To the Editor:
This letter is in response to the distortions and outright lies submitted
on January 10, 2007, to the BBC, in a letter of complaint filed by Jeanne
Bergman, John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Polly Clayden, Gregg Gonsalves,
Andrew Feinstein, and Nathan Geffen. The complaint alleges that the
film, "Guinea Pig Kids" has factual distortions and disinformation
in it, and that these distortions and disinformation were deliberately
fashioned by those with an agenda to make the AIDS establishment look
bad. It is my understanding that their complaint has led to removal
of the film from the BBC library (or a request for its removal by these
individuals), as well as a request to post some kind of apology on various
websites for what these individuals feel is "HIV" disinformation"
on the part of the film's producer Jamie Doran, and director Milena
Nothing could be further from the truth. Because of my group's own work in developing and testing new approaches to treat various cancers, I spend about half of my time reviewing both past and current clinical trials that document success and failure rates of both new and old protocols for melanoma, cancers of the breast, lung, colon, prostate, kidney, mouth, neck, and cancers associated with AIDS. After seeing the film, my own investigation of the Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) trial found that Jamie Doran, and Milena Schwager did an outstanding job of reporting the facts regarding this serious abuse of human rights, and if anything, did not emphasize strongly enough, the ethical and legal implications regarding the experiments on the ICC children they documented.
Common sense itself would compel you
to decide to keep the film available to your viewers in your library,
and coldly reject any suggestion of censorship that BBC should "pull
the film away from internet access," or that the BBC owes anyone
an apology for factually reporting what has become what can only be
described as a violation of the Nuremberg Code in that individuals (children)
were forced to have medical treatment against their will, and as wards
of the state, made to participate in the functional equivalent of a
dangerous medical experiment without fully informed consent or the appropriate
representation demanded by law since the individuals at ICC were children.
It is extensively documented, but less widely known , that the "HIV" kits only can accurately identify 4-6% of people that will develop an "AIDS-defining illness" [1, 2], leaving 94-96% of test subjects outcomes unpredictable (and these authors have the nerve to state that "all of the children would be dead in a short time without their therapy"), that hepatitis B  and flu vaccines  can cause "HIV" positive test results, that profound toxicity, morbidity, and death are associated with the "anti-retrovirals" [5-8] (read failed cancer drugs these individuals are so passionate about feeding children and pregnant African women), and that the drug nevirapine, withdrawn several years ago in the US because of its toxicity but then given to 875,000 mother-infant pairs in Africa was just found to increase the rate of progression to AIDS by 41.7% , and caused Steven Johnson's Syndrome in at least one documented ICC case.
The continued use of these drugs, especially on children who do not have legal representation, and without information provided about their extreme toxicity, along with the litany constantly chanted by the federal government and government-censored media that advocates entire nations should be poisoned with "the life-saving meds" that are severely toxic and carcinogenic in animal experiments, constitutes a violation of the 1900 Berlin Code of Ethics that established that:
"all medical interventions for other than diagnostic, healing, and immunization purposes, regardless of other legal or moral authorization are excluded under all circumstances if (1) the human subject is a minor or not competent due to other reasons; (2) the human subject has not given his unambiguous consent; (3) the consent is not preceded by a proper explanation of the possible negative consequences of the intervention;"
Germany's 1931 "Regulation on New Therapy and Experimentation," requiring all human experiments to be preceded by animal experiments, a law that remained in effect even during the Nazi regime (there are no animal models of "HIV" in fact the chimps injected with it 22 years ago were built retirement homes as not one of them got sick-SIV isn't "HIV" no matter what anyone might tell you);
The 1947 Judgment at Nuremberg Doctors Trials that set forth "Permissible Medical Experiments" - i.e., the Nuremberg Code, which begins: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential;"
The 1962 FDA rule and requirement set in place as damage control for the thalidomide tragedy, after thousands of birth deformities had occurred and which were blamed in part on misleading results of animal studies, which established that three phases of human clinical trials must be completed before a drug can be approved for the market;
The 1964 World Medical Association Helsinki Declaration, asserting "The interests of science and society should never take precedence over the well being of the subject;"
The 1966 NIH's protocol for the Protection of Research Subjects ("OPRR"), calling for establishment of independent review bodies later known as Institutional Review Boards;
The 1973 Ad Hoc Advisory Panel Final Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, that concluded: "Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community;"
The 1974 National Research Act that established a National Commission for the Protection of Human subjects, and required Public Health Service to promulgate regulations for the protection of human subjects;
The 1974 National Research Act; a violation of the Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations passed in 1975, known as "The Common Rule, "that requires the appointment and utilization of institutional review boards (IRB);
The 1979 Belmont Report, that set forth three basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice; a violation of the 1980 FDA 21 CFR 50.44 promulgation, prohibiting use of prisoners as subjects in clinical trials shifting phase I testing by pharmaceutical companies to non-prison population;
The 1991 World Health Organization announcement of the CIOMS Guidelines which set forth four ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice;
The 1995 NYS Supreme Court ruling (TD v NYS Office of Mental Health) against the state's policy of conducting nontherapeutic experiments on mentally incapacitated persons - including children - without informed consent.
Justice Edward Greenfield ruled that
parents have no authority to volunteer their children: "Parents
may be free to make martyrs of themselves, but it does not follow that
they may make martyrs of their children;" and finally, a violation
of the 2001 Maryland Court of Appeals landmark decision affirming "best
interest of the individual child" as a standard for medical research
involving children. The Court unequivocally prohibited nontherapeutic
experimentation on children.
In this context, it is clear that the most sinister of all currently ongoing experiments being conducted in the U.S are the illegal experimental "HIV/AIDS" drug testing on children that is being currently funded by the NIH in collusion with big pharma. Are its opponents (such as myself), holocaust deniers? Is it ethical to test drugs that are toxic to adults and carcinogenic in rats on 5 year- old orphans in the custody of The State, despite the learned lectures given to them (the 5-year olds) regarding the pathogenesis and hopeful treatment of the "HIV infection?" Are these "investigations," "experiments," "observational studies," or "NIH-funded human vivisection policies" even useful? Perhaps they are all isolated incidents?
If you think so, then please ask the respected Boston Globe reporter, John Solomon, to also retract this story , as you throw out the outstanding work of Jamie Doran, and Milena Schwager, and apologize for the "irresponsible" track record of the BBC-(which in my view is one of the only sources of non-censored information left in the world)!
But shouldn't it at least be asked, "If orphans without appropriate impartial "advocates" don't willingly take their AIDS meds, perhaps it is really not such a good idea to insert G-tubes into their abdomens, and force them to comply, as the author Liam Scheff, and producer Jamie Doran, and director Milena Schwager of your own BBC documented in the "Guinea Pig Kids"?
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
Program Director in the Cell and Developmental
Biology of Cancer Program
Department of Pathology
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL 60607
1. Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006.
2. Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't predict immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006.
3.Lee, D, Eby W, Molinaro, G.. HIV false positivity after Hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet 339: 1060, 1992.
4.Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro CN, et al. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am J Epidemiol 141:1089-1096,1995.
5.JD Hamilton et. al. and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. A controlled trial of early versus late treatment with zidovudine in symptomatic human immunodifficiency virus infection." New England Journal of Medicine, 326: 437-434, 1992.
6. Seligmann et al., Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Lancet, Apr 9;343(8902):871-81, 1994.
7. de Martino et al., Rapid disease progression in HIV-1 perinatally infected children born to mothers receiving zidovudine monotherapy during pregnancy. The Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children. AIDS, 13:927-933, 1999.
8. Estaquier et al., Effects of Antiretroviral Drugs on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Induced CD4+ T-Cell Death Journal of Virology, June, p. 5966-5973, Vol. 76, No. 12, 2002.
9. Lockman S. et al., Response to Antiretroviral Therapy after a Single, Peripartum Dose of Nevirapine. The New England Journal of Medicine 356 january 11, 2007.
Readers are directed to The Real Rogues Gallery of AIDS if they wish to discover the very large web of conflicting financial interests and other distasteful activities in which the authors of the complaint to the BBC, and other members of the board of AIDS, Inc. participate.