 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death (Los Angeles Times)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-eliza24sep24,1,1471969.stor y?coll=la-headlines-frontpage A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello Times Staff Writers September 24, 2005 Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when she explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe HIV caused AIDS. The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus. "Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded." Seven weeks later, E liza Jane was dead. The cause, according to a Sept. 15 report by the Los Angeles County coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia. These days, given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any young child to die of AIDS. What makes Eliza Jane's death even more striking is that her mother is a high-profile, charismatic leader in a movement that challenges the basic medical understanding and treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Even now, Maggiore, a 49-year-old former clothing executive from Van Nuys, stands by the views she has espoused on "The Ricki Lake Show" and ABC's "20/20," and in Newsweek and Mothering magazines. She and her husband, Robin Scovill, said they have concerns about the coroner's findings and are sending the report to an outside reviewer. "I have been brought to my emotional knees, but not in regard to the science of this topic," said Maggiore, author of an iconoclastic book about AIDS that has sold 50,000 copies. "I am a devastated, broken, grieving mother, but I am not second-guessing or questioning my understanding of the issue." One doctor involved with Eliza Jane's care told The Times he has been second-guessing himself since the day he learned of the little girl's death. Dr. Jay Gordon, a Santa Monica pediatrician who had treated Eliza Jane since she was a year old, said he should have demanded that she be tested for human immunodeficiency virus when, 11 days before she died, Maggiore brought her in with an apparent ear infection. "It's possible that the whole situation could have been changed if one of the doctors involved - one of the three doctors involved - had intervened," said Gordon, who himself acknowledges that HIV causes AIDS. "It's hindsight, Monday-morning quarterbacking, whatever you want to call it. Do I think I'm blameless in this? No, I'm not blameless." Mainstream AIDS organizations, medical experts and ethicists, long confounded and distressed by this small but outspoken dissident movement, say Eliza Jane's death crystallizes their fears. The dissenters' message, they say, is not just wrong, it's deadly. "This was a preventable death," said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of HIV-positive children. "I can tell you without any doubt that, at the outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would have been appropriately treated. She would not have died. "You can't write a more sad and tragic story," Oleske said. It is a story not just about Maggiore and her family but about failures among child welfare officials and well-known Los Angeles County doctors. Among the physicians involved in Eliza Jane's care was Dr. Paul Fleiss, a popular if sometimes unconventional Los Feliz pediatrician who gained some publicity in the 1990s as the father of the notorious Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. He was sentenced to three years' probation for conspiring to shield the profits from his daughter's call-girl ring from the IRS, among other things. "I don't understand it," Fleiss said of Eliza Jane's death, "because I've never seen her sick or with anything resembling what she supposedly died of.... I don't believe I could have done anything to change this outcome." Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS, has known the family since before Eliza Jane was born. In 2000, the county Department of Children and Family Services investigated Maggiore and Scovill after a tipster complained that Charlie was in danger because he hadn't been tested for HIV and was breast-fed. The department found no evidence of neglect, based partly on reassurances from Fleiss, according to an official report reviewed by The Times. Now, with the death of Eliza Jane, authorities say they are poised to act. Los Angeles police are investigating the couple for possible child endangerment, said Lt. Dennis Shirey, the officer in charge of the child protection section. DCFS officials say they have opened an investigation to determine whether the parents should be forced to test Charlie, now 8. Maggiore said that she has spoken with police and expects to meet with the child welfare agency early next week. Scovill would not comment in detail. Before Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore said she had tested neither of her children. Since then, in anticipation of the visit by child welfare officials, she has had Charlie tested three times, and he was negative each time, she said. "Would I redo anything based on what happened?" she asked rhetorically during an interview this week. "I don't think I would. I think I acted with the best information and the best of intentions with all my heart." 'Doing a Good Thing' Maggiore said she once bought the standard line. HIV would evolve into AIDS. And AIDS, she firmly believed, would kill her. For months after her condition was diagnosed in 1992, she was depressed and reclusive. Then she plunged into AIDS volunteer work: at AIDS Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk. Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman, she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15 million. Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local schools and health fairs. "At the time," said Maggiore, a slight woman who looks years younger than her age, "I felt like I was doing a good thing." All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream. Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in her book, "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?" Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet others of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only with trusted family members and doctors who will support their decision to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions. She has stayed healthy, she said, despite a cervical condition three years ago that would qualify her for an AIDS diagnosis. In a 2002 article for Awareness magazine, she facetiously refers to it as "my bout of so-called AIDS," saying it coincided "perfectly with the orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS kicks in." During a March interview in her orderly, well-lighted home, Maggiore seemed, if anything, an exceptionally devoted mother. She served homegrown vegetables and fresh pasta to Eliza Jane, listening attentively as the healthy-looking little girl chattered happily about her two imaginary friends. At one point, when Eliza Jane wanted to swipe away a spider, her mother urged respect for the tiny creature. "He is part of our family," she said. What set Maggiore apart became clear only when she talked about her views on medicine. She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said. Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law. She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%. Scovill apparently shares her beliefs. Last year, he produced and directed a contrarian documentary, "The Other Side of AIDS," which won a special jury prize at the AFI Los Angeles International Film Festival. Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them plot medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their children tested. Lori Crawford, a child welfare worker in Tempe, Ariz., said Maggiore helped her avoid an HIV test in North Carolina when she was pregnant with her daughter three years ago. Crawford said Maggiore informed her that North Carolina didn't have mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women and suggested she decline the test if health authorities in that state recommended it. "Christine and her book saved my life," said Crawford. A Big Victory In the 25-year history of AIDS, there have been many advances but few victories. Prevention of infections and deaths among young children is one. "This is one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the United States," said Margaret Lampe, a health education specialist with the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of children found to have AIDS continues to plummet, even as the overall number of new AIDS cases in the United States remains stuck at more than 40,000 per year. In 2003, only 59 children under age 13 nationally were found to have AIDS, according to the CDC. That's down from 952 cases in 1992, officials said. Health officials attribute the decline to regular testing of pregnant women and the use of antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT, during pregnancy and childbirth. A 1994 study found that one quarter of pregnant HIV-positive women passed the virus to their babies when they did not take AZT. Subsequent studies found that the risk could be lowered to less than 2% when mothers received prenatal care, took a combination of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy and labor, and allowed their infants to be given AZT in their first six weeks. Federal health officials and AIDS experts say that HIV unquestionably causes AIDS, although it can take more than a decade to develop. HIV tests detect antibodies to the virus and are accurate predictors of who is infected, they say. Dr. Peter Havens, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said that contrarian HIV theories promoted on about 400 websites are "bogus baloney." "It's all pseudoscience," he said. "They choose one paper and deny the existence of 100 others." Crumpled Like a Doll The first hint that Eliza Jane was ill came at the end of April, when she developed a runny nose with yellow mucus, Maggiore told a coroner's investigator. On April 30, Maggiore took her daughter to a pediatrician covering for Fleiss. That doctor found the girl had clear lungs, no fever and adequate oxygen levels, the coroner's report said. Five days later, Maggiore sought a second opinion from Gordon. In an interview, Gordon said he suspected an ear infection but believed it could be resolved without antibiotics. In a follow-up call, he said, Eliza Jane's parents told him she was getting better. Maggiore then asked Denver physician Philip Incao, who was visiting Los Angeles for a lecture, to examine her, the mother told the coroner's investigator. He found fluid in Eliza Jane's right eardrum. On May 14, Incao examined her again and prescribed amoxicillin, Maggiore told the coroner. Incao is not licensed to practice medicine in California. The next day, Eliza Jane vomited several times and her mother noticed she was pale. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, the little girl stopped breathing and "crumpled like a paper doll," the mother told the coroner. She died early the next morning, at a Van Nuys hospital. Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional approaches to medicine. Gordon and Incao are staunch opponents of mandatory vaccination of children; Fleiss is a vocal critic of male circumcision. Incao did not return repeated phone calls this week. Alerted to the case by The Times, several medical experts said that doctors who knew Maggiore's circumstances - that she was HIV-positive, hadn't been treated during pregnancy and had breast-fed her children - should have pushed for the child to be tested. If she refused, they should have referred the matter to authorities. According to interviews and records, Gordon and Fleiss have long known Maggiore's HIV status and that she breast-fed her children. Experts also said that when the girl became ill, any doctor who saw her should have treated her as if she were HIV-positive. That would have meant giving her a stronger antibiotic, such as Bactrim, instead of the relatively low-powered amoxicillin. "If you look away from something you're supposed to be looking for, that's called willful blindness," said Michael Shapiro, an ethicist and law professor at USC, "and willful blindness is one aspect of determining the negligence." In an interview this week, Fleiss said it would have been wrong to force Maggiore to test her daughter. "This is a democracy," said Fleiss, who has treated the daughter of pop star Madonna. Gordon said he wishes he had tested Eliza Jane when she was ill in early May, but he doesn't believe he had sufficient reason to test her earlier. "When it comes to HIV testing, I think that it's still legally a gray area," he said, depending on whether one believes the child's life is in danger. In Eliza Jane's case, he said, he did not. David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California, said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child neglect. "If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from The Times, "I would punish the pediatricians." The Focus Turns Now that authorities have settled on the cause of Eliza Jane's death, the focus has turned to the parents and their remaining child, Charlie. Even when a child dies because he or she did not receive adequate medical treatment, the law is not at all clear about who, if anyone, should be held responsible. There are few precedents, and courts traditionally give parents and doctors wide discretion. In two U.S. cases involving HIV-positive mothers who refused testing and treatment - neither of which involved a child who died - the courts appear to have issued conflicting opinions. "There's no easy answer," said Dubler. What is clear is that child welfare authorities had been told that Maggiore was HIV-positive in 2000 and that her son was at risk for the virus, according to agency records. An investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services visited the home, according to a copy of the case report reviewed by The Times, but she did not have Charlie tested for HIV or talk to outside experts. She instead relied on her own observations and the assurances of Fleiss. "Parents appear appropriate and extremely focused on child's well-being in every aspect," caseworker Rebecca McCauley wrote in February 2000. Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director for the DCFS, acknowledged that his department may have erred. He said the caseworker tried to do her job but relied entirely on Fleiss because the department, at the time, did not have its own medical experts to consult. But even with Eliza Jane's death, Sophy said, it's not entirely clear that Charlie is being neglected. Legal experts said the problem lies in the official definition of neglect. "DCFS is used to your prototypical neglect case where the house is filthy and the mother doesn't care," said Thomas Lyon, a USC law professor and expert in child abuse litigation. "They're just not accustomed to the kind of neglect where you have an otherwise healthy, good parent." Word Is Getting Out Since Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore and her husband have kept a relatively low profile, her friends said. But word is slowly reaching HIV dissidents around the country. Though shaken, most of them say they continue to support Maggiore and her contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. For her part, Maggiore said that her daughter's death has taken a toll on her health; she's had trouble eating, sleeping and, this past summer, simply breathing. She's treated her symptoms with Chinese herbs, walked five miles a day and practiced yoga, and is now feeling better, she said. She went to a sympathetic doctor, she said. "If I had gone to a regular AIDS doctor and told them I was HIV-positive, I have no doubt they would have blamed it on that." In the weeks after Eliza Jane's death, her parents created a website, http://www.ejlovetour.com , in her memory. Maggiore wrote lovingly of her daughter, wavering between despair at her loss and acceptance that Eliza Jane had simply chosen, as Maggiore put it, to "go home." She struggled most with the whys. "Why our child - so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured - and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she wrote. "How come what we offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less - impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street, extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables - will happily stay?" "All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream." The reason Christine first began investigating the dissident literature was due to receiving contradictory HIV test results: "But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS specialists—a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good health. She said I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused. When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive. Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses: a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive." "Confused by a personal situation that defied all the rules I'd been so passionately preaching as a public speaker, I turned for help to the AIDS groups where I worked. Instead of finding answers, I found my questions were dismissed and that persisting with my line of inquiry resulted only in meaningless explanations." "My desire to learn finally led me outside the confines of the AIDS establishment and into a body of scientific, medical and epidemiological data that defied everything I had been taught about AIDS, and everything that I had been teaching others. The more I read, the more I became convinced that AIDS research had jumped on a bandwagon that was headed in the wrong direction." "When it became clear that the information I had found, however life-affirming, was not welcome among the AIDS organizations I belonged to, I decided to start my own. In 1995, together with a few friends gathered from various support groups and other places along the way, I started Alive & Well to share vital facts about HIV and AIDS unavailable from mainstream venues." To read Christine's story, please go to http://www.aliveandwell.org/ and click on 'About Us' on the upper, right hand side, then scroll down to "Words From Alive & Well Founder Christine Maggiore." > "All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley > biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS - [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > click on 'About Us' on the upper, right hand side, then scroll down to > "Words From Alive & Well Founder Christine Maggiore." No just read this again and ask your self what would her child have perfered life or death dealing propaganda? http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la- me-eliza24sep24,1,1... A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello Times Staff Writers September 24, 2005 Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when she explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe HIV caused AIDS. The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus. "Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded." Seven weeks later, E liza Jane was dead. The cause, according to a Sept. 15 report by the Los Angeles County coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia. These days, given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any young child to die of AIDS. What makes Eliza Jane's death even more striking is that her mother is a high-profile, charismatic leader in a movement that challenges the basic medical understanding and treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Even now, Maggiore, a 49-year-old former clothing executive from Van Nuys, stands by the views she has espoused on "The Ricki Lake Show" and ABC's "20/20," and in Newsweek and Mothering magazines. She and her husband, Robin Scovill, said they have concerns about the coroner's findings and are sending the report to an outside reviewer. "I have been brought to my emotional knees, but not in regard to the science of this topic," said Maggiore, author of an iconoclastic book about AIDS that has sold 50,000 copies. "I am a devastated, broken, grieving mother, but I am not second-guessing or questioning my understanding of the issue." One doctor involved with Eliza Jane's care told The Times he has been second-guessing himself since the day he learned of the little girl's death. Dr. Jay Gordon, a Santa Monica pediatrician who had treated Eliza Jane since she was a year old, said he should have demanded that she be tested for human immunodeficiency virus when, 11 days before she died, Maggiore brought her in with an apparent ear infection. "It's possible that the whole situation could have been changed if one of the doctors involved - one of the three doctors involved - had intervened," said Gordon, who himself acknowledges that HIV causes AIDS. "It's hindsight, Monday-morning quarterbacking, whatever you want to call it. Do I think I'm blameless in this? No, I'm not blameless." Mainstream AIDS organizations, medical experts and ethicists, long confounded and distressed by this small but outspoken dissident movement, say Eliza Jane's death crystallizes their fears. The dissenters' message, they say, is not just wrong, it's deadly. "This was a preventable death," said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of HIV-positive children. "I can tell you without any doubt that, at the outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would have been appropriately treated. She would not have died. "You can't write a more sad and tragic story," Oleske said. It is a story not just about Maggiore and her family but about failures among child welfare officials and well-known Los Angeles County doctors. Among the physicians involved in Eliza Jane's care was Dr. Paul Fleiss, a popular if sometimes unconventional Los Feliz pediatrician who gained some publicity in the 1990s as the father of the notorious Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. He was sentenced to three years' probation for conspiring to shield the profits from his daughter's call-girl ring from the IRS, among other things. "I don't understand it," Fleiss said of Eliza Jane's death, "because I've never seen her sick or with anything resembling what she supposedly died of.... I don't believe I could have done anything to change this outcome." Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS, has known the family since before Eliza Jane was born. In 2000, the county Department of Children and Family Services investigated Maggiore and Scovill after a tipster complained that Charlie was in danger because he hadn't been tested for HIV and was breast-fed. The department found no evidence of neglect, based partly on reassurances from Fleiss, according to an official report reviewed by The Times. Now, with the death of Eliza Jane, authorities say they are poised to act. Los Angeles police are investigating the couple for possible child endangerment, said Lt. Dennis Shirey, the officer in charge of the child protection section. DCFS officials say they have opened an investigation to determine whether the parents should be forced to test Charlie, now 8. Maggiore said that she has spoken with police and expects to meet with the child welfare agency early next week. Scovill would not comment in detail. Before Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore said she had tested neither of her children. Since then, in anticipation of the visit by child welfare officials, she has had Charlie tested three times, and he was negative each time, she said. "Would I redo anything based on what happened?" she asked rhetorically during an interview this week. "I don't think I would. I think I acted with the best information and the best of intentions with all my heart." 'Doing a Good Thing' Maggiore said she once bought the standard line. HIV would evolve into AIDS. And AIDS, she firmly believed, would kill her. For months after her condition was diagnosed in 1992, she was depressed and reclusive. Then she plunged into AIDS volunteer work: at AIDS Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk. Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman, she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15 million. Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local schools and health fairs. "At the time," said Maggiore, a slight woman who looks years younger than her age, "I felt like I was doing a good thing." All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream. Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in her book, "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?" Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet others of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only with trusted family members and doctors who will support their decision to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions. She has stayed healthy, she said, despite a cervical condition three years ago that would qualify her for an AIDS diagnosis. In a 2002 article for Awareness magazine, she facetiously refers to it as "my bout of so-called AIDS," saying it coincided "perfectly with the orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS kicks in." During a March interview in her orderly, well-lighted home, Maggiore seemed, if anything, an exceptionally devoted mother. She served homegrown vegetables and fresh pasta to Eliza Jane, listening attentively as the healthy-looking little girl chattered happily about her two imaginary friends. At one point, when Eliza Jane wanted to swipe away a spider, her mother urged respect for the tiny creature. "He is part of our family," she said. What set Maggiore apart became clear only when she talked about her views on medicine. She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said. Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law. She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%. Scovill apparently shares her beliefs. Last year, he produced and directed a contrarian documentary, "The Other Side of AIDS," which won a special jury prize at the AFI Los Angeles International Film Festival. Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them plot medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their children tested. Lori Crawford, a child welfare worker in Tempe, Ariz., said Maggiore helped her avoid an HIV test in North Carolina when she was pregnant with her daughter three years ago. Crawford said Maggiore informed her that North Carolina didn't have mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women and suggested she decline the test if health authorities in that state recommended it. "Christine and her book saved my life," said Crawford. A Big Victory In the 25-year history of AIDS, there have been many advances but few victories. Prevention of infections and deaths among young children is one. "This is one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the United States," said Margaret Lampe, a health education specialist with the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of children found to have AIDS continues to plummet, even as the overall number of new AIDS cases in the United States remains stuck at more than 40,000 per year. In 2003, only 59 children under age 13 nationally were found to have AIDS, according to the CDC. That's down from 952 cases in 1992, officials said. Health officials attribute the decline to regular testing of pregnant women and the use of antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT, during pregnancy and childbirth. A 1994 study found that one quarter of pregnant HIV-positive women passed the virus to their babies when they did not take AZT. Subsequent studies found that the risk could be lowered to less than 2% when mothers received prenatal care, took a combination of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy and labor, and allowed their infants to be given AZT in their first six weeks. Federal health officials and AIDS experts say that HIV unquestionably causes AIDS, although it can take more than a decade to develop. HIV tests detect antibodies to the virus and are accurate predictors of who is infected, they say. Dr. Peter Havens, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said that contrarian HIV theories promoted on about 400 websites are "bogus baloney." "It's all pseudoscience," he said. "They choose one paper and deny the existence of 100 others." Crumpled Like a Doll The first hint that Eliza Jane was ill came at the end of April, when she developed a runny nose with yellow mucus, Maggiore told a coroner's investigator. On April 30, Maggiore took her daughter to a pediatrician covering for Fleiss. That doctor found the girl had clear lungs, no fever and adequate oxygen levels, the coroner's report said. Five days later, Maggiore sought a second opinion from Gordon. In an interview, Gordon said he suspected an ear infection but believed it could be resolved without antibiotics. In a follow-up call, he said, Eliza Jane's parents told him she was getting better. Maggiore then asked Denver physician Philip Incao, who was visiting Los Angeles for a lecture, to examine her, the mother told the coroner's investigator. He found fluid in Eliza Jane's right eardrum. On May 14, Incao examined her again and prescribed amoxicillin, Maggiore told the coroner. Incao is not licensed to practice medicine in California. The next day, Eliza Jane vomited several times and her mother noticed she was pale. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, the little girl stopped breathing and "crumpled like a paper doll," the mother told the coroner. She died early the next morning, at a Van Nuys hospital. Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional approaches to medicine. Gordon and Incao are staunch opponents of mandatory vaccination of children; Fleiss is a vocal critic of male circumcision. Incao did not return repeated phone calls this week. Alerted to the case by The Times, several medical experts said that doctors who knew Maggiore's circumstances - that she was HIV-positive, hadn't been treated during pregnancy and had breast-fed her children - should have pushed for the child to be tested. If she refused, they should have referred the matter to authorities. According to interviews and records, Gordon and Fleiss have long known Maggiore's HIV status and that she breast-fed her children. Experts also said that when the girl became ill, any doctor who saw her should have treated her as if she were HIV-positive. That would have meant giving her a stronger antibiotic, such as Bactrim, instead of the relatively low-powered amoxicillin. "If you look away from something you're supposed to be looking for, that's called willful blindness," said Michael Shapiro, an ethicist and law professor at USC, "and willful blindness is one aspect of determining the negligence." In an interview this week, Fleiss said it would have been wrong to force Maggiore to test her daughter. "This is a democracy," said Fleiss, who has treated the daughter of pop star Madonna. Gordon said he wishes he had tested Eliza Jane when she was ill in early May, but he doesn't believe he had sufficient reason to test her earlier. "When it comes to HIV testing, I think that it's still legally a gray area," he said, depending on whether one believes the child's life is in danger. In Eliza Jane's case, he said, he did not. David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California, said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child neglect. "If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from The Times, "I would punish the pediatricians." The Focus Turns Now that authorities have settled on the cause of Eliza Jane's death, the focus has turned to the parents and their remaining child, Charlie. Even when a child dies because he or she did not receive adequate medical treatment, the law is not at all clear about who, if anyone, should be held responsible. There are few precedents, and courts traditionally give parents and doctors wide discretion. In two U.S. cases involving HIV-positive mothers who refused testing and treatment - neither of which involved a child who died - the courts appear to have issued conflicting opinions. "There's no easy answer," said Dubler. What is clear is that child welfare authorities had been told that Maggiore was HIV-positive in 2000 and that her son was at risk for the virus, according to agency records. An investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services visited the home, according to a copy of the case report reviewed by The Times, but she did not have Charlie tested for HIV or talk to outside experts. She instead relied on her own observations and the assurances of Fleiss. "Parents appear appropriate and extremely focused on child's well-being in every aspect," caseworker Rebecca McCauley wrote in February 2000. Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director for the DCFS, acknowledged that his department may have erred. He said the caseworker tried to do her job but relied entirely on Fleiss because the department, at the time, did not have its own medical experts to consult. But even with Eliza Jane's death, Sophy said, it's not entirely clear that Charlie is being neglected. Legal experts said the problem lies in the official definition of neglect. "DCFS is used to your prototypical neglect case where the house is filthy and the mother doesn't care," said Thomas Lyon, a USC law professor and expert in child abuse litigation. "They're just not accustomed to the kind of neglect where you have an otherwise healthy, good parent." Word Is Getting Out Since Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore and her husband have kept a relatively low profile, her friends said. But word is slowly reaching HIV dissidents around the country. Though shaken, most of them say they continue to support Maggiore and her contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. For her part, Maggiore said that her daughter's death has taken a toll on her health; she's had trouble eating, sleeping and, this past summer, simply breathing. She's treated her symptoms with Chinese herbs, walked five miles a day and practiced yoga, and is now feeling better, she said. She went to a sympathetic doctor, she said. "If I had gone to a regular AIDS doctor and told them I was HIV-positive, I have no doubt they would have blamed it on that." In the weeks after Eliza Jane's death, her parents created a website, http://www.ejlovetour.com , in her memory. Maggiore wrote lovingly of her daughter, wavering between despair at her loss and acceptance that Eliza Jane had simply chosen, as Maggiore put it, to "go home." She struggled most with the whys. "Why our child - so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured - and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she wrote. "How come what we offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less - impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street, extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables - will happily stay?" Gary Stein Gary, I'm interested to see what tack you take, and where your allegiances lie after I show you some choice tidbits from a recent article written by Jeanne Bergman. The article was mostly about ICC, but Ms. Bergman had some interesting things to say about Christine Maggiore. Here ya' go! "Maggiore has built a profitable career by combining a gift for self-promotion with a couple of false-positive HIV test results." "False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV..." "But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV. She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff "have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick." But of course Maggiore didn't want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don't take "AIDS drugs"—they don't have HIV or AIDS." > Gary, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of > course they don't take "AIDS drugs"-they don't have HIV or AIDS." Excellent point. Alex "No just read this again and ask your self what would her child have preferred life or death dealing propaganda?" Okay, so here we have many conflicting stories about Christine Maggiore: “A closer look at the denialist who evidently instigated the hoax about ICC explains a lot. Christine Maggiore, one of the most visible HIV denialists, introduced Liam Scheff to the guardian of two children who lived at ICC. Maggiore has built a profitable career by combining a gift for self-promotion with a couple of false-positive HIV test results. The story she tells begins in 1992, when, despite the complete absence of risk factors, a routine HIV antibody test came back inconclusive. The retest was positive, and Maggiore threw herself into the whirlwind life of an AIDS poster girl, ‘booked for a year's worth of engagements before I'd even finished [a speaker's] training course. I made the audiences, laugh, cry, and scared.’ When a year or so later her doctor suspected she wasn't really infected with HIV, she ‘finally found the courage to retest,’ and in a series of tests received results that were inconclusive, she reports, then positive, negative and positive again.” "But of course Maggiore has no ‘fear of AIDS’—she doesn't have HIV. She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff ‘have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick.’ But of course Maggiore didn't want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don't take ‘AIDS drugs’—they don't have HIV or AIDS.’” –From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman http://www.nypress.com/18/25/news&columns/bergman.cfm Then, we also have another story of how Christine actually *was* HIV positive and was convinced by Peter Duesberg to question the HIV theory: “The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus.” “All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream.” “Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in her book, ‘What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?’" –From A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello, Times Staff Writers And, finally, we have Christine’s *own story* of what started her questioning the HIV theory, namely “a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses”: “But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS specialists—a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good health. She said I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused. When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive. Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses: a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive.” “Confused by a personal situation that defied all the rules I'd been so passionately preaching as a public speaker, I turned for help to the AIDS groups where I worked. Instead of finding answers, I found my questions were dismissed and that persisting with my line of inquiry resulted only in meaningless explanations.” “My desire to learn finally led me outside the confines of the AIDS establishment and into a body of scientific, medical and epidemiological data that defied everything I had been taught about AIDS, and everything that I had been teaching others. The more I read, the more I became convinced that AIDS research had jumped on a bandwagon that was headed in the wrong direction.” –From http://www.aliveandwell.org/ Now, I am going to invite the members of this forum to read the many differing stories and then, *decide for yourself* which one you think is true. This is a perfect opportunity for you to do some of your own “investigative journalism” and to come to your own conclusions. I trust you to be fully capable of coming to your own decision about what’s really going on here. -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > "No just read this again and ask your self what would her child have > preferred life or death dealing propaganda?" > > Okay, so here we have many conflicting stories about Christine Maggiore: But Paul none of what you posted said a thing about the fact that her child died and that the CA Child Protection Agency is investigating Christine for child abuse due to her not allowing her child to be tested and treated. All you posted was different stories about Christine's own HIV status, well it would seem none of those are relevant at this time. Due to the simple fact that the death of her child due to AID's related PCP is incontrovertible proof that either Christine is HIV infected or her child received a blood transfusion of HIV infected blood. Now if that is what your going to argue that Christine is not HIV+ then you have to explain why her child was HIV+ and died due to AID's related PCP. Again this child did not receive ARV so your ARV equal AID's idea does not fly. Now on a personal note I do not think the government has the right to force an adult to receive medical treatment that they do not want. In most cases a parent makes such decisions for there children but in the cases of the children of parents who have religious beliefs that cause them to refuse modern medical care or in cases like Christine's. I think the state does have an obligation to stop the parent from imposing there own beliefs on a child who does not have the maturity to make that type of decision for themselves if the life of the child is at risk. Now is refusing to allow a child to receive medical care child abuse well in my opinion it is but from a civil liberties aspect I can see that it might not be. Again I do not think a parent has the right to refuse life saving medical treatment for a child even if it is against the parents religious or personal beliefs. This has been tested in the courts and they have ruled that the state does have the right to impose medical treatment on children but not on adults. Gary Stein "Again I do not think a parent has the right to refuse life saving medical treatment for a child even if it is against the parents religious or personal beliefs. This has been tested in the courts and they have ruled that the state does have the right to impose medical treatment on children but not on adults." Here is a very different perspective on that (and please note, Gary, that the last article is from thebody.com)... During her pregnancy with her son Felix, Kathleen Tyson tested HIV-antibody positive. After extensive research, she decided not to treat herself or Felix with AZT. She also determined that the benefits of breast feeding Felix outweigh any perceived risk of infecting him with a "deadly" virus. When the authorities were notified, they took custody of Felix on the basis that Kathleen Tyson had "intent to harm" her son Felix. The Tysons recently went to court to regain custody of their child. The State maintained that Kathleen does not have the right to make an informed choice for the health of her son regarding HIV. Unfortunately, an appeal would be to lengthy to pursue. http://aliveandwell-eugene.dreamhost.com/ From Anti-AIDS Treatment Order is Fought - The Associated Press - Sunday January 31, 1999 "EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - Parents of an infant boy are fighting a court order that they treat him with anti-AIDS drugs because his mother is HIV-positive. The court gave the state custody of eight-week-old Felix Tyson, ordered six weeks of AZT treatments, and barred his mother from breast-feeding him." http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990115.html From HIV-infected mother battles to breast-feed baby - February 1, 1999 - Web posted at: 12:18 a.m. EST (0518 GMT) "EUGENE, Oregon (CNN) -- A mother infected with the HIV virus is fighting a court order that keeps her from breast-feeding her infant son. The court order gave custody of eight-week-old Felix Tyson to the state and ordered six weeks of treatment with the anti-AIDS drug AZT. The boy's parents, Kathleen and David Tyson, do not believe HIV causes AIDS and say that AZT is toxic and ineffective." http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9902/01/baby.azt/ From Court Grants Delay in Baby HIV Case By JEFF WRIGHT - The Register-Guard [Eugene, Oregon] - February 5, 1999 "A judge has postponed for up to 60 days a fact-finding hearing involving Felix Tyson, the 2-month-old baby at the center of a custody dispute between his parents and the state." http://heal_portland.tripod.com/tyson7.htm From A GRIEVOUS ROAR - Welcome To The Machine by Celia Farber - Copyright Impression - Feb. 8, 1999 "An HIV-positive mother in Oregon almost loses custody of her baby because she resists giving him AZT and wishes to breast-feed him. Impression looks at the continuing attack on families in the name of HIV heroica." http://www.garynull.com/Documents/HEAL/WelcomeToTheMachine.htm From Scientist, doctors disagree on HIV case By JEFF WRIGHT - The Register-Guard - April 20, 1999 "HIV does not cause AIDS and an HIV-positive mother should be allowed to breast-feed her child if she chooses, a molecular chemist testified Monday in a Lane County courtroom. "There's no bottle of HIV anywhere in the world that you can take and infect someone with," said David Rasnick, head of a group that disagrees with the prevailing medical theory about AIDS." http://heal_portland.tripod.com/tyson9.htm From Baby Not Returned To HIV Mother - The Associated Press - Amalie Young, Associated Press Writer - Tuesday, April 20, 1999 "EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - A judge refused today to return a baby to an HIV-infected mother who wants to breast feed, saying the risk of spreading the deadly virus left the state no choice but to step in." "Kathleen Tyson and her husband, David, lost legal custody of their son when he was days old because of the decision to nurse." http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990411.html From The Other Side of AIDS - Meet the people... "Kathleen Tyson tested positive in 1997 and does not take AIDS medications. A full time mother, her interests include running, organic gardening and lending support to other HIV positive women who refuse drug treatments. She lives in Oregon with her husband who tests HIV negative and their two healthy children." "HIV negative newborn Felix Tyson was taken into Oregon state custody after his parents refused to give him AIDS drugs. Under mandated state care, Felix received AZT treatments for the first six weeks of his life. Today Felix is a healthy five year old and is back in the care of his family." http://www.theothersideofaids.com/meet_the_people.html And last, but NOT least... From Informed Consent? - By Jennifer Finocchio - Summer 2000 A few years ago my friend told me about a woman he knew that did not believe that HIV led to AIDS. She was pregnant at the time and didn't intend to follow the established treatment protocol for herself and later for her newborn child. She did not even intend to have her child tested once he was born. I was astonished. I was incensed. Who was this woman, I thought? Didn't she read the newspapers? Didn't she know the risk to her child if she didn't begin treatment immediately? Whatever her "opinions" were about HIV/AIDS, did she really have the right to impose them on her unborn child? This was my introduction to the AIDS "dissidents" and, though skeptical, I was curious. One of them told me about a little known situation in which parents were losing custody of their kids for refusing HIV treatment. I decided to try and tell their stories in a documentary, regardless of my own skepticism. It would be a lesson in objectivity. I started with Kathleen Tysob, an HIV+ woman in Eugene, Oregon who had lost custody of her son because she didn't want to treat him with drugs, and wanted to breast feed him. Naturally, Kathleen and her husband were devastated. They were, in all other ways, exceptional parents. They had been married for over twelve years and had a ten-year-old daughter, Faye. Faye had been breast fed for three years. (Both David and Faye are HIV-negative.) They had only learned of Kathleen's HIV status a few months earlier during a routine battery of prenatal tests. And now, in what should have been a joyful time, they had lost legal custody of their son. After talking to Kathleen and hearing her side of the story, I found myself forgetting my initial skepticism and storming up to Eugene with a camera and crew. This time I wanted to know just who these "court officials" and doctors were. How could they so hastily intervene in the Tyson's decision? But when I attended the Tyson's hearing and listened to the doctors, and the representatives from Child Protective Services telling their side of the story, I realized again that this is an issue with many shades of gray. The only thing that is clear is that everyone wants what is best for the child. Figuring out what that is stirs many an emotional debate. To follow this story further, I went to Maine to meet Valerie Emerson who had been charged with neglect when she refused to enroll her four-year-old son, Nikolas, in a highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) protocol study. Valerie, too, had learned she was HIV+ while she was pregnant. Tests confirmed that two of her other children, Tia and Nikolas were also positive. Their pediatrician prescribed AZT for Tia, and for many months Valerie watched her daughter's health deteriorate. Tia's suffering became more and more profound. Tia died eleven months later, just days before her fourth birthday. The official cause of death was attributed to AIDS related complications. This makes little sense to Valerie who knows her daughter was asymptomatic before beginning treatment. Despite her fears about treatment, Valerie agreed to enroll Nikolas in the HAART study. But when Nikolas began down the same painful road as Tia had, Valerie stopped his treatment and ended up in court fighting for custody. The court sided with Valerie. Most people I've told these stories to agree that it is a tragedy that otherwise decent parents are facing custody battles with their state governments over HIV treatments. But they also question the parents' decisions, and even their sanity. Why, with so many new treatments, fresh hope offered everyday, would parents decline treatment in the first place? Few of the parents I've spoken to doubt that the protocol of AZT and cocktails is effective in stopping transmission of HIV. They simply don't want to be coerced into giving their children drugs whose efficacy may be certain, but whose potentially adverse effects are uncertain. Kathleen Tyson began taking AZT while pregnant and then stopped: "I was very confused with the idea that a pregnant woman is counseled not even to take aspirin and here I was being prescribed these very potent and powerful toxic drugs." Later she refused treatment for her son because of the absence of research on long-term effects: "Would it hurt my son? Would there be adverse effects showing up in 20 or 30 years? It happens with drugs sometimes." One only has to remember the tragic effects of DES, (where daughters of women who took it got deadly cancers in early adulthood) which didn't appear for a quarter of a century, to know that she's right. It does happen sometimes. For "Amy" in N.Y., the risk of transmission seemed less threatening than potentially unnecessary treatment with toxic drugs. "If HIV transmits around 25% of the time, what about the other 70-80%? These are powerful drugs being given to a majority of 'at risk' infants when only a minority will be infected in the first place." Although several women, like Valerie, have successfully pled their cases in court, some like Amy, have finally found doctors to support their decisions, many others have not been so lucky. Take Sophie Brassard, in Montreal, for example. Her children were taken from her at the airport when she tried to leave the country to avoid legal action for refusing treatment. The court placed them in foster care until her hearing. Then the court awarded permanent custody to her parents. "Celia Smith" moved to the Dakotas when her doctor threatened to report her to DHS for refusing treatment for her child. She lives under an assumed name, can only work odd jobs for under the table pay and has no idea when, or if, she will ever be able to return home. The stories of the Tysons, the Emersons and the many others I've discovered since beginning my film, reach far beyond the growing controversy of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and the efficacy of treatment protocols. Little by little, fear about AIDS has begun to chip away at and has finally striped parents' of informed consent. The DHHS's own government guidelines clearly state that decisions about treatment and whether or not to breast feed ultimately belong to the parents. So, how, and why, do state governments and agencies have the right to remove custody of children when their parents make the decision not to treat? When Amy was told by her doctor that she had to treat her newborn son, that she had no choice, she made a xerox copy of the state law, along with the CDC's federal guidelines, on informed consent and showed it to him. The doctor shrugged and said, "oh, OK. I guess you're right." Informed consent means more than just telling a parent a few pertinent facts about a treatment. It means giving them all information: benefits, risks, alternative options and even the possible legal consequences of refusing. None of these moms got any such information. Instead they have been bullied, threatened, and reported for second-guessing their doctors. Kathleen Tyson was informed that legal custody was being removed less than 24 hours after giving birth, while she was still in the hospital, recuperating from a difficult C-section. I've spoken to other parents who are afraid to seek medical care at all for fear of what might happen. And with the argument for mandatory HIV testing of all pregnant women heating up around the country, they have reason to fear. While in most cases doctors cannot force treatment outright, the can accuse parents of "neglect" or "intent to harm" and seek removal of parental custody. But "turning parents in," rather than addressing their fears and respecting their decisions case by case doesn't benefit anyone, least of all the child. I recently spoke to a doctor who testified nearly two years ago on Valerie Emerson's behalf saying that he fervently believed Nikolas should be in treatment, but that it shouldn't be forced. He told me he didn't know what would happen to Nikolas without treatment: "For all I know he's already dead." He's not. He's already surpassed his initial life expectancy by two years and continues to live without symptoms. He will enter the first grade in the fall. In Oregon, Felix Tyson is eighteen months and remains HIV-negative. He lives with his parents but the state has retained legal custody and is in charge of medical decisions for him. Since the Tyson's hearing, a new study published recently in The Lancet, has shown that exclusive breast feeding for at least six months may actually reduce a baby's risk of developing AIDS because of its powerful effect on the immune system. The study was presented to a somewhat dumbfounded audience at the International AIDS Conference in Durban a few weeks ago. Follow-up studies are underway. In Montreal, Sophie Brassard took her children and fled the country. Although some of us are in contact with her, nobody has any idea where in the world she is. If she returns, she will be arrested for kidnapping. Here in California, Celia Smith is tired of going from job to job, always having to look over her shoulder. Now, she just wants to go home. If you have a story to tell about your experiences with treatment for your children, clinical trials, or breast feeding issues, or if you just want to express your opinion, please email me at jeffa67@hotmail.com. http://www.thebody.com/wa/summer00/consent.html "Since the Tyson's hearing, a new study published recently in The Lancet, has shown that exclusive breast feeding for at least six months may actually reduce a baby's risk of developing AIDS because of its powerful effect on the immune system. The study was presented to a somewhat dumbfounded audience at the International AIDS Conference in Durban a few weeks ago." Paul, Huh...you don't say? This article came from thebody? Take a look at this part, pretty interesting. "...a new study published recently in The Lancet, has shown that exclusive breast feeding for at least six months may actually reduce a baby's risk of developing AIDS because of its powerful effect on the immune system." Hmm. Gosh, that just seems to completely contradict everything I've heard about breastfeeding and AIDS. But here it is on thebody.com, supposedly from a study published in the Lancet. Wasn't this one of those contradictions we weren't going to ask questions about? Didn't Christine Maggiore breastfeed both of her children? Things are looking a little murky here as far as breastfeeding and AIDS are concerned. Even murkier is Christine Maggiore's HIV-status. Of course, the boys here still haven't decided if Jeanne Bergman is correct, and Christine Maggiore is in fact, HIV-negative, or to go with what Christine has stated...that she is HIV-positive. What's it going to be, boys? Looks like we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a tight spot. So, who's lying? Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive? Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine is HIV-negative? No real room for grey answers here. The implications for either answer are far-reaching. So...who's the liar? Whose story are you going to go with, guys? I'm quite curious. Stay tuned, dear audience. >What's it going to be, boys? > >Looks like we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a tight spot. > >So, who's lying? a.shole denialists like you. >Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive? >Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine is HIV-negative? Wrong. Jeanne stated it was unclear if she was or not. >No real room for grey answers here. Yep. But we won't probably know. Unless she dies and an autopsy reveals she was HIV+. She may be. Seems her kid was and died of AIDS because she kept wrapping her head around the f.cking stupidity of denialsim. George M. Carter >>So, who's lying? >>Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive? >>Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine is HIV-negative? >Wrong. Jeanne stated it was unclear if she was or not. George, it seems that you're having trouble remembering Jeanne's quotes that I recently posted. Tell me how "unclear" this sounds. "But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV." Hmm. Yes, it sure, umm, looks vague, doesn't it? Ok, George, who's the liar? Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive? Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine Maggiore is HIV-negative? Here's that quote from Jeanne again, in case your memory is failing. "But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV." George, I'm sure there are people out there waiting to hear from you, Gary, Chris, and so on, regarding the issue of Christine's HIV status. *Somebody's* lying. Is it Christine? Or is it Jeanne Bergman? We're waiting... Seems like Bergman came to her conclusion that Christine probably did not have HIV based upon the fact that Christine appears to have had no HIV problems herself, and had 2 healthy kids. Christine certainly refused to be retested for HIV following her earlier experiences, and seems to have assumed a position of "I'm probably false positive, but no-one is going to make me find out for sure..." We now know that this assumption of Bergman's is incorrect - Christine's daughter was killed by HIV, and in the absence of an alternative explanation, Christine is the most likely source. Photos of Christine pregnant with Eliza-Jane sporting "NO AZT" painted on her bump, and of Christine breast feeding EJ are testament to the whole HIV denialist lie. If one image should return to haunt all denialists for evermore it will be this one(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-09/19634261.jpg). Its like watching someone walking onto the tracks in front of an express train, and no-one wants to do anything to stop it. "We now know that this assumption of Bergman's is incorrect - Christine's daughter was killed by HIV, and in the absence of an alternative explanation, Christine is the most likely source." David, you're coming *oh so close* to saying it, but you don't quite get there. Is Christine Maggiore HIV-positive, or HIV-negative? Is this task of stating Maggiore's HIV-status just too difficult for you boys? You'd think this would be an easy task for you guys, very easy. So, why not just come right out and tell us all? Is Christine Maggiore HIV-positive or HIV-negative? Let's not go "round the barn" here as far as Ms. Maggiore's status is concerned. Your (pl.) lack of will to simply state her status is "interesting". >"We now know that this assumption of Bergman's is incorrect - >Christine's daughter was killed by HIV, and in the absence of an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you're coming *oh so close* to saying it, but you don't quite get there. >Is Christine Maggiore HIV-positive, or HIV-negative? Only Christine and her physician(s) know for sure. If she is, chances are strong she will develop AIDS. Time, then, will tell. George M. Carter > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:25:04 -0400, "wilyretrovirus" >>you're coming *oh so close* to saying it, but you don't quite get there. >>Is Christine Maggiore HIV-positive, or HIV-negative? > > Only Christine and her physician(s) know for sure. Anything else is guesswork. > If she is, chances are strong she will develop AIDS. Time, then, will > tell. Really. One can sort of of extrapolate when, based on mean time progression and when she first made the claim but... it's only a matter waiting. I imagine another five years or so will be determinative. B/ > George M. Carter >>you're coming *oh so close* to saying it, but you don't quite get there. >>Is Christine Maggiore HIV-positive, or HIV-negative? >Only Christine and her physician(s) know for sure. This is getting VERY curious, guys. I'm a bit baffled by why you can't seem to state whether Christine is HIV-positive or HIV-negative. None of this "beating around the bush" will do. George, Brian, David, Gary, Chris...why don't you tell us all what Christine's HIV status is? I would think that you'd *jump* at the chance! Isn't this question a "no-brainer"? Still waiting... Well, guys, until you can tell all of us whether Christine Maggiore is HIV-positive or HIV-negative, your assumptions (and that's what they ARE) about the connection between Christine's status and the supposed cause of death for Eliza Jane are completely disingenuous to say the least. Hateful and politically motivated for sure. So, who's going to state for us whether Christine is HIV-positive or HIV-negative? Why can't you guys perform this simple little task? Your friend, Jeanne Bergman seemed to have no trouble at all in that ICC article she wrote fairly recently. Let's just have another gander at those quotes from Ms. Bergman about Christine, and about her children. Interesting stuff! "But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV." "She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she boasted to Scheff "have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs. And they're not in the least bit sick." But of course Maggiore didn't want them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of course they don't take "AIDS drugs"—they don't have HIV or AIDS." Let's look at that last line again, about Maggiore's children, for emphasis. "And of course they don't take "AIDS drugs"—they don't have HIV or AIDS." Gosh, guys. What are you going to do? I've been asking for you to tell us what Christine's HIV status is for three days now. You seem hellbent on blaming her *somehow* for the death of her daughter. Yet...you can't seem to just come out and tell us what her HIV status is. Why the silent treatment? Time will tell, Mr. Carter? Well, Nobody knows whether I am "HIV-positive" or negative. Not even I know for sure, and nobody ever will. This means I will live to a very old age. I'll have to survive all you guys, because if I die, some of you will be dancing on my grave, cooing: "He died of AIDS! He died of AIDS! We told you so!" So I really can't afford to die. Not even of cancer or a heart attack. > Time will tell, Mr. Carter? > > Well, Nobody knows whether I am "HIV-positive" or negative. You already stated a few weeks ago you are positive. B/ >"You already stated a few weeks ago you are positive." HUH?? Could you find that post for me, Mr. Mailman? I can't. It's impossible for me to make that statement, because I would never consent to being tested. Even if I had to defend myself with a gun. Did I ever lie to you? >>"You already stated a few weeks ago you are positive." > > HUH?? Could you find that post for me, Mr. Mailman? I can't. Ms. Claster, tt's the one where you said you'd never take ARVs. Since as as preofessed scientist you certainly wouldn't be playing semantic games and you know that the ARVs aren't prescribed for non-positive persons.... B/ >"Ms. Claster, tt's the one where you said you'd never take ARVs. Since as as preofessed scientist you certainly wouldn't be playing semantic games and you know that the ARVs aren't prescribed for non-positive persons...." Now that's a curvilinear way of reasoning, Mr. Mailman. It's true: I would never take ARVs for any virus infection, not even in the case of a real virus. Just an academic question. You say ARVs are not prescribed for non-pos persons? Even for something minor, such as fever blisters (herpes simplex) there's Zovirax. Just a touch of a 1% cortisone cream works just as well, getting down the swelling. >>"Ms. Claster, tt's the one where you said you'd never take ARVs. Since as > as preofessed scientist you certainly wouldn't be playing semantic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would never take ARVs for any virus infection, not even in the case of a > real virus. Just an academic question. No, Ms. Claster, a disinengous response since the ARVs we're talking about are HIV-specific. B/ >"No, Ms. Claster, a disinengous response since the ARVs we're talking about are HIV-specific." Drugs being specific for HIV? For a virus, just any virus? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNfox000' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif' alt='ROTFL' border=0></a> These drugs work at the host level, my dear fellow. This is the funniest post you've made so far. And by the way: How come you misspell the same word as Mr. Carter does? Have sock puppets something to do with it? >>"No, Ms. Claster, a disinengous response since the ARVs we're talking > about are HIV-specific." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And by the way: How come you misspell the same word as Mr. Carter does? > Have sock puppets something to do with it? LOL. Take a look at paths/IPs. B/ >You say ARVs are not prescribed for non-pos persons? Even for something minor, such as fever blisters (herpes simplex) there's Zovirax. You are confusing AntiViral with AntiRetroViral (ARV). Thought you'd know better. Zovirax is an inhibitor of thymidine kinase, not reverse transcriptase. But I must point out that Hepatitis B has reverse transcriptase too, and drugs like tenofovir and lamivudine have an important part to play in treating this illness. Brian's point is that HAART combinations would not be prescribed. The only exception is for post-exposure prophylaxis reasons, for short periods of time. >Time will tell, Mr. Carter? > >Well, Nobody knows whether I am "HIV-positive" or negative. Not even I >know for sure, and nobody ever will. >This means I will live to a very old age. That happens to be your f.cked up moron fantasy. Reality, sadly, has a way of catching up regardless of what you would like to believe. And if you happen to be HIV+, the chances are extremely strong you will develop AIDS and die. I frankly don't give a damn one way or the other. George M. Carter "Reality, sadly, has a way of catching up regardless of what you would like to believe. And if you happen to be HIV+, the chances are extremely strong you will develop AIDS and die. I frankly don't give a damn one way or the other." Mr. Carter, your apathy is only surpassed by your empathy. >"Reality, sadly, has a way of catching up regardless of what you would like >to believe. And if you happen to be HIV+, the chances are extremely strong [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Mr. Carter, your apathy is only surpassed by your empathy. I have little empathy for the lot of you denialists frankly. I have too many friends I love and care for that I want to see well who are working at staying alive and well. If you want to keep your head planted firmly up your a.s, that's your perogative. And likely your doom. And I'm fresh out of empathy for you. Course then again, you haven't displayed much yourself. George M. Carter "I have little empathy for the lot of you denialists frankly. I have too many friends I love and care for that I want to see well who are working at staying alive and well." So, George, exactly how are the "denialists" a threat to the your friends' ability to work at staying alive and well? >"I have little empathy for the lot of you denialists frankly. I have too >many friends I love and care for that I want to see well who are >working at staying alive and well." > >So, George, exactly how are the "denialists" a threat to the your friends' >ability to work at staying alive and well? Friends in South Africa, for example, who are denied access to medications they want because of a national leader who has been hoodwinked by denialist cant. That's murder. To the extent you have success in persuading people of your lies and bullshit--you cause people to make bad decisions based on garbage. They wind up getting sick and dying. So it tends to cause my empathy for denialists that DO have an opportunity to get treatment to wear a bit thin. George M. Carter "Friends in South Africa, for example, who are denied access to medications they want because of a national leader who has been hoodwinked by denialist cant. That's murder. To the extent you have success in persuading people of your lies and bullshit--you cause people to make bad decisions based on garbage. They wind up getting sick and dying. So it tends to cause my empathy for denialists that DO have an opportunity to get treatment to wear a bit thin." Would that be this South Africa? http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/105973.html Ya know, George, we "denialists" are a particularly diabolical lot! Not only do we have the power to convince intelligent people to completely abandon their own ability to think critically, but we can actually convince the leader of an entire nation to toss aside his critical thought processes. Clearly we are the ingenious con artists the world has ever seen! Unfortunately, we don't get paid to do this! So right there, that tells you we are not only evil, but we’re stupid, since we dissidents are NOT being given billions of dollars to continue supporting our assertions! We're dumb enough to volunteer! Now, for those in the audience reading this debate, I would like to *think* about what motivates the dissidents to QUESTION the HIV theory of AIDS. And, then, I would like you to *think* about what motivates the apologists to DEFEND the HIV theory of AIDS. I think you will find that the apologists have 270 billion more reasons to defend the HIV theory of AIDS and that every one of those reasons has a president on it. Now, unlike George, I assume that those who are reading this debate are fully capable of detecting bullshit from a mile away. Yet, we "denialists" are accused of somehow being able to spontaneously cause whole groups of people to abandon reason. How is that possible? I guess the apologists *don't trust you* enough to make your own decisions. We dissidents *do trust you* to decide whether the HIV theory of AIDS stands up to reason. -Paul Whiting snip >Clearly we are the ingenious con artists the world has ever seen! I agree. "Clearly we are the [most] ingenious con artists the world has ever seen! I agree." Yes but, George, doesn't a con artist usually make money out of the deal? What are the dissidents getting out of questioning this scientific theory? Fame? Fortune? Popularity? Last I checked, there were zero dissidents being given, say, 270 billion dollars to question the HIV theory... So, what are we getting out of this? -Paul Whiting > "Clearly we are the [most] ingenious con artists the world has ever seen! > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So, what are we getting out of this? That's not his assertion, you tell us. B/ "So, what are we getting out of this? That's not his assertion, you tell us." Okay, then, I will explain it... What the dissidents are getting out of all this debating is the opportunity to provide "HIV-positives" everywhere access to alternative information on the HIV theory of AIDS in order for them to make their *own informed decisions* about their health. A dissident in Portland, who placed an ad in “Just Out” the local gay magazine, gave me this opportunity. I will always be grateful to Bob for doing that. And my goal is to give hope to those who think there is no hope for their “terminal diagnosis” (other than the "life saving" drugs with the deadly side effects), which is based on a highly flawed, but very heavily funded, scientific hypothesis. For, I trust that "HIV-positives" everywhere can figure out for themselves whether, or not, those who disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS - including the many doctors and scientists - are full of sh.t. -Paul Whiting > For, I trust that "HIV-positives" everywhere can figure out for themselves > whether, or not, those who disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS - > including the many doctors and scientists - are full of sh.t. Ah. So you do have an agenda other than 'simple questions" since no matter what the answers, you will reject them. B/ "Ah. So you do have an agenda other than 'simple questions' since no matter what the answers, you will reject them." Brian, sweetheart, have I not said over and over and over again that I am posing simple questions in order to create plausible doubt so that "HIV-positives" everywhere can have access to the alternative points of view regarding the HIV theory of AIDS? Yes, I reject the HIV theory of AIDS! Have I not said that over and over and over again? I think it went something like "The HIV theory of AIDS is a piping hot crock of sh.t." It is not my intent, however, to convince anyone of the truthfulness of my position. Maybe I am just some delusional homosexual whose only outlet for a pathetically immoral life is to drag others down my same path of lecherousness and debauchery. Maybe I have some other secret agenda having to do with the visiting aliens, or the Loch Ness Monster, or Big Foot, or Elvis and the Little Green Men in my head won't let me rest until I convert the world to my Fundamentalist Christian Ways! The point is that there is entire body of scientific information that refutes the HIV theory of AIDS and that we, as human beings, have a RIGHT to have access to that information. Now, what we decide to do with that information is entirely up to us! But if access is not allowed, alternative choices cannot be made. And alternative choices are what constitute "freedom." So whether I am saying AIDS is really caused by Madonna's immoral lyrics, or the decay of Western Civilization, or by Hare Krishna’s everywhere is irrelevant! What matters is that you have a right to ACCESS my insane views so that you can DECIDE FOR YOURSELF whether they are sane. Get it? It's called the free speech. So, if ya think I am just plain nuts - along with all of the other "fruit cakes" of the dissident movement - then a good measure of paying no mind would be in order. After all, crazy people are no threat to the sane ones, right? -Paul Whiting >"Ah. So you do have an agenda other than 'simple questions' since no >matter what the answers, you will reject them." > >Brian, sweetheart, have I not said over and over and over again that I am >posing simple questions in order to create plausible doubt ...that's NOT why one asks questions. One asks questions to try to find and understand answers. You NEVER look at the replies...you weasel off and then ask a new "innocuous" question as if it just occurred to when it's just the same stupid crap regurgitated from denialist websites, very often frequently rebutted elsewhere. You don't WANT to understand the answers. And that belligerent refusal to see the truth, don't give a goddamn any more about the science here--is that you will get sick and die. Soon. I'm very sorry--but I'm trying to create "plausible doubt" in you that you might wish to err on the side of caution and at least get your bloodwork checked. CD4 counts below 100, for example, are NOT normal, NOT part of "fluctuation" and VERY damned few other conditions cause this. George M. Carter "And that belligerent refusal to see the truth, don't give a goddamn any more about the science here--is that you will get sick and die. Soon." Ya know, George, I've heard that Hallmark is looking for a few good people to write get-well cards! You should seriously think about applying... >"And that belligerent refusal to see the truth, don't give a goddamn any >more about the science here--is that you will get sick and die. Soon." > >Ya know, George, I've heard that Hallmark is looking for a few good people >to write get-well cards! You should seriously think about applying... Whatever else, Paul, I do appreciate some of these ripostes. That was funny. > Maybe I am just some delusional homosexual whose only outlet for a > pathetically immoral life is to drag others down my same path of > lecherousness and debauchery. Now that's a thought. Cut or uncut, farmboy? B/ "Now that's a thought. Cut or uncut, farmboy?" How about dinner and a movie first, stud? > "Now that's a thought. Cut or uncut, farmboy?" > > How about dinner and a movie first, stud? Well, of course. B/ > "Ah. So you do have an agenda other than 'simple questions' since no > matter what the answers, you will reject them." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It is not my intent, however, to convince anyone of the truthfulness of my > position. Bullshit, of course that is your intent you pursue with great vigor. Gary Stein "It is not my intent, however, to convince anyone of the truthfulness of my position. Bullshit, of course that is your intent you pursue with great vigor." Gary, How many times have I told people reading my words to "decide for themselves"? How many times have I said "don't take my word for it"? How many times have I put the responsibility for deciding whether, or not, the dissident view is bullshit squarely in the lap of the reader? Now, if I were trying to convince them of my position, would I not just tell them how irrefutable it is? Would I not just speak with the power of authority, rather than handing that power back to the audience? I trust them to decide whether I am full of sh.t, Gary. Can you do the same? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message