For those of you who might not brave the comments threads on any HIV post, you may have missed this tidbit of information. I've written about "investigative journalist" Liam Scheff previously; he's an HIV "dissident" and author of a story from a few years back titled "The House that AIDS Built". In this, he claimed that HIV+ children had been removed from their parents' homes and force-fed "toxic" drugs to treat their condition (which of course, he claims is based on "inaccurate" HIV testing in the first place):
The drugs being given to the children are toxic - they're known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they're held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they're taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.
This story was picked up as the basis for the 2004 documentary "Guinea Pig Kids," an independent movie which was aired by the BBC--a move they now are apologizing for after an intense investigation into the claims made by the movie, and the people involved in creating it. More after the jump...
From the Guardian article on the debacle:
According to a source, the documentary - which was made by independent film-maker Jamie Doran - has caused considerable anguish within the BBC, which is still reeling from more recent fakery allegations, because of fears it deceived viewers by "playing fast and loose with the facts".
***
...following an investigation led by the BBC's head of editorial complaints Fraser Steel, the corporation has upheld complaints about several key parts of the film and a related article on the BBC website.
These included claims that the HIV medicines given to the children were "futile" and "dangerous" and that children were taken from their families because they resisted the "experimental" drugs.
In its adjudication, the BBC also said that the film-makers falsely tried to "create an association between the [clinical] trials and a loss of parental rights" while it also acknowledged that the film was biased towards the views of HIV "denialists"
...A film written by, produced by, and featuring interviews with HIV denialists, who never pause to mention that their views are outside of the mainstream medical establishment (to put it mildly).
A press release about the issue notes:
The false allegations about sinister medical experiments on foster children were a Trojan Horse cynically constructed to take advantage of those real concerns in order to spread deadly denialist lies about HIV in the communities most devastated by AIDS. These allegations about ICC have become something of an urban legend, untrue but widely believed, mainly because people trusted the BBC. The fact is that ICC and the more than 30 other agencies in New York that took part in the trials used the clinical trials framework to make life-saving medications, already approved for adults, available to children with HIV who would otherwise have died.
Again, scientists are of course outraged because Scheff et al have portrayed a clinical trial, aimed at better understanding drug dosages in children and providing them access to medicine, as something akin to a medieval torture device, and those who helped these kids are labeled "fascists" and "nazis" by Scheff. (Indeed, in a post on his blog on the topic, one of the categories it falls under is "eugenics.") But worse than bastardizing the science and painting doctors and nurses as mad scientists is the misinformation the documentary has caused in at-risk circles, as Jeanne Bergman notes in her piece describing the background of the documentary:
The attacks on Incarnation Children's Center began with a sensationalist stew of lies, partial truths and innuendo cooked up by an AIDS denialist and free-lance writer named Liam Scheff and circulated on the Internet in early 2004. The New York Post picked up the story in March of that year, eliciting a spasm of misinformed grandstanding by a couple of City Council members. ... Regrettably, the HIV denialists driving this hoax have since been joined by African-American activists affiliated with small groups like the December 12th Movement, whose rage is directed primarily at ACS. They started organizing protests outside ICC, thus outing the residents as children with AIDS and characterizing their home as a "slaughterhouse."
She notes that in the 1980s, kids in foster care (or those not living with their parents for a variety of reasons) were not allowed to participate in clinical trials. By 1992, this represented about half of the HIV+ kids in New York City--until Incarnation Children's Center and other advocates intervened. Kids could be enrolled in the trials and receive antiretrovirals; however, clinical trials ended at ICC in 2002. Why? Horror stories of children dying? Nope--because the trials had been completed, and the medications had been approved for use in pediatric populations. Because they are now standard of care, foster parents can indeed have their foster children removed from their custody if they refuse to treat--and this isn't unique to New York or the ICC. When one agrees to take on the responsibility for a child, that includes providing them with proper medical care.
Finally, I suppose it won't be surprising to many regular readers to find out that Christine Maggiore played a role in this tale, getting the ball rolling on the story that eventually led to "Guinea Pig Kids." According to Bergman, she introduced Scheff to the guardian of two children at ICC (I assume, Mona Newberg, who Scheff interviewed for "The House that AIDS Built").
Coverage of this story in The New York Times in 2005, and now this retraction and apology by the BBC won't serve to undo all the damage done, but it at least gives scientists and advocates places to point to that re-affirm the inaccuracies in this so-called journalism. The BBC did the right thing by making its statement about the film; too bad it's taken them 3 years to get to that point.
The AIDS/HIV denialist whackjobs whould be hijacking this thread any time now.
What do you mean "hijacking"? It's an obvious troll.
It's so sad any one can oppose giving poor, helpless, sick children medicine they need to stay alive.
I guess next those gouls like Liam Schef will do a expose on heart surgery. OH MY GOD THEY CUT HOLES IN PEOPLES CHEST and STICK KNIVES IN THEM. SOMEBODY STOP IT!!!
By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran, attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary.
Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit.
I would, however, like to publicly acknowledge the truly critical role played by Dave Crowe of ARAS, and his colleagues in the Rethinking AIDS (sic) group, in making this victory possible. AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy, and would probably never have been acted on. Fortunately, at just the right moment, Crowe and the RA group issued a press release (appended below). That was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported. I therefore forwarded Crowe's press release to a senior science reporter at the BBC (see email below, name redacted to preserve confidentiality), who then brought the matter to the personal attention of the Deputy Director General. The rest, as they say, was history. So, thanks Dave Crowe! Keep up the good work!
John Moore
-------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:24:18 -0400
To: xxxxxx@bbc.co.uk
From: "John P. Moore"
Subject: The denialists write to the BBC
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
xxxxxxx,
The very fact that the AIDS denialists' umbrella organization has now issued a press release supporting the BBC documentary should say something to the BBC hierarchy about how biased, damaging, misleading and anti-science/medicine that documentary actually was. I'm reminded of the old phrase that one can judge a man by his enemies. Well, one can also judge a man by his friends, and with friends like these, the BBC documentary producer is in pretty disturbing territory. The fact is that the BBC is sitting on a scandal, and how it responds (or not) will affect its reputation in the minds of many AIDS research professionals. The problem with the documentary is specifically highlighted in an article that will appear in the International AIDS Society's newsletter very soon, a newsletter read by thousands of AIDS research professionals.
I know this is not your problem, and I understand the demands on your time, but perhaps you would be able to steer us to someone at the BBC who is willing and able to look seriously at a significant blot on the BBC's reputation in scientific and public health circles. Some of the people concerned about this documentary's contents are London-based. It would not be difficult to set up a meeting to get to the bottom of the problem. The fact is that the producer was either thoroughly fooled or deliberately adopted one of the core agendas of the AIDS denialists: that anti-retroviral drugs cause AIDS rather than treating it. That's so dangerously misleading, and misleadingly dangerous, as to be not allowed to stand unrebutted.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rethinking AIDS" [press@rethinkingaids.com]
Sent: 03/08/2007 08:17 PM
To: xxxxxx
Subject: For Immediate Release
Press Release
March 7, 2007
Rethinking AIDS Asks BBC to Reject Call to Censor
BBC Documentary About Forced Drug Experiments on Children
SAN FRANCISCO, March 7, 2007--Rethinking AIDS, a global organization of more than 2,300 scientists, medical doctors, journalists, health advocates, and business professionals, asked the BBC today to reject a call for censorship of the 2004 documentary film Guinea Pig Kids. The film, coproduced with NDR, German public television, exposed drug experiments on poor, mostly Latino and African-American New York City children presumed to be HIV positive, conducted at Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) in Manhattan.
In a March 7, 2007, letter to the acting chair of the BBC Trust, RA president Dr. Etienne de Harven wrote, "Thanks to the BBC exposé and other investigative reports in the U.S. and Europe, the disturbing practices at the ICC came to the attention of human rights organizations and local government agencies, prompting hearings, investigations and media coverage that continue to this day."
On January 10, 2007, several AIDS researchers sent a complaint letter to the BBC asking it to remove "editorial support," which includes a transcript of the film, from the BBC Web site and that an apology for "false and misleading" portrayal of the children as "guinea pigs" be posted in its place. The documentary investigators found, however, information from ICCÃs own former Web site, as well as the Web site of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), indicating that ICC used children to test not only unusually high numbers of highly toxic drugs (mixtures of up to eight drugs) but also at doses that were significantly higher than normal. (See also, the BBCÃs follow-up story.)
RA has urged the BBC to "refuse censorship of this vitally important film, continuing the courageous stance that led to the pursuit of this story." It requested that coverage of Guinea Pig Kids remain on the BBC Web site and that no apology be issued for what is an accurate report.
The February 2007 issue of Essence magazine contains a feature article inspired by the film, originally aired November 30, 2004. Initial stories ran in the New York Post, New York Press, Fox News and the British Observer. There is evidence that such abusive practices persist in New York, the U.S. and around the world.
RAÃs letter, and the letter of complaint to which it responds, are available here.
### end ###
Press contact:
Etienne de Harven, M.D., Ph.D.
President
Rethinking AIDS: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis
Phone: +33-4-93-60-28-39
Saint Cézaire, France
Alternate contact:
David Crowe
Media Relations
Phone: +1-403-289-6609
Mobile: +1-403-861-2225
Calgary, Canada
The obvious conclusion from the Denialist reaction is that when drugs have been tested on adults (and found to be beneficial) that they should be given to children without further testing.
I mean what possible justification could there possibly be for doing trials involving children?
Rethinking AIDS has a media relations department. What is the contact for the experimental research department?
Four hours have gone by and the HIV/AIDS denialist whackjobss haven't shown up yet. A little slow off the mark this evening.
Look at this guy, censorship is his best friend. BC a "denialist" group supported it, that autmatically makes it ok to experiment on kids. Did it ever occcur to you they recanted the documentary because of intimidation and fear of being called a "denialist" by turkeys like you and wainberg, and not the message in the documentary itself?
They wouldnt have aired it if it didnt have truth in it. John moore realizes informed consent is his worst enemey. Once people hear the other side of the story, the gig is up.
Can you imagine if a small group of scientists denied gravity, and a few dumb people beleived them and jumped off buildings thinking they could fly?
Do you think physicists would start a group called "gravity truth" and spend half their careers trying to prevent people from hearing the "gravity deniers" message? This is not the way experts respond to absurd arguments.
Moore responds the way a corrupt prosecuter would engaging in a coverup, prevent intelligent people from hearing an argument through censorship and intimidation because they might beleive it if they had informed consent.
He cant stand it when intelligent people hear both sides of the issue because once they do the realize that AIDS inc is out of control. Moore beleives people are stupid and need to be protected by him, the irony is most people who question hiv are far more intelligent than he is.
see hiv fact or fraud
learn about mycoplasma incogitus/penetrans, discovered by miltary scientist shyh ching lo , kills every animal injected, unlike hiv, found in many AIDS/cfs cases etc, read pub med and the awesome new book Project Day Lily by garth and nancy nicolson phds who discovered it was part of the bioweapons program, no wonder armed agents came to visit them and threatened them to stop their research when they found it in civilains and sick GWI vets.
thanks john, tara etc for helping spread this microbe through the population, causing genocide and an epidemic of chronic multi organic illnesses misdiagnosed as CFS/ALS/RA. BC of your hivcentric dogma you ignore every other microbe thats not supported by big pharma and are responsible for my sisters suffering. Microbes like hpv and hep c that do zilch in animals and have 40 year window periods.
Five hours and one minute for a response... Pretty slow there, I'm kind of disappointed.
Seize being disappointed y'all. What's the matter can't you get an intelligent conversation going between yourselves?
Anyways, here's more grrreat news for Sir John and a certain Rodriguez et al. 15% predictive power achieved in a mere 25 years. Wow!
ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2007) -- Viral load-the amount of virus in the blood of an HIV-infected person-has long been viewed as the chief indicator of how quickly someone infected with HIV infection progresses to AIDS.
New data published in Nature Immunology builds on previous work that suggests that several other factors in addition to viral load significantly contribute to disease progression rates.
....
viral load contributed only 9 percent to the variability in rate of progression to AIDS; variations in CCR5 and CCL3L1 combined accounted for 6 percent variability in AIDS progression rates.
...
Here on this page, "an expose on Heart Surgery" is being compared to the involuntary cutting open of children's abdomens to force a drug regimen.
Hence, the term "nazi."
I'm glad we all agree then, that these children have their stomachs cut open when they refuse drugs. I'd hate to have to post the J.Pediatrics write up of the wonderful practice. I'm sure you've found it already (or haven't you bothered to see if anything anybody says is true, when it doesn't please you?)
Fascist goes to this:
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00001108?order=30
Seven drugs, some at higher than usual doses," in children as young as four years old.
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00006064?order=4
Children pumped with drugs that cause lipodystrophy, for the purpose of studying lipodystrophy.
(maybe that's "nazi" too).
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00000902?order=3
Seven drugs in some variety of combination on infants as young as six months old.
See "Incarnation Children's Center" and "Columbia Presbyterian" in the "Location" section of the studies.
Seven drugs, some at "higher than usual doses" in children as young as four.
Tara, would you give your child seven ... pieces of candy at once?
How about seven children's tylenol?
How about seven over-the-counter medications, of any kind? How about at once, in higher than normal doses?
These are seven FDA Black-Box label drugs, at once, or in combination, over and over, in every study, fed through nasal tubes when the vomiting is too much, and surgical stomach tubes, when the kids refuse too often.
There's nothing untrue about any part of the story. It is as it was lived. All my sources - Mimi Pascual, Mona N., Jackie H., the boy Shawn, have been interviewed for print or film, by various reporters, so you can read or hear or watch them speak their words. I spoke with about 5 or 6 child-care workers and nurses from ICC through early 2005, when I was doing the second part of the work (see "Inside Incarnation.") I only got to use a little of the material, because the Aids police at the NY Times, John Moore, was so good at getting the paper of record to jump the rails, and lie.
The Times spit out a piece two years ago that is a verbatum of today's Moore/Bergman ridiculously happy tale: "Yes, sure, there were trials, drug trials on orphans! But they were only with wonderful, life-saving drugs! (just don't read the labels (or we'll call you a denialist))."
The reporters credited with the NYTimes piece - Janny Scott and Leslie Kaufman - either did not write the piece, or had it altered in editorial (or just skunked me out), because they interviewed me for hours, and interviewed most of the mothers who were my sources - Mona, J. Herger, and reported none of it. None.
They did not mention it - or, I think, Moore did not have it mentioned. They actually claimed that I offered "no evidence." They pretended that they hadn't interviewed these women. They did this while citing my major evidence, that clinical trials with many FDA black box label drugs were going on in children.
They just pretended like there was no possible harm that could come from it, and they hid, obscured, lied about, covered-up, rearranged, any sign or hint of reality in looking at a drug trials that use Nevirapine, AZT, DDL, 3TC, Didanosine, Lamivudine, Bactrim, experimental vaccines, etc. This obfuscation constitutes, I do not doubt, a legally offensive breach of ethics, and if I had money, I'd sue them. But I do not have money.
And yet, in one of the complaint letters flying around, they cite Mona specifically, as the mother who didn't want to give her kids the drugs and had them taken away as a consequence.
Holding down kids to drug them - Is that surprising? I mean, it's a terrible reality when performing the routine of studies and regimens like this: How do you get seven drugs in one dosing into a child? They refuse, they squirm, you hold them in their chair. They refuse, you put in a Naso-Gastric tube. They refuse you take them in for surgery.
The "Aidscare" article by Claire Yaffa shows pictures of drugs being administered at ICC. And those are the nice, "well-behaved" ones. You get the idea and the picture.
Mimi talked about it, at grotesque length, as did a nurse I agreed to call Rhonda for the story (b/c she still worked in the field), another child-care worker Maritza, another nurse, another childcare worker, a couple adult volunteers at the place, the two kids of Mona (one interviewed in the BBC movie, one not), another girl "Michelle" in my story, now over 18, and out of there, no more drugs, but a thyroid condition to show for her massive poisoning...a boy called "Andre" for the story, over 18, away from the place, but now with cancer.
I spoke with insider after insider, but who wants to publish that book when the NY Times says "it was all blown out of proportion!" Or, more to the point, "Only denialists believe that AZT isn't a wonder drug!!!"
Tara, I'll be glad to come by your office anytime I'm in the Chicago area, I'll make a special trip to your state - Andy M. and I will run over, and we'll go through my documents and files, and you can review the material, and listen to the stories, and you can write about that on your blog, how these people decided to trust that maybe by telling their awful stories of medical terror and abuse they'd be able to get a little bit out from under, and they've (and I) have discovered that we were wrong.
They were wrong. And so was I. The press doesn't care. "Ethical" medicine couldn't give a good goddamn. But I'll be by your office someday in the spring, and I'll bring the material, and you can have a look and listen to the testimony of people who are being crushed and silenced here.
But, that's all very sad, and this is a victory party for you.
So, look, you and your people really, really win this one.
And I'm happy for you, and just happy for personal reasons, because some of the people I cared about at that place made it out alive, and they aren't being poisoned daily anymore. A couple have or have had cancer to show for their massive drugging, however, and some will just never be human again.
And some, like Seon, like Shyanne, like Ashley, and more, they are dead. And these are their names. SEON. SHYANNE. ASHLEY. And they had Gtubes, Adele. (Maybe you can get one for yourself, and push some thalidomide into your abdomen from time time, and see how that goes). That's what they did and do at ICC, and in pediatric Aids.
Thalidomide through a g-tube.
And that's what you're fighting for.
And that's what I've been fighting against.
And sweet holy mother of Christ, am I glad to be on the side that I'm on.
If being a denialist means that you're not in favor of pumping "seven black-box label drugs at once, some at higher than usual doses" into children locked in an orphanage, well then, I guess we've figured something about the orthodoxy, versus the "denialists."
By the way, I was done with this story. It's always very good of you people to bring it back, over and over and over again. It gives a whole new audience a chance to read about the "wonder and magic" of your "life-saving aids drugs."
Keep it up.
Oopss that was supposed to be "cease" not seize.
Hope it doesn't spoil your day.
MEC,
It's a nice article, and one that lends no credence to denialists. You do realize that all of the people they studied who progressed to AIDS had HIV, right? The result that viral load alone is not the sole determinant of progression to AIDS is consistent with our understanding of HIV causing AIDS. Genetic and nutritional factors can determine whether people with HIV progress to AIDS in a given time period (ie, the rate of disease progress), but that doesn't mean those factors are causative in the absence of HIV. So, your point was?
Globalizati call it cruel and unusual punishment, but if you don't get the point, I guess we'll have to keep you suspended a wee while longer. In the meantime it looks like Liam Scheff is still having problems with Tara's Denialist Filter (TM)
Liam Scheff:
Here on this page, "an expose on Heart Surgery" is being compared to the involuntary cutting open of children's abdomens to force a drug regimen.
Hence, the term "nazi."
I'm glad we all agree then, that these children have their stomachs cut open when they refuse drugs. I'd hate to have to post the J.Pediatrics write up of the wonderful practice. I'm sure you've found it already (or haven't you bothered to see if anything anybody says is true, when it doesn't please you?)
Fascist goes to this:
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00001108?order=30
Seven drugs, some at higher than usual doses," in children as young as four years old.
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00006064?order=4
Children pumped with drugs that cause lipodystrophy, for the purpose of studying lipodystrophy.
(maybe that's "nazi" too).
* Here's the study:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00000902?order=3
Seven drugs in some variety of combination on infants as young as six months old.
See "Incarnation Children's Center" and "Columbia Presbyterian" in the "Location" section of the studies.
Seven drugs, some at "higher than usual doses" in children as young as four.
Tara, would you give your child seven ... pieces of candy at once?
How about seven children's tylenol?
How about seven over-the-counter medications, of any kind?
These are seven FDA Black-Box label drugs, at once, or in combination, over and over, in every study, fed through nasal tubes when the vomiting is too much, and surgical stomach tubes, when the kids refuse too often.
There's nothing untrue about any part of the story. It is as it was lived. All my sources - Mimi Pascual, Mona N., Jackie H., the boy Shawn, have been interviewed for print or film, by various reporters, so you can read or hear or watch them speak their words. I spoke with about 5 or 6 child-care workers and nurses from ICC through early 2005, when I was doing the second part of the work (see "Inside Incarnation.") I only got to use a little of the material, because the Aids police at the NY Times, John Moore, was so good at getting the paper of record to jump the rails, and lie.
The Times spit out a piece two years ago that is a verbatum of today's Moore/Bergman ridiculously happy tale: "Yes, sure, there were trials, drug trials on orphans! But they were only with wonderful, life-saving drugs! (just don't read the labels (or we'll call you a denialist))."
The reporters credited with the NYTimes piece - Janny Scott and Leslie Kaufman - either did not write the piece, or had it altered in editorial (or just skunked me out), because they interviewed me for hours, and interviewed most of the mothers who were my sources - Mona, J. Herger, and reported none of it. None.
They did not mention it - or, I think, Moore did not have it mentioned. They actually claimed that I offered "no evidence." They pretended that they hadn't interviewed these women. They did this while citing my major evidence, that clinical trials with many FDA black box label drugs were going on in children.
They just pretended like there was no possible harm that could come from it, and they hid, obscured, lied about, covered-up, rearranged, any sign or hint of reality in looking at a drug trials that use Nevirapine, AZT, DDL, 3TC, Didanosine, Lamivudine, Bactrim, experimental vaccines, etc. This obfuscation constitutes, I do not doubt, a legally offensive breach of ethics, and if I had money, I'd sue them. But I do not have money.
And yet, in one of the complaint letters flying around, they cite Mona specifically, as the mother who didn't want to give her kids the drugs and had them taken away as a consequence.
Holding down kids to drug them - Is that surprising? I mean, it's a terrible reality when performing the routine of studies and regimens like this: How do you get seven drugs in one dosing into a child? They refuse, they squirm, you hold them in their chair. They refuse, you put in a Naso-Gastric tube. They refuse you take them in for surgery.
The "Aidscare" article by Claire Yaffa shows pictures of drugs being administered at ICC. And those are the nice, "well-behaved" ones. You get the idea and the picture.
Mimi talked about it, at grotesque length, as did a nurse I agreed to call Rhonda for the story (b/c she still worked in the field), another child-care worker Maritza, another nurse, another childcare worker, a couple adult volunteers at the place, the two kids of Mona (one interviewed in the BBC movie, one not), another girl "Michelle" in my story, now over 18, and out of there, no more drugs, but a thyroid condition to show for her massive poisoning...a boy called "Andre" for the story, over 18, away from the place, but now with cancer.
I spoke with insider after insider, but who wants to publish that book when the NY Times says "it was all blown out of proportion!" Or, more to the point, "Only denialists believe that AZT isn't a wonder drug!!!"
Tara, I'll be glad to come by your office anytime I'm in the Chicago area, I'll make a special trip to your state - Andy M. and I will run over, and we'll go through my documents and files, and you can review the material, and listen to the stories, and you can write about that on your blog, how these people decided to trust that maybe by telling their awful stories of medical terror and abuse they'd be able to get a little bit out from under, and they've (and I) have discovered that we were wrong.
They were wrong. And so was I. The press doesn't care. "Ethical" medicine couldn't give a good goddamn. But I'll be by your office someday in the spring, and I'll bring the material, and you can have a look and listen to the testimony of people who are being crushed and silenced here.
But, that's all very sad, and this is a victory party for you.
So, look, you and your people really, really win this one.
And I'm happy for you, and just happy for personal reasons, because some of the people I cared about at that place made it out alive, and they aren't being poisoned daily anymore. A couple have or have had cancer to show for their massive drugging, however, and some will just never be human again.
And some, like Seon, like Shyanne, like Ashley, and more, they are dead. And these are their names. SEON. SHYANNE. ASHLEY. And they had Gtubes, Adele. (Maybe you can get one for yourself, and push some thalidomide into your abdomen from time time, and see how that goes). That's what they did and do at ICC, and in pediatric Aids.
Thalidomide through a g-tube.
And that's what you're fighting for.
And that's what I've been fighting against.
And sweet holy mother of Christ, am I glad to be on the side that I'm on.
If being a denialist means that you're not in favor of pumping "seven black-box label drugs at once, some at higher than usual doses" into children locked in an orphanage, well then, I guess we've figured something about the orthodoxy, versus the "denialists."
By the way, I was done with this story. It's always very good of you people to bring it back, over and over and over again. It gives a whole new audience a chance to read about the "wonder and magic" of your "life-saving aids drugs."
Keep it up.
Globalizati call it cruel and unusual punishment, but if you don't get the point, I guess we'll have to keep you suspended a wee while longer. In the meantime it looks like both Liam Scheff and I are having problems with Tara's Denialist Filter (TM)
I think there may have been too many links in his post You can sneak peek it here (if this goes through):
http://liamscheff.com/daily/2007/10/25/notes-on-a-scandal/#comment-3766
Thanks for the link. However, if the article does come through the filter, I don't think its extra links are going to patch up the holes in the logic. Do you get together in real life to do this too, or is it just an online thing? If there are enough people out there who understand the truth that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, I'm interested in seeing the rigorous journal you'd have put together by now. I'd like to understand all of the evidence you're basing your conclusions on.
It's hard to see what Liam Scheff expects people to do.
If he doesn't want to see any clinical trials of antiretrovirals on children there are two possibilities.
1) Give no antiretrovirals. There are plenty of natural history studies that show what happens to HIV infected untreated children.
2) Give antiretrovirals at doses established from trials on adults.
You gotta hand it to those AIDSTruth guys and gals! They really have the denialists on the run! Loved the post on the BBC and how Scheff's and Crowe's asses were kicked - that'll save some kids! "Suffer the little children to come unto me". AIDSTruth is making a big difference for care providers by blowing away the myths surrounding the denialist leadership. Who cares about the small fry like Cooler, Pope and the other trolls who blog here. Look at what AIDS Truth has done to take out the real sharks over the past 18 months. How many lives will this save in the years to come? Not as many as HAART, but not an insignificant number either.
Celia Farber: exposed as an incompetent writer of error riddled junk, and forced to retire from the fray because of all the criticism she got in professional journalism circles. Too precious to roll with the punches - you can dish it out Celia, but you just can't take it, huh! It's always "all about me" with you, isn't it?
David Steele (Hank Barnes) - forced by his employers to stop editing Barnesworld because of the shame he was bringing on his law firm. A big bully, Hank, until bigger people kicked the sand in YOUR face!
Harvy "Biley" Bialy: Lost his affiliation with UNAM when the letters of complaint went in - "retired", yeah, my ass! Exposed as a homophobe by AIDSTruth, split the ranks of the denialists, attacked by his former friends. Abuses a vulnerable graduate student for political purposes, a kid who is now receiving the professional counselling and guidance he so badly needed. Is Biley dead of his kidney cancer yet? Who cares! At least he'll be a rare example of an AIDS denialist who died of something other than AIDS!!!! Go see the "Dead denialists" page on AIDS Truth and learn the lessons.
Christine Maggiore: Gets hammered even by other denialists for trying to politically exploit the AIDS death of Eliza Jane. Sees her pet physician Paul Fleiss struck off the medical register once a light is shone under the rock of his activities. Takes out a joke lawsuit against the LA Coroner, a certain loss for her. Rest in peace EJ. One day you'll receive justice.
Roberto Giraldo - fired from the New York Hospital. Gee, why was that? Now trolling around peddling his pills and quackery in Brazil, where the locals have him well covered.
Rebecca Culshaw - wouldn't like to be in her shoes when she comes up for promotion or tenure at the U of Texas. Could be a fun meeting now her bosses know of her scholastic incompetence.
Andrew "I'm quite mad, really" Maniotis - under investigation by the U of Chiacago's President's office, for abusive, libelous conduct that brings his university into disrepute. How long's he going to last? ANOTHER demotion, Andy? How low can you go? Retake High School science classes? Oh, I forgot, you do that every time you post your "insights" on the internet. A little knowledge truly is a very dangerous thing when in the hands of a fool.
"Lame Liam" Scheff - incompetence as a journalist exposed by the AIDS Truth victory over the BBC. How long will his buddy and partner in crime Jamie Doran keep his job? Don't held your breath.
David Rasnick - Duesberg's long time side kick, exposed as someone who will misrepresent his academic status to make out he's a serious academic. Yeah, right, just like Mad Andy Maniotis is a serious academic! Works for Matthias Rath, a dumb move that reveals the real agenda of AIDS denialism - these guys are nothing but shills for the Vitamin Pill industry and related quacks! Principles, what principles, it's all about the moolah.
And the Uber-denialist Peter Duesberg - exposed as a homophobe, and exposed as a conman attempting to rook gullible investors to pump money into his crazy cancer diagnosis company. Now under investigation by financial journalists, something the U of California is well aware of and awaits the outcome with GREAT interest. Again, it's all about the money, Peter, all about the money. That, and the ego problems that AIDS Truth revealed to be the cause of your descent into AIDS denialism. How many people did your ego kill? Tens of thousands, minimum, in South Africa alone. No wonder you're the most despised "scientist" in America today.
AIDS denialism is on the run, as the unsavoury people behind it are exposed and taken down. Cut off the heads, and the body will rot away.
Oh, The Perth Group! How could I FORGET the Perth Group! Easy, even the other AIDS denialist forgot the Perth Group! The one time they actually managed to get a high profile court case on HIV and AIDS, and they were all asleep at the wheel, leaving the "defense" of Chad Paranzee to two idiots who totally blew it - crushed by the science witnesses (with a bit of help from AIDS Truth) and slaughtered by the Judge. What a spectacle! AIDS denialist science in all its "glory", exposed for all to see.
Can we give AZT, through a stomach tube, to your caucasian children? It might prevent them from getting the "disease"
By the way, great work Liam. These people are educated fools. We should force anti-virals on them and their children.
This is really a news surprised me and all my friends on the
HIV personal and support community. We may
have a hot discussion about it at
forum area.
comment no 1:
"The AIDS/HIV denialist whackjobs whould be hijacking this thread any time now."
and that is how it is done boys and girls. Bait and switch. Start a thread about HIV but make sure you only discuss the mental state of any dissenters.
What made you decide to write this entry, Tara? Nowhere in your article can I find a reference to some fact or statement that gives me even the slightest clue about why I should believe that Liam Scheff has painted that story much worse than it really is. All I read here and there are some paragraphs in which people try to justify the ICC trial.
The fact is that ICC and the more than 30 other agencies in New York that took part in the trials used the clinical trials framework to make life-saving medications, already approved for adults, available to children with HIV who would otherwise have died.
Firstly, this paragraph teaches me that the trial effectively took place. Secondly, what it pretends is pure bulshit and you know it. Life-saving drugs for HIV+ kids, you cannot show me one place in the whole universe where they're sold. And the fact that they have been approved for adults doesn't make them loose their toxicity. And could you please explain the use of the word life-saving I read so often in your and your buddies writings? 40,000,000 infected Tara, 0 cured. Don't forget.
Do you remember the question Liam asked you several times? About your own kids and chemo? I don't remember having read your answer anywhere. Might it be you're just another member of the health care army troops of whom I know quite some and who say one thing in public and do the opposite in their private life?
Jspreen, you know very well why Tara put it up here. Her AIDStruth masters wanted it because they know nobody reads their own blog.
The whole thing boils down to two points:
1, The orthodox view of the blessings of HAART was not given in the film
2. The children weren't being taken away from their guardians if they didn't comply with the trial drug regimen.
1. The first point I believe is a huge mistake; nothing would have made the point more efficiently than having these compassionless creatures on camera singing the praises of AZT and informing us that these children were lost anyway so why not experiment on them.
2. Children ARE being removed from their parents if they refuse the drugs, however, it does not look like dropping out of the trial in itself had this consequence.
That's it.
Like Liam, Darin and every other human being with a heart, I hope and pray ADIStruth manages to blow this up big enough to get the debate going anew, and I thank them for their efforts so far.
Seven drugs, some at "higher than usual doses" in children as young as four.
Hey Liam - you forgot the bit about these being children who had already failed standard drug regimens. Children whose parents or themselves (in the case of those over 18) offered to participate in this study. A study in which patients were hospitalized and heavily monitored for the first two weeks to ensure the treatments were doing more good than harm. Kind of relevant, don't you think? Or maybe to you, it isn't.
The drugs being given to the children are toxic - they're known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders.
Okay!! Now, may I invite the first member of the Aids-apologist Scientific Community willing to put one hand on the Bible and certify the Court that the above statement is false, to stand up and do one step forward?
...
Not one, Tara, not one. You know what? Cut it out. Stop backing up the JPMoore's gang and the ICC trial, really. If not, a day may come when you'll be chased to hell and back by your own conscience.
Nobody responded to one wild comment in 50, HIV must be a myth! Of course that seems to forget that Chris has been asking for an answer to his drug induced AIDS question for several months with no-one answering it. AIDS dissidents must be a myth!
apy please don't forget the Honey Bun Viral Signature Challenge almost a week now and nobody won!!
Did you hear what these MEDICAL VULTURES do to kids with luekemia?? Every one knows leukemia, is harmelss. But they drug these poor kids, stick needles in them! They take another kid probably a sibling, drug them to!! Don't you know a side effect of anesthesia is death? When they got to sleep, they stick humongous needles in their skin and BREAK INTO THEIR BONES OH MY GOD. and they take out marrow and then INJECT IT INTO THE OTHER KID!! So unnatural like Frankenstein my GODDD!! Bc they want to "help" these kids, "save" them yeah right they just wanna make money its sick.
Any way so if there's a medical procedur Liam gets uncomfortable with should they just stop doing it forever? Feeding tubes open heart surgery bone marrow transplants drawing blood?
Re pat
"and that is how it is done boys and girls. Bait and switch. Start a thread about HIV but make sure you only discuss the mental state of any dissenters."
Mr. pat is making the assumption that the HIV/AIDS deniers have sufficient mental processes to have a mental state, a fact manifestly not in evidence.
Apyle did you see the episode of House where the kid wasn't even given anesthesia when they took his bone marrow? I'm sure everyone in the medical secretly wishes they could do that because none of them are driven to their career by a desire to help people but by secretly being sociopaths.
Liam says
these children have their stomachs cut open when they refuse drugs
A feeding port is an outpatient procedure. You don't get "cut open" you put in a needle stretch the opening for a tube. Thats it. Lets see, feeding port, death, feeding port, death. Hmmmm yeah let em die that's soooo much better then a feeding port!
Liam howbout you do a story some time about how kids die when they don't get treatment. There's a nice lady in California you can talk to. Oh but you all ready know her don't you. So why no story? Why just ICC? BC your an activist not a real journalist. Ignorant stupid activist just like Celia. Thats why BBC says the story is not in their standards. You guys all, stop pretending.
Noreen,
You are right.
I am sure that AIDSTRUTH political aims are to be a major failure if it marginalise people that are HIV+ instead of engaging with them. Mainly HIV+ that are intelligent enough to look and find alternative methodologies to reduce the toxicity of their treatment- thinking of Noreen and Carter.
I should point that both systems of treatments (as far as I can understand Carter system was recently in a clinical trial stage in Uganda) are compatible with the belief that HIV is cause of AIDS.
In South Africa AIDSTRUTH would also fail it it does not engage with the ANC.
May be you that are in the US cannot understand, the ANC in South Africa is like being, in the US, both the Republican and the Democrat Party at the same time. In the US it would be very difficult to have some major polical weight without connections either with Republican or Democratic Party. The same in South Africa, you would autocondemn yourself to be in the margins of the political power without lobbying the ANC.
Dear Braganza, AIDS Truth never "marginalizes" people with HIV infection. We do always refuse to "debate" or engage in any form of dialog with the hard-core AIDS denialists, particularly those who have political agendas aimed at harming innocent people. That path of "debate" has been trodden in the past, and it proved pointless (you have only to read the scientifically insane posts on this site from the usual suspects to appreciate why any serious discussion of science with these people is a waste of our time).
Individuals with HIV infection who are genuine in their desire to improve their therapies and their prospects are a different category from hard-core, politically motivated AIDS denialists. I suspect that you fall into that category. However, the internet and the Blog world are inefficient places to acquire useful knowledge, due to the lies and distortions that the denialists promote. You should visit an AIDS Clinical Trials Unit, an AIDS Center, or a local physician for professional medical advice.
I suspect from your posting above that you are in South Africa. If you are, please contact the Treatment Action Group (e.g., Nathan Geffen) who would surely help you obtain appropriate medical advice. You could also discuss SA government policy and politics with the TAC. It's not the role off AIDS Truth to engage with the ANC, as we are not a political organization. However the AIDS Truth members who reside in SA are also members of the TAC and do have contacts with the ANC, not always constructive unfortunately because of the misguided, denialist-inspired policies of the Mbeki regime. The quack remedies promoted by the ANC need to be fought. Read about Virodene and how that came about, and you will understand the need for the fight against quackery to continue. Alternative medicines are utterly useless, in all their manifestations, whereas HAART is proven to be effective. If side-effects concern you, there are more choices now than ever, even in SA, and a competent physician would help you find a personally tolerable regimen.
Regards,
John Moore
JP More you are repulsive, reptilic and need help. Get help now.
dont listen to anything this loony tune has to say, two universities just told him off when he tried to get people fired, he just insulted professor pollack at the university of washington, his pal wainberg wants to abolish the 1st amendment, the guy is nuts.
You idiots have no evidence to back your theories, no animal model,150 chimps injected not has died of AIDS after 20 years no explanation how a microbe thats in 1/1000 blood t cells destroys the immune system, no study following hiv positive people with no other risk factors such as AZT, mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse, severe stress even get AIDS. NO electron microscopic pictures of patients blood teeming with viremia to confirm these "viral load" counts. You people are trash.
No explanation for the paradox that if there is ever a vaccine everyone will test positive! LOL No wonder you cowards will never debate and love censorship.
Its already over, half the gay community doesnt beleive in this BS anymore.
Take shyh ching lo md phd cheif of the division of infectious division of the Armed forces of patholigy who seriously questioned the hiv hypothesis and supported duesberg in 1990, along with many other scientsits.
Who are you going to beleive, the most brilliant scientist of his generation in China, or a drug company hack like Mooore? I would love to see moore and Tara in the lab with Lo and his team at the armd forces institute of pathology, theyd have no idea what they were doing, bumbling beakers, failing to understand the work of far more competent scientists.
Because they would be too stupid to understand what was going on theyd just say "woo woo' "crank" "denialist" Lo would probably respond and say my microbe mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans kills every animal I inoculate, thier response duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh a drug company doesnt support it so it cant be true duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh! LOL you guys are nuts.
LOLOLOL Oh I have nee readmitted again! I still mean what I say John, even though i just wrote whatever my little hart dictated at reading your usual nauseating drivel still,
Hello all you AIDS devotees and forced profitable sickness lover. I have not missed you all a bit.
Us denialists have a real victory on our hands. Now even more than before the horrific docu many many more people than before thanks to John Tarada and that Bergman woman are viewing The Guinea Pig Kids.
Thank you all you bunch of Nazis...oh I am so sorry that just slipped out. I swear to god Oh please please miss or is it mrs, or oerhaps ms Tara.
Don't bloke me out of your blob...eh blog...please don't block mo out. I really don't know what I would do if I could not be part of this amazing debate. I would probably kill myself, or wait for the AIDS mafia to do it for me with "life saving drugs"
So please have pity on a man who has lost his marbles through AIDS treatment that has fried his brain...you hideous hag from the depths of hell!!!!
Oh God I am sorry it's the life saving treatment that made ma say that. I love you really you are such an asset to humanity...you and those creeps...eh sorry wonderful people at AIDSLIES.con...eh truth.com.
Thank you all for doing such a great job at protecting me and science and the rest of humanity form the HIV virus.
May God bless you all.
PS JP and the Bergman and co. too...
Love peace and harmony to all.
John,
I do not live in South Africa, but in the UK, where I work.
My connection with South Africa/ ANC is that my father died 21 years ago in Mbuzini (border between SouthAfrica/Swaziland/ Mozambic) in a misterious plane crash were the ex-husband of Graca Machel (present wife of Nelson Mandela) also died. The Comission of truth and Reconciliation has recomended more investigation on the plane crash.Graca Machel can provide informations about myself, as can Jacob Nzuma, and others members of the ANC that were in Mozambic in the 80's.
I am sure that you can read about the accident and my father in the web.
I would be happy to work with TAC looking to non-toxic treatments in any bilateral activity involving my University and TAC or other University in South Africa.
As I wrote in a previous post, I have been in contact with University in Swaziland with a similar proposal of work, and just have applied for a small research grant to look to local mushrooms.Other non-toxic drugs are being develloped, see Robert Gallo patent that I have posted previously.
My main interest is to look to sustainable treatments in very poor settings, more poor than the ones existing in South Africa, like Mozambic/ Malawi or Swaziland.
Thank you for offering me treatment, but as far as I know I am still HIV-.
I think that you are making an error on calling people like Carter/Noreen denialist. They are denialists only because his doctor was unable to find him a non-toxic treatment, the treatments that they are using fit very well with the concept that HIV cause AIDS, i.e. with the basic science of AIDS as far as I understand it.
BECAUSE YOU REJECT THEM AND CALL THEM DENIALISTS, YOU ARE ASKING THEM TO JOIN A DENIALIST CAMP. They would not do it if they were treated by their doctors using non-toxic drugs.
IN PRACTICAL TERMS DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THE OPPOSITE, YOUR APPROACH IS JUST REINFORCING A GROUP WHO IS SAYING THAT HIV+ IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF IMMUNE DEFICIENCY.
Dr. Radek Messias de Bragança
Bangor University, Wales UK
I am banned again: Tara you really are smoething girl LOL
Do you really think you can monopoloise truth by blocking people from your blob?
Yhis AIDS Mafia is doomed. Yoo many SILENY people know love, too many. Don't be fooled by silence. Once the tide turnes silent voices always awaken screaming for blood.
remeber that tara remember that....you and all your sick creeps who are peddling this sick drivel. JP Mooor get help now. You really need it man.
And for f*** sake change that hair do.
LOL this soi funny. if you are banned all you have to do is change tour name not the email...and you can post again.
Do you really think you can monopoloise truth by blocking people from your blob?
This AIDS Mafia is doomed. You may SILENCE people here but too many know love, too many.
Don't be fooled by silence. Once the tide turns silent voices always awaken screaming for blood.
Remeber that Tara remember that....you and all your sick creeps who are peddling this sick drivel.
JP Mooor get help now. You really need it man.
And for f*** sake change that hair do.
No one is being banned. It's just comment moderation, where the program that handles the comments (TypeKey) holds comments with certain features or coming from certain classes of IP addresses until the blog owner has the opportunity to review them. Which, given that Dr. Smith has a job and doesn't remain awake and online every minute of every day, can take a while. Have you people never had to deal with comment-spam on your own blogs? It's a pain in the butt, because you have to go through practically every comment to make sure that you're not letting people get redirected to porn sites.
Gosh, I wish we could talk about something other than denial/dissent. I think both sides have adequately stated their opinions, and I could do with a break from seeing the same dozen screen-names, stating the same opinions, over and over on every post irrespective of topic. (Personal to Andy Maniotis: you could stand to work on stating a point briefly. I speak as a fellow sufferer of long-windedness.)
The BBC acknowledged that the video was biased towards the views of "HIV denialists," who don't accept the scientific evidence that HIV exists and that it causes AIDS.
[UH OH! THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE """SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE""" BAD BAD PEOPLE! DO THEY ACCEPT THE "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" THAT AZT AND NEVIRAPINE SAY, ON THEIR LABELS, THAT THEY KILL PEOPLE?]
Fraser Steel, the Head of Editorial Complaints, concluded that these are serious breaches of the standards set out in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines concerning accuracy and impartiality, and he extended and apology for the deficiencies in the program and the associated website material. The affirmation of the complaint is very important because the credibility of
the BBC had lent undeserved legitimacy to false accusations against ICC and to disinformation about HIV/AIDS, clinical trials and antiretroviral treatments that is spread by HIV denialists.
[UH OH! ""DISINFORMATION!!"" What is it, exactly? OH, IT'S INFORMATION FROM THE HIV TEST AND DRUG MANUFACTURERS, THAT MAKES AIDS LOOK LIKE SOME KIND OF HOLOCAUST MACHINE. Gosh, wouldn't want that getting around].
The BBC's retraction and apology followed months of intensive investigation in response to repeated complaints filed by AIDS scientists, doctors and activists,
[AIDSTRUTH.ORG , JEANNE BERGMAN, JOHN P. MOORE, LOOK 'EM UP, SEE THEIR LOVELY WORDS AND OPEN HEARTS]
Who denounced the video's attack on Incarnation Children's Center
as a hoax designed to spread disinformation about HIV/AIDS.
[A HOAX? I thought we were just told that "ORPHANS" WERE BEING USED IN "CLINICAL TRIALS" TO TEST THE "SAFTETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF AIDS DRUGS? I think the NIH database says the same thing by the bucketfull? Is the NIH and US government perpetrating a "hoax" on the Aids industry??? Better get them to take down their clinicaltrials.gov site, fast!!!!]
The film and the associated web pages alleged that healthy African-American and Latino children at ICC, a specialized care facility for children with HIV/AIDS in New York City, were harmed and even killed by bizarre and unjustified medical experiments involving lethal drugs, and that if their parents or guardians objected to the experiments they lost custody of their children.These allegations, the complaint argues and the BBC agreed, are untrue and
unjustified, and were motivated by HIV denialism.
[Uh, well, that's what the PEOPLE WE INTERVIEWED WHO HAD CHILDREN AT ICC TOLD US, PLUS CHILDCARE WORKERS AND NURSES WHO WORKED THERE, WHO'VE BEEN INTERVIEWED ON RADIO, THE AIDSCARE PAGE DETAILING THE DEATH OF A CHILD ON AIDS DRUGS (see my links at the top. PLUS THE FACT THAT ICC WAS USING THALIDOMIDE ON CHILDREN, PLUS THE DOCTOR FROM THE PLACE TELLING ME HOW THEY USE SURGICAL TUBES TO ENFORCE THE DRUGS. (And you can find that in the journal of Pediatrics too, or wherever Aids drugs are sold to children)]
Link to pdf & article on gastric tube insertion for AIDS drugs in children
The BBC has not yet publicly posted the retraction and apology, which were presented in a 12-page letter, dated 31 July 2007, from Fraser Steele to Jeanne Bergman, Ph.D., the lead complainant and an AIDS activist with AIDStruth.org and the Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City. "The BBC has been very slow to respond to our urgent concerns," she said. "We have pressed our charges that the video is HIV-denialist propaganda with no basis in science or fact
[REALLY? LET'S COMPARE NOTES. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO DEBATE IT? WHAT'S THAT, YOU WON'T DEBATE? YOU WON'T DEBATE "DENIALISTS??" (says Jeanne Bergman, and John P. Moore, of the complaint. How conventient for them, huh?]
since the video was aired in 2004, and it took until this year for the BBC to investigate the piece. It has now been two-and-a-half months since we received Fraser Steel's letter apologizing for the video's misrepresentations and bias, but the BBC has still not issued a public retraction and apology, nor stated what actions it intends to take. I am horrified that the BBC would air a lurid independent video about HIV clinical research and treatment without a proper scientific review in the first place, and I am angry about the BBC's inexplicable delay in
retracting publicly the very dangerous lies to which it has lent its fading legitimacy." Dr. Bergman has been informed that the BBC's actions are subject to the outcome of on-going "discussions at the highest editorial level" given the "very serious issues raised by this matter," but, she said, "They need to act now. The BBC webpage promoting the video is still up,
promulgating HIV denialist lies. There is as yet no effort by the BBC to correct the systematic disinformation about HIV and its treatments that it aired, and that has damaged the public's understanding of HIV and impeded HIV-infected children's access to lifesaving care."
No children have died as a result of the clinical trials.
[SEVERAL CHILDREN DIED AT ICC WHILE I WAS WRITING ABOUT IT, FROM 04 TO 06 - ONE AFTER BEING DOSED WITH EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THALIDOMIDE. SO I WAS TOLD BY WOMEN WHO WORKED THERE, BY CHILDREN WHO WENT THERE, BY THE MOTHER OF CHIDLREN WHO WENT THERE.
JUST SCRUB IT FROM HISTORY, THOUGH].
Enrollment in the trials was conditional on the likely benefits to the child and a low probability of harm.
[IT WAS? THERE ARE STUDIES WITH 3 AND 4 AND 7 DRUGS IN 6 MONTH AND 4 YEAR OLDS. YOU WOULDN'T GIVE A CHILD (OR AN ADULT) 7 OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS AT ONCE. THESE ARE 7 BLACK BOX LABELED DRUGS. OF COURSE THERE IS NO PROTECTION FROM HARM IN THESE STUDIES.. YOU JUST ASSUME THE KID'S GOING TO DIE OF AIDS ANYWAY, AND YOU WRITE IT OFF AS SUCH].
Written consent was obtained from parents and guardians, who were not paid or otherwise improperly influenced to enroll their children.
[REALLY? THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY .. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS! IMAGINE THAT!]
The National Institutes of Health, Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital, the New York City child welfare agency (the Administration of Children's Services, or A.C.S.), and other institutions provided multiple layers of oversight. And while two non-parental guardians interviewed in the video did have foster children with AIDS removed from their custody on the grounds of medical neglect, those children were not involved in the clinical trials.
(These foster parents lost custody because they had refused to provide the children with the approved standard-of-care treatments for HIV/AIDS that they had been prescribed, and without which the children would have become ill and died.)
[YES, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU TOOK CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS WHO DID NOT DRUG THEM, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE ILL ON THE DRUGS, WHICH, AGAIN, ARE THOSE LOVELY FDA-BLACK-BOX LABEL SORTS. WHY NOT TRY SOME YOURSELF, AND SEE HOW THAT GOES?]
The BBC affirmed that there was no evidence that children were taken from their families because they resisted "experimentation." The filmmakers falsely tried to "create an association between [the clinical] trials and a loss of parental rights," the BBC found.
[I DON'T KNOW IF THE FILMMAKER TRIED TO CREATE A FALSE SENSE - WE WERE DEALLING WITH PARENTS WHO WERE LOSING THEIR CHILDREN TO A PLACE THAT WAS CONDUCTING DRUG TRIALS WITH ORPHANS; THEY LOST THEM, JUST AS JEANNE BERGMAN DESCRIBES, FOR NOT DRUGGING THEM ENOUGH. SEEMS WE AGREE.]
The film was written by, produced by, and featured interviews with HIV denialists, but it never identified them as people whose beliefs contradict everything that scientists, doctors, and the communities most affected by AIDS have learned about HIV and its treatment over the last 25 years.
[NOT EVERYTHING - ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AGREE WITH MOST OF THE CRITICAL LITERATURE ON THE AIDS PARADIGM. THE DRUGS ARE EXTREMELY TOXIC, THE DIAGNOSIS IS EXTREMELY FRAGILE, SPECIOUS AND FLAWED, AND SUBJECT TO WIDE AND VARYING INTERPRETATION. THAT'S SCIENCE, THAT FLUX, THAT DISCERNMENT, THAT INVESTIGATION. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN THIS BBC APOLOGY IS RELIGION.]
[AND BLOH, BLAH, BLAH, IT'S ALL IN THE BLACK PEOPLE'S HEADS, DON'T BELIEVE THE 'BAD SCIENCE' OF THE 'DENIALISTS', DON'T READ ANYTHING BUT OUR WORDS, DON'T THINK, DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT SUPPORT THE CONDOMIZING OF AFRICANS AND THE DRUGGING OF BLACK CHILDREN IN AMERICA. WE'RE THE AUTHORITY, WE ALLOW NOTHING BUT OUR WORDS TO BREACH THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION. SO SAY WE... ETC, ETC].
HIV
denialists have distributed copies of the video widely since it was aired and posted an edited version on the Internet. Jeanne Bergman explained, "The HIV denialists who made this film invented these charges against ICC. They cynically exploited African-Americans' real and historically-based fears of abuse by medical research and child welfare agencies. Their false
allegations about sinister medical experiments on foster children were a Trojan Horse created spread lies and deadly disinformation about HIV in the communities most devastated by AIDS. These allegations about ICC have become an 'urban legend,' untrue but widely believed, mainly because people trusted the BBC. The fact is that ICC used the clinical trials framework to make life-saving medications, already approved for adults, available to children with HIV who would otherwise have died."
HIV denialism is a collection of contradictory and scientifically unsound beliefs-that HIV does not exist, that HIV it exists but is not the cause of AIDS, and that AIDS does not exist. Pediatrician Nicholas Bennett was critical of the BBC's decision to air a video that was based on beliefs that are without scientific merit. "If someone had simply researched the individuals involved in promoting the story, and those interviewed during the program, it would have been quickly apparent that their views were not only those of a fringe element but also demonstrably wrong," he said."'Balance' in the media does not mean giving equal air time to
poorly-researched and biased material with the goal of gaining viewers with a sensational story. The saddest thing is that this story was sensational only due to the errors and bias inherent in it. The fact that it was produced by the BBC gave it an air of respectability that was wholly undeserved. Clearly the BBC needs to review its fact-checking practices."John Moore, an internationally renowned HIV researcher at Cornell-Weill Medical College, added, "An important lesson for the BBC is the need to have its highly professional science and health reporters review documentaries like this one before they are released for public viewing. No scientifically literate journalist would ever have endorsed this one's contents and slant."
The BBC's retraction of the video was also applauded in South Africa, where the Health Minister's AIDS denialist views have seriously hampered HIV prevention and access to HIV treatment. Nathan Gefffen of the Treatment Action Campaign there said that "The BBC ruling, albeit late, is welcome. The lies peddled by pseudoscientists like [film-maker] Jamie Doran and David Rasnick [a denialist who was featured in the film] have caused confusion and death. They try to appeal to minorities and vulnerable groups by misusing human rights language to portray themselves as progressive. But behind most AIDS denialists lies either a desire to sell untested snake-oils to sick people or an incapacity to consider evidence rationally."
For further information, contact:
Jeanne Bergman
AIDStruth.org and the Center for HIV Law and Policy
Tel: +1 917 714 5501
Email: jbergman@hivlawandpolicy.org
Website: www.aidstruth.org
[END OF BBC APOLOGY]
THANKS JEANNE! YOU'RE A HERO FOR FUTURE BATTLERS OF LIBERTY, PERSONAL CHOICE, MEDICAL ETHICS, SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE!
Hrm Brag I think I have to object to a few points you made. One, I have not followed carters posts very well but I'm aware that noreen seems very firm in her claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. From what I recall she says AIDS is a result of something else (although I don't recall if she has stated what it is). I believe carter is in a similar situation. It seems to me that given their rejection of HIV causing AIDS that one could consider them a denialists not merely as a side effect of rejecting their point of view but rather as a direct result of them denying HIV leads to AIDS.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you are getting at with your second all-capitals sentence. As far as I have seen noreen hides herself in a cloak of "my situation is applicable to the entire population" as well as coming to conclusions about her current health that don't with necessarily stand up to critical thinking. On top of that noreen tends to fail to answer any questions that would put her in a position to question how she has come to these conclusions. My point is, what would you suggest be done to communicate with those that appear to not have any interest in critically examining the evidence and answer difficult questions that may result in some harsh conclusions about themselves?
Before the rethinkers jump on this post about how the evidence doesn't say HIV causes AIDS or whatever bear in mind the actual point of the post is not to argue that HIV causes AIDS or not but address how to talk to someone who believes themselves to be correct if they will not examine the evidence and question their understanding of it. In other words, if your only response to this post is giving me a bunch of junk about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS or vice versa then stuff it, I'm not interested in your point of view in regards to this post.
Dear Dr Braganca, I have asked some of my South African colleagues to read your posts, with a view to their contacting you via a more efficient method than a Blog like this. It will be up to them whether they choose to do so.
AIDS Truth's approach is to destroy (by public exposure) the "leadership" of the AIDS denialist movement and thereby prevent them from causing the deaths of people who for various reasons are prone to believing the lies the denialists peddle for political reasons, including the profit motive. We know this approach is working, as we win every individual campaign we decide to fight (we don't always publicize our successes, only when it suits us to do so). The hard core denialists don't like our strategy, because it's so effective, and because they are not used to their own tactics being used against them (although, unlike the denialists, we don't use immoral or illegal activities like cybercrime, threats, libels, etc, etc - the truth speaks for itself, and is sufficient).
I have no comment to make on the person/people you refer to, as I don't know enough about their personal histories, and I don't offer SPECIFIC medical advice to SPECIFIC individuals in any case as I'm not a physician. In general terms, the best medical centers and physicians would surely be able to help this person/people find a suitable therapeutic regimen.
I am puzzled by your comment regarding HIV+ status and immune deficiency. The science here is unequivocal and long-established: Not every individual who acquires HIV-1 infection develops AIDS, although the overwhelming majority do so over time. Individuals who do develop AIDS progress to that state over a highly variable time course, such that they may well suffer little or no overt immunodeficiency for a prolonged period until they become symptomatic. So, no, HIV+ status is NOT an AUTOMATIC indicator of immune deficiency, but it's an indicator that the average HIV+ person will, over time, probably develop immunodeficiency and AIDS, unless he or she takes HAART at the appropriate time. This is not a remotely controversial issue, at least not in serious scientific and medical circles.
Regards
John Moore
I don;t know how you can complain of seeing the ssme manes darling. Mine changes every time I post.
If you don;t want to see any more of this stuff then tell tarada to stop posting odious stuff that inspires that we ansert back ; as we always will to counter those false evil clain here and here AIDS cabal peddle. We can talk about Brittany's weight problem if you like...
As far mas what you call moderation i call it censorship as as it is obvious that the AIDS mafia cannot afford to have sopme spill the truth here too. They are already losing it all asi it is...so they have to get Nazi about the whole thing to keep control.
Don;t defend them, or of you are doing to be clear so we all know which side you are on in theis war that the High Priest of AIDS and bad hair do's has called.
Hey JP Moore.
Did you see the recent paper in Nature Immunology (Dolan et al), which determined that HIV viral load accounts for only 9% of immune decline and -get this - your precious "CCR5" and "CCL3L1" variability combined only accounted for 6%????
No trace of even a minor causative factor of HIV can be pointed at here, John! Hell, HIV obviously wasn't even a correlation!
As if the Rodriguez study wasn't enough of a hole that you managed to dig yourselves out of... can't wait to see how you spin this one...
John, from the looks of some of the posts, you have now successfully fanned some very deep depths of anger and hatred. You now have far more enemies than you know. Some are even at the university at which you work. Perhaps you and Mark Wainberg et al would please do yourselves and do all of humanity a favor, and kindly remove yourselves from the planet, before some angry, crazed, HIV drug poisoned dissident does it for you?
LOL sorry for my bad typing i have lost my specsa and cant see whay i am typing. I am going to take some more life saving drugs to see if they help my eye sight...if it suddenly improves then I have either found them or the drugs have even more miraculous powers than those attributed to them so far...
JP Moor take some Nicirapine and chill man. What a drag you are...like anyone care about what you say. Really!!!
You care enough to respond to him and tell him no-one cares...
You are pretty distinctive there, mamma la whatnot. I don't actually need to see your name to recognize you, especially in the sans-spectacles typing mode.
But with Michael overtly threatening Dr. Moore, I kind of hope Dr. Smith shuts down comments altogether for a while, until things settle down a bit.
Every one knows leukemia, is harmless. But they drug these poor kids, stick needles in them!
You are quite a silly person, Adele, but this time you've made a perfectly true statement. Of course, you have no idea that this is so, and you will certainly start some hysteric giggling while reading this, but I assure you that chemotherapy for leukemia kids is the same montruousity as ARV treatment for the so-called HIV+ patients. I wouldn't say leukemia is harmless but it has only become the bad news it is today because armees of johnpeeimmoral freaks of chemo- and radiation- treatment managed to get the whole fucking world into believing that Leukemia=Death-if-you-dont-take-the-life-saving-killer-drugs.
BTW, AZT was initially designed in the sixtees as a drug against leukemia but at that time medicine had not yet totally derailed and AZT was recognized for what it was: Death.
Wow, death threats now, Michael? Y'all sure are a classy bunch. I'm closing this thread down as I won't be around much of the weekend and it's already bad enough.