Notes on a "Scandal"

The Aids Cabal is crowing glorious victory over their defeat of journalism, truth-telling, medical discourse and debate. That is, they’ve convinced the BBC to feel doubtful that the documentary “Guinea Pig Kids” should be allowed to stand, without correction from the pharma cabal that the film indicted.

John P. Moore of AidsTruth.org writes:

[Here]

  • “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 Bergman deserves most of the credit.”

[….end excerpt…]

So, a few notes on the documentary in question.

It was released at the near end of 2004, in November. I provided what is called, original research, which really consisted of pointing to the National Institute of Health’s (that’s the US government’s) own database of clinical trials, and noting that the drugs they were using were Black Box labeled, meaning they’d caused severe disability, or death, in patients taking them.

And that these were being used in combination of 2, 3, 4, up to 7 at a time, “at higher than usual doses”, in children as young as 4 years old. That’s orphans, as young as four, and then, other drugs and vaccines, in infants as young as six months old. [Here]

The orphans at ICC were crack babies – boarder babies, left, abandoned at the NYC hospitals by addict mothers.

You can see the list of US government/pharmaceutical company-approved clinical trials here (in the second part), and ICC’s own words about who they are and how they got money for trials initially, Here.

The director, Milena Schwager, worked with input from the producer – the person they’re crediting with the film, the money guy – Jamie Doran, who took meetings, long meetings with the BBC, who told him what they needed to ‘sell’ this kind of thing. But they managed to produce a pretty good piece.

I’ve put some notes on the actual piece, with anything I differed with in the telling, Here.

I only worked on the first half of the film, providing the links to the clinical trials, and then to many of the contacts to be interviewed – the mothers who were having children taken, and the children themselves. We interviewed more than were shown in the film, and I don’t know how or why it was cut as it was, (they left out important stuff), except that it was only a half hour, and I suppose those are the devils of TV broadcasting.

I provided the research that pointed to the problems in the use of orphans in drug trials, and in these trials, specifically. Most of that work is summarized, or listed in the document “The ICC Investigation Continues.” [Here]

I worked closely with the director Milena Schwager, for many months. We worked very, very hard on digging up a great deal of evidence; most of it was just horrifying, the drug effects, the details of studies, the catholic cemetery where they bury the children, multiple bodies to a casket.

[Here. Search "guardian angel plot"]

And Here. (In this document, you can witness the death of a child at ICC: “In the end, the anti-HIV medicines that once helped have nothing to offer but their adverse effects.” What adverse effects? How were they once “life-saving” if now they don’t do anything but make him sick?)]

Celia Farber came in and worked on the second half of the film, which got it into its production status, so she can tell you about that. She worked on getting some of the death certificates for the children, and lining up and taking other interviews.

She wrote about a great deal of that (and more) Here.

Doran, the producer, didn’t want to entertain the idea that there was something deeply wrong with the Aids paradigm, as such; He really wasn’t interested in that information, but he seemed to care about the orphans and children being used in these trials, and seemed to feel that it was a considerable breach of ethics.

The situation was as it is; ICC is an orphanage where children of the poor and drug-addicted are remanded. And these children were and are being force-fed drugs, as part of regular “Aids drug” regimens (and taken away from parents and guardians, when they have them, who don’t want to enforce the drug regimens). The children were also used in a few dozen clinical trials.

The drugs were and are very poisonous drugs, to say the least. That’s no secret. Their status in the literature was and is well-established – their FDA Black Box labels tell the superface of their story.

That is, Doran, the producer, who held constant meetings with the BBC during production, was not a ‘denialist’, (to use the Aids cabal’s language for those who do not obey their ideological dictates). Nor was he in that intellectual place of questioning the medical paradigm to its roots. He did take a stand for these women and children who were being abused, and I appreciate that he did. That makes it an ethical movie, not a “denialist” movie.

Of course, there is no such thing as an “Aids Denialist.” This is a term invented by people like Jeanne Bergman and John P. Moore to hide and shield the miserable failings of the Aids paradigm from public criticism.

(Criticize us and we’ll liken you to a Holocaust Denialist! And we’ll tell everybody else that’s what you are!!)

So much for “science.”

These children were and are drugged without consent or restraint, and they told us, in no uncertain terms, that they wanted to be free of the New York poverty policing system. To be free of the Administration for Children’s Services, which polices children and parents who aren’t drugging them according to the Aids doctor’s orders.

That is, any Poor child’s parents. Poor, Only. They don’t do this on Park Avenue.

In New York, the ACS acted/acts as the goon squad, the enforcers for the hospitals and the drug regimens. The hospitals themselves, or ‘Aids departments’ specifically, are the engines of the Aids machine the poor neighborhoods of New York. They demand and force the taking of these drugs – AZT, Nevirapine, Kaletra, etc, despite all objections, morbid sickness, and all the rest.

So, a few notes on the ‘scandal.’

I’m not in contact with Doran, but I hope he has the good sense to refer the BBC magistrates to the US clinical trials database, and ask them why drugs that cause deformity, are being used on orphans in an orphanage, for the purpose of studying the deformity that they’re absolutely known and going to cause: [Here]

Or that seven drugs, all FDA black-box labeled, are being stuffed into children at one time, some “at higher than usual doses.” [Here]

I would hope that if the BBC apologizes for the film, for whatever non-reason they are forced to do so by the redoubtable “HIV activist” Jeanne Bergman, that they then sick Bergman on the NIH as well, to take down the rest of the evidence from the public books – all the clinical trials, stopped, that all these drugs would cease pumping through stomach tubes.

Because, if Bergman (who the Aids Cabal leader and NY Times hit-man, John Moore credits with beating the BBC TV department into submission)… If she thinks there is something wrong with the film, and its “claims”, then certainly there is something wrong with the NIH database, and it’s “studies” as well.

Because the controversy at the center of the film, is the controversy at the center of the US government’s and Pharmaceutical partner’s clinical trials with children (and adults), all over the country, and the world, on the poorest of the poor, with drugs that have and do kill adults (and children) AZT, Nevirapine, and their analogs.

Jesus Christ. We used to just think this kind of thing only happened in Germany, or China (under the Japanese invasion), in World War II. We cite I.B.Farben with being “Nazi Collaborators.” And now this is the gold standard of ethical behavior.

Gratis, “AidsTruth.org”. The most dangerous people on the planet to journalism, medical discourse, scientific debate, and human ethics, since a time we don’t want to remember.

Thanks for showing us who you are.

6 Responses

  1. Liam says:

    My post at the Snakepit, home of the aidsmafia’s soldiers:

    (waiting for it to post – http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/bbc_apologizes_for_promotion_o.php )

    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.

    [Reply]

  2. Liam says:

    This was posted at the snakepit, and I think it is a just piece of work:

    An open letter to Cornell University. Please cut and paste and mail in to:

    Office of the Dean
    Weill Medical College of Cornell University
    NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center
    1300 York Avenue, Box 144
    New York, NY 10021

    Or Email to: publicaffairs@med.cornell.edu
    ——————————

    Sunday, October 28, 2007

    Office of the Dean
    Weill Medical College of Cornell University
    NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center
    1300 York Avenue, Box 144
    New York, NY 10021
    publicaffairs@med.cornell.edu

    David J. Skorton, M.D. President of the University
    Antonio M. Gotto, Jr., M.D., D.Phil. Provost for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Medical College
    Dr. Andrew Schafer, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Medical College and physician-in-chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, Cornell University

    Dear Gentlemen,

    This is a letter of complaint concerning the activities of John P Moore PhD, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences, and Cornell University,

    This individual has engaged in the following activities:

    A) Defense of Unethical Medical Experimentation.

    The US government has determined that unethical conduct took place on the part of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in regard to medical experimentation on black and Hispanic orphans without obtaining proper informed consent This fact was reported by the Associated Press (1). Moore is defending this unethical medical experimentation with a complaint to the BBC concerning their documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, which revealed the unethical medial experimentation on children as mentioned above. This complaint letter to the BBC originated from the New York-based Center for HIV Law and Policy which is a front for Moore’s activities.(2)

    B) Suppression of Academic Freedom

    Moore engages in a campaign of smear tactics and academic back stabbing against other highly regarded academics of good standing who disagree with Moore on questions of biological science. At this same time, Moore has cowardly refused to openly debate his academic opponents in a public forum. (3)

    C) Moore maintains a defamatory and libelous website called AIDSTruth.com, in which Moore uses defamatory labels and smear tactics to attack his academic opponents.(4)

    In addition, this letter is a demand for an open academic debate in a public forum on the merits of Moore’s views versus the scientific views of the highly regarded academic individuals singled out on Moore’s web site. Moore’s activities represent an affront to academic freedom, ethics in human medical experimentation, and human decency. I appeal to you to take the appropriate action.

    Regards,

    Name ____________________
    Address____________________
    Phone number_________________
    Year Graduated from Cornell______________________
    Or other Medical School or University Affiliation_________________________

    References:

    (1) Thursday, Jun. 16, 2005 – 1:46 PM By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) – “The government has concluded at least some AIDS drug experiments involving foster children violated federal rules designed to ensure vulnerable youths were protected from the risks of medical research. ”

    “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Human Research Protections concluded that Columbia University Presbyterian Medical Center in New York, where several foster children were enrolled in drug studies in the 1990s, failed to obtain and evaluate whether it had proper consent, information and safeguards for the foster kids.”

    (2) ‘Serious concern’ at BBC over flawed HIV film Leigh Holmwood Media Guardian Tuesday October 23 2007. Far from being flawed, the film accurately portrayed ethics violations in the unlawful medical experimentation on black and hispanic orphans without informed consent at ICC.

    (3) see aidstruth.org which mentions a number of Moore’s opponents by name along with defamatory labels and smear tactics.

    (4) aidstruth.org

    [Reply]

  3. MacDonald says:

    What struck me about BBC’s apology was that they upheld one of the complaints with the justification that apparent health improvements might not reflect the “underlying health” of the children, but simply absence of drug side effects – or something to that effect. This is in itself a rather paradoxical view. However, one of the studies Liam references, when decoded a wee bit, specifically emphasizes the relationship between severity of side-effects and failure of treatment.

    “One theory is that changes in body composition can predict the failure of anti-HIV treatment. If this is true, body composition measurements can be as useful as CD4+ cell counts in determining drug effectiveness.”

    http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00006064?order=4

    The implicit admission that severity of side-effects seem to correlate with failure of treatment and progression to “AIDS” is directly opposed to BBC’s murky reasoning.

    http://www.tac.org.za/documents/BBCApology.pdf – Last paragraph p. 8

    [Reply]

  4. Liam says:

    So this is a study with drugs that are known to cause lipdystrophy, for the purposes of studying lipodystrophy…

    This is what is really mentally-ill about the paradigm.

    They know they can predict the “changes in body composition”, and yet they’re going to do it anyway, in order to..what?

    To what?

    To learn how to predict the “failure of the anti-HIV treatment.”

    Holy Shit. I mean, imagine writing this, imagine setting this “experiment” up, knowing that you are going to put human beings – infants and children – through this process, which can kill a person.

    Now, what they’re talking about monitoring are the surrogate markers – the Tcell and PCR counts – which do not work, one to the other, as even reasonably accurate predictors or specific diagnostics of any particular infection, of health or of illness.

    That is, PCR (Viral load) doesn’t predict TCell values. TCell values do not predict (or give specific evidence to) any specific problem.

    And yet, the drugs are targeted (or attempt to target) these surrogate values – but in doing so, they also alter total body composition, which has and can and does result in organ failure and death.

    Now, if they weren’t mentally-ill, or paradigm-blind, these assholes, (and that’s the term I’ll generously use for the bastards setting up a study like this in children), could focus on addressing whatever Immune Deficiencies were present, or whatever specific illnesses were manifesting, instead of only allowing themselves to focus on trying (and always failing) to obliterate or alter or eradicate the surrogate markers – which don’t relate to patient health anyway.

    [Reply]

  5. MacDonald says:

    In the study outline, it actually looks like the bodily deformities are sought attributed to HIV.

    “Preliminary information indicates that lean body mass is lost in preference to fat mass in HIV-infected children, supporting the theory that failure to thrive in HIV infection is often cytokine mediated. It can be hypothesized that changes in body composition (lean body mass) may predict changes in weight growth velocity and may give an early clinical indication of treatment failure.”

    Among the listed keywords we find “lipodystrophy” and “wasting”. lipodystrophy (redistribution of fat) has traditionally been associated with protease inhibitors, whereas wasting (loss of muscle mass) is a known effect of AZT and of course of the nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite etc. the drugs may cause.

    The conflation of drug side-effects and the supposed action of HIV itself is expressed in the first sentence below:

    “Though studies have been done on adults, little is known about the effects of _HIV infection and anti-HIV drugs_ on body composition in children. One theory is that changes in body composition can predict the failure of anti-HIV treatment. If this is true, body composition measurements can be as useful as CD4+ cell counts in determining drug effectiveness.

    It is anybody’s guess how the doctor is supposed to distinguish between the seemingly identical effects of “HIV” and the anti-HIV drugs. And yet they hope these effects, lipodystrophy and wasting, are correlated with viral load thus “proving”, I guess, they are caused by HIV.

    This looks to be the perfect example of a classic HIV-drug study design, whose theoretical foundation is kept fluid enough to blame HIV and praise the drugs regardless of outcome. I am as so often before reminded of Jaques Lacan’s analogy of the sliding chains of signifiers and signifieds.

    On a related note, here is how “HIV disease” is now being redefined _in America:_

    “It’s very clear now that HIV is no longer a wasting disease in America,” said Dr. John T. Brooks, an epidemiologist in AIDs prevention at the Centers for Disease Control.”

    All thanks to the beneficial effects of the drugs of course, which are in fact so successful they create new “over-healthiness” problems.

    http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/diet_aids_and_obesity.html

    [Reply]

  6. MacDonald says:

    There is of course an answer to the question how the doctor can know if the deformities are caused by HIV or the drugs. She can take the children who “fail to thrive” off the drugs and see what happens. That’s what they did with the three kids in the movie. The results were clear in those cases at least.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>