My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Cartoons

  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Celia Farber: "The Dissolution of the Sting" | Main | Elizabeth Ely: Viagra + Crystal Meth = Death »

January 26, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan

After reading the "letter of complaint", I initially felt shock and anger.

I've realized something now. I've realized that I've been giving these people the benefit of having ethics and a moral compass. In my opinion, they have neither.

If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more.

When you're in a war, there are no rules.

Liam Scheff

Liam Scheff replies:

A number of persons in the Aids beltway have demanded of the BBC that the news agency remove the film "Guinea Pig Kids" from its catalog and website, and further, issue an apology to all impugned in the film for the admitted fact that they had, since 1992, used Black and Hispanic orphans in Aids drug trials in one New York City's poorest wards, Washington Heights.

I'm happy to stand and deliver any background information, research or evidence in public debate or dialogue with the pro-Aids posse, or those wishing to review the information for the public good.

The fact that there were drug trials with orphans is not disputed, even by what I call the Aids mafia. It is, in fact, embraced by these folks, who never met a drug they didn't like, or a fatal drug reaction that they couldn't excuse, in their quest to 'fight Aids.'

What I saw and experienced in two and a half years of investigation - of visiting the ICC orphanage, and in interviewing parents, children and workers from ICC - tells me something different;

there is and was no excuse to intubate these children, to force-feed drugs, to grind these kids into the ground, literally, all in pursuit of a sloppy, brutal and cruelly inaccurate diagnosis that we have made a brand-name - 'Aids'.

This branding of "Aids" permits it be applied where prejudice allows it passage. It is artifically affixed to the most impoverished persons in the most impoverished nations; we call all of that "Aids."

And here, in the US, to the poor, or Gay, or dark-skinned, and then to drug abusers, or their children (It is and was children born addicted to crack that comprised almost all of of ICC's "hiv-positive" charges).

This is a renaming game - Crack to "hiv", Poverty to "hiv", Drug abuse to "hiv" - a clever way to get bodies into the drug-testing, drug-buying grist mill.

But you say, they were saving lives! Yes, I know, that's the rhetoric, they were 'saving lives.' But I can name and count the children who died after having gastric-tubes plunged into their guts, pumping the AZT, Nevirapine, and all that, non-stop - Ariel, Seon, Natalie, and more - just in the last few years.

It's just so distasteful, so horrible, I suppose if it were my creation, maybe I'd want to distance myself from it too, like pro-Aids lobbyist Jeanne Bergman seems to want to. To claim that there is no trouble. To lash out at those who dare expose this terrible shame.

I suppose. But it would be a kind of psychosis, to deny that these drugs are so poisonous that they can and do and have and will kill. That cutting holes in children to stuff these drugs in is the high mark of medical ethics...it would be a kind of psychosis - of denial - to really claim that. And that is what's being claimed by Jeanne Bergman, and the rest of the Aids mafia.

But to say that it didn't happen, or is not happening, well, that's a denialism too far.

We - and I mean, we as a society - we're murdering those kids, essentially, because we can. Because nobody cares. Not for crack-addicted babies, not for ghetto orphans, not for the millions of brutally impoverished people in Africa, still reeling from the histories of ruination visited upon them by Europe and America, and by their own corrupt leaders.

No one cares enough to stop, and change the patterns of dispersal of goods and services in the world...Except, we're told, those wonderful Aids docs, who brave the inner city, and the African township, just to bring those admitedly toxic, (but hopeful!) drugs, to these poor, wretched souls.

And when the drugs kill? We accept it, we make it okay. And we do it easily, guiltlessly. How?

We just say they were going to die anyway. We just affix them with the unremovable brand - Aids. And all is forgiven.

And so it is, by most. But when you see through it, when you pierce that veil and see it for what it is, it's like a curse. You can never go back to not seeing it. And you don't see the "life-saving" effects of AZT and Nevirapine on infants.

You see bodies contorted and broken before they even get a chance to grow. Because that's what these drugs do to children, to growing bodies. That's simply what they do, by design. They stop the assemblage of cells and proteins. That is their function.

And this is Aids science today. Those who ask questions, or protest these brutalities - we're 'denialists.' We're asking too much, we're told. There is no debate, we're instructed.

No flexibility, no choice, no liberty, no critical thinking allowed. Medicine. Science? It's a hell of a thing.

Douglas

I was going to say, that the signers of this letter of complaint to the BBC have a vested interest in their view point. But I see that it was probably covered (in the foot notes) under the link "The Real Rogues Gallery of AIDS". However, the link is broken.

(not any longer..thanks..but in the future email is the preferred conduit for directing these sorts of correxs .. alzo..the link on the "Bulletin Board" always works. otis 11:47 pst)

Jeffrey Dach

“the final discharge from ACS was a consequence of death for 15% of the children in care who participated in the HIV/AIDS trials. An astonishing 85% survived.” “Otherwise these children would have almost certainly died.” “without treatment—the very treatment the children in ICC received through clinical trials— almost all HIV-infected people will die of illnesses related to the disease.”

The above quotes from the AIDS Activists’ letter of complaint contain the glaring falsehood that “almost all HIV positive children will die from AIDS without treatment with antiviral drugs”.

This is simply untrue as shown by a review of the Nevada State Data of untreated HIV positive children.

From the Nevada data, from 1991 to 1999, there were 332 children born of HIV positive mothers, and of these, there were 22 HIV positive children (6.3 per cent mother-to-child transmission rate of the HIV antibodies). Four of 22 (18%) HIV positive children’s death was attributed to AIDS.

Compare this 82% survival with the 85% survival of the ICC orphans who were treated with the retroviral drugs

Conclusion:

The ICC orphans who were the subject of clinical trials of anti-retroviral drugs to prevent death from AIDS had about the same survival rate as the untreated HIV positive children in the state of Nevada. There was no mortality benefit from the unethical administration of toxic drugs to the ICC orphans.

Chris Tyler

The CDC estimates there are about 1.1million 'HIV positive' individuals in the United States.

In February 2005, at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Eyasu Teshale, et al., presented a study entitled, 'ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HIV-INFECTED PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR AND RECEIVING HIV ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY, 2003--UNITED STATES'.

http://www.aegis.com/conferences/croi/2005/167.html

Their conclusion: Using the largest set of national data available, we estimated that only 55% (~268,000) of eligible PLWHA age 15 to 49 years old are receiving ART in the United States, suggesting a substantial unmet health care need for this service.

So somehow less than 1/4 of HIV positives in the US are estimated to be on these 'life-saving' medications. If 'almost all' of HIV positives are to die of 'HIV', why aren't there more deaths year in and year out from this large pool of 'untreated' individuals?

Lee Evans

Here is an article from the Feb. 2007 "Essence" magazine that everyone should read.

The biography below is from the author's page at the faculty website of Columbia University's Journalism School:

Kristal Brent Zook

Kristal Brent Zook, Ph.D. is a Contributing Writer for Essence magazine where she writes frequently about race and gender, as well as environmental, health, and social justice issues. Her work has also appeared in The New York Times Sunday Magazine, The Washington Post Arts/Style section, The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, The Nation, Vibe, The Village Voice, The LA Weekly, Emerge, Honey, Savoy, and many other publications. She has also worked as an editor for Working Mother Magazine and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, and as a writer, commentator and segment producer for National Public Radio. She is an Alicia Patterson Fellow for 2005.

Her forthcoming book is called Black Women’s Lives and is scheduled for publication in February of 2006 with The Nation Books. A series of in-depth portraits, this work offers insight into the rich and unique life experiences of women across the country “from farmer to filmmaker.” Her first book, Color by Fox: the Fox Network and the Revolution in Black Television presented a behind-the-scenes look at the politics of African American television productions during the 1990’s. It was published by Oxford University Press in 1999.

Zook received her doctorate in 1994 from the History of Consciousness Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz where her emphasis was in the field of cultural studies. She lives in Manhattan.

Lynn Gannett

Please let the people at ESSENCE magazine know your thoughts about the article in their February 2007 issue, "SPECIAL REPORT: The New York City AIDS Experiment," and thank them for helping to publicize this story:

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Let us know how you feel about the articles in ESSENCE. E-mail your comments, including your full name, address and daytime phone number, to letters@essence.com, or write to ESSENCE, 135 W. 50th Street, New York, NY 10020. Submissions may be edited for length and clarity.

More background info on the author of the ESSENCE magazine article can be found at:

Kristal Brent Zook, Ph.D.
Associate Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University
http://www.kristalbrentzook.com

Croft Woodruff

With reference to the complaint filed against the BBC by Jeanne Bergman, John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, Polly Clayden, Gregg Gonsalves, Andrew Feinstein, and Nathan Geffen regarding the BBC film, "Guinea Pig Kids."

Mark Wainberg, Director, McGill University AIDS Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, holds several “HIV” drug patents on such drugs as lamivudine (3TC), and has received grants from GlaxoSmith Klein, Bristol-Myers Squib and Boehringer-Ingelheim, major producers of "antiretroviral" toxins.

Wainberg and Montaner (of Vancouver, BC) were responsible for the fast track approval of Nevirapine in Canada after it had been twice rejected by Health Canada. Nevirapine is produced by Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Marcel Girodian

Dr. Maniotis' comment that the BBC presented "one of the only sources of non-censored information left in the world" demonstrates a gap in the knowledge of many dissidents who are focused on AIDS and not the many other areas of controversy in the world.

The BBC is essentially part of the same propaganda system as the American media. They propagandize on all issues, not just AIDS. Iraq, 9-11, globalization...you name it.

The reason that many Americans think that the BBC is a real information source and not simply part of the propaganda system is because the BBC, like many media in Europe, allow more facts and opinions that are critical of the US (and the corporate world) into their broadcasts than you will find in US media.

They allow a spectrum of opinion and information that is thus slightly broader than American media's. But it is still a spectrum of views and factoids that is carefully selected to avoid the ones that are most damning to established power.

I recently saw a promo on BBC for a report on ARVs. I didn't watch the report, but the promo said that "this woman is living proof of the effectiveness of AIDS medicines" or words to that effect. So you can imagine what the report must have been like.

Aids dissidents need to become aware that the Aids fraud is just one facet of a much bigger problem of out of control corruption in all areas of government and business. And when you learn about these other facets, you realize that the media do the exact same job of disinformation with them that they do with Aids. BBC included.

[Otis: I think Dr. Maniotis is not quite as unsophisticated as that quotation might make it appear, and like myself is in essential agreement with your very clearly expressed viewpoint. The phrase that you pick up to run with, I am sure was added as a gesture of "admiration" that might somehow serve to make whoever was reading the letter actually finish it, although the actual expectation that it would work was close to zero K.]

Otis

Liam Scheff has supplied this link which will take you to an easy to follow and comprehensive history of the "Guinea Pig Trials" -- a story Liam was the first journalist to break in 2004, and one in which he has been deeply involved in all aspects (including the BBC documentary).

Combined with all the other must reads in these comments, it makes for an indictment of the perpetrators of these criminal trials and their representaives, who felt obligated to attempt to shut down the BBC's editorial independence (what little remains to it) in the name of their "Truths", that would sway any jury in any court of rational law on the planet.

Michael Geiger

I wrote today to my favorite email correspondent (not) Prof. J. P. "Aidstruthiness" Moore:

John,

I am glad you enjoyed the Maniotis letter to the BBC, but a good scientist would not be so emotional over a simple scientific issue. Science is no place at all for such childish displays of out of control emotionality. Please grow up and try to be adult about all this.

By the way, I just read Larry Altman's NY Times piece about ending the testing of some topical microbicides.

Sorry to hear that the testing of vaginal goo ring things and anal ring goo things is not working out too well.

Yours, Michael

A few days earlier the erstwhile, certifiable, had written me:

From: John P. Moore, PhD
To: Michael Geiger
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Shame on you JP!

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!

"Dan" has it exactly right when he says:

"If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more.
When you're in a war, there are no rules."

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren't worth bothering with).

John

Harvey Bialy

As any scientist, whether junior or more senior than the pope almost, who has written to Prof. Moore expressing any form of neutral, or gods forbid, slightly favorable position towards dissident AIDS views, knows: His near instantaneous reaction is to fire off vitriolic emails of the sort all reading this are sufficiently familar, demanding that the offending scientist be fired immediately, or if they are already tenured, to at least be kept away from students and forbidden to express any of their "denialist" views.

Sadly, some deans have actually responded to Moore with slight deference (if no success) -- he does after all have impressive looking initials and affiliations after his rotten name, and those and his "rabbis" in AIDS, Inc, have until now provided him with cash and ego trips galore.

But as his fantasy world has begun to crumble around him these past months, he has grown increasingly shrill, demonstrative and just plain nuts.

I would urge everyone who has had their livelihood and professional reputations threatened by this storm trooper masquerading as a biomedical scientist, to simply copy the emails between him and Mr. Geiger and send them to the appropriate persons.

"Hoisted on one's own petard" is one of my favorite sayings and formulas.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad

Contact