http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage

A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death

By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello
Times Staff Writers

September 24, 2005

Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when she
explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe
HIV caused AIDS.

The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even
while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never
tested her children for the virus.

"Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the
Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old
Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus,
intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however
radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded."

Seven weeks later, E
liza Jane was dead.

The cause, according to a Sept. 15 report by the Los Angeles County
coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia.

These days, given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any
young child to die of AIDS. What makes Eliza Jane's death even more
striking is that her mother is a high-profile, charismatic leader in a
movement that challenges the basic medical understanding and treatment
of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

Even now, Maggiore, a 49-year-old former clothing executive from Van
Nuys, stands by the views she has espoused on "The Ricki Lake Show" and
ABC's "20/20," and in Newsweek and Mothering magazines. She and her
husband, Robin Scovill, said they have concerns about the coroner's
findings and are sending the report to an outside reviewer.

"I have been brought to my emotional knees, but not in regard to the
science of this topic," said Maggiore, author of an iconoclastic book
about AIDS that has sold 50,000 copies. "I am a devastated, broken,
grieving mother, but I am not second-guessing or questioning my
understanding of the issue."

One doctor involved with Eliza Jane's care told The Times he has been
second-guessing himself since the day he learned of the little girl's
death.

Dr. Jay Gordon, a Santa Monica pediatrician who had treated Eliza Jane
since she was a year old, said he should have demanded that she be
tested for human immunodeficiency virus when, 11 days before she died,
Maggiore brought her in with an apparent ear infection.

"It's possible that the whole situation could have been changed if one
of the doctors involved - one of the three doctors involved - had
intervened," said Gordon, who himself acknowledges that HIV causes
AIDS. "It's hindsight, Monday-morning quarterbacking, whatever you want
to call it. Do I think I'm blameless in this? No, I'm not blameless."

Mainstream AIDS organizations, medical experts and ethicists, long
confounded and distressed by this small but outspoken dissident
movement, say Eliza Jane's death crystallizes their fears. The
dissenters' message, they say, is not just wrong, it's deadly.

"This was a preventable death," said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey
physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of
HIV-positive children. "I can tell you without any doubt that, at the
outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would
have been appropriately treated. She would not have died.

"You can't write a more sad and tragic story," Oleske said.

It is a story not just about Maggiore and her family but about failures
among child welfare officials and well-known Los Angeles County
doctors.

Among the physicians involved in Eliza Jane's care was Dr. Paul Fleiss,
a popular if sometimes unconventional Los Feliz pediatrician who gained
some publicity in the 1990s as the father of the notorious Hollywood
madam Heidi Fleiss. He was sentenced to three years' probation for
conspiring to shield the profits from his daughter's call-girl ring
from the IRS, among other things.

"I don't understand it," Fleiss said of Eliza Jane's death, "because
I've never seen her sick or with anything resembling what she
supposedly died of.... I don't believe I could have done anything to
change this outcome."

Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV
causes AIDS, has known the family since before Eliza Jane was born. In
2000, the county Department of Children and Family Services
investigated Maggiore and Scovill after a tipster complained that
Charlie was in danger because he hadn't been tested for HIV and was
breast-fed.

The department found no evidence of neglect, based partly on
reassurances from Fleiss, according to an official report reviewed by
The Times.

Now, with the death of Eliza Jane, authorities say they are poised to
act.

Los Angeles police are investigating the couple for possible child
endangerment, said Lt. Dennis Shirey, the officer in charge of the
child protection section. DCFS officials say they have opened an
investigation to determine whether the parents should be forced to test
Charlie, now 8.

Maggiore said that she has spoken with police and expects to meet with
the child welfare agency early next week. Scovill would not comment in
detail.

Before Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore said she had tested neither of her
children. Since then, in anticipation of the visit by child welfare
officials, she has had Charlie tested three times, and he was negative
each time, she said.

"Would I redo anything based on what happened?" she asked rhetorically
during an interview this week. "I don't think I would. I think I acted
with the best information and the best of intentions with all my
heart."

'Doing a Good Thing'

Maggiore said she once bought the standard line.

HIV would evolve into AIDS. And AIDS, she firmly believed, would kill
her.

For months after her condition was diagnosed in 1992, she was depressed
and reclusive. Then she plunged into AIDS volunteer work: at AIDS
Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk.

Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman,
she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15 million.
Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local
schools and health fairs. "At the time," said Maggiore, a slight woman
who looks years younger than her age, "I felt like I was doing a good
thing."

All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC
Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views
on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational
drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific
mainstream.

Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying
science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she
came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections
could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims
in her book, "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was
Wrong?"

Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that
challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and
toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS
medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet others
of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only
with trusted family members and doctors who will support their decision
to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions.

She has stayed healthy, she said, despite a cervical condition three
years ago that would qualify her for an AIDS diagnosis. In a 2002
article for Awareness magazine, she facetiously refers to it as "my
bout of so-called AIDS," saying it coincided "perfectly with the
orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS
kicks in."

During a March interview in her orderly, well-lighted home, Maggiore
seemed, if anything, an exceptionally devoted mother. She served
homegrown vegetables and fresh pasta to Eliza Jane, listening
attentively as the healthy-looking little girl chattered happily about
her two imaginary friends. At one point, when Eliza Jane wanted to
swipe away a spider, her mother urged respect for the tiny creature.
"He is part of our family," she said.

What set Maggiore apart became clear only when she talked about her
views on medicine.

She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm
than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic.
"I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a
developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.

Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home;
Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She
wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a
hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.

She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it
increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.

Scovill apparently shares her beliefs. Last year, he produced and
directed a contrarian documentary, "The Other Side of AIDS," which won
a special jury prize at the AFI Los Angeles International Film
Festival.

Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her
point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them plot
medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their
children tested.

Lori Crawford, a child welfare worker in Tempe, Ariz., said Maggiore
helped her avoid an HIV test in North Carolina when she was pregnant
with her daughter three years ago. Crawford said Maggiore informed her
that North Carolina didn't have mandatory HIV testing for pregnant
women and suggested she decline the test if health authorities in that
state recommended it.

"Christine and her book saved my life," said Crawford.

A Big Victory

In the 25-year history of AIDS, there have been many advances but few
victories. Prevention of infections and deaths among young children is
one.

"This is one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the
United States," said Margaret Lampe, a health education specialist with
the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

The number of children found to have AIDS continues to plummet, even as
the overall number of new AIDS cases in the United States remains stuck
at more than 40,000 per year.

In 2003, only 59 children under age 13 nationally were found to have
AIDS, according to the CDC. That's down from 952 cases in 1992,
officials said.

Health officials attribute the decline to regular testing of pregnant
women and the use of antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT, during
pregnancy and childbirth.

A 1994 study found that one quarter of pregnant HIV-positive women
passed the virus to their babies when they did not take AZT. Subsequent
studies found that the risk could be lowered to less than 2% when
mothers received prenatal care, took a combination of antiretroviral
drugs during pregnancy and labor, and allowed their infants to be given
AZT in their first six weeks.

Federal health officials and AIDS experts say that HIV unquestionably
causes AIDS, although it can take more than a decade to develop. HIV
tests detect antibodies to the virus and are accurate predictors of who
is infected, they say.

Dr. Peter Havens, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the
Medical College of Wisconsin, said that contrarian HIV theories
promoted on about 400 websites are "bogus baloney."

"It's all pseudoscience," he said. "They choose one paper and deny the
existence of 100 others."

Crumpled Like a Doll

The first hint that Eliza Jane was ill came at the end of April, when
she developed a runny nose with yellow mucus, Maggiore told a coroner's
investigator.

On April 30, Maggiore took her daughter to a pediatrician covering for
Fleiss. That doctor found the girl had clear lungs, no fever and
adequate oxygen levels, the coroner's report said.

Five days later, Maggiore sought a second opinion from Gordon. In an
interview, Gordon said he suspected an ear infection but believed it
could be resolved without antibiotics. In a follow-up call, he said,
Eliza Jane's parents told him she was getting better.

Maggiore then asked Denver physician Philip Incao, who was visiting Los
Angeles for a lecture, to examine her, the mother told the coroner's
investigator. He found fluid in Eliza Jane's right eardrum.

On May 14, Incao examined her again and prescribed amoxicillin,
Maggiore told the coroner.

Incao is not licensed to practice medicine in California.

The next day, Eliza Jane vomited several times and her mother noticed
she was pale. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, the little
girl stopped breathing and "crumpled like a paper doll," the mother
told the coroner. She died early the next morning, at a Van Nuys
hospital.

Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional
approaches to medicine. Gordon and Incao are staunch opponents of
mandatory vaccination of children; Fleiss is a vocal critic of male
circumcision. Incao did not return repeated phone calls this week.

Alerted to the case by The Times, several medical experts said that
doctors who knew Maggiore's circumstances - that she was
HIV-positive, hadn't been treated during pregnancy and had breast-fed
her children - should have pushed for the child to be tested.

If she refused, they should have referred the matter to authorities.

According to interviews and records, Gordon and Fleiss have long known
Maggiore's HIV status and that she breast-fed her children.

Experts also said that when the girl became ill, any doctor who saw her
should have treated her as if she were HIV-positive. That would have
meant giving her a stronger antibiotic, such as Bactrim, instead of the
relatively low-powered amoxicillin.

"If you look away from something you're supposed to be looking for,
that's called willful blindness," said Michael Shapiro, an ethicist and
law professor at USC, "and willful blindness is one aspect of
determining the negligence."

In an interview this week, Fleiss said it would have been wrong to
force Maggiore to test her daughter. "This is a democracy," said
Fleiss, who has treated the daughter of pop star Madonna.

Gordon said he wishes he had tested Eliza Jane when she was ill in
early May, but he doesn't believe he had sufficient reason to test her
earlier.

"When it comes to HIV testing, I think that it's still legally a gray
area," he said, depending on whether one believes the child's life is
in danger. In Eliza Jane's case, he said, he did not.

David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California,
said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the
doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child
neglect.

"If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at
Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from The
Times, "I would punish the pediatricians."

The Focus Turns

Now that authorities have settled on the cause of Eliza Jane's death,
the focus has turned to the parents and their remaining child, Charlie.

Even when a child dies because he or she did not receive adequate
medical treatment, the law is not at all clear about who, if anyone,
should be held responsible. There are few precedents, and courts
traditionally give parents and doctors wide discretion.

In two U.S. cases involving HIV-positive mothers who refused testing
and treatment - neither of which involved a child who died - the
courts appear to have issued conflicting opinions.

"There's no easy answer," said Dubler.

What is clear is that child welfare authorities had been told that
Maggiore was HIV-positive in 2000 and that her son was at risk for the
virus, according to agency records.

An investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services
visited the home, according to a copy of the case report reviewed by
The Times, but she did not have Charlie tested for HIV or talk to
outside experts. She instead relied on her own observations and the
assurances of Fleiss.

"Parents appear appropriate and extremely focused on child's well-being
in every aspect," caseworker Rebecca McCauley wrote in February 2000.

Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director for the DCFS, acknowledged that his
department may have erred.

He said the caseworker tried to do her job but relied entirely on
Fleiss because the department, at the time, did not have its own
medical experts to consult. But even with Eliza Jane's death, Sophy
said, it's not entirely clear that Charlie is being neglected.

Legal experts said the problem lies in the official definition of
neglect.

"DCFS is used to your prototypical neglect case where the house is
filthy and the mother doesn't care," said Thomas Lyon, a USC law
professor and expert in child abuse litigation. "They're just not
accustomed to the kind of neglect where you have an otherwise healthy,
good parent."

Word Is Getting Out

Since Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore and her husband have kept a
relatively low profile, her friends said. But word is slowly reaching
HIV dissidents around the country.

Though shaken, most of them say they continue to support Maggiore and
her contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

For her part, Maggiore said that her daughter's death has taken a toll
on her health; she's had trouble eating, sleeping and, this past
summer, simply breathing. She's treated her symptoms with Chinese
herbs, walked five miles a day and practiced yoga, and is now feeling
better, she said.

She went to a sympathetic doctor, she said. "If I had gone to a regular
AIDS doctor and told them I was HIV-positive, I have no doubt they
would have blamed it on that."

In the weeks after Eliza Jane's death, her parents created a website,
http://www.ejlovetour.com , in her memory. Maggiore wrote lovingly of
her daughter, wavering between despair at her loss and acceptance that
Eliza Jane had simply chosen, as Maggiore put it, to "go home."

She struggled most with the whys.

"Why our child - so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured -
and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she wrote. "How come what we
offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less -
impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street,
extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables - will happily stay?"

"All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley
biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS -
including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and
malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream."


The reason Christine first began investigating the dissident literature
was due to receiving contradictory HIV test results:

"But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after
interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from
immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS
specialists—a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic
pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual
rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good
health. She said I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me
to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused.
When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive.
Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses:
a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive."

"Confused by a personal situation that defied all the rules I'd been so
passionately preaching as a public speaker, I turned for help to the AIDS
groups where I worked. Instead of finding answers, I found my questions
were dismissed and that persisting with my line of inquiry resulted only
in meaningless explanations."

"My desire to learn finally led me outside the confines of the AIDS
establishment and into a body of scientific, medical and epidemiological
data that defied everything I had been taught about AIDS, and everything
that I had been teaching others. The more I read, the more I became
convinced that AIDS research had jumped on a bandwagon that was headed in
the wrong direction."

"When it became clear that the information I had found, however
life-affirming, was not welcome among the AIDS organizations I belonged
to, I decided to start my own. In 1995, together with a few friends
gathered from various support groups and other places along the way, I
started Alive & Well to share vital facts about HIV and AIDS unavailable
from mainstream venues."

To read Christine's story, please go to http://www.aliveandwell.org/ and
click on 'About Us' on the upper, right hand side, then scroll down to
"Words From Alive & Well Founder Christine Maggiore."

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:25110eecd4701c57b451e80f2255d2a7@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
No just read this again and ask your self what would her child have perfered
life or death dealing propaganda?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-
me-eliza24sep24,1,1...
A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death
By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello
Times Staff Writers
September 24, 2005
Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when
she explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe
HIV caused AIDS.

The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even
while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had
never tested her children for the virus.

"Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the
Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old
Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus,
intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however
radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded."

Seven weeks later, E liza Jane was dead. The cause, according to a Sept. 15
report by the Los Angeles County coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia.
These days, given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any
young child to die of AIDS. What makes Eliza Jane's death even more
striking is that her mother is a high-profile, charismatic leader in a
movement that challenges the basic medical understanding and treatment
of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

Even now, Maggiore, a 49-year-old former clothing executive from Van
Nuys, stands by the views she has espoused on "The Ricki Lake Show"
and ABC's "20/20," and in Newsweek and Mothering magazines. She and her
husband, Robin Scovill, said they have concerns about the coroner's
findings and are sending the report to an outside reviewer.

"I have been brought to my emotional knees, but not in regard to the
science of this topic," said Maggiore, author of an iconoclastic book
about AIDS that has sold 50,000 copies. "I am a devastated, broken,
grieving mother, but I am not second-guessing or questioning my
understanding of the issue."

One doctor involved with Eliza Jane's care told The Times he has been
second-guessing himself since the day he learned of the little girl's
death.

Dr. Jay Gordon, a Santa Monica pediatrician who had treated Eliza Jane
since she was a year old, said he should have demanded that she be
tested for human immunodeficiency virus when, 11 days before she died,
Maggiore brought her in with an apparent ear infection.

"It's possible that the whole situation could have been changed if one
of the doctors involved - one of the three doctors involved - had
intervened," said Gordon, who himself acknowledges that HIV causes
AIDS. "It's hindsight, Monday-morning quarterbacking, whatever you
want to call it. Do I think I'm blameless in this? No, I'm not blameless."
Mainstream AIDS organizations, medical experts and ethicists, long
confounded and distressed by this small but outspoken dissident
movement, say Eliza Jane's death crystallizes their fears. The
dissenters' message, they say, is not just wrong, it's deadly.

"This was a preventable death," said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey
physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of
HIV-positive children. "I can tell you without any doubt that, at the
outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would
have been appropriately treated. She would not have died.
"You can't write a more sad and tragic story," Oleske said.
It is a story not just about Maggiore and her family but about
failures among child welfare officials and well-known Los Angeles County
doctors.

Among the physicians involved in Eliza Jane's care was Dr. Paul
Fleiss, a popular if sometimes unconventional Los Feliz pediatrician who
gained some publicity in the 1990s as the father of the notorious Hollywood
madam Heidi Fleiss. He was sentenced to three years' probation for
conspiring to shield the profits from his daughter's call-girl ring
from the IRS, among other things.

"I don't understand it," Fleiss said of Eliza Jane's death, "because
I've never seen her sick or with anything resembling what she
supposedly died of.... I don't believe I could have done anything to
change this outcome."

Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV
causes AIDS, has known the family since before Eliza Jane was born. In
2000, the county Department of Children and Family Services
investigated Maggiore and Scovill after a tipster complained that
Charlie was in danger because he hadn't been tested for HIV and was
breast-fed.

The department found no evidence of neglect, based partly on
reassurances from Fleiss, according to an official report reviewed by
The Times.

Now, with the death of Eliza Jane, authorities say they are poised to
act.
Los Angeles police are investigating the couple for possible child
endangerment, said Lt. Dennis Shirey, the officer in charge of the
child protection section. DCFS officials say they have opened an
investigation to determine whether the parents should be forced to
test Charlie, now 8.

Maggiore said that she has spoken with police and expects to meet with
the child welfare agency early next week. Scovill would not comment in
detail.

Before Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore said she had tested neither of her
children. Since then, in anticipation of the visit by child welfare
officials, she has had Charlie tested three times, and he was negative
each time, she said.

"Would I redo anything based on what happened?" she asked rhetorically
during an interview this week. "I don't think I would. I think I acted
with the best information and the best of intentions with all my
heart."

'Doing a Good Thing'
Maggiore said she once bought the standard line.
HIV would evolve into AIDS. And AIDS, she firmly believed, would kill
her. For months after her condition was diagnosed in 1992, she was
depressed and reclusive. Then she plunged into AIDS volunteer work: at AIDS
Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk.

Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman,
she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15
million.

Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local
schools and health fairs. "At the time," said Maggiore, a slight woman
who looks years younger than her age, "I felt like I was doing a good
thing."

All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC
Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views
on AIDS - including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational
drug use and malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific
mainstream.

Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying
science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she
came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections
could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims
in her book, "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was
Wrong?"

Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that
challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and
toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun
AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet
others of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only
with trusted family members and doctors who will support their
decision to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions.

She has stayed healthy, she said, despite a cervical condition three
years ago that would qualify her for an AIDS diagnosis. In a 2002
article for Awareness magazine, she facetiously refers to it as "my
bout of so-called AIDS," saying it coincided "perfectly with the
orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS
kicks in."

During a March interview in her orderly, well-lighted home, Maggiore
seemed, if anything, an exceptionally devoted mother. She served
homegrown vegetables and fresh pasta to Eliza Jane, listening
attentively as the healthy-looking little girl chattered happily about
her two imaginary friends. At one point, when Eliza Jane wanted to
swipe away a spider, her mother urged respect for the tiny creature.
"He is part of our family," she said.

What set Maggiore apart became clear only when she talked about her
views on medicine. She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots
did more harm
than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic.
"I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a
developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.

Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home;
Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She
wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a
hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.
She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it
increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.

Scovill apparently shares her beliefs. Last year, he produced and
directed a contrarian documentary, "The Other Side of AIDS," which won
a special jury prize at the AFI Los Angeles International Film
Festival.
Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her
point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them
plot medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their
children tested.

Lori Crawford, a child welfare worker in Tempe, Ariz., said Maggiore
helped her avoid an HIV test in North Carolina when she was pregnant
with her daughter three years ago. Crawford said Maggiore informed her
that North Carolina didn't have mandatory HIV testing for pregnant
women and suggested she decline the test if health authorities in that
state recommended it.

"Christine and her book saved my life," said Crawford.

A Big Victory

In the 25-year history of AIDS, there have been many advances but few
victories. Prevention of infections and deaths among young children is
one.

"This is one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the
United States," said Margaret Lampe, a health education specialist
with the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

The number of children found to have AIDS continues to plummet, even
as the overall number of new AIDS cases in the United States remains
stuck at more than 40,000 per year.

In 2003, only 59 children under age 13 nationally were found to have
AIDS, according to the CDC. That's down from 952 cases in 1992,
officials said.

Health officials attribute the decline to regular testing of pregnant
women and the use of antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT, during
pregnancy and childbirth.

A 1994 study found that one quarter of pregnant HIV-positive women
passed the virus to their babies when they did not take AZT.
Subsequent studies found that the risk could be lowered to less than 2% when
mothers received prenatal care, took a combination of antiretroviral
drugs during pregnancy and labor, and allowed their infants to be
given AZT in their first six weeks.

Federal health officials and AIDS experts say that HIV unquestionably
causes AIDS, although it can take more than a decade to develop. HIV
tests detect antibodies to the virus and are accurate predictors of
who is infected, they say.

Dr. Peter Havens, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the
Medical College of Wisconsin, said that contrarian HIV theories
promoted on about 400 websites are "bogus baloney."
"It's all pseudoscience," he said. "They choose one paper and deny the
existence of 100 others."

Crumpled Like a Doll

The first hint that Eliza Jane was ill came at the end of April, when
she developed a runny nose with yellow mucus, Maggiore told a
coroner's investigator.

On April 30, Maggiore took her daughter to a pediatrician covering for
Fleiss. That doctor found the girl had clear lungs, no fever and
adequate oxygen levels, the coroner's report said.

Five days later, Maggiore sought a second opinion from Gordon. In an
interview, Gordon said he suspected an ear infection but believed it
could be resolved without antibiotics. In a follow-up call, he said,
Eliza Jane's parents told him she was getting better.

Maggiore then asked Denver physician Philip Incao, who was visiting
Los Angeles for a lecture, to examine her, the mother told the coroner's
investigator. He found fluid in Eliza Jane's right eardrum.
On May 14, Incao examined her again and prescribed amoxicillin,
Maggiore told the coroner.

Incao is not licensed to practice medicine in California.
The next day, Eliza Jane vomited several times and her mother noticed
she was pale. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, the little
girl stopped breathing and "crumpled like a paper doll," the mother
told the coroner. She died early the next morning, at a Van Nuys
hospital.

Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional
approaches to medicine. Gordon and Incao are staunch opponents of
mandatory vaccination of children; Fleiss is a vocal critic of male
circumcision. Incao did not return repeated phone calls this week.
Alerted to the case by The Times, several medical experts said that
doctors who knew Maggiore's circumstances - that she was
HIV-positive, hadn't been treated during pregnancy and had breast-fed
her children - should have pushed for the child to be tested.
If she refused, they should have referred the matter to authorities.
According to interviews and records, Gordon and Fleiss have long known
Maggiore's HIV status and that she breast-fed her children.
Experts also said that when the girl became ill, any doctor who saw
her should have treated her as if she were HIV-positive. That would have
meant giving her a stronger antibiotic, such as Bactrim, instead of
the relatively low-powered amoxicillin.

"If you look away from something you're supposed to be looking for,
that's called willful blindness," said Michael Shapiro, an ethicist
and law professor at USC, "and willful blindness is one aspect of
determining the negligence."

In an interview this week, Fleiss said it would have been wrong to
force Maggiore to test her daughter. "This is a democracy," said
Fleiss, who has treated the daughter of pop star Madonna.
Gordon said he wishes he had tested Eliza Jane when she was ill in
early May, but he doesn't believe he had sufficient reason to test her
earlier.

"When it comes to HIV testing, I think that it's still legally a gray
area," he said, depending on whether one believes the child's life is
in danger. In Eliza Jane's case, he said, he did not.

David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California,
said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the
doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child
neglect.

"If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at
Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from
The Times, "I would punish the pediatricians."

The Focus Turns
Now that authorities have settled on the cause of Eliza Jane's death,
the focus has turned to the parents and their remaining child,
Charlie.

Even when a child dies because he or she did not receive adequate
medical treatment, the law is not at all clear about who, if anyone,
should be held responsible. There are few precedents, and courts
traditionally give parents and doctors wide discretion.

In two U.S. cases involving HIV-positive mothers who refused testing
and treatment - neither of which involved a child who died - the
courts appear to have issued conflicting opinions.

"There's no easy answer," said Dubler.

What is clear is that child welfare authorities had been told that
Maggiore was HIV-positive in 2000 and that her son was at risk for the
virus, according to agency records.

An investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services
visited the home, according to a copy of the case report reviewed by
The Times, but she did not have Charlie tested for HIV or talk to
outside experts. She instead relied on her own observations and the
assurances of Fleiss.

"Parents appear appropriate and extremely focused on child's
well-being in every aspect," caseworker Rebecca McCauley wrote in February
2000.
Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director for the DCFS, acknowledged that
his department may have erred.

He said the caseworker tried to do her job but relied entirely on
Fleiss because the department, at the time, did not have its own
medical experts to consult. But even with Eliza Jane's death, Sophy
said, it's not entirely clear that Charlie is being neglected.
Legal experts said the problem lies in the official definition of
neglect.

"DCFS is used to your prototypical neglect case where the house is
filthy and the mother doesn't care," said Thomas Lyon, a USC law
professor and expert in child abuse litigation. "They're just not
accustomed to the kind of neglect where you have an otherwise healthy,
good parent."

Word Is Getting Out

Since Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore and her husband have kept a
relatively low profile, her friends said. But word is slowly reaching
HIV dissidents around the country.

Though shaken, most of them say they continue to support Maggiore and
her contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

For her part, Maggiore said that her daughter's death has taken a toll
on her health; she's had trouble eating, sleeping and, this past
summer, simply breathing. She's treated her symptoms with Chinese
herbs, walked five miles a day and practiced yoga, and is now feeling
better, she said.

She went to a sympathetic doctor, she said. "If I had gone to a
regular AIDS doctor and told them I was HIV-positive, I have no doubt they
would have blamed it on that."

In the weeks after Eliza Jane's death, her parents created a website,
http://www.ejlovetour.com , in her memory. Maggiore wrote lovingly of
her daughter, wavering between despair at her loss and acceptance that
Eliza Jane had simply chosen, as Maggiore put it, to "go home."
She struggled most with the whys.

"Why our child - so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured -
and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she wrote. "How come what
we offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less -
impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street,
extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables - will happily stay?"

Gary Stein

Gary,

I'm interested to see what tack you take, and where your allegiances lie
after I show you some choice tidbits from a recent article written by
Jeanne Bergman. The article was mostly about ICC, but Ms. Bergman had
some interesting things to say about Christine Maggiore. Here ya' go!



"Maggiore has built a profitable career by combining a gift for
self-promotion with a couple of false-positive HIV test results."

"False-negative HIV tests are extremely rare, while false positives are
much more common, though infrequent. This fact and all the other available
evidence strongly indicate that Maggiore was never infected with HIV..."

"But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV. She
has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she
boasted to Scheff "have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs.
And they're not in the least bit sick." But of course Maggiore didn't want
them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their
being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of
course they don't take "AIDS drugs"—they don't have HIV or AIDS."

"No just read this again and ask your self what would her child have
preferred life or death dealing propaganda?"


Okay, so here we have many conflicting stories about Christine Maggiore:


“A closer look at the denialist who evidently instigated the hoax about
ICC explains a lot. Christine Maggiore, one of the most visible HIV
denialists, introduced Liam Scheff to the guardian of two children who
lived at ICC. Maggiore has built a profitable career by combining a gift
for self-promotion with a couple of false-positive HIV test results. The
story she tells begins in 1992, when, despite the complete absence of risk
factors, a routine HIV antibody test came back inconclusive. The retest
was positive, and Maggiore threw herself into the whirlwind life of an
AIDS poster girl, ‘booked for a year's worth of engagements before I'd
even finished [a speaker's] training course. I made the audiences, laugh,
cry, and scared.’ When a year or so later her doctor suspected she wasn't
really infected with HIV, she ‘finally found the courage to retest,’ and
in a series of tests received results that were inconclusive, she reports,
then positive, negative and positive again.”

"But of course Maggiore has no ‘fear of AIDS’—she doesn't have HIV. She
has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she
boasted to Scheff ‘have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs.
And they're not in the least bit sick.’ But of course Maggiore didn't want
them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their
being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of
course they don't take ‘AIDS drugs’—they don't have HIV or AIDS.’”

–From DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL By Jeanne Bergman
http://www.nypress.com/18/25/news&columns/bergman.cfm


Then, we also have another story of how Christine actually *was* HIV
positive and was convinced by Peter Duesberg to question the HIV theory:


“The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while
pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested
her children for the virus.”

“All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley
biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS -
including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and
malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream.”

“Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying
science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she
came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections
could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in
her book, ‘What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was
Wrong?’"

–From A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death
By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello, Times Staff Writers


And, finally, we have Christine’s *own story* of what started her
questioning the HIV theory, namely “a series of unsettling, contradictory
diagnoses”:

“But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after
interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from
immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS
specialists—a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic
pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual
rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good
health. She said I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me
to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused.
When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive.
Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses:
a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive.”
“Confused by a personal situation that defied all the rules I'd been so
passionately preaching as a public speaker, I turned for help to the AIDS
groups where I worked. Instead of finding answers, I found my questions
were dismissed and that persisting with my line of inquiry resulted only
in meaningless explanations.”

“My desire to learn finally led me outside the confines of the AIDS
establishment and into a body of scientific, medical and epidemiological
data that defied everything I had been taught about AIDS, and everything
that I had been teaching others. The more I read, the more I became
convinced that AIDS research had jumped on a bandwagon that was headed in
the wrong direction.”

–From http://www.aliveandwell.org/


Now, I am going to invite the members of this forum to read the many
differing stories and then, *decide for yourself* which one you think is
true. This is a perfect opportunity for you to do some of your own
“investigative journalism” and to come to your own conclusions.

I trust you to be fully capable of coming to your own decision about
what’s really going on here.


-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a30deb0b40215c8e2b10b94631380011@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
But Paul none of what you posted said a thing about the fact that her child
died and that the CA Child Protection Agency is investigating Christine for
child abuse due to her not allowing her child to be tested and treated.

All you posted was different stories about Christine's own HIV status, well
it would seem none of those are relevant at this time. Due to the simple
fact that the death of her child due to AID's related PCP is
incontrovertible proof that either Christine is HIV infected or her child
received a blood transfusion of HIV infected blood. Now if that is what your
going to argue that Christine is not HIV+ then you have to explain why her
child was HIV+ and died due to AID's related PCP. Again this child did not
receive ARV so your ARV equal AID's idea does not fly.

Now on a personal note I do not think the government has the right to force
an adult to receive medical treatment that they do not want. In most cases a
parent makes such decisions for there children but in the cases of the
children of parents who have religious beliefs that cause them to refuse
modern medical care or in cases like Christine's. I think the state does
have an obligation to stop the parent from imposing there own beliefs on a
child who does not have the maturity to make that type of decision for
themselves if the life of the child is at risk.

Now is refusing to allow a child to receive medical care child abuse well in
my opinion it is but from a civil liberties aspect I can see that it might
not be. Again I do not think a parent has the right to refuse life saving
medical treatment for a child even if it is against the parents religious or
personal beliefs. This has been tested in the courts and they have ruled
that the state does have the right to impose medical treatment on children
but not on adults.

Gary Stein

"Again I do not think a parent has the right to refuse life saving medical
treatment for a child even if it is against the parents religious or
personal beliefs. This has been tested in the courts and they have ruled
that the state does have the right to impose medical treatment on children
but not on adults."


Here is a very different perspective on that (and please note, Gary, that
the last article is from thebody.com)...


During her pregnancy with her son Felix, Kathleen Tyson tested
HIV-antibody positive. After extensive research, she decided not to treat
herself or Felix with AZT. She also determined that the benefits of breast
feeding Felix outweigh any perceived risk of infecting him with a "deadly"
virus. When the authorities were notified, they took custody of Felix on
the basis that Kathleen Tyson had "intent to harm" her son Felix. The
Tysons recently went to court to regain custody of their child. The State
maintained that Kathleen does not have the right to make an informed
choice for the health of her son regarding HIV. Unfortunately, an appeal
would be to lengthy to pursue.

http://aliveandwell-eugene.dreamhost.com/


From Anti-AIDS Treatment Order is Fought - The Associated Press - Sunday
January 31, 1999

"EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - Parents of an infant boy are fighting a court order
that they treat him with anti-AIDS drugs because his mother is
HIV-positive. The court gave the state custody of eight-week-old Felix
Tyson, ordered six weeks of AZT treatments, and barred his mother from
breast-feeding him."

http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990115.html


From HIV-infected mother battles to breast-feed baby - February 1, 1999 -
Web posted at: 12:18 a.m. EST (0518 GMT)

"EUGENE, Oregon (CNN) -- A mother infected with the HIV virus is fighting
a court order that keeps her from breast-feeding her infant son.

The court order gave custody of eight-week-old Felix Tyson to the state
and ordered six weeks of treatment with the anti-AIDS drug AZT.

The boy's parents, Kathleen and David Tyson, do not believe HIV causes
AIDS and say that AZT is toxic and ineffective."

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9902/01/baby.azt/


From Court Grants Delay in Baby HIV Case By JEFF WRIGHT - The
Register-Guard [Eugene, Oregon] - February 5, 1999

"A judge has postponed for up to 60 days a fact-finding hearing involving
Felix Tyson, the 2-month-old baby at the center of a custody dispute
between his parents and the state."

http://heal_portland.tripod.com/tyson7.htm


From A GRIEVOUS ROAR - Welcome To The Machine by Celia Farber - Copyright
Impression - Feb. 8, 1999

"An HIV-positive mother in Oregon almost loses custody of her baby because
she resists giving him AZT and wishes to breast-feed him. Impression looks
at the continuing attack on families in the name of HIV heroica."

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/HE...TheMachine.htm


From Scientist, doctors disagree on HIV case By JEFF WRIGHT - The
Register-Guard - April 20, 1999

"HIV does not cause AIDS and an HIV-positive mother should be allowed to
breast-feed her child if she chooses, a molecular chemist testified Monday
in a Lane County courtroom.
"There's no bottle of HIV anywhere in the world that you can take and
infect someone with," said David Rasnick, head of a group that disagrees
with the prevailing medical theory about AIDS."

http://heal_portland.tripod.com/tyson9.htm


From Baby Not Returned To HIV Mother - The Associated Press - Amalie
Young, Associated Press Writer - Tuesday, April 20, 1999

"EUGENE, Ore. (AP) - A judge refused today to return a baby to an
HIV-infected mother who wants to breast feed, saying the risk of spreading
the deadly virus left the state no choice but to step in."

"Kathleen Tyson and her husband, David, lost legal custody of their son
when he was days old because of the decision to nurse."

http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990411.html


From The Other Side of AIDS - Meet the people...

"Kathleen Tyson tested positive in 1997 and does not take AIDS
medications. A full time mother, her interests include running, organic
gardening and lending support to other HIV positive women who refuse drug
treatments. She lives in Oregon with her husband who tests HIV negative
and their two healthy children."

"HIV negative newborn Felix Tyson was taken into Oregon state custody
after his parents refused to give him AIDS drugs. Under mandated state
care, Felix received AZT treatments for the first six weeks of his life.
Today Felix is a healthy five year old and is back in the care of his
family."

http://www.theothersideofaids.com/meet_the_people.html


And last, but NOT least...


From Informed Consent? - By Jennifer Finocchio - Summer 2000

A few years ago my friend told me about a woman he knew that did not
believe that HIV led to AIDS. She was pregnant at the time and didn't
intend to follow the established treatment protocol for herself and later
for her newborn child. She did not even intend to have her child tested
once he was born. I was astonished. I was incensed. Who was this woman, I
thought? Didn't she read the newspapers? Didn't she know the risk to her
child if she didn't begin treatment immediately? Whatever her "opinions"
were about HIV/AIDS, did she really have the right to impose them on her
unborn child?
This was my introduction to the AIDS "dissidents" and, though skeptical, I
was curious. One of them told me about a little known situation in which
parents were losing custody of their kids for refusing HIV treatment. I
decided to try and tell their stories in a documentary, regardless of my
own skepticism. It would be a lesson in objectivity.

I started with Kathleen Tysob, an HIV+ woman in Eugene, Oregon who had
lost custody of her son because she didn't want to treat him with drugs,
and wanted to breast feed him. Naturally, Kathleen and her husband were
devastated. They were, in all other ways, exceptional parents. They had
been married for over twelve years and had a ten-year-old daughter, Faye.
Faye had been breast fed for three years. (Both David and Faye are
HIV-negative.) They had only learned of Kathleen's HIV status a few months
earlier during a routine battery of prenatal tests. And now, in what
should have been a joyful time, they had lost legal custody of their son.


After talking to Kathleen and hearing her side of the story, I found
myself forgetting my initial skepticism and storming up to Eugene with a
camera and crew. This time I wanted to know just who these "court
officials" and doctors were. How could they so hastily intervene in the
Tyson's decision? But when I attended the Tyson's hearing and listened to
the doctors, and the representatives from Child Protective Services
telling their side of the story, I realized again that this is an issue
with many shades of gray. The only thing that is clear is that everyone
wants what is best for the child. Figuring out what that is stirs many an
emotional debate.

To follow this story further, I went to Maine to meet Valerie Emerson who
had been charged with neglect when she refused to enroll her four-year-old
son, Nikolas, in a highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) protocol
study. Valerie, too, had learned she was HIV+ while she was pregnant.
Tests confirmed that two of her other children, Tia and Nikolas were also
positive. Their pediatrician prescribed AZT for Tia, and for many months
Valerie watched her daughter's health deteriorate. Tia's suffering became
more and more profound. Tia died eleven months later, just days before her
fourth birthday. The official cause of death was attributed to AIDS
related complications. This makes little sense to Valerie who knows her
daughter was asymptomatic before beginning treatment. Despite her fears
about treatment, Valerie agreed to enroll Nikolas in the HAART study. But
when Nikolas began down the same painful road as Tia had, Valerie stopped
his treatment and ended up in court fighting for custody. The court sided
with Valerie.

Most people I've told these stories to agree that it is a tragedy that
otherwise decent parents are facing custody battles with their state
governments over HIV treatments. But they also question the parents'
decisions, and even their sanity. Why, with so many new treatments, fresh
hope offered everyday, would parents decline treatment in the first place?
Few of the parents I've spoken to doubt that the protocol of AZT and
cocktails is effective in stopping transmission of HIV. They simply don't
want to be coerced into giving their children drugs whose efficacy may be
certain, but whose potentially adverse effects are uncertain.

Kathleen Tyson began taking AZT while pregnant and then stopped: "I was
very confused with the idea that a pregnant woman is counseled not even to
take aspirin and here I was being prescribed these very potent and
powerful toxic drugs." Later she refused treatment for her son because of
the absence of research on long-term effects: "Would it hurt my son? Would
there be adverse effects showing up in 20 or 30 years? It happens with
drugs sometimes." One only has to remember the tragic effects of DES,
(where daughters of women who took it got deadly cancers in early
adulthood) which didn't appear for a quarter of a century, to know that
she's right. It does happen sometimes.

For "Amy" in N.Y., the risk of transmission seemed less threatening than
potentially unnecessary treatment with toxic drugs. "If HIV transmits
around 25% of the time, what about the other 70-80%? These are powerful
drugs being given to a majority of 'at risk' infants when only a minority
will be infected in the first place."

Although several women, like Valerie, have successfully pled their cases
in court, some like Amy, have finally found doctors to support their
decisions, many others have not been so lucky.

Take Sophie Brassard, in Montreal, for example. Her children were taken
from her at the airport when she tried to leave the country to avoid legal
action for refusing treatment. The court placed them in foster care until
her hearing. Then the court awarded permanent custody to her parents.

"Celia Smith" moved to the Dakotas when her doctor threatened to report
her to DHS for refusing treatment for her child. She lives under an
assumed name, can only work odd jobs for under the table pay and has no
idea when, or if, she will ever be able to return home.

The stories of the Tysons, the Emersons and the many others I've
discovered since beginning my film, reach far beyond the growing
controversy of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and the efficacy of treatment
protocols. Little by little, fear about AIDS has begun to chip away at and
has finally striped parents' of informed consent. The DHHS's own
government guidelines clearly state that decisions about treatment and
whether or not to breast feed ultimately belong to the parents. So, how,
and why, do state governments and agencies have the right to remove
custody of children when their parents make the decision not to treat?
When Amy was told by her doctor that she had to treat her newborn son,
that she had no choice, she made a xerox copy of the state law, along with
the CDC's federal guidelines, on informed consent and showed it to him.
The doctor shrugged and said, "oh, OK. I guess you're right."

Informed consent means more than just telling a parent a few pertinent
facts about a treatment. It means giving them all information: benefits,
risks, alternative options and even the possible legal consequences of
refusing. None of these moms got any such information. Instead they have
been bullied, threatened, and reported for second-guessing their doctors.
Kathleen Tyson was informed that legal custody was being removed less than
24 hours after giving birth, while she was still in the hospital,
recuperating from a difficult C-section. I've spoken to other parents who
are afraid to seek medical care at all for fear of what might happen. And
with the argument for mandatory HIV testing of all pregnant women heating
up around the country, they have reason to fear. While in most cases
doctors cannot force treatment outright, the can accuse parents of
"neglect" or "intent to harm" and seek removal of parental custody. But
"turning parents in," rather than addressing their fears and respecting
their decisions case by case doesn't benefit anyone, least of all the
child.

I recently spoke to a doctor who testified nearly two years ago on Valerie
Emerson's behalf saying that he fervently believed Nikolas should be in
treatment, but that it shouldn't be forced. He told me he didn't know what
would happen to Nikolas without treatment: "For all I know he's already
dead." He's not. He's already surpassed his initial life expectancy by two
years and continues to live without symptoms. He will enter the first
grade in the fall. In Oregon, Felix Tyson is eighteen months and remains
HIV-negative. He lives with his parents but the state has retained legal
custody and is in charge of medical decisions for him. Since the Tyson's
hearing, a new study published recently in The Lancet, has shown that
exclusive breast feeding for at least six months may actually reduce a
baby's risk of developing AIDS because of its powerful effect on the
immune system. The study was presented to a somewhat dumbfounded audience
at the International AIDS Conference in Durban a few weeks ago. Follow-up
studies are underway. In Montreal, Sophie Brassard took her children and
fled the country. Although some of us are in contact with her, nobody has
any idea where in the world she is. If she returns, she will be arrested
for kidnapping. Here in California, Celia Smith is tired of going from job
to job, always having to look over her shoulder. Now, she just wants to go
home.

If you have a story to tell about your experiences with treatment for your
children, clinical trials, or breast feeding issues, or if you just want
to express your opinion, please email me at jeffa67@hotmail.com.

http://www.thebody.com/wa/summer00/consent.html

"All you posted was different stories about Christine's own HIV status,
well it would seem none of those are relevant at this time."

Gary, sweet muffin,
did you read the article? Christine's "status" is a major component.
Sorry, bud, but you're going to have a difficult time weaseling your way
out of this one.


"Now if that is what your
going to argue that Christine is not HIV+ then you have to explain why
her
child was HIV+ and died due to AID's related PCP."

Whoops! Suddenly, Christine's "status" IS important to Gary. Get your act
together, Gary. First you say her status is irrelevant. Next, you use
her status to explain why her child supposedly died of pneumonia. Got to
stick with one story or the other, OK?

So, boys...
what's it going to be?
Are you going with Christine's version of the truth...that she's
HIV-positive?

OR, are you going to go with Jean Bergman's version of the truth...that
Christine Maggiore is HIV-negative.

Funny, when you boys get in a bind, suddenly the most important things
become "irrelevant".

I'm waiting to hear from you guys. Christine Maggiore: HIV-positive or
HIV-negative?

wilyretrovirus wrote:

(snip)

Well.. just goes to prove, you can't really trick a virus with semantics
and rhetoric.

Dead is dead.

B/

"Now if that is what
your going to argue that Christine is not HIV+ then you have to explain
why her child was HIV+ and died due to AID's related PCP."

So, Gary, are you in the camp of Christine being HIV-positive, like she
states she is?

OR, are is Jeanne Bergman right when she says that Christine Maggiore is
actually HIV-negative? And...here are some of Ms. Bergman's quotes:

"But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV."

"She has since had two children, now three and seven years old, whom she
boasted to Scheff "have never been tested. … They don't take AIDS drugs.
And they're not in the least bit sick." But of course Maggiore didn't want
them to be tested: she knows that they are not at risk and that their
being uninfected would lead people to question her own status. And of
course they don't take "AIDS drugs"—they don't have HIV or AIDS.""

"Since the Tyson's hearing, a new study published recently in The Lancet,
has shown that exclusive breast feeding for at least six months may
actually reduce a baby's risk of developing AIDS because of its powerful
effect on the immune system. The study was presented to a somewhat
dumbfounded audience at the International AIDS Conference in Durban a few
weeks ago."


Paul,
Huh...you don't say? This article came from thebody? Take a look at this
part, pretty interesting.

"...a new study published recently in The Lancet, has shown that exclusive
breast feeding for at least six months may actually reduce a baby's risk
of developing AIDS because of its powerful effect on the immune system."

Hmm. Gosh, that just seems to completely contradict everything I've heard
about breastfeeding and AIDS. But here it is on thebody.com, supposedly
from a study published in the Lancet.

Wasn't this one of those contradictions we weren't going to ask questions
about?

Didn't Christine Maggiore breastfeed both of her children?

Things are looking a little murky here as far as breastfeeding and AIDS
are concerned. Even murkier is Christine Maggiore's HIV-status.

Of course, the boys here still haven't decided if Jeanne Bergman is
correct, and Christine Maggiore is in fact, HIV-negative, or to go with
what Christine has stated...that she is HIV-positive.

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote...
Oh, so that's who the Duesberg is I see constant references to on this
group! I just moved to the Bay Area and haven't visited Berkeley yet,
but am very aware of its reputation. It sounds like he fits right it
with all the other lunatic left-wing hippy trash. I'm just surprised
he has a degree in an actual science field, rather than the usual
"liberal arts" degrees held by the other leftist rabble-rousers. I'd
still be surprised if he could spell "DNA" even though he professes to
be an expert on it.

In article <a30deb0b40215c8e2b10b94631380011@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
pauleewhiting <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think the quote about talking to Duesberg is not her
*own story*? Note the words "she said".

Please explain why you think these two versions of her story,
both told by her, contradict each other.

--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

What's it going to be, boys?

Looks like we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a tight spot.

So, who's lying?
Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive?
Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine is HIV-negative?

No real room for grey answers here.

The implications for either answer are far-reaching.

So...who's the liar?

Whose story are you going to go with, guys? I'm quite curious.

Stay tuned, dear audience.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:13:47 -0400, "wilyretrovirus"
<purfling@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

Asshole denialists like you.

Wrong. Jeanne stated it was unclear if she was or not.

Yep. But we won't probably know. Unless she dies and an autopsy
reveals she was HIV+.

She may be. Seems her kid was and died of AIDS because she kept
wrapping her head around the fucking stupidity of denialsim.

George M. Carter

"wilyretrovirus" <purfling@nospam.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cb2d9b422d79873655692665dbef95b1@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Excellent point.

Alex

Phillip wrote:

Hey, Diablo.

Yes, you're that obvious.

B/

"Please explain why you think these two versions of her story, both told by
her, contradict each other."


Because, David, in the article "A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death,"
they make NO mention of Christine's conflicting test results.

They go from this paragraph...

"Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman,
she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15 million.
Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local schools
and health fairs. 'At the time,' said Maggiore, a slight woman who looks
years younger than her age, 'I felt like I was doing a good thing.'"

...To these two paragraphs, without EVER mentioning Christine's
conflicting HIV test results in the ENTIRE article:

"All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley
biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS -
including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and
malnutrition - place him well outside the scientific mainstream."

"Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying
science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she
came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections
could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in
her book, 'What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was
Wrong?'"


So, why didn't they ever mention this part of Christine's story?

"But then a year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after
interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from
immediate drug therapy to world travel, I found an anomaly among AIDS
specialists—a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic
pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual
rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good
health. She said I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me
to take another HIV test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused.
When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive.
Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses:
a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive."

George, it seems that you're having trouble remembering Jeanne's quotes
that I recently posted. Tell me how "unclear" this sounds.

"But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV."

Hmm. Yes, it sure, umm, looks vague, doesn't it?

Ok, George,
who's the liar?
Christine Maggiore, who states that she's HIV-positive?
Or Jeanne Bergman, who states that Christine Maggiore is HIV-negative?

Here's that quote from Jeanne again, in case your memory is failing.

"But of course Maggiore has no "fear of AIDS"—she doesn't have HIV."

George, I'm sure there are people out there waiting to hear from you,
Gary, Chris, and so on, regarding the issue of Christine's HIV status.

*Somebody's* lying. Is it Christine? Or is it Jeanne Bergman?

We're waiting...

Seems like Bergman came to her conclusion that Christine probably did
not have HIV based upon the fact that Christine appears to have had no
HIV problems herself, and had 2 healthy kids. Christine certainly
refused to be retested for HIV following her earlier experiences, and
seems to have assumed a position of "I'm probably false positive, but
no-one is going to make me find out for sure..."

We now know that this assumption of Bergman's is incorrect -
Christine's daughter was killed by HIV, and in the absence of an
alternative explanation, Christine is the most likely source.

Photos of Christine pregnant with Eliza-Jane sporting "NO AZT" painted
on her bump, and of Christine breast feeding EJ are testament to the
whole HIV denialist lie.

If one image should return to haunt all denialists for evermore it will
be this one(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2.../19634261.jpg).

Its like watching someone walking onto the tracks in front of an
express train, and no-one wants to do anything to stop it.