The Village Voice Wants to Know if I am Happy with the Results of the ICC Story

This is (maybe!) the final in a long line of letters for an interview process by Village Voice reporter, Elizabeth Dwoskin, who says we can read her story today.

From Elizabeth Dwoskin, Village Voice, to Liam Scheff; subject: “deadline question”; sent 3/30/2009, received 3/31/2009

Hi Liam:

I am going to press tomorrow. You have asked me to submit correspondence in writing. I’d like to know, looking back, how you feel your work has been considered by the public and by the press. Has it had the effect you hoped it would have?

Thank you.

Elizabeth Dwoskin
Staff Writer
The Village Voice

Liam Scheff to Elizabeth Dwoskin, 3/31/2009

No, not really. What do the kids have? What have they been given? Has anybody offered to help any of them? Their bodies were used in medical experiments, while they were children – while they were Orphans. This is the United States, no? We believe in capitalism, so we say. We should at least PAY these people for their time. And for those who live with permanent scars from the studies? And those who died? Nothing, nothing to their families, nothing. We give not a penny, and not a damn.

On the other hand, we have Bill Gates, Bono and Oprah raising and spending millions and billions for projects in Africa, that result primarily not in the creation of clean-water wells, or infrastructure development, but in sex-projects, in experimental circumcision of black men (NY Times), and testing of pregnant women with Nevirapine, while hiding the negative results, and burying the bodies (FoxNews), or in more invasive studies into the sex lives of Africans, which yield zero results, and actually increase the number of people given the HIV positive diagnosis:

(MedPageToday “Two major clinical trials of a compound called Ushercell (cellulose sulfate) were halted yesterday after a data review in one of them showed the compound increased the risk of HIV infection, rather than reducing it.”).

Am I pleased? You’ve got to be kidding me. Everybody who has defended using orphaned children in these trials – Columbia Presbyterian, the NIH, Glaxo, Pfizer, Genentech, the New York Times, now, having used their bodies without their permission to test very serious drugs, with many many of them dead, what are you going to do for these kids, for their families?

Nothing. They’re just worried about, what, whether everybody has the same lockstep belief system regarding the diagnosis. That’s been the primary concern of those whose work this is, to make sure that we’re all on the same page about the ‘life-saving’ nature of the drugs, the polyreactive HIV tests, and the overly abusive AIDS diagnosis – and that we don’t bother ourselves to really think about it as critically as we’d think about any other scandal, about the Iraq war, about AIG or Enron. We’re not supposed to think about it. We’re not permitted in polite company to be critical of the AIDS industry.

These kids are nothing but collateral damage in a business plan for them. If it weren’t so, they’d be paying them, seeking them out, reimbursing them, the way that you or I would get paid to volunteer for a drug trial.

Meanwhile, after patting themselves on the back for doing such a good job (despite the fact that some 200 of these children are now dead), does anybody bother to publish that these drugs (HAART) given to pregnant women actually increase rates of premature birth, sickness and death in the children who take them?

Investigators from the European Collaborative Study noted a “worrying” increase in severe pregnancy-related adverse events in HIV-positive women taking HAART, including the death of their babies during the early weeks of life and described adverse outcomes during pregnancy amongst women taking HAART.

But, I guess we’re still supposed to say, “life-saving drugs” and not ask if we could be doing a damn thing to improve this situation…

So say the AIDS police.


Liam Scheff

[ps] And this information is not new:

Conclusions: HIV infection treated with HAART prior to pregnancy was associated with a significantly higher risk for pre-eclampsia and fetal death. [Article]

. . . . . .

“The probability of developing severe disease at 3 years of life was significantly higher in children born to ZDV+ [Zidovudine, AZT treated] mothers than in those born to ZDV- [no AZT] mothers…The same pattern was observed for severe immune suppression…

Finally, survival probability was lower in children born to ZDV+ [AZT treated] mothers compared with children born to ZDV- [no AZT] mothers. “

Rapid disease progression in HIV-1 perinatally infected children born to mothers receiving zidovudine monotherapy during pregnancy. AIDS. 13(8):927-933, May 28, 1999.

. . . . . .

“Children of study women who were prescribed ZDV [Zidovudine, AZT] had increased adjusted odds of any anomaly…[T]he lack of data on potential adverse effects of this therapy is still a concern….

Babies whose mothers had ZDV [AZT] exposure during pregnancy had a greater incidence of major malformations than those whose mothers did not. “

Newschaffer CJ et al. Prenatal Zidovudine Use and Congenital Anomalies in a Medicaid Population. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000 Jul 1; 24(3): 249-256.

. . . . . .

“The study cohort included 92 HIV-1-infected and 439 uninfected children…Antiretroviral therapy (nonprotease inhibitor) was independently associated with FTT [Failure to Thrive] in our cohort…

ZDV [Zidovudine, AZT], in particular, alters mitochondrial metabolism and may have direct nutritional effects “

Miller TL et al. Maternal and infant factors associated with failure to thrive in children with vertically transmitted Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 infection: the prospective, P2C2 Human Immunodeficiency Virus Multicenter study. Pediatrics. 2001 Dec; 108(6): 1287-96.

Taking HAART during pregnancy is associated with premature delivery, according to European data published in the November 18th edition of AIDS. The investigators also found that the initiation of HAART before pregnancy was particularly associated with premature delivery and that infants born prematurely had a high mortality rate.

These findings echo those of a UK study presented to the Seventh International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection in Glasgow last month.

Increasing numbers of HIV-positive women are taking HAART during pregnancy both to protect their own health and to prevent mother-to-baby transmission of HIV. Investigators from the European Collaborative Study noted a “worrying” increase in severe pregnancy-related adverse events in HIV-positive women taking HAART, including the death of their babies during the early weeks of life and described adverse outcomes during pregnancy amongst women taking HAART. […]

From 1986 to the end of April 2004, a total of 4372 live births were recorded by the investigators. Overall, 19% of births were premature, but the investigators noted that the percentage of premature births increased significantly with the use of HAART during pregnancy (from 16% in the period of analysis ending in 1989 to 25% in 2004, trend p < 0.002). The investigators also noted a similar trend in the prevalence of low or very low birth weight babies.

A total of 66% of deliveries were by elective caesarean section at week 38 of pregnancy. However, the investigators noted that there was a trend for more emergency caesarean or vaginal deliveries to be performed since HAART became available during pregnancy (p < 0.002).

Women taking HAART were significantly more likely to give birth prematurely than women taking AZT monotherapy (26% versus 17%, p < 0 .002). In both univariate and multivariate analysis HAART during pregnancy, particularly if initiated before pregnancy was highly predictive of premature delivery.

. . . . . .


13 thoughts on “The Village Voice Wants to Know if I am Happy with the Results of the ICC Story

  1. That is fine Liam. If that publication does not start to toe the line it will go the way of a dinosaur. They have been given the opportunity to report in great detail. If they fail they too will be recorded in history as not having tried to stop the slaughter.

    Therefore now I write collectively against Village Voice. I shall as will others have a very nice impact on how people with a voice that live in a village express themselves.

    Results 1 – 10 of about 15,900,000 I can very quickly see many other results in that top 10. Village voice has failed humanity if they do not publish the truth.

  2. Next! Emailed To Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tony Ortega, Village Voice “journalists” on their ridiculous story; 3/31/09

    [Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tony Ortega]

    This isn’t a letter to the editor, I’ll write that separately.

    Can either of you pinpoint where I said, “What’s the difference between an activist and a journalist?” And the context, because I don’t feel that way, I don’t operate that way. I lead with details, not some ideology.

    You’re going to have to print a retraction. I didn’t say that, and I don’t feel that way. Or maybe it’s a good question, and you can yourself detail how your self-contradicting version of events is not ‘spin’ and activism.

    So find me the quote, or print a retraction.

    Here’s what I actually wrote, for Elizabeth, and it’s been public on my site for sometime now:

    On my activist position:

    I believe in informed consent, above all. I believe that all details of a medical procedure or of a drug protocol should be made available in detail to anyone about to undergo it; this includes all supportive and all critical medical literature relevant to the protocol or drug, as well as relevant social journal or periodical literature, where a drug or procedure is controversial.

    If you have any further questions, please provide them in an email, and I’ll type my responses.

    Your report is so strange. You detail the death of children by drugs, and then say people who are concerned about the drugs are ‘denialists’ and kooks, etc.

    And you quoted the NY Times article, whose reporting on this was already demonstrated by their own writer to be clearly biased, nearly a joke.

    “Most of the [ethical] questions have arisen from a single account of abuse allegations – given by a single writer about people not identified by real names, backed up with no official documentation as supporting proof, and put out on the Internet in early 2004 after the author was unable to get the story published anywhere else.”

    Elizabeth Dwoskin did not ask me if any of this was true. It wasn’t. The Times knew it wasn’t – they had it from me in their interviews and my emails. They had reams of data, and I sent it to them. As to ‘nobody would print it,’ I had a magazine, and the Times knew this, and you can find that email in the thread, and they suppressed the information to make the story seem more ‘scandalous’ or untrustworthy.

    Meanwhile all the details of the story that’s ‘not true’ are true, and you admit it – children died on the drugs, horribly, there were drug trials. It’s like you guys are running on a treadmill to get away from the bloody reality.

    It’s just so pathetic. Why not just tell the truth? Just dig into the controversy, the drugs, the tests, and find out what’s happening. Why shine it with so much make-believe gloss?

    That quote from Janny Scott in the Times was clearly shown to be a massive fraud by Scott herself when I put the questions to her – here’s her email exchange in which she admits that I gave her plenty of evidence, people to interview, etc, and she didn’t use them.

    Here are quotes from Janny Scott – feel free to verify with her, or Vera Sharav, or David Crowe, this published email exchange:

    Yes, we interviewed many people whom we did not end up quoting in the article.
    That is common practice in heavily reported newspaper pieces. It is simply not possible to include comments from every person one interviews and to still produce an article of a length that a newspaper can run.


    As for our interview with Mona, there is no way we would have interviewed her primarily about your beliefs; there was no need to since we knew your beliefs directly from you.


    No, we did not review patients’ medical files. I would be surprised if that would not have been a breach of patient confidentiality if someone had shown them to us.

    An unexpected side effect would have been a side effect not previously seen in response to those drugs, presumably.

    Advanced testing methods were the methods available at the time for diagnosing HIV infection.

    I do not recall interviewing Dr. Painter but I may simply not remember. As you know, the Times moved to a new office a year ago. It was not possible to move all of our files. In my case, I threw away files that were more than 12 months old. As you know, the story you are asking about was done in 2005.

    I do not recall which studies we looked at. There were a lot of them — some more easily accessible than others, as you know.

    As for mentioning side-effects and FDA warnings, there are side-effects and FDA warnings on many if not most drugs. The side-effects of early AIDS drugs have been written about extensively. And, as I have said before, we were not presuming to judge whether or not experimental AIDS drugs should have been tried on children — a question that I suspect few journalists would be qualified to answer; we were attempting to put a public controversy in context.

    If you have further objections to the way the story was handled, I suggest you contact Joe Sexton, the editor of the metropolitan news section of the paper and the editor on that story.

    Compare these quotes with what they published – that there was ‘no evidence, made up names,’ all the rest.

    You make up names in your article. What’s the issue? It’s called an alias – you grant it to an interview subject who is so terrified of retribution that there’s no other way for them to talk. And Scott INTERVIEWED Mona, and ‘doesn’t remember’ if she interviewed Dr. Painter, head of the ICC – who ‘wasn’t available’ for your piece of shit story. What a surprise.

    She admitted, by virtue of all that she states was not included (suppressed), that the quote has no meaning. So, by re-quoting it, are you saying it’s true, or are you quoting a paper – the Times – that set out to say that there were no deaths and even no injuries in any of the drug trials? And also reviewed no medical data, and didn’t ask to see any?

    Just like you. But there are many deaths, 200 deaths of children who went through those trials. And you know that children died, and horribly, and you’re sort of forced to say so. So, I guess you’re an AIDS denialist. You bad, bad people….

    Can you also give some details or references the idea that HIV tests are the best in the world, or the business, or whatever you put into print?

    I mean, that’s clearly not true, based on what the medical journals say about the tests, in worried tones, over and over, year after year. Why hide that? What are you getting out of that? Why not let the controversial medical data be heard by the public? What are you hiding? And for whom?

    Look, you did the story a favor – children died, horribly, on these drugs, and you said so, in detail. Maybe you fibbed a lot to tell yourself it wasn’t so, but you bothered to list a little bit of reality.

    Now, why the tests, in detail, and the drugs, label by label, study by study, in the details – why these evade and elude capture in your piece, well, I don’t know.

    Why? Why not list a single medical study on the toxicity of Nevirapine, to make the point that it does more good than harm, as a rule? If that’s what you’re trying to prove. Or on the tests, etc…

    But, I do want you to show me how you invented the quote that ascribes to me the idea that there’s no difference between an activist and a journalist. You’re both activists, and I’m a journalist. I cover the details, you fabricate an idea of what people are supposed to believe.

    The details matter. You didn’t print a single one. I guess you don’t trust your audience to be able to cope with actual medical data. Or maybe you couldn’t cope with it.

    Which is it?

    So, find me that quote, please, or retract it. I told you what my activist position was, in writing. What you printed, you must have invented, or taken bits from sentences and woven them together. You’re lying, and you’re going to have to play me that quote, or show me where I wrote it to you.

    And you’ve got to be aware that you ignored 99% of everything I sent, or said, or said repeatedly, in order to fabricate one quote, or weave it together, for the sake of what. Making it sound like I’m to blame, somehow, for the use of hundreds of children in drug trials.

    Come on, you should be ashamed of yourselves.


    Liam Scheff

  3. Letter to the Editor, From Michael Geiger to Elizabeth Dwoskin and Village Voice, re: their “great article.” 3/31/09

    Hello and thank you so much for your great article on
    “The AIDS-Babies-as-Guinea-Pigs Story Is Finally Over. Right?”

    The world, and obviously those in the media, truly need to wake up to EXACTLY what these drug trials were all about. Because you missed it!

    And in your article, although it was very well done, unfortunately the author MISSED THE BOAT!

    What boat am I referring to?


    For further evidence of what I am now informing you of, please read Marcia Angell’s book “The Truth about the Drug Companies”. (she was the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years).

    She clearly discusses and points out the process of drug trialing, and the inherent and horrific flaws and failures and abuses.

    So what does this mean?

    It means that the FDA requires the pharmaceutical companies to have so many individuals to have taken a drug in order for the drug to be approved for use and for the drug companies to be able to MARKET the drug. Drug companies pay HANDSOMELY for the bodies used, particularly when it is CHILDRENS BODIES.

    It means that the drug companies needed a certain number of bodies to be in drug studies to find out the maximum dosage before someone will die of the drugs.

    The drug companies pay QUITE HANDSOMELY for those who recruit bodies for these studies, ESPECIALLY for the bodies of children, who are a PREMIUM COMMODITY in the world of drug testing.

    Stephen Nicholas, and those running the pediatric drug trials were PAID on a PER CHILD/ and PER DRUG/ and PER STUDY BASIS by EACH and EVERY pharmaceutical company whose drugs were being tested.

    Each and every one of the children were on SEVERAL DRUGS, including SEVERAL STUDIES.

    The average payment for recruitment of a pediatric patient is in the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS per “volunteer”, per drug, per study basis.

    As these kids were on MULTIPLE DRUGS and were enrolled in MULTIPLE STUDIES, those who ran the studies were CASHING IN A FORTUNE THAT WAS MADE.

    This means that any kid taking 3 drugs could be included in various studies all at the same time. Each of the 3 drug companies would have to pay. They would pay for trialing the drugs by themselves, trialing them in combinations, trialing them in maximum dose, trialing them in minimum dose, trialing them in comparison. Lots of trials, lots of money to be made off of each kid so that several studies could be presented to the FDA, without their even knowing that many of the studies were ongoing at the very same time, and were even conflicting with each other.

    God only knows how many hundreds of thousands were made off of experimentation and drug approval studies that were being forced on each one of these kids. It is likely that each child was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to Stephen Nicholas and Company! Let alone worth hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions in eventual benefit to the drug companies whose bodies they were sacrificed for.

    Immune suppression is also well known to be caused by CHEMOTHERAPY drugs. Every cancer doctor will tell you this is a true fact. But what the HIV researchers do NOT TELL you is that most of the anti-HIV drugs, especially AZT are in FACT, chemotherapy immune suppressing drugs.

    Furthermore, it is absolutely unknown if the kids suffered from any natural immune dysfunction, or if there immune suppression and subsequent illnesses were caused by some of the very drugs that they were given.

    The 22 year old mentioned in the article, who also was clearly ill and near death while being on these immune suppressant drugs, is LIVING PROOF that the drugs were immune suppressant. He suffered Burketts Lymphoma while on them, and after he left the testing and drugging behind, his own words say it all: ”

    And Thomas says that’s exactly what he’s doing. He says he hasn’t needed any medication in four years. “I feel fine. I could do whatever you could do, maybe even better,” he says.

    Only willing stupidity or blindness could hide this blatant fact.

    I hope Thomas and every other child involved gets their records and sue the pants off of every drug company and every person who had anything to do with the so-called “anti-hiv” drug trials.

    And by the way, your article shows serious slant, as if somehow YOU are privvy to knowing anything about hiv/aids. This comes across very transparently in what you wrote about Christine Maggiore, who by the way, on top of the loss of her 3 year old child from what was obviously a reaction to antibiotics, was increasingly stressed and harrassed unto her dying day after being publicly accused, tried, and convicted by the HIV orthodoxy, and the media and in blogs and death threats via phone and email, and now even posthumously by writers such as yourself, as a child killer of her own child.

    Just how sure ARE YOU that those you label as”AIDS denialists” such as Liam Scheff or the harrassed and stressed to sickness and death Christine Maggiore, had gotten it wrong, when there are so many facts that they obviously have right? Thomas is living proof of this. How blind can YOU be to ignore it.

    So now is the story over, now that you have told what you think you know? Far from it.

    I only hope you can further uncover the facts about this story, and hopefully do it free of the BIAS you stuck into this one that is so denigrating of those who are so desperately trying to expose this cover-up and trying to educate people of how poor the science behind so much of it actually is.


    Michael Geiger

  4. Liam,

    What’s the probability that the Village Voice is bought and paid for by the very people that bring us the anti-HIV medications? And/or that Faucci et al had a greater influence?

  5. I don’t know who owns the Voice. But the paper is a series of ads for hustlers and escorts, following the content, which seems to be a series of reviews of sex acts and an occasional restaurant. You know, the Village, Chelsea, etc.

    The writer seems torn between her desire to defend the AIDS paradigm, and the details coming through the drug studies, and the people she interviewed from the ICC.

    She’s praising the drug studies, though not sure if she should, then praising the drugs, and then quoting a young man who was drugged in studies, and a nursing assistant/childcare worker from the ICC, who tells her all about the drugs. And she seems very confused – or the report is confused, because terrible things happen to people who take the drugs very often. Horrible, bloody, terrible things. Because that’s what some of these drugs do, especially in interminable and high doses.

    But she wants us to praise the drug studies, in the end, and that’s what she pushes.

    The question she’s not asking is: “Did the children get anything for giving up their lives and freedom for these drug trials?”

    We usually pay people for work like this, life-endangering work – we usually pay a lot.

    What are these children paid?

    Nada, nothing, not a penny, not a sous. So, what are they praising? Why isn’t the Village Voice fighting to get these children, those who are alive after the studies, or their families, PAID. Paid for their self-sacrifice. Paid. We’re Americans, we believe in the market system.

    These children were used as tools, and thrown away. She can’t hide that or disguise it. She can attack me, invent quotes, whatever, but the reality is, these children were abused, and poisoned to death in many cases, on these drugs, and they got NOTHING for it.

    That is a crime.

  6. I was on antiretrovirals for 11 years. In that time I suffered a lot of sickness: cervix cancer, hiatus hernia, candidiasis… everything was gone when I stopped to take the pills 4 years ago.

    But what I am suffering now is a sequelae of many years taking chimioterapy for cancer: I suffer a mythocondrial sickness. I have double vision and the left side of my body doesn´t work properly.

    Doctors said nothing to do with AIDS. Even the test results of toxoplasma are nule; so, what is happening there? The results of such chemical treatment.

  7. I agree. This is what anyone with a brain can tell just by watching the BBC documentary and reading your early reporting from the get go. But I don’t get the almost diabolical emphasis on “denialists.” Surely, either the reporter and/or the staff must have some vested interest in the side that pushes prevailing dogma, or the hatchet job (or copy/paste) she did on Christine would not have shown up. It’s just so unnecessary.

  8. On Maggiore, I wouldn’t hold it against any paper to do a full investigation there; that’s a real story, and it bears examination. I think Maggiore made tremendous mistakes, errors in judgment, etc. She had a philosophy of the thing, she was up against a massive machine that really wished her dead for a long time. It’s a complex story, and it’s a tragic story, and it is, unfortunately or fortunately, and interesting story.

    I think that can very fairly be investigated. But I don’t know what she – a housewife in Van Nuys – has to do with Columbia Presbyterian and the NIH, and Pfizer and Glaxo running experiments with orphans in New York, where 200 children, at least, are dead, having participated in these drug trials.

    If they wanted to do an exploration of the contradictions of Christine Maggiore, that’s what they should have done – and I said this to the woman at the paper, Dwoskin – but what happened in New York did not happen because – and if you want to say this is the case, because Maggiore was a bad mother, or a terrible person, or whatever you want to say. She didn’t have anything to do with the unknown sums of money being made using orphans in drug trials, where 200 are dead, at least.

    And no one, none of the children, none of the family members, no one was paid a thing. They were used like cattle – like bloody slaves. They were used like slaves. Or worse.

    This is America, we don’t do that, supposedly. So we say.

    So what is the Village Voice standing up for? The rights of whom? The children?

    The drug companies, to use small defenseless children any way they want to use them, and to suffer no consequences for the death of many of these children.

    The city and state owe these kids and their families the medical records, and a lot of money.

    In sum:

    You want to investigate Maggiore, do so, do it well, completely. No argument from me. But she’s not Columbia Presbyterian or Glaxo, and she made no money putting children in trials where 200 are dead. And if she was Satan, or whatever, let a good investigation cover all details from all points of view. But even if she was Satan in the flesh, Columbia Presbyterian and NYC still used a lot of children and killed a lot of children in drug trials.

    So, why are they bringing up Maggiore in this context? Because they have blood on their hands, and they want to wipe it on somebody else.

  9. So, what are they praising? Why isn’t the Village Voice fighting to get these children, those who are alive after the studies, or their families, PAID. Paid for their self-sacrifice. Paid. We’re Americans, we believe in the market system.

    I suspect that the Village Voice assumes (per the article) that these kids were and are (for the ones that are still alive) as good as dead, and that any drugging is a good drugging (life-saving!). So, they’re being done a “favor”.

  10. The important coincidence is that Christine took the original calls for help from terrified families. One woman she said was “praying to Jesus” in her closet, on the phone with Christine, when the authorities came for her kids at night New York time.

    So it’s kind of telling that Christine is on trial here. She alleged that the coroner changed the autopsy on her daughter when he found out who she was. She was, among other things, by that time (2005) the woman who took these kinds of calls on her “MOMM” hotline and helped some of the mothers in New York avoid the system (in 2003).

    Nobody over there is the slightest bit interested in “outing” the wild international lifestyle of Christine Maggiore before she became mother-of-the-year. Because her crime is simply that she took those calls and held the people who attacked these families accountable. Nobody ever holds them accountable.

    They were already looking for an opening, and it came just a few months after the ICC story broke, when her daughter died in May 2005.

    The story has come full circle, back to the Christine who took those calls.

    What’s at stake here is accountability. They don’t have any. They only mess with people who have no access to the legal system. AIDS is practically defined that way, with interpretations of HIV tests by “risk group.” ICC didn’t count on a couple of middle-class white people getting in the way.

    Christine herself said that she got a second chance only because she didn’t “fit the profile” of an AIDS patient. In other words, she was white. But who knows what she had been up to? Were they smoking only Marlboros down at McGovern HQ in ’72? Were they too geeky to sleep around? Oh goodness gracious me! Send in the vice squad. The dirt should be easy enough to find for greasy types with no shame, but they’re not interested. And that tells me more about them than about her. Her crime against the system was seeking accountability, not sleeping around and smoking around.

  11. Beth,

    As I said, they can investigate whoever they want to, if it’s a real investigation. They didn’t do an investigation of anything. It was an “Inquirer” level story.

    As to Christine Maggiore – I don’t know her past, and I do think it’s worth knowing. She was a public figure, heading an activist group for a cause that I think had too many messages, some very unclear, some were promises that I don’t think she should’ve made.

    On the other hand, her work on outing the many conflicts within AIDS medicine, especially those on the nature of HIV testing, I think were immense and necessary public services.

    She did take calls from people, like Mona in this case, who were being pressured and abused by a medical/social system that does not respect informed consent or human and civil rights. She’s a hero to many for that reason.

    On the other side, there are those who give these polyreactive tests, and the permanent death mark, the brutalizing diagnosis, overly-toxic overly-dosed drugs, and no other options.

    These people running the AIDS industry are criminals, at present, because they suppress open dialog and conversation about the drugs, about the tests. And some of these people lined up to wish Mrs. Maggiore dead, while she was alive. They wished her dead in their words, in print, in conversation. They asserted that she was, in essence, a demon on earth.

    Why? Because she defied their dogma. Now that’s telling – the amount of hatred she incurred for defying their rubric., for asking them, challenging them, taunting them, into debating their own prized possession – the AIDS industry.

    Again, that’s telling. The amount of hatred poured onto a housewife in Van Nuys who asked them to answer her questions. It’s a lot of time and money and ink spent on trying to destroy one woman. That’s a lot of defensiveness, and that points to something, I think, very anxious, at the heart of the AIDS establishment.

    On a personal note – I don’t know enough about Mrs. Maggiore to know exactly how I feel about her. Was she brave? Yeah. Was she too brave? Hubristic? I think probably. I think so. I think she made some promises that she couldn’t keep.

    I mean “Alive and Well” is not a promise, or a bet, than anyone can make for perpetuity. It’s a slogan, but, you know, what pressure! What a standard to live up to all the time. Nobody can do that.

    So, if the other side has questions, it doesn’t bother me. I don’t mind a real investigation, that would, by needs, get into her philosophy, and into the troubles that she pointed to in the AIDS paradigm, as well as anything she left out, or herself did in error.

    But what Dwoskin and her editor did, was to say, Maggiore=Satan, Scheff met Maggiore, Don’t believe anything Scheff says, (although it’s true, and we talk to Scheff’s sources, and yes, it’s all true what he said about the clinical trials, BUT – no questions allowed about AIDS drugs or HIV tests).

    That’s their line, which is pure suppression. Pure bullshit, pure Pravda.

    So, please, get over to their blog, and let them know that you can see the bullshit in the article, and that the issue doesn’t go away just because you say “HIV tests are really good!” or “AIDS drugs are the best thing ever!”

    You can say it, you can want it to be so, but then you have to allow it to be discussed and debated, by reading the medical reports on the drugs, and by listening to people who took or are taking them…

    But all of this misses the major point:

    There are 200 dead children, used in NY drug trials, and 300 some more, who were all used without their permission, and without pay.

    And if this was such a success, and you really did ‘save’ so many lives – as is the assertion they make (while hiding the medical records, even from the patients) – then you know what?

    Let’s fucking celebrate. Pay up.

    Time to PAY UP.

    Pay the kids, pay their families where the children you ‘saved’ are dead. PAY. Pay them. Pay them for their time, Pay them for their service.

    And I guess AIDS is over too, right? Because it was such a g-damn success, no? Such a bloody success that you will never need to use children in this way again. Right?

    RIGHT? This is it, the end of the line – big success, and big payday for these kids, who served AIDS and country, and are now free, healthy, and at liberty to pursue any field of interest or career they want.


    No, they’ve been raped by the AIDS industry. They’re either dead, or destitute, barely making it, riddled with long-term effects from major drugging, living on welfare or nothing,

    And this is how the AIDS industry celebrates its “big success” of using orphans in drug trials.

    Big big success.

    So, Village Voice, all the rest, you get these kids paid. Pay up, or shut up.

    And did the Village Voice lift a finger to get these hundreds of children a dime? You go read their article and find out.

  12. It appears that the sole purpose of Ms. Dwokins’ article is to defend the VERA investigation, and its conclusion (despite the available evidence). That is why her whole write up is one-sided. See the theme

    AIDS- Children with AIDS- Martyr doctors- “AIDS denialists” with struggling credibility- VERA investigation (80% of the article is about the nitty-gritty details of the investigation, and defending how helpless they were).

    The players (categorized into 2 distinct groups credible AIDS paradigm believers and AIDS denialists) were used to weave an interesting plot for the VERA investigation. That explains why Ms. Dwokins is biased towards what VERA concluded earlier in January, despite the evidence with the ICC trials.

    The ICC children’s experience just got converted into Gossip level journalism. The article was supposed to be about them, but they are already forgotten!

  13. Letter to the editor, Maria Papagiannidou St Pierre to Village Voice Editor Tony Ortega, writer Elizabeth Dwoskin

    Dear Editor of the Village Voice,
    Dear Elizabeth Dwoskin,

    I read your article entitled “The AIDS-Babies-as-Guinea-Pigs Story Is Finally Over. Right?” in the Village Voice (April 01, 2009) and I felt personally insulted.

    As a human, a journalist and as an ex-AIDS patient.

    We are talking about poisoning babies and kids here. Much like I was poisoned, unwittingly, for about 12 years. Your article also seems to justify forcing the toxic and mutagenic (teratogenic) “AIDS” medication to pregnant women and their babies.

    Here is my story: I was found HIV positive in 1985, began taking the anti-HIV medication in 1995, almost died again and again due to the side-effects for 12 years, stopped the AIDS pills together with the visits to the AIDS doctors and AIDS consultation in 2007, and returned back to health immediately after. I’m perfectly fine now.

    So allow me to comment on some of the quotes in your article: “…Scheff uncovered a troubling and fascinating part of the city’s history”:

    Would it be fascinating to be given a very toxic and mutagenic ‘medication’ cocktail including AZT to you while pregnant and to your baby?

    Let me put it in a wider context, from the research presented on my website

    A 1999 study in the journal AIDS reported that children born to mothers who are given AZT are sicker and die faster than those not given the drug. It is one of several recent studies reporting that AZT increases the rate of illness, major malformation and death in children whose mothers are fed the drug.

    “RPD [rapid disease progression] was three times more likely to occur in infants born to [AZT] treated mothers- compared with findings in untreated mothers.”

    de Souza RS et al. Effect of prenatal zidovudine on disease progression in perinatally HIV-1-infected infants. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000 Jun 1;24(2):154-161

    “Macaques AZT-exposed infants were mildly anemic at birth. AZT caused deficits in growth, rooting and snouting reflexes, and the ability to fixate and follow near stimuli visually

    Ha JC et al. Fetal, infant, and maternal toxicity of zidovudine (azidothymidine) administered throughout pregnancy in Macaca nemestrina. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1998 May 1;18(1):27-38

    “AZT-exposed infants took three times as many sessions as controls to meet criterion on Black-White Learning, a simple discrimination task”
    Ha JC et al. Fetal toxicity of zidovudine (azidothymidine) in Macaca nemestrina: preliminary observations. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7(2):154-7

    “zidovudine [AZT] has clearly been shown to have genotoxic effects in mice, monkeys, and humans, with incorporation of zidovudine into both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in as many as 70% of samples, including human cells. Further, ZDV has been found to cross the human placenta, becoming rapidly incorporated into DNA of placental tissue. Zidovudine has also been associated with carcinogenic effects in mice and monkeys.”, 1999

    AZT was designed as a chemotherapy for cancer and withdrawn from that usage because it was too toxic. It was approved for AIDS treatment using sloppy and fraudulent AIDS research data, as documented in the article FDA Documents Show Fraud in AZT Trials.

    It is the main drug given to pregnant women “to prevent transmission of HIV to their fetus”. However (besides the fact that the “HIV” test is not reliable) there are no proper scientific studies justifying that usage, considering the well documented flaws invalidating the AZT clinical studies.

    “[R]ecent drug safety scandals brought to light evidence that drug companies failed to disclose results that revealed their drugs were not only ineffective but posed life-threatening risks. A review in the Journal of the American Medical Association (J-AMA) found: “The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention.”
    Alliance for Human Research Protection, March 2007

    Another quote in your article: “The story of pediatric AIDS in New York was actually a success story: The mother-to-child transmission rate had been brought down to 90 percent. But the controversy threatened to undermine the faith of many in medical establishment”.

    Here is an example of that so-called medical success:

    “My daughter [Rachel] is considered a success by medical standards because she tests negative, but I don’t care about HIV anymore. I am concerned about the effects of the AZT she was poisoned with while I was pregnant. Rachel has an enlarged cranium, seizures and a strange deformity near the base of her spine. At age three she still does not speak. I went to this conference on HIV and pregnancy at The Children’s Hospital here in Denver. A lot of mothers there had taken AZT during pregnancy and had their kids with them. Every single one of those kids had enlarged craniums. Their heads looked exactly like Rachel’s. They’re all AZT babies.”

    From a letter published in the book ‘What if Everything You’d Been Told About AIDS was Wrong’, by Christine Maggiore, 1996.

    Now I plan to have a baby myself. I live in Athens, Greece. I thought I was saved from that AIDS nightmare until I suddenly faced the possibility to be forced to give my new-born baby AZT. Here in Greece, for the babies of “HIV positive” mothers, there is even a special wing of the Athens Hospital for Children. Those babies are actually taken away from their mothers for 40 days, so that ‘AIDS’ doctors can enforce their (mis-)treatment.

    What can I do? From my book “Goodbye AIDS! Did it ever exist?” (Impact Investigative Media Publications, 2009):

    Giving out any kind of drugs, especially those that are given out compulsory even though known to be harmful, demands scientific justification. If that doesn’t exist then, the whole medical act is illegal and could do bodily damage by taking diagnosis etc…

    Does scientific justification exist? Two years ago I sent an open letter to the President and General Secretary of the Hellenic Association for the Study and Control of AIDS. In 2008 I sent it again cosigned by 25 Greek citizens to the Hellenic Association for the Study and Control of AIDS and to the Greek Ministry of Health:

    Dear gentlemen,

    As the new World Day against AIDS is drawing near, I invite you to take a step together in this direction.

    Replying to your letter on behalf of the Hellenic Company of study and control of AIDS, sent 14/02/2007, in which you claim that my thoughts are extremely dangerous for the public health, that the HIV virus was isolated and photographed, and also that “there are irrefutable evidence proving that HIV causes AIDS”, I ask you to present the proofs.

    I am asking you to inform us when and where was the scientific paper published, according to which the existence of HIV was proven, and to present us this document so that we can verify its validity. Additionally, we will also need the document that prove its pathogenic action.

    Looking forward for your reply,

    Maria Papagiannidou

    No answer arrived yet.

    It is not only the Incarnation Children’s Center issue which was raised once by Liam Scheff – and we all owe him for that – but a universal case to be examined. Babies are still being poisoned for no reason. Until someone takes legal action.

    Yours sincerely

    Maria Papagiannidou St Pierre

    ex AIDS-patient
    journalist in the newspaper “To Vima on Sunday”
    and “independent” journalist on Internet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s