HIV Drugs Make You Sick and Can Kill You

by Liam Scheff

In 1998, Edmond McNack, a Missouri Sheriff’s Deputy, was bitten by a prisoner he was transporting. Both he and the prisoner were given HIV tests; both tested negative. It was determined that for safety’s sake, Edmond should take a “prophylactic” course of AIDS drugs (AZT plus 3TC). He did so, and lost 40 pounds in eight weeks. A nurse intervened and told him that he had to quit the drugs to save his life. Listen to his testimony on the Robert Scott Bell show.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

He quit the drugs and his healthy improved, though he has suffered debilitating effects, including sarcoidosis, ever since. He had to quit his job and survive on disability. He has been on prednisone to suppress the sarcoidosis; he has had two hip replacements. Prior to taking AIDS drugs, Edmond was an athlete and body-builder.

Edmond sought financial remuneration for the damage done to him by AIDS drugs. An AIDS expert in Colorado, Dr. Yasmine Wasfi (an instructor with National Jewish Hospital in Denver), was called upon to judge the merit of his claim. She decided that he couldn’t have been made sick by the drugs, because he was not HIV positive, thus there are no studies of the effects of these drugs in HIV negative people which could corroborate Edmond’s claim.

Final Award Denying Compensation:

“Dr. Friedlander admitted that the etiology of sarcoidosis is unknown; the manner of contraction of sarcoidosis is unknown; the causes of flare-ups of sarcoidosis are unknown; the HAART-sarcoidosis causal link is a gray area; and there are no known cases of HAART-induced sarcoidosis in an HIV-negative individual. When viewed in light of his testimony as a whole, Dr. Friedlander’s opinion that the HAART medications are the probable cause of the development of employee’s sarcoidosis symptoms is based upon speculation, guesswork, and surmise.” [LINK] [emphasis added]

One of three presiding judges dissented from the ruling:

Commissioner Hickey strongly dissented in Edmond McNack v. Jackson County Sheriff’s Department, Inj. No.98-034419, in which the Commission affirmed Administrative Law Judge McKeon’s award and provided a supplemental opinion to express its rationale. In this case, the employee was bit by a prisoner, requiring him to undergo HIV prophylaxis. He subsequently developed sarcoidosis, the compensability of which was at issue here. The Commission weighed the testimony of two medical experts and found that the most credible and convincing evidence showed that there is not support for the proposition that the administration of HAART medications leads to the development of sarcoidosis in HIV-negative individuals. Commissioner Hickey’s dissent found that the testimony of the medical experts combined with other corroborating evidence made it reasonably probable that the employee’s sarcoidosis was caused by HAART medications. [LINK] [emphasis added]

Click to Listen.

Comment HERE at the Edmond McNack interview at ReducetheBurden.org

Liam

8 Comments

  1. I would like to know why a case of this magnitude would be heard in front of the very people that he was seeking relief from.I do not know work comp law but this case sounds like a losing case from the start. First off the ALJ may be a liberal judge, but this sounds like she was not willing to make a ruling in the claimants favor simply because she places her very position in jepordy as being a judge who rules in the employee favor.

    When in fact this case appears to speak for itself #1 just because there were no case studies out on the affect of HARRT on HIV negative people but there were case studies done on HIV positive people that developed sarcoidosis after taking HARRT does not mean it could not happen in this individual.There is always a first. I do not believe all of the fault in this guys case falls completely on the medical community, yes the medical community did make a mistake by giving him the medication but the legal system should have made the right decision in compensating this police office for the damage that was done.

    I believe the ALJ was covering her (butt) because of the polictical atmosphere at the time which the republicains ruled. I believe that this case would have more than likely paid in the upper 6 figures if not a millon dollar case, so what reason would the ALJ have to rule in the claimaints favor when she works for the same entity and could have very well been protecting her position. It is unfortunate for this guy and his attorney that there is no one to look into the judges.Even though this Dr.Wasfi character did not have the gutts to come out and say that this guys sarcoidosis happened this way she basically covered her butt as well(and she got paid by who) exactly.

    Even though the burden of proof is placed on the claimant and his attorney you would have to have Judges who are going to take a serious look at cases such as this one and if a judge feels that he or she is not certain or sure enough in thier own ability to make the right decision maybe we the public should be allowed to hear such cases and make the final decesions(what a thought). My final thought is that this guy was royally screwed by the very system that he worked for and the very people that he put his life on the line to protect. Thank God I dont work for Jackson County Mo.

  2. I am a lay person just reading this information and it is very clear to me that the Workers Compensation judge was totally not willing to make the right decision and she actually gave a reason which she layed on the doctor from The National Jewish Center in Denver Colorado.I would say that the work comp judge has no gutts and the appellant judges that ruled against this guy has no gutts as well.I asked around and found that it is the claimants responsibility to prove his case.

    I believe that the ALJ used the confusing statements that were made by this incompatent Dr.Wasfi who just made a pay day and never stated the facts one way or the other.This Dr. Wasfi is a doctor who studies sarcoidosis not the effects of HAART medications on hiv negative or hiv positive people (easy payday for her) and how come the courts dont have resources that can help them (judges)find out more information in regards to certain illnessesthat are uncommon.

    This case is not all that difficult when you read the facts.I believe this Police Officer was railroaded by the court system.I believe the appellant courts are trying to up hold the rulings of the work comp judges so the appellant courts dont have to hear cases such as these.It would be easy for the appellant judges to come up with any old reason as they did in this Police Officers case to go along with the work comp judge.I would like to shake the dissenting judges hand for having the guts to stand on what is right.Im wondering like the other people that have commented on this case if it was racial or political.Unfortunately we will never know but this man has to suffer because of incompetent Judges and Doctors.Im like the other person that commented “Glad I Dont Work for this Jackson County Mo.”

  3. This is just the reality of the Justice System when you are BLACK in America.Im not saying all black people are innocent victims but what in the WORLD is going on with this mans case.Here is a black Deputy Sheriff who does his job and gets injured in the line of duty and expects the department that he works for to back him up.It looks like from the article that they paid for most of his treatment but what about life after the treatment this guy had both his hips replaced and nearly died. I dont think you could compensate him enough.I will bet you he never thought putting his life on the line everyday he went to work would have cost him his everything.I would like to know how he is doing today.These are my thoughts

    You have the Workers Compensation Judge who is clearly not understanding this Dr. Wasfi who does not make herself clear at all.This Dr.Wasfi goes around in circles with her statements and through her own confusion,confuses the Judge who then makes a error in judgement on this guys case.Then you have the two Appellant Judges who clearly are not interested in this guys case because had they been they would have made the correct decision.I think they wanted to uphold the lower courts decision to make a statement to others that the appellant courts are not going to overturn the lower courts decisions right or wrong and that keeps people from appealling the lower courts decisions.The dissenting Judge had to be a democrat as well as a God fearing man who stepped out on his faith and made a decision to STAND on what was the right thing to do,I give him all the props that one can give a man.

    This Judge has a true set and I myself could stand behind this guy in any political race that he runs.I like they way he told the Workers Comp Judge that she made a serious error in this guys case.As I listen to Edmonds testimony on the podcast he seems to be very humble when I would infact be ferious with the courts that railed me.Im Native American and I wonder had this guy been white would the outcome had been different.Im going to end my comment with this, Living as a minority in America regardless of your position.

  4. Vincent, A.Hankins,

    I agree with you entirely. I hope you’ll talk about this case and what it means:

    1. AIDS drugs can kill you;

    2. Edmond McNack had his livelihood, and much of his life stolen from him by the AIDS industry, in the guise of hack, financially-motivated judges, and a deeply confused and corrupted ‘expert’ in Colorado, whose statement that these drugs ‘only can hurt AIDS patients’ is so ludicrous that it fails every test of logic and ethics.

    But you’ve got to spread the word, or Edmond’s story doesn’t get heard.

  5. That is outrageous. It makes me sick.

    I’ve only recently started reading (and writing), about some of these issues, (ie. Big Pharma lying to us, killing people for profits, or for their own depopulation agenda….whatever the reason, it’s completely abhorrent).

    Please. Keep up the good work.

    I have come to the conclusion, that “they” are, in fact, afraid of “us”. Why else would they go to such lengths to silence, and completely discredit us. There are a lot more of “us”, then there are “them”. If there were enough of us working together, we could really cause a lot of trouble for them (not to mention, threaten their vast profits, which must be protected at all costs…). This is precisely what they are trying to avoid, by painting us as “crazy” people, or Denialists, as you point out.

  6. I agree with Mr.Wesleys comment when he says that the appeallant court is upholding the lower courts ruling just to send a message to others that the appeallant courts are not going to listen to you if a ruling has already been made wither it is right or wrong.Has anyone checked to see if this Judge McKeon has made huge errors in the past or present as I believe she did in this case.

    Unfortunately you have people in positions that they have no business being in, such as this expert Dr.Wasfi who clearly is not wanting to put her neck on the line for this guy but then too she is not being paid by this guy.Dr.Wasfi should take a class in ethics because she clearly has none.If a dollar makes her who she is and how she practice medicine people stay the hell away from Denver(Dr.Wasfi)!!!I too would like to shake Judge Hickeys hand for having a set.

    You have to be able to withstand the pressure from others regardless of your position and if you stand on what you believe and know that you are doing the right thing God will take care of you.It is so unfortunate when you read about something like this and to know that the employer is worthless.

    Who doesnt know that the Jackson County Sheriff Dept. is made up of the good old boys and guys like Edmond are more than likely (tokens)lets keep this conversation 100 if you know what I mean.It is clear that Judge McKeon along with Dr.Wasfi made a VERY BAD DECISION and should be reprimanded themselves and just think how many other people have been royally screwed over by these two so called professionals.

    Is there anything that this man can do or is it totally over for him,what about a lawsuit against the doctor who gave him the medicine or the people who make the drugs. Thank you for allowing me to comment I wish I could do something to help this guy.My prayers are with him and his family.

  7. I listen to Edmonds testimony and he does seem to be very humble and I truly would like to know why he is not mad as HELL with this Judge McKeon and this Dr.Wasfi who needs to learn a little bit more about ethics.

    I think he and or his attorney should be trying to get more exposure on this case.I do recall someone in the podcast stating that he can only help other people and that thier case was lost,did I hear that correctly? If so why isnt he trying to bring a lawsuit against the people who gave him the medication because I checked with the CDC and a human bite is not a reason to give HAART medications and they BOTH TESTED NEGATIVE so what in the HELL is going on with the doctor who prescribed the medication and under what protocal was he or she prescribing this medication.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the Judge was looking for a reason to deny this man benefits even if she was going to receive a little negative attention but it saves the state alot of money.I can agree with the dissenting Judge(Hickey)but someone help me understand this.If the Judge made a error and really misconstrude what the Dr. from Denver was saying why wasnt she(McKeon) willing to correct the error that she made?

    If the Judge lied by saying the doctor said something and it was not true why wasnt the Judge dealt with appropriately.The dissenting Judge(Hickey) stated that Dr.Wasfi did not and underlined did not state that this Dr.Wasfi did not say that Edmond did not contract sarcoidosis from taking the medicine but stated that it was possible that the medications may have caused the sarcoidosis but she could not say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty if this is the case Edmonds doctor said that it did happen from taking the medicine and she (Dr.Wasfi) said it was a possibility then why didnt the Judge accept what the doctors said and rule in Mr.McNacks favor? If all he had to do was prove his case as it was stated in the information that you all provided on the site.He and his lawyer WON thier case.

    This is what makes me believe that the Judge(McKeon)was not going to rule in Mr.McNacks favor regardless of what the doctor said.I think the Judge is a pretty foul person and she used the confusing statments from Dr.Wasfi to justify her reasons for dening Mr.McNack his judgement.Is anyone looking into Corrupt JUDGES? This Dr.Wasfi should be ashamed of herself allowing a buck to make her come up with the confusing TRASH STATEMENTS that she made(SHAME ON YOU DR.WASFI)and SHAME ON YOU JUDGE MCKEON for not standing on the oath that you took when you accepted the position(IN GOD WE TRUST).

Comments are closed.