the role of AZT.

Let us now praise AZT


A bottle of AZT, also known by the brand name Retrovir. (Sam Morris / Associated Press)
In 1987, the FDA made azidothymidine — also known as zidovudine and usually shortened to "AZT" — the first government-approved treatment against HIV and AIDS. AZT is an antiretroviral which slows the replication of HIV, although it cannot stop it all together.

In the film, Dallas Mercy Hospital is having a randomized controlled trial to test AZT's effectiveness. Unable to be sure he's getting the drug rather than a placebo in the trial, Woodroof bribes a hospital employee to supply him with AZT, to which he reacts very badly. Throughout the rest of the movie, he and other characters denounce the drug as "toxic," and Woodroof recommends that customers of the buyers club dispose of what AZT they have and never take it again. At one point, a news broadcast is heard which emphasizes that AZT was the most expensive drug ever produced at that point. One could be forgiven for coming away with the sense that the medical community was poisoning HIV/AIDS patients with the drug, and keeping them from other, safer, therapies.


The trouble is that AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS. "People who were consistently using AZT prolonged life for one year," says Jonathan Engel, a medical historian at Baruch College and author of "The Epidemic: A History of AIDS." That may not sound like a lot, but at a time when the disease had a mortality rate of 100 percent, anything that delayed death was valuable.

This is not to say that Woodruff and others were imagining things. The dosages at which the drug was prescribed really were too high, but that was because of worries that a lower dose wouldn't be enough to meaningfully slow the virus.

Peter Staley, a longtime HIV/AIDS activist and co-founder of the Treatment Action Group who informally consulted on "Dallas Buyers Club," notes that though later studies showed that half the original dose worked just as well, researchers didn’t know this in the early days of the epidemic, and they only figured it out by comparing a lower dose to the original dose and finding the two had same rate of deaths. "They basically had to guess at a dose to use and decided to 'hit hard.'" Staley says. "It was not some government conspiracy that picked a high dose of AZT; it was a fear that hitting the virus too lightly wouldn't do the trick."

That did have negative consequences, notably bone marrow toxicity which manifested as anemia, but those side-effects were easy to diagnose and could be reversed by lowering the dosage or stopping the drug altogether. The bigger problem was that AZT was being used alone. With a virus that mutates as quickly as HIV, using only one antiviral drug often causes the virus to develop a resistance to that therapy. "Even if one half of one percent of cells were resistant, that within 20 generations (or about two months) that could become a broad strain," Engel explains.

The solution, as David Ho and other researchers at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center discovered in the mid-1990s, was to knock the virus back using a "triple whammy" of three different antivirals. Though the odds of a strain developing that was resistant to one of the three antivirals was fairly high, the odds of one developing that was resistant to all three was much lower. This approach — now known as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) — effectively turned HIV/AIDS into a chronic, manageable disease rather than a death sentence.

And AZT, often in the form of a pill marketed as "Combivir" that also included the antiviral lamivudine, was a key component of HAART for almost a decade. "In 2005, the number one selling antiviral in the world was Combivir," Staley says. "This is nine years after the triple drug regimens came out, and well after the AIDS death rate in the developed world dropped by 80 percent between 1996 and 1998. In two years, the death rate collapsed, and combivir was playing a huge role in that."

reply

Although I don't agree entirely with your post, I am thankful for it. It appears to be a re-posting perhaps? Surely by now, you've come to see the movie somewhat differently. It was neither a very-well-made movie nor an accurate portrayal of the real Ron Woodroof. It's distorted, haphazard, and disrespectful version of history has simply continued unworthy distrust and controversy, as can be seen here within numerous IMDb posts.

reply

After reading your post I'm still none the wiser as to what you think "DBC got wrong about the AIDS crisis". The film makes it clear at the end that AZT was a component of later developed drug regimens. It doesn't allege that there any "government conspiracy", involved in holding up development of an effective therapy. It does take aim at the FDA and alleges that the processes that the FDA used to research, test and approve drugs were flawed and a part of the problem for AIDS patients. 🐭

reply

If you're truly interested, the best advice I can give you is do some research on the writers, the script and how it came to be, and the life of the real Ron Woodroof.
The story is inauthentic and the script so thin that it rests too heavily on the perpetuation of veiled innuendo and suggestion rather than on historical fact. Through their laziness and eye on profit and fame, their work merely continues the ambiguity, suspicion, distrust, and misplaced anger that has surrounded HIV/AIDS since the beginning.
The filmmakers claim not to have wanted to produce anything "political". I believe that's code for their acknowledgement that their story and script can not hold up to much scrutiny.

reply

The story is inauthentic and the script so thin that it rests too heavily on the perpetuation of veiled innuendo and suggestion rather than on historical fact. Through their laziness and eye on profit and fame, their work merely continues the ambiguity, suspicion, distrust, and misplaced anger that has surrounded HIV/AIDS since the beginning.
Screenwriter Borten interviewed Woodroof in 1992 and wrote the script, which he polished with writer Wallack in 2000. Works for me in terms of authenticity. There are fictional characters brought into the story which frequently happens in screen adaptions and the film makers have been up front about it.

The film received widespread critical acclaim, resulting in numerous accolades, including 3 Academy Awards. I gather the Academy etc. aren't paying too much attention to your rants. Thank goodness for that.🐭

reply

Wow, why the rudeness? In all sincerity, I offered the suggestion of doing some research only because it sounded as if you were interested in the subject. Perhaps my post does sound like a "rant" to you, but as someone who had personally met the real Ron Woodroof, I see no hint of the man I knew within this film. He was indeed a Texan and a part-time electrician, but those are the only two things these writers got right. The rest is complete fictionalization, as are all the other members of the cast as you mentioned yourself. Perhaps that's OK to you as far as authenticity, but for a film which is categorized as a biography, it doesn't pass muster for me.

Yes, I am aware that Borten claims to have interviewed Woodroof in 1992. I can't subtantiate nor disprove that, nor am I attempting to do so. Are you familiar with the colorfully written newspaper article entitled "Buying Time" by Bill Minutaglio? It appeared within a supplement of The Dallas Morning News in Aug. of 1992. (Ron died shortly afterward in Sept.) As far as publicly verifiable records and events, the film doesn't stray too far from what is covered in that article. It's also important to mention here though that Minutaglio has stated since that time and since the release of the movie that he didn't perceive Ron as a racist, nor a homophobe, nor a heterosexual.

The writers have admitted to using a certain amount of "poetic license" in order to tell their story. I also understand that sometimes a bit of that is necessary to tell a more concise story. But what they've done here with this movie goes beyond that.

The movie itself won no Academy Awards, ie: writing, editing, directing. Two acting, one hair/makeup. I hope you don't base your own opinions on what you like or what touches you within a piece of art on how many awards it receives though.

reply

The movie itself won no Academy Awards ... Two acting, one hair/makeup.
Makes about as much sense as your rants which are littered across this film's boards. If you think me pointing that out is rude, well you'll just have to live with it, I guess.🐭

reply

Mentioning that I have written about the deficiencies of this movie's script isn't what makes you rude. It's your manner of discourse. The way you defend your beliefs concerning the film, one would suspect that you have some sort of vested interest.
Perhaps, if someone ever makes a movie about a time, place, issue, and a person you used to know, you might gain some appreciation for the way I feel about this movie.
Wink to your use of the word "littered", in reference to my other posts btw. Agreeing with you on the Academy wins for actors and hair/make-up while pointing out that the film ITSELF won no Academy awards for screenplay, cinematography, art direction, editing, original score, best orig. STORY, director, PICTURE makes complete sense. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're right, I'm sure the Academy isn't paying much attention, but "thank goodness", really? I suppose I'm just not as willing as you to be spoon fed a load of BS.

reply

well, the movie as a whole spends a lot of time denouncing AZT as toxic garbage that doesn't help anyone and in fact kills people faster as their immune systems are supposedly taxed evem more / destroyed by AZT.

The fact that AZT, as posted by the thread starter, actually ended up doing a lot of good and DID save countless lives was only mentioned in the movie as an afterthought.

I post this because I had never heard about 'AZT' or any other HIV drugs before watching this movie, and during the movie I was convinced that it was just a failed drug that was being pushed by what we would now call 'big pharma'. Imagine my surprise when the movie ends with
'A lower dose of AZT became widely used in later drug combinations that saved millions of lives'.

To me this felt like an invalidation of what I as an audience was led to believe for the previous 2 hours.

Now, I don't think this makes it a bad movie. But it certainly was odd and in some sense disingenuous.

_____
I don't know, Butchie, instead.

reply

"To me this felt like an invalidation of what I as an audience was led to believe for the previous 2 hours."

The movie's plot was set in the middle of the 80s and the early 90s. This is how things were back then. Even though the movie isn't 100% accurate, it still shows people's mentality back then. It isn't an invalidation but more like an accurate demonstration of that time.

reply