From the Mailbag: What Really Happened to Eliza Jane?
Dean
Quoted:
On Saturday September 24, 2005, The Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story on the death of my three year-old child, Eliza Jane Scovill, under the condemnatory headline, “A Mother’s Denial, A Daughter’s Death.” My reply to the extensive article, as yet unpublished, was restricted to a 150-word letter to the editor.Below please find my 149 words on the subject followed by the full text of my original letter to The LA Times.
Since meeting the Times' 150-word limit does not guarantee publication of my response, I am seeking a venue in which to share important facts overlooked in their article, and would appreciate the posting of these letters at your site.
With thanks for your help and interest,
===
Letters to The Editor, Los Angeles Times
Re: "A Mother's Denial" (Saturday September 24)In response to your article "A Mother's Denial," medical records show my laughter did not exhibit symptoms consistent with pneumonia. On her last doctor visit, Eliza-Jane had no cough or respiratory congestion. After collapsing the next day following antibiotic administration, ER doctors performed a series of chest Xrays that revealed nothing. After careful examination of her lungs during a May autopsy, the coroner found no apparent cause of death.
One month and no cause later, the coroner's office called her pediatrician demanding to know if he knew about my book and HIV status. Despite their discovery, it took three more months for the coroner to decide my daughter died of AIDS-pneumonia.
Is Eliza-Jane's a diagnosis by association? Unlike her father and brother, did she actually test HIV positive? While we wait for the conclusion of an independent investigation, interested readers may follow our side of the story at www.ejlovetour.com
Below please find the full text of Christine Maggiore’s letter to Los Angeles Times regarding their September 24 front-page story:
"A Mother's Denial," your article on the death of my daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, breezed past a number of crucial facts in its rush to publication and judgment.
Medical records show my daughter did not exhibit symptoms consistent with the coroner's determination of pneumonia, AIDS-related or otherwise. The three pediatricians who examined Eliza Jane in the days before her death all noted clear lungs. At a doctor visit on May 14, the day before she died, no cough or respiratory congestion was evident. When my daughter collapsed at home the next evening following her fourth dose of antibiotic, she did not have the blue lips or fingertips suggestive of life-threatening pneumonia.
After being transported to a near-by hospital by ambulance, emergency room doctors took a series of chest X-rays that revealed nothing to account for her dire condition. All other tests run that terrible night left ER doctors without an explanation for my daughter’s death. For this reason, Eliza Jane was brought to the Los Angeles County Coroner for an autopsy.
During an autopsy performed on May 18, my daughter's lungs were carefully examined, weighed and measured. The coroner released her body to a mortuary the following day having found no apparent cause of death.
Just before Eliza Jane's memorial service on May 29, my husband contacted the coroner’s office for an update on our daughter’s case and spoke directly with the medical examiner. She informed him they had yet to discover what took our little girl's life, and having eliminated the common and obvious, they would now go through a check-list that included investigation of such unsettling possibilities as chemical toxins and poisons. That same week, a curious friend phoned the coroner's office and asked if HIV tests were routinely administered in cases of unexplained death. He was told that "the symptoms of AIDS are so obvious" it's not necessary to run HIV tests on all patients referred with no apparent cause.
On June 28, one of my daughter's pediatricians received a call from the coroner's office demanding to know if he was aware of my book and HIV status. Before hanging up, the doctor was threatened with a subpoena. Despite the apparent new awareness of my HIV positivity and controversial book, it still took three more months for the corner to decide upon a diagnosis of AIDS-related pneumonia.
Given the circumstances, we have questions about the medical and scientific basis for the coroner's conclusion. Did Eliza Jane get a diagnosis by association or is there incontrovertible clinical evidence for AIDS-related pneumonia? Did our daughter, unlike her father and brother, actually test HIV positive? We won't know until the conclusion of an independent investigation in three weeks. In the meantime, my family must not only endure the pain and devastation of our horrendous loss, but the world's speculation and scrutiny. We only hope that when all the facts are in, the LA Times will rush to publish the rest of our story.
Respectfully,
Christine Maggiore
So as it happens, the actual medical examiner's report hasn't been made available--and by the way, for anyone wondering, no, the LA County coroner's office has not responded so far in any way to my inquiry about the case, even though I am informed that coroner's reports are supposed to be publicly available.
A close reading of the hit piece in the L.A. Dog TrainerTimes continues to suggest anaphylactic shock from amoxicillin — and continues to be utterly inconsistent with an AIDS diagnosis. (Does anyone out there really think that's what AIDS looks like? Sniffles, low grade fever, and an earache leading to death within two weeks? Death due to shock looks like that, not AIDS.)
Something a lot of people don't know is that a "coroner" is actually a political position, usually appointed, and most coroners are not pathologists or even physicians. Rather, pathologists work for the coroner's office, and are generally referred to as the Medical Examiners. So was it Anthony Hernandez (the head of the Coroner's office), Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran (the actual chief medical examiner), or who exactly that came up with this? Was it merely a political assertion or belief? If it was medical, what was the basis?
Furthermore, even if the child did test positive for the HIV antibody (it's amazing that we still don't know that), it is irrefutable that now even the HIV research establishment acknowledges that some people are "immune" to HIV, even while some perfectly respectable and fully credentialed scientists and physicians question whether it works as advertised at all.
I also note again, for those fulminating that they know exactly what this child's parents should have done: have you read about Valerie Emerson's daughter? Or any of these children? (Warning: Graphic photos!) Are you so smug in your certainties that you would want to be forced to do that to your kids--or be called a murderer if you were skeptical and decided to make different choices for your family?
This story isn't over. Indeed, a lot of us think--even hope--this is going to wind up in court.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Pseudoscientific Rubbish from the L.A. County Coroner--and Bloggers
- On The Radio...
- From the Mailbag: What Really Happened to Eliza Jane?
- On Eliza Jane
- Other AIDS News
- AIDS News
Dale
I tend to agree, Dale. These people lost a 3 year old, little girl, which must be beyond crushing, and these little ninnies in the AIDS community, decided to politicize the death -- simply because Ms. Maggiore is healthy, HIV+, and bucks the establishment. Totally malicious.
Of course, I will have to revise the above, if the LA Coroner can produce medical evidence that the girl: (a) had HIV and (b) it contributed to her death.
Remarkably, after a full week, the LA Times/Coroner are still silent on this issue. Why?
Barnes, Hank
We need to question whether anyone is actually "HIV" positive. Robert Gallo declared he'd found this virus at the same press conference at which he announced a test for it--a test that made him millions. A test that needs a disclaimer that it does not identify HIV infection. A test with no gold standard. A test where the blood has to be diluted 400 times so that everyone does not test positive.
Since Eliza Jane was ill, it's a good possibility she could have tested positive (if she did) simply by an antibody reaction that was nonspecific. The test gives false positives to nearly 70 conditions, including flu, flu shots and pregnancy. And since when are antibodies a bad thing, anyway? Before, they've always indicated that your immune system was working.
And the presence of pneumocystis in her lungs would not diagnose anything either. It is ubiquitous in lung tissue and is only dangerous
when it grows out of control in the presence of immune suppression.
I only hope some of these facts become known by the general public, and that people really start thinking and not just accepting what Western medicine, on behalf of Big Pharma, tells them.
It looks as if there is to be not one but two independent pathologists' reports. It also looks like some of the things I've speculated about are not at all off-base. But I can't say more in public just yet.
In relation to Amoxycillin, this quote is from "MicroMedex" (a resource used heavily at MUSC):
"2) Delayed-onset hypersensitivity reactions were described in 11 children treated with amoxicillin (Chopra et al, 1989). Amoxicillin was administered for otitis media in 8 children, upper respiratory tract infections in 2, and pharyngitis in 1. The onset of reactions ranged from 6 to 10 days, with a mean of 8.8 days. In 10 children, symptoms were characteristic of a serum-sickness-like illness (urticaria, angioedema, arthritis, and arthralgia); erythema multiforme occurred in the remaining child. Testing for IgE antibodies to penicillin (radioallergosorbent testing) revealed negative results; lymphocyte transformation tests demonstrated a positive result in only 1 child. It is speculated that these reactions may have been caused by the excipient in amoxicillin suspension, which was used in all cases; the positive lymphocyte transformation test response observed in only 1 child lends support to this hypothesis."
Delayed onset anaphylaxis of this type would be noticeable on post-mortem. It's hard to hide angioedema and urticaria.
I don't know the facts, but I find a true "anaphylaxis" reaction hard to imagine if the symptoms took a full two weeks to progress.
But like I said, I don't know the full story.
Rather--from the brief description--it sounds like the poor child collapsed from volume depletion from vomiting.
Looks like she only had 2 days of antibiotics.
Just piecing things together.
The article points out she was sick for a while--then got 1-2 days of drugs--then vomiting--then death from collapse.
Vomiting can be a symptom of anaphylaxis. She could have died from anaphylaxis (I can't imagine vomiting being the only symptom, however).
But anaphylaxis is quick--not prolonged like this comment makes it sound like:
"(Does anyone out there really think that's what AIDS looks like? Sniffles, low grade fever, and an earache leading to death within two weeks? Death due to shock looks like that, not AIDS.)"
I'm rambling now, but I think I've made my point a little clearer.
Symptoms of anaphylactic shock in children include nausea and vomiting, drop of blood pressure, rapid pulse and anxiety, and breathing difficulty, and in severe cases goes to unconsciousness and then death--and when it's a reaction to penicillin, it tends to happen very fast.
It seems to me like the ER docs should have hit her with some antihistamines once they found out she'd never taken an antibiotic before and that she'd been given penicillin for the first time within 24 hours.
Who knows, maybe they did and it didn't work because it was something else and I'm wrong. [shrug] But that's sure what it looked like to me the first I heard about it a few months ago, and I haven't seen anything since that would rule that out.
Keep us updated, Dean!
Hell, it was the one thing in that pathetic LA Times story that made me smile. I can relate to her frustration. She was not saying that poorer people's children should die instead of hers, she was simply wondering aloud why her very-well-cared for little girl was a victim so suddenly for no apparent reason. This is a mother who did all in her power with her great store of knowledge to protect her kids. She does not deserve what she's getting.
/just sayin
Therefore Christine's daughter may never have tested HIV positive.
I have long found this position of the CDC really odd, and somewhat illogical, given that it also states that AIDS is caused by HIV.
Janine Roberts
I also want to raise a question I hinted at earlier. For those who know the data better, are there examples of children coming down with AIDS at age 3? I ask because I've always thought of an AIDS baby as being born with AIDS, or at least getting sick soon after birth. This raises a second, related question: why are some kids born with AIDS while others don't come down with it until their teens or later? Is this solely a matter of who receives treatment? And why would a baby have AIDS if, on average, it takes 10 years for HIV to develop into AIDS? Are children more susceptible?
As for whether they did an HIV test or not--I'm going to have to apologize and tap dance a little here because I've been asked not to comment on it until the two different independent pathologists have done their reports. But let me just note, it is entirely plausible that the first medical examiner did not do an HIV test because they would have had no reason to, the symptoms of infantile AIDS being so obvious that they'd only do one if they thought there was evidence of AIDS. Also, HIV tests are notoriously unreliable, and require multiple tests to confirm.
Yes I sound like I'm being weaselly. I'm sorry, I don't like that either. There will be clearer answers within the next couple of weeks when the pathologists are done with their reviews.
Ok, I'll let you tap-dance a bit; meanwhile, I'll shut up and await further news from the independent pathologists.
I remain confused as to why babies develop AIDS so much more quickly than adults. I realize that children and the elderly are, in general, more susceptible to disease, but 2 years compared to 10 is quite a difference.
Since I'm signing off for a bit, I will, as someone who lies somewhere between AIDS orthodoxy and AIDS heresy, list what I take to be the dissidents' best arguments.
1. That we must attend to a multiplicity of factors in AIDS causation: HIV, drug use, nutrition, underlying medical problems--all of the above. The fact that so little attention was paid to crystal meth's immunosuppressive potential in the wake of the "superbug" scare reminds us how myopic the establishment has become.
2. That the de-listing of Kaposi's as an HIV-inspired AIDS illness represented a dramatic, though little recognized, undermining of the establishment position. As Celia pointed out in another thread, Kaposi's was the defining AIDS illness in the early years--the "gay cancer," as it was called. Now we're told that another virus is to blame, but if there's little or no relation between this virus and HIV, shouldn't we rethink the HIV monolith?
Relatedly, I was perusing an old version of "The Joy of Gay Sex," and in its not so joyful summary of AIDS illnesses, under the heading "Kaposi's Sarcoma," it said that having Kaposi's might not be such a bad thing, since AIDS patients with it appeared to live a lot longer--and fare much better--than those without it. That such a statement could be made demonstrates how intellectually incoherent AIDS has been all along.
3.That AIDS has become so corporatized, so institutionalized, that its founding assumptions are no longer interrogated. And that, for all the money spent, and all the time devoted, we've learned precious little about how precisely HIV destroys the immune system. Does it kill T-Cells directly? Indirectly? Why do some people fall ill soon after infection, others years later, others never? Why are some people immune? Why, if the HAART meds are capable of reducing HIV to an undetectable level, are they not capable of eradicating it completely? Or rather, why can't the body's immune sytem--which, if the meds have rendered the bug undetectable, must, logically, be in fine form--destroy whatever virus remains after the drugs have done their work?
4. That AZT was an unmitigated disaster which, at best, extended the lives of AIDS patients by 6 months--6 months of grueling blood transfusions, anemia, diarrhea, etc. And how many deaths did it expedite? How many perfectly healthy people were put on the drug, preventatively, and fell ill soon afterwards, only to be told that their demise would have occurred much sooner (how much sooner?) had they avoided treatment? Today patients are given a much lower dose of AZT, an implicit acknowledgment that the higher doses were unworkable. And yet how many organizations--whether the makers of the drug, the doctors, ACT-UP, etc.--have apologized for their part in demanding, marketing and peddling the lethal stuff to those who were too desperate to decline it. It's as if we decided, collectively, that these people were destined to die, so why demur from administering deadly "remedies"?
On the point of young children dying of Aids--are these unmedicated children who have somehow slipped through the cracks of the ever-vigilant who insist they receive the "life-saving" (you know they always call them that!) drugs, or ones who were fortunate enough to be placed on that paragon of drugs AZT? My guess would be the latter. You all know, or you should, how closely AZT symptoms resemble those attributed to Aids. And then it's "Oh, we did all we could but the poor thing succumbed to Aids anyway."
So to the people who wonder why Christine never tested her children, I can think of two good reasons. The first is the unreliability and nonspecificity of said tests, borne out by Christine's own experience. The other was most likely the fear that, once established as "HIV"-positive they might be forced onto those "life-saving" drugs. Not if they became ill, but merely tested positive on a very bad test. Hell, I even hear tales of babies who test negative that the medical community wants to force onto prophylactic doses. And they test them over and over again, as if hoping they'll finally give up and test positive.
Where is the sense? Where is the reason? Are all the doctors still so afraid of this little, possibly nonexistent virus that drugs that are known for their toxicity are preferable? Stop the madness!!
And why, since AZT is considered not fit for adults anymore, can we possibly think it's good for children? What's wrong with good food and fresh air and supplements that support the immune system? It's working for me.
Great insights! AZT is even worse than you describe for a simple reason:
AZT causes lymphoma.
Recall, that AZT is a nucleoside (DNA) analog (phony).
In lay vernacular, it is "phony DNA" that replaces Thymidine (The "T" of A,C,T,G).
But, of course, replacing Thymidine, is a banal way of saying, it alters the DNA of the cell (not just the virus).
Altered cellular DNA is ... the hallmark of cancer.
That's why 8 out of the first 55 patients on AZT died from lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. (See, Pluda, Development of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in a cohort of patients with severe HIV infection on long-term anti-viral therapy, Annals of Internal Medicine,113:276-282 (1990).)
This really shouldn't be surprising since AZT was developed as cancer chemo in 1964 -- and almost all cancer chemo greatly increases the risk of secondary malignancies of the white blood cells.
Barnes, Hank
Of course non Hodgins lymphoma is a relatively common diagnosis in AIDS patients before they've been exposed to any antiretrovirals. But don't let facts stand in the way of your beliefs.
Dale
Dale, if you have references for lymphoma being common befor ARVs, I'd like to see them. Lymphoma is the one thing that that scares me shitless after being on those drugs for 4 years. Who knows what could be brewing? I could be a time bomb.
And, Hank, as I'm sure you know, AZT was not only a chemo drug, but a failed one that was never approved due to excessive toxicity. Its bottles came to labs with a skull-and-crossbones and instructions on what to do if it even touched your skin. And this we want to pump into babies? And give to people over indefinite time periods (read: until they die)?
I can't definitely state that none of these drugs have ever helped anyone. There seems to be some evidence that the fact that they kill virtually everything can have some benefit when you have lots of wee beasties feasting on you. There's even some speculation that some of the PIs might have a bit of an antioxidant effect. Who knows?
Linda
How does HIV cause lymphoma, when it purports to kill t-cells?
How does immune deficiency lead to lymphoma?
Fondly,
Hank
p.s. feel free to cite peer-reviewed papers.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00033651.htm
this is the url to an mmwr report from the cdc from 1986 (pre ARVs) that mentions lymphoma (non-Hodgkins) as an AIDS defining condition.
Hank,
You answered your own first question and as to your second, I direct you as well to the url from the cdc posted in May 1986.
Dale
Actually, AZT does NOT stop the replication of DNA. It never reaches sufficient intracellular concentrations of its triphosphorylated form to do this. Have you read Papadopulos-Eleopulos's et al's seminal paper called "A critical analysis of the pharmacology of AZT and it's use in AIDS"? You can find at the website www.theperthgroup.com.
Greg
There is a leap of logic between saying someone died while on a drug and concluding the drug killed them. Dying while on a drug may just mean the drug was an ineffective treatment for the underlying disease which is what appears to have been the case with monotherapy involving hugh doses of AZT.
Dale
Yes, I agree that correlation does not equal causation (isn't that what the dissidents have been saying for years?), but I don't think it takes much of a leap to get to "AZT bad--kills people".
How do you explain the many parents of different children who either put their kids on the drug thinking it was the right thing to do or were forced into it only to watch those children wither, become extremely lethargic and scream all night from the pain of their muscles wasting away? Oh, it's the AIDs getting them? Then why do they almost immediately improve dramatically when taken off AZT?
How do you explain the gay guys who have written so poignantly of watching their friends and lovers who embraced the new "life-saving" drug fade and die before their eyes, while the ones who remained off it often were healthy?
It may not be killing so much these days in combination, but even most of the orthodoxy will admit that it sure did in the bad old days.
There are still some questions that remain unanswered, at least as far asI've seen. I think the amount of damage done to the immune system may be key in future survival. People who have abused their bodies for years probably recover less often than people like me, for whom it was a relatively short period of time involving stress and possibly some malnutrition. I'm sure there's no viral causation here, and if I thought the tests were worth a damn, I'd get retested right now. Might do it soon anyway.
Linda
As far as the parents and their children or the partners of those who have died from AIDS related illnesses - you should keep in mind that you are only hearing from the ones for whom the drugs aren't working.
Dale
One of the main problems is that there is never a real control group on those studies since it is "unethical" to withhold treatment. So there really is no way to compare those on the drugs with those off in a clinical setting. So beleive what you want and I'll believe what I know as my own truth.
I'll freely admit that until the very end I had very few side effects on the drugs. I do not, however, concede that this means they were doing me no harm. I have no quarrel with those who wish to take them.
I have, in fact, developed quite a close friendship with a man in Florida who is a former IV drug user who has been on drugs for the most part since 1986. He never had an OI, but has been on these drugs all these years. I know at least one is a PI and that he recently had surgery to remove his buffalo humps and is about to have more surgery.
He sees no connection between the drugs and his diabetes and heart attack. Hello, are you blind! And he also has the possibly mythical hepatitis C
. He thinks these are subjects we can simply not agree on. I know myself and fear that is not possible. He says the drugs are working for him right now and if they stop he will do something about it. I disagree, so phone buddies is probably as far as this will go.
I read the study you provided and, perhaps predictably, was unimpressed. I see it as a ploy by Gallo et al to simply lump diseases and symptoms that they can't explain into some nice neat groups. I also noticed that right at the beginning they admitted that they couldn't really isolate the hiv and that much was "assumed." Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me.
I quote "The most specific diagnosis of HTLV-III/LAV (hell, they weren't even calling it HIV way back in '86!)is by direct identification of the virus in host tissues by virus isolation; however, the techniques for isolating HTLV-III/LAV currently lack the sensitivity for detecting infection and are not readily available. For public health purposes, patients with repeatedly reactive screening tests for HTLV-III/LAV antibody (e.g., enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) in whom antibody is also identified by the use of supplemental tests (e.g., Western blot, immunofluorescence assay) should be considered both infected and infective. Although HTLV-III/LAV infection is identified by isolation of the virus, or, indirectly, by the presence of antibody to the virus, a presumptive clinical diagnosis of HTLV-III/LAV infection has been made in some situations in the absence of positive virologic or serologic test results."
It goes on and on, of course, but did you notice those important words? "Considered", "presumptive", "absence of positive...?"
And this by the people who used what they thought they had identified and made a test--not for virus but for antibodies--nonspecific antibodies, at that. Surely this is not good science!
I appreciate your willingness to present your arguments calmly and logically, but I think you need to take a closer look at the info that's out there. Sorry to have gone on so long.
Linda
That CDC report was from 1986, a time when a lot less was known about HIV and disease progression than is known now. You asked for a reference that would indicate lymphoma was caused by HIV and not by AZTand I provided you with such a reference. None of the "problems" you have with that report are relevant to the issue of whether lymphoma was identified in AIDS patients prior to AZT.
Dale
Who are you???...I'm sorry for my English and my ignorance on who you are...
I know Christine by email from 6 years now and I'm very sad of this huge tragedy that happened!!!I'm 38,I'm Italian and my husband was 37 and he was from USA (Florida)... I lost my Husband 8 months ago Of a linphoma non-Hodgkins, castlemans disease, and a suspected PML in his brain...HE WAS hiv positive from almoust 15 years ...and he was healthy, just a very bad sinus problem...one day he started with a very high fever and no antibiotics was making him better, they told us he had PCP (even if the test came back negative)Just because he was HIV+ and his t4cells at that moment were at 50 counts :( ...
...he took for 1 year AIDS drugs and then he stopped 4 years before to die!!!
in 9 months he passed from healthy to death...
...they did so many test on him and lots very painfull...he did chemo that for my opinion killed him faster...and I heard so many things on HIV and AIDS...
and now hearing from Christine about her little girl is making me so full of doubts...and the only thing that is coming to my mind is WHAT IF...???
...I still do not know yet exactly why this linphoma took my husband (37 years old) and what he had in his brain that was taking away his ability to walk and write and see and listen...from his left part of his body..and he was left handed!!!
I still dod not know if he really had PCP or as Dott. Claus Koehnley (from Germany)told us he had something in his heart that makes almoust the same symptomps...
I did not wanted an autopsy on my husband, he suffered already to much and they did soooo many tset and experiments on him with the excuses to try to save his life, that I thought it was better to leave him in peace!!!
...But from what I learned here in Italy, in the Hospital in Milano where my husband was, that is a very specialised Hospital for HIV positive people, the x rays of the lungs of people that has Pneumonia From PCP or other kind of HIV pneumonia, are not so EASY to read from a "Normal" Lungs doctor...even if this "normal" lungs doctor his the BEST around...
They told me that people with Hiv has to go to an HIV doctor to be able to let him/her read the x rays in the right way...
isn't this so strange???
...My husband did an xray on his lungs the exactly same day he was then admitted to the hospital the first time...and when I went to take the result of it, the "Normal" lung doctor WROTE that he did not had any kind of symptomps of PNEUMOIA or other things like bronchitis...two hours later in another Xray at the hospital...the HIV people's "Lungs Doctor", told us that they were sure that my husband had a Pneumoia...and that because he tested HIV+, for sure this pneumoia was PCP!!!...INCREDIBLE!!!
so for what I think, Eliza Jane because was the daughter of an HIV positive mother will always be a child died of something realted with HIV!!! :(
...it's so difficult when you loose someone that you love sooo much and you do not know why???...you can't find peace
It would be so great if it will come back that EJ was Hiv negative...but the bad thing is that she is not here anymore to joy that!!!
I do not know my "status" and I do not want to know it...even if someday I'm really scared...and now that I saw my husband suffer so much and all this with Christine ...I'm even worst...but I want to believe to the theory that HIV does not kill and that does not give you AIDS...
but what causes AIDS???
...Here in Italy there is a doctor from the infectious diseases hospital of Trieste: FABIO FRANCHI, that is a dissident and in his book he wrote that he do not believe of the connection between HIV and AIDS but he also wrote that the Hospitals are FULL of people that are dying...and if is not HIV/AIDS ...what is the reason???...
you CAN'T tell that people are not dying...
and the theory of Drugs and poppers are not so real...I mean my husband did not used drugs, or poppers...but his t4 cells counts went doown and he got cancer...WHY???
Angel
I really do not know if you received my comment, but I want to add something...Here in Italy, every hospital if you are dying and with no reasons...the First thing that they do is HIV test...and also the very first thing that they asck is what you took as far as medicine and what you did before starting getting bad and sick...so I really think (even if I love Christine so much) that she is not saying all the truth...it's impossible that they did not did a test on the probability of an allergic reaction on Amoxocillina...I'm sure that this was the first thing that they did as soon as they knew about EJ and her taking antibiotics!!!
...I do not know exactly there in the States but I'm seeing in all your sitcom about doctors (like ER) that also there the first thing that they asck idìs if you are taking something...
Eliza Jane did not had an anaphilatic shok...other wise they would already known...
...and as far as my sad experience with my Husband, when they do a spinal tap, or when they examin the liquor from the brain...they see right away if you are HIV+...(for what this can mean)!!!...so because Christine told that they did also the spinal tap...is almost sure that they already knew about EJ HIv status!!!
...and another thing...WHO in Los Angels did not know Christine Maggiore..expecially Doctors...and Hospitals...
...so Why, once they found out that Eliza Jane was heer daughter, do not do the HIV TEST for the first thing???!!!
...and WHY Christine took Eliza Jane to 3 different doctor for a simple runny nose, or ear infection...???
is not so ususal to do thing like that!!!...I think that she was already scared and is for that reason (for my opinion) that she went to 3 different doctors!!!)
...I know ONE thing...when my husband was soo sck and me so devastated, I was writing and writing to her and she was so helpful giving me name of doctors...etc etc...and giving me advises on what I had to do with my emotional reactions...BUT NO ONE OF her emails was let me think that she was SCARED or worry for EJ or her family...I heard from her until (I think, I'm not sure)...febbr/March 2005...
My husband died on the 22nd of Gennuary 2005 and I chatted with her again after his death ...
So I do not think EJ was lareday sick from time before, because Christine was so serene and she was trying to help me and my desperation!!!
...I also want to say another thing, I'm a dissident...and my husband was a dissident...he wasn't taking HAARt for at least 4 years...but he died anyway...so now I'm a little bit confused, even if I'm still believing that AIDS is not caused by HIV...but I think that there are also other reason THAN DRUGS...
NOT EVERY People that has HIV take drugs!!!
...and I red on your web site that someone was surprise to know that a child can have HIV and can get AIDS right away and died...this person was thinking that HIV children born and have problems with the health immediatelly...
I do not think is like that...I saw also my husband...he was HEALTHY, handsome, young...energetic...happy...and in 9 months he died...
...the Doctor told me that they never saw in their HIV/AIDS experience a PML and lynphoma going SOOO FAST!!! :(
...and for what I know they were not sure and they are not sure even now of what My husband had in his brain that was "eating" his Myelina...
I think DOCTORS and MEDICINE does not KNOW anything ...expecially on HIV/AIDS...they make just experiments!!!
...and if you have to die, I think , it's better to do it without taking HAART, or let the Doctors torture you and your body!!! :(
CIAO From Italy
PS...How can I answer to someone on the web???
Angel :(
Many of these diseases lumped together under the "aids" umbrella are so diverse that having the same origin is impossible--and they're not all diseases of immune suppression.
If you want to have the last word on this, be my guest. I have no more to say on the subject- -except maybe that you should read some of the very intelligent literature that comes down on the side of the dissidents.
Linda
I am so sorry to hear about your husband. Please do not think that drugs are necessary for a positive HIV test or for "aids".
In my own case, I believe I tested positive due to abad bout of the flu which led to lung problems, which were then diagnosed as PCP. I too had a clear chest xray before one that supposedly was not. The time difference in my case was about 2 weeks.
My feeling is that once you have that positive test, any pneumonia they find will be PCP. It's part of the circular definitions that accompany hiv/aids.
I had never done drugs of any kind, but I had been, as I said, ill with the flu and under great physical and emotional stress. I believe these all combined to seriously suppress my immune system.
I was on ARVs for 4 years, and have been off for only a matter of months. I am convinced that this was the right move and that I will remain healthy with a good diet and appropriate supplements.
I imagine there are many reasons why one might get lymphoma. I don't believe hiv is one of them. I do believe the ARVs are a likely cause.
I wish you strength in dealing with your loss. It was brave of you to post here. I hope all your questions will eventually be answered.
Warmly,
Linda
Dale
Regarding Christine, I have no reason to believe she or her doctors are lying. The child was healthy. She'd had a cold once, and had a bout of the chicken pox once, and got through those just fine. She was healthy by all accounts.
There is not, so far as I know, any "test" for anaphylactic shock. It's a fast, devastating reaction that can be caused by many things, including penicillin.
I have not as yet seen Eliza Jane's autopsy report. I know what Christine has told me about it, some of which I can share and some of which I can't right now but will be able to in the future. But let me just say that, to believe that this child died of AIDS-related pneumonia you have to believe several things at once that are difficult to believe. When I first heard about the child's death it seemed immediately obvious as a shock reaction, but I assumed that we'd know more once pathologists released their report--and I was stunned it took them FOUR MONTHS to issue, and that when they did issue it they IMMEDIATELY contacted the press! I literally found out about the report when it appeared in the newspaper and not before.
My view is that this is a political diagnosis, based on several things. And I'll let it go at that for now, although I can say more when the independent pathologists are done with their reports.
As for the notion that it's sloppy: you'd think that if it was it would have trouble making it through peer review, and that those who think them wrong would publish responses that would demolish them in short order. But they don't--they seem content rather to rely on ad hominem instead.
Dale
As for the "sloppy" claim, it just won't fly with Duesberg. I've got a CD here of Duesberg's longest and most detailed monograph, thoroughly peer reviewed, published in the literature, and including a hyperlinked copy of every significant reference, frequently with notes written in his hand on the cited sources.
We'll be announcing it tomorrow. You can download it free or order it cheap.
Dale
"It is well-known that HIV-1 infection results in a gradual decline of the CD4+ T-lymphocytes..."
The list of scientists who have ever been dissidents might be growing but it isn't so clear that the list of scientists who are currently dissidents is.
Dale
It's not clear to me that anything particularly meaningful has changed in the state of HIV research ever since Ho &company were touting the viral load stuff back in the '90s. As Mullis has said, the majority of scientists working in this area rarely have any reason to ask whether what they're working on is wrong from first principles; they just assume it's so and work from there.
If Duesberg's so "sloppy," how does he get past peer review, and how come no one in the HIV-supporting community ever publishes a rebuttal showing why he's distorting or mangling the literature end explaining what he's ignoring? Why don't the scientists he supposedly misquotes speak up and publish written responses saying how and why they feel he's done that? It should be simple enough if that's what's been going on.
Since then the establishment has come out and said some people will never get sick from HIV, has admitted that it's possible HIV might require cofactors to become AIDS, and that HIV has never spread much beyond gay men and IV drug users in America (or Europe)... and more and more data all the time is showing the African AIDS crisis to have been exaggerated.
So shouldn't Root-Bernstein, of all people, at least have your respect for having gotten so much right when the establishment got so much wrong? The position he was taking 15 years ago looks extremely mainstream today.
My suggestion is to go to virusmyth.com and hit "whistle blowers". Read anything by any of them that seems like it would clarify things for you. Then go to the "find" page and see which subjects you would like to know more about, or which authors' work you'd like to investigate.
Matt Irwins's work is very good, as are the stories by Celia Farber. Do they contain specific lab results? Maybe not. I'll check to see whose work does, but in the meantime, just start reading. You might be surprised. In a few weeks, I went from dutifully take my "life-saving meds" to never wanting to see one again. I assure you I am not stupid or easily swayed. What I am is convinced.
Linda
www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mwaids.htm
"Manufacturing the AIDS Scare (A Former AIDS Researcher Has Second Thoughts)" by Michael Wright
This will give you some idea of how and why we got where we are. Don't be afraid--it can't hurt you!
Linda
I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer before!!!
Here is so busy everything now that I'm alone :(
In the meantime I'm reading and reading...and thinking...and reading also your comments about HIV/AIDS...
I hope so much For Christine to find an answer that will give her peace...I did not find anything for my situation so far!!!
Thank you again...
CIAO
Angel
We're also working on getting it available via bittorrent completely free.
Sorry I got caught up in another discussion. My point about Root Bernstein which I didn't express very well was that many of the original "dissident" scientists have come around to the mainstream view, or perhaps more properly, the mainstream view and the views of some of the dissidents have coalesced. Reasonable people on both sides have adjusted their views to reflect new data as it becomes available. Both groups have come to agree that HIV is a prerequisite for the particular form of immunosuppression that characterizes AIDS and both groups agree that no one fully understands what differentiates people who progress quickly from HIV to AIDS from those who progress slowly. Members of each group disagree on the relative importance of the various factors that appear to be involved.
As far as the long term survivors, I don't think the mainstream literature has ever claimed that every infected individual will eventually die of AIDS - that would be unheard of for any infection. I can't vouch for what the popular media might have said. The estimates on what proportion of the HIV population might remain AIDS free indefinately has fluctuated as the epidemic has progressed to be sure. But that is not unreasonable since the disease has only been studied for 25 years. The last figures I saw said maybe 5% remain disease free without HAART for 20 years or more. Although I'm not sure that all of those people are completely medication free, just HAART free. And sure that's a lot of people (5% of 1,000,000 HIV positive people is 50,000 in the US alone). But with a 19 in 20 chance of developing AIDS within 20 years if you become HIV infected, I personally would rather not risk becoming HIV positive.
As far as the risk groups in the USA and Europe, have you looked at the CDC figures lately? Yes gays and IVD are still the majority, but heterosexual women, particularly black heterosexual women who at least claim to not be IVD, are a growing proportion of HIV positive Americans. It's going to be at least another 10 or 20 years before we'll know whether this trend continues.
Oh yeah, also I think you probably can diagnose anaphylactic shock (at least early after it occurs) because it involves the release into the blood of a particular type of antibody. But I could be wrong because I don't know how long those antibodies persist.
Dale
Ain't nobody out there agreeing that hiv is necessary for "the particular form of immunosuppression that characterizes AIDS". There's even a name for "hiv negative aids"--idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia. I have no doubt that you'll come up with some song and dance that says it's not so, but go talk to someone, who's been frantically trying to get herself diagnosed for 2 years or so now. What amazes me is that with all that's wrong with her, she hasn't managed to come up positive. Go to her website lemonfoundation.blogspot.com and read her very interesting story.
So you'd personally prefer not to risk becoming hiv positive? Well, who wouldn't? But what if you're a victim of a very non-specific test which gets it wrong? What if you get a bad case of the flu, develop pneumonia and they test you? Your chances of coming up positive are pretty good, or should I say bad? What if you were a pregnant woman who was badgered into being tested and didn't know that pregnancy is one of about 70 conditions that cross-react with the test? Hmmm?
You think those people aren't out there? If you do, you are sadly mistaken. I could understand your position if the tests really were accurate and the definitions weren't all so circular, but they are. It's a catch-22.
Linda
Yes there are HIV negative individuals with AIDS-like symptoms. Their existance is not particularly suprising. It would be more suspicious if they didn't exist because HIV causes disease by causing a loss of a particular type of blood cell. It is the loss of that type of blood cell, not the virus itself, that leads to immunosuppression. So it's not too surprising that there are other diseases that can also lead to the loss of those cells. But if you took 1000 people that had been diagnosed as likely having AIDS, based on their appearence, symptoms and analysis of their blood cells, the vast majority of them would turn out to be HIV positive. That could change in the future but for now that's the case. Dr. Duesberg reported at one point something like 4600 such cases. But 4600 as a fraction of all the AIDS cases known at that time in the USA alone, would represent less than 1%.
As far as the tests go the literature says that they are pretty specific, especially as they are performed currently which means an initial test and a confirmatory test. If you're negative on an ELIZA, you're considered negative. Most people, even pregnant women will be negative on an ELIZA. If you're positive on an ELIZA you get a second test (used to be a Western blot but there are several different confirmatory tests). A few pregnant women can have an indeterminate result (neither obviously positive nor obviously negative) on this test. But it's still relatively rare.
An example from the literature from a paper that includes in its title a reference to a high rate of false positives in pregnant women. Out of 9781 pregnant women presenting for delivery, 69 women tested positive on the rapid ELIZA. The second test, a Western blot, confirmed 26 as HIV infected. So of those 9781 women, less than 1% were positive even on the ELIZA. However, if you were positive on an ELIZA, your chances of actually being found to be a false positive by a Western blot were pretty high (about 2/3 of those 69 women). That's what's meant by a high false positive rate and that's why more than one test is performed before diagnosing someone as HIV infected. Currently I suppose if the Western is indeterminate some patients are probably tested by PCR as well. So the chances of being a false positive become increasingly small as you have more tests.
Dale
And please don't throw PCR at me. I just saw a chart of ridiculously disparate results done at the same time on the same person that varied from less than 400 to hundreds of thousands. This is a highly inaccurate process with regard to hiv, especially since negative people can have very high "viral loads".
I'm bowing out of arguing with you--I think I concur with Harvey that you're not one person. I'll leave you in Dean's capable hands from now on.
Linda
You've bowed out so you may well not read this but I'll post it anyway. You don't have to believe anything I say - you can go to the literature and read it for yourself. Or ask a doctor. The reason the tests say they can't be used in isolation to diagnose HIV infection is for the same reason pregnancy tests make a similar disclaimers. Because for any screening test there is a small but measurable chance of a false positive or false negative result. Only clinical doctors can diagnose an illness - so they can take all the information into account, the test, clinical symptoms, risk factors etc.
PCR is very sensitive and yes, more likely to give false positives due to laboratory error. Again though, PCR wouldn't be used in isolation to conclude anything.
It's kind of amusing that people are deciding I must be multiple people. As I said to Harvey, I assume it's to justify it to yourself if you can't immediately shoot my comments down with a devastating come-back. The next step is to gracefully withdraw from the discussion. It worked for Harvey, so no reason why shouldn't it work for you.
Dale
Medical care is, what, the third leading cause of disease? I'll have to look that up, but it's frightening. I personally know a sweet old lady who went into the hospital for a simple operation with a 5-day stay and ended up staying for two months and almost dying. I'll spare you the litany of everything that happened to her.
I happen to be very well informed on both sides of this debate, and I've picked my side. I'm not saying I can't be swayed were some real, new information to appear, but I've weighed both sides and know where I stand.
Linda
Your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm just telling you what the literature and what the data say. Sure there are examples out there of people who unfortunately are the victims of medical errors but there are plenty more examples of people whose lives were saved by medical treatments. Modern medicine isn't perfect but it has a better track record than any of the alternatives available as demonstrated by the fact that human life expectancy continues to increase. But like I said, if you choose not to avail yourself of modern medicine, that's up to you.
Dale
It all comes down to secrecy and protecting one's own. Only 6 states require the reporting of such infections. Who knows how many lives could be saved if they would come clean (every possible pun intended)?
I freely admit that in an acute life-threatening incident, we do ourselves proud. It is in the management of "chronic" conditions that we totally drop the ball. It's more drugs, drugs to fix what other drugs do, and on and on and on...
And little attention paid to lifestyle changes that could make big differences. Why is obesity epidemic, and diabetes and heart disease? Could it be because we are no longer offered on a regular basis anything resembling real food? Could it be because our milk is now laced with bovine growth hormone, and our meats with hormones and antibiotics that likely are screwing with our systems bigtime?
Wake up and look around you. We've screwed up this world and practically everything in it. I didn't used to think organic food was so important, but with the alternatives so bad now it's practically all I'll eat. Huge conglomerates are taking over more and more of what we consume. It's a very bad thing, on so many levels.
I know this is getting far afield from the original subject, and I apologize for that, but these things are important. I am not some crazy back-to-the-earth ex-hippie. I'm somebody well-aware of what's going on around me. wake up and smell the coffee (which I think this week is supposed to be good for you).
Linda