So AIDS diagnosis to me appears like a similar story.. I am a molecular biologist, and routinely use PCR (there are different kinds of PCR depending on the level of sensitivity that you are looking for). While PCR used as a tool has revolutionized molecular biology in that it has improved our understanding of ourselves, it should be however, used with caution.

Being a molecular biologist has allowed me to recognize its sensitive nature, and the “regular PCR” that I suspect is being used in diagnosis can only tell you whether the particular viral DNA is present or absent, which is only underscored by the alarmingly high frequency of false positives in diagnosis. Since its principle is that it amplifies 1 segment of DNA zillion times more, it cannot tell you what the viral load is in the cell. And viral load is a CRITICAL parameter in predicting whether you have the disease or not.

For eg. You may have just 1 copy of the viral DNA and be just fine, because the body has evolved mechanisms to contain its spread. But if you have 1000 copies of the DNA, then you may genuinely be at a risk, or already have the disease. So it is critical to go for a test that is sensitive enough to pinpoint the middle ground, i.e. accurately quantify the viral load, and then deem whether at risk or not. There are other PCRs that can do exactly this….(called quantitative-PCR), but I suspect it can be an expensive test.

So we as Scientists, Journalists, and the public should push for a test that is sensitive enough to measure exactly what the risk of developing AIDS is, rather than just resorting to the easy way out of…oops, you are testing positive but this test cannot tell you whether you have just one copy (might not develop the disease for all you know), or have 1000 copies of the viral DNA, so are at a risk of developing the disease! Life is everyone’s business, it is precious. So let us strive to recognize mistakes, and correct them rather than just resorting to the blame-game or escapism. Good work, Liam!

Here’s their take: “And/or. Or/but, Or/or.” They list method after method, all boiling down to “If the doctor says so.” or “we’ll keep testing them with tests that test for everything (but no one thing) until we prove to ourselves that they’re really got the ‘permanent mark’ of presumed and enforced death.

What would stop the VERA Inst from investigating the lack of standardization and the presence of wild cross-reactivity in Hiv testing? What would stop them? Who would prevent them from examining the justification for the trials?

Or, they never were interested in examining the justification, only justifying the outcome?

From the VERA INST Report:
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/clinicaltrials-appendix.pdf

“Children and HIV Testing. Soon after HIV was identified, researchers developed a test for antibodies to the virus.”

[note - They developed the test first, see Robert Gallo's research - he shipped the samples before the papers were published]

The first antibody tests for HIV were licensed in the United States in 1985. When a person is exposed to a virus, their immune system makes proteins called antibodies. Antibodies help the body recognize and fight most viruses. They remain present in the person’s body and serve to prevent the person from becoming ill if he or she is exposed to the same virus again.

[except magically in this case, where antibodies mean 'dead already, and forever on drugs.']

Mothers pass antibodies to their babies in the uterus and during breast feeding, having the effect of protecting the newborn while the immune system develops. The presence of HIV antibodies in an infant indicates, therefore, that the mother is HIV positive.161 But it does not necessarily mean that the child has the virus. Virtually all children born to mothers who are HIV positive will be HIV-antibody positive at birth, although only 15 to 30 percent of them are actually infected with HIV.

[Oh, really? The tests are positive when they're not positive? Or people are "infected when they're not infected? Or just babies? Or... ]

Most of those who are not infected will have lost maternal HIV antibody by the time they are nine months old, although a few will carry it until age 18 months.162 Children who are born HIV positive, but are not actually infected with the virus, are called seroreverters, because their serum (blood) goes from being positive to being negative for the HIV antibody.

[Do Hiv tests come up positive in people with more than one condition? (answer - yup, yes, si, you bet)]

The HIV antibody test has two steps. An initial screening test called an EIA (Enzyme Immunoassay) or ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) is performed first. If the EIA or ELISA test is positive, a second, more specific, confirmatory test called the Western Blot is performed. If both tests are positive, the person is considered to be HIV positive. If the ELISA is positive and the Western Blot is negative, the test is considered to be indeterminate and must be repeated.

[Golly, how is it possible to have two tests for the same thing give different results? Oh... right. That's what they do. No standards, no singular reaction, only interpretation for 'risk groups' - Black, Hispanic, Poor - that's who we like to test.]

The two-step process is necessary because the ELISA, though easier and less expensive to perform than the Western Blot, can give a false positive result in a small number of circumstances.163

[False results? Huh. Wow. How often? Let's look in the medical literature. But, "No, why bother?" says the VERA Institute (though I certainly tried to present this med lit to Anne Lifflander, who would not accept even the documents for VERA's research)]

The antibody test, though effective in diagnosing adults and older children, could not accurately diagnose HIV infection in babies younger than 18 months.164 Finding abnormalities in the child’s immune system served as an indirect indicator of HIV infection in young infants who were HIV positive. In an HIV-antibody positive child who suffered from an opportunistic infection or had other AIDS-associated medical problems, the finding of abnormal T4/T8 cell ratios and abnormally high or low amounts of immunoglobulins allowed doctors to make a presumptive HIV/AIDS diagnosis.165

[You've got to love that presumptive diagnosis. I mean, what would we do without the presumptive "you're fatally forever infected, and we're sure but we just can't say for sure, but we know it, because we're experts" diagnosis. That's what good medicine is really all about. Right? No? No.]

When the antibody test is the only diagnostic test available, children must be tested repeatedly until they are 18 months old before it can be determined if they are infected or only carrying the maternal antibody.

["Determined?" That's a brave word for a process like this. Such courage these brave doctors show in 'determining' the fate of children of crack addicts, so that they can be Glaxo trial 'volunteers.' So brave, these good folk, on behalf of these babies born damaged by and addicted to Crack Cocaine.]

In the mid-1990s, two other direct viral tests became available. The P24 antigen test measures the presence of P24 antigen, the core structural protein of HIV. Its primary use is to screen the blood supply. It was not considered sensitive enough to use in children under three months of age. Another direct viral technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was developed. PCR amplifies genetic material in a blood specimen and measures the presence of minute quantities of the genetic material found in the HIV virus. Because it is more accurate and less complicated than viral culture, the PCR test became the preferred test for diagnosing HIV
infection in infants. Based on the availability of new testing techniques, the CDC issued guidelines in 1994 for classifying HIV infection in children (see Figure 4.1).

[Yeah, PCR. Anybody got anything bad to say about PCR as a diagnostic tool? You better watch your mouth! So what that it stinks, isn't licensed, isn't reproducible, and goes off the chart for parasite infections and everything else. It's what we use! Get used to it! Brave docs, I'll tell you. Such... courage.]

1. Numbers

2. The major lie of the VERA INST.

1. Numbers – they’re playing awfully loose. There are a lot of dead children, and you get the feeling they don’t dent the conscience of these people:

• 25 chlidren die during studies
• and then what’s the 80 (or, remaining 55)? Right after?

You know they pull participants out of trials when they’re ‘not responding’ well. That is, you can be dying in a trial, and so will be pulled out, and then not die ‘in the trial’, but die “in foster care.”

“If investigators identify important drug interactions requiring modification of the combination regimen, or if there are early regimen-terminating toxicities, the trial will be halted to address these concerns.”
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00001108?order=30

Right, so, you have a sufficiently bad reaction – you are excused, but what’s the effect? And what’s the change after the ‘trial?’ The drugs are the same – there are 3 classes of drug, and these kids aren’t going to be put on vegetable soup and cartoons after bottoming out or nearly dying in a trial. They’re back on AZT and Bactrim, and Saquinavir – same as the ‘trials’ drugs, just no records being kept, Glaxo and Pfizer and Squibb not getting paid twice (once for the drug, once for approval of the same drug to use again in new combination).

And they’re all in foster care – it’s not like the 25 who died were in special containment in a spacelab somewhere, getting ‘cutting edge therapy.’ They were in the ICC, or wherever foster ‘family’ in the city would take and drug them.

See the interview with Dr. Catherine Painter – the trial meds are picked up from the pharmacy like all the others. http://liamscheff.com/daily/2007/04/28/the-icc-investigation-interview-with-dr-katherine-painter/

“So if a child is on a treatment protocol, they would undergo that monitoring, testing, protocol entry, supply of an experimental drug through um, their outpatient clinic – and we can um, maintain um, that treatment here.

So If a child is on an experimental drug, the um, clinic site, um, supplies the drug to the child, um, and their caregiver of course is the one who actually picks it up, either the nursing aid who accompanies them from a store or their parent or caregiver, and brings it back, picks it back to us if, if it’s not a drug that’s available through a pharmacy.”

QUESTION: Does VERA INST give any details in their 500 empty pages of how any children died? On what drugs? After what studies?

And then, VERA admits under scrutiny – 29% of the remaining 417 children are now dead?

Is that correct?

About 121 more? Is that correct?

How are they filleting these numbers?

What is the VERA number, after all are added?

Is it 80 plus (approx) 121?

approx 201?

Out of 532 children.

38 percent of these children are dead? And this is a recommendation for these drugs? And the paradigm in general?

2. The major lie vis-a-vis VERA INST: “Vera medical staff did not find, however, that any child’s death was caused directly by clinical trial medication.”

Directly? Is that a word game?

Did the drugs help or hurt?

Have patients given these drugs died from them? (Answer – Yes).

Did VERA have access to any patient’s medical records (Answer – No).

Go figure.

3. The second major lie of the ’study’: No Children Were Coerced into Trials (none were taken out of their home to be put into trials).

Why were kids put into foster care? Why were they taken away from their parents or homes?

Adherence. This is how kids were ‘being referred to’ the ICC:

Dr. Painter: I often say that what we’re asking of our patients and our families in our recommendation, um, for their regimens and their level of adherence is actually something that is beyond 100 percent – patients are being asked to take all of their medicines all the time, whether they have them on hand or have run out, whether the pharmacy has filled and delivered the script, whether the clinic has responded for a request for a refill promptly, whether the medicines make you sick, whether you’re at home or away, whether you’re ill with an inter-current illness.

….

So, we are having an increasing number of, um referrals over the last, um, oh several years for, um, primarily for helping to assess and intervene with medication adherence difficulties that patients and families are experiencing.”

The VERA INST ignored this, and instead asked “Are children ever taken out of their foster homes for ONLY the specific purpose of being enrolled in drug trials?”

Instead of examining reality:

Q: “Are children removed from their homes for NOT TAKING DRUGS?”

A: Yes.

Q: “Are children who have been removed from their homes, placed in foster care, ever put in clinical trials?”

A: They’re all in foster care – they’ve been placed there because their parents are drug addicts, or dead from drug addiction. Or, they’re placed there because their parents, or the guardians who have taken them in, don’t want to drug the children so severely with drugs that cause the children a great deal of pain.

And that’s why and how they are “available” for these drug trials. Because they’re abandoned children, or children who are removed from home because of “adherence” issues.

Did they ‘volunteer’ for these studies? During and after which 38% of them died?

No, they did not volunteer. And their parents did not volunteer them, because they were FOSTER CHILDREN.

4. On the kids today:

I spoke with a source, a mother/guardian of two children, (now aged out of ICC), and talked about the ICC kids she and I both know who are alive.

The reality is, none of the kids who gets out of there takes the drugs – and they all refused them as much as possible while in there, because the drugs made them vomit all the time. So, if these kids who are alive aren’t taking these drugs, then… what’s the purpose of these deaths, except .. nothing? Spinning wheels? Looking “productive” vis-a-vis the Aids diagnosis.

Justifying malpractice? Medical murder? Or just the worst kind of pathological science, scientific and medical racism? Are these words too strong to describe these drugs?

Here’s Nevirapine:

Would you give this drug to your child? Would the staff of the VERA Institute drug their children with these drugs?

WBAI interview.

The final Vera report is not, apparently, final. Just talking with a NYC radio reporter who said that Vera is now saying that there were 80 deaths, and then 25 during trials, but also that 1/3rd of the remaining number of children were also deceased.

Waiting to confirm all of this, but it’s very clearly a superficial report, and something of a whitewash – or a substantial whitewash.