"Guinea Pig Kids": Andrew Maniotis Writes to the BBC

 

Sent to the BBC at 6:50 PM, 25 January 2007

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 Schwager.

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 [3] and flu vaccines [4] 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% [9], 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"?

Sincerely

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

References:
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.

Comments

[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 [email protected], 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.