Sincerely
Louise Andersen

Jose

Dear Charles,

I have been following the Maggiore story and fully understand that every story has two sides and that it’s human nature to become stuck on the side that makes us “right.” What I can’t understand however, is the refusal of the scientific community to engage in dialogue that explores legitimate questions. This is an industry in a country that claims to link science to discovery. In that context, the adamancy of a segment of our so-called scientists who fail to consider and respond to emerging questions about the HIV=AIDS hypothesis doesn’t make any sense, unless, of course there is something to hide. That unwillingness to consider an open debate in and of itself is suspicious. At a minimum, why wouldn’t a study be conducted that follows people (like Christine Maggiore) who are HIV positive, chose not to take the drugs, yet have long outlived the HIV=AIDS death sentence? It is such a basic question. What happens in the absence of the drugs?

So, we have two sides. On the one hand we have people who have been labeled “dissidents” who don’t want to take drugs. On the other, we have an industry that generates billions by forcing these drugs on people and treating them like criminals if they don’t oblige. Yes, the stakes are high. The dissidents have their health riding on it and the “establishment” has an empire to consider. But really it’s a survival story for both. Whether it’s the people belonging to the establishment preserving their wealth, prestige, ego and reputations, or those who want to preserve their health and freedom, both sides’ lives depend on which argument prevails. As a result, the debate itself goes nowhere.

Unfortunately, we have other societal structures that suffer from this same syndrome of ignorance and arrogance, which means that we end up being a country led by individuals who think that their puerile refusal to listen and respond to alternative views is acceptable. Deluded or deliberate, it doesn’t matter. The results are the same and they speak for themselves.

Thank you,

Donna Flagg Principal
The Krysalis Group, LLC

Thanks, Ricky

Jessica

Christine Maggiore

But in a separate development, the Medical Board of California filed an accusation this week against one of the 3-year-old girl's doctors, citing gross negligence in his treatment of her…[more]…

Thank you,

Christine

The second paper contains an analysis of the causes of HIV and AIDS.

For more information please consult out fuller summary of Dr. Al-Bayati’s accomplishments.

My comment has to do with the Al-Bayati report and rebuttals to it that have been posted online.

I have followed the AIDS dissident movement for some years now, mainly online at Virusmyth.net and duesberg.com when they were active as well as reading and listening to Duesberg, Mullis, Bialy, Christine and others. As a result I’m frequently involved in personal discussions about AIDS, typically putting forward the dissident position. So when the Al-Bayati report came out I read it avidly and I’ve been waiting to see what the other side says.

I recently came across a rebuttal to Dr Al-Bayati ataidsmyth.blogspot.com/2005/11/eliza-jane.html this blog </a>. Is Dr Al-Bayati aware of this report and if so would he comment on it here?

Our response:

Dr. Al-Bayati is aware of this response but he is very experienced in these cases, and doesn't want to say anything publicly of any substance until after he has testified in court.

The blogger, who is well known to us (Nick Bennett) states on his website “I have never recieved funding from any pharmaceutical company that makes HIV antivirals. I do not get and have not ever been paid to do this.”

This is true, but it’s cleverly worded to avoid the embarrassing fact (that he admitted to me in an email in December, 2005) that “I was funded, on paper, by Astrazeneca for my PhD”.

Astra Zeneca does not make AIDS drugs, but they have still purchased Nick’s loyalty for pharmaceutical solutions in general. And AstraZeneca probably benefits from AIDS in many other ways, as AIDS patients are generally (over)dosed with a variety of drugs apart from antiretrovirals.

Specifically, a 2005 report from the company notes that they are developing TB drugs that are compatible with HIV/AIDS therapies. There are several papers that have noted that when TB patients are given AIDS drugs (and TB can be considered AIDS in people with a positive HIV test) their TB worsens, so presumably they are searching for TB drugs without this effect.

I wish POZ had published the article Lucille Scott had described during our many interviews: a factual and balanced report on AIDS rethinking that would not make opportunistic use of my daughter Eliza Jane’s sudden death. Instead, we have “Dead Certain,” a fanciful tale of my daughter’s demise by Bob Lederer that places me in invented scenarios acting like the “denialist” he imagines. Since correcting these mistaken ideas takes an entire article (see “POZ Flaws” at www.JusticeForEJ.com), below please find a few crucial facts missing from Lederer’s story.

In five visits with three separate pediatricians, Eliza Jane had no symptoms consistent with life-threatening pneumonia and was breathing normally according to an oxygen meter. A series of chest Xrays taken at the ER provided no evidence for the coroner’s decision four months later that she succumbed to PCP, a decision that contradicts the coroner’s own findings at autopsy: no inflammation of the lungs. Pneumonia is universally defined as “inflammation of the lung caused by disease;” without inflammation, there is no pneumonia, and microscopic findings of PC (the microbe) alone are not indicative of fulminate, fatal PCP (the disease). Further, Eliza Jane had an unusually high lymphocyte count when the opposite is associated with the immune suppressed state that allows PC to develop into PCP.

Lederer also fails to mention that seven months after the release of my daughter’s autopsy report (and despite numerous requests from our attorneys), we are still waiting for lab evidence of Eliza Jane’s HIV status. And speaking of HIV tests, Lederer leaves out another perplexing situation: my husband remains HIV negative despite a decade of unprotected contact during our relationship.

Rather than risk the questions and uncertainties that might arise from a real report on the issues, Lederer filters out the complexities and uncomfortable realities to feed readers a simple tale that leads to only one conclusion: “denialism = death.” But I wonder, if this equation is so obvious and immutable, why deny the facts in trying to prove it?

Respectfully,

Christine Maggiore

Since letters to magazines are limited in length, Christine has also provided a more detailed response here.

Dr. Al-Bayati is one of the most honest and intelligent experts and professionals I have worked with. Keep up the good work and don’t give up. History has proved that in order to make a difference many brave men and women have to endure suffering and the ignorance of others. But, the truth shall prevail.

I have an extensive background, over 17,000 hours of reading and study in corrective nutrition. I am not a symptom treater but rather I teach my clients what they are doing to cause their own symptoms/diseases. My education includes the study of the spurious history of AIDS but my background goes far beyond just that area.

Without getting too long winded, I will briefly touch on a few salient points. First of all, the light symptoms EJ was exhibiting were body initiated and conducted processes of elimination. That’s what so called pneumonia really is – an elimination process. In other words, right action and not something to be suppressed with drugs or any other modalities, medical or alternative. She was simply detoxifying from enervation, i.e. lowered nerve energy and subsequent toxemia. If one lives a certain way, one never has to “get sick” or become symptomatic as they are keeping up in a timely fashion with the overall physiological processes of nutrition and drainage. In other words, symptomology is due to physiologically incorrect habits of living. So called antibiotics have never saved anybody from anything. Another way of saying antibiotics is ‘against life’. Yes, these poisons kill micro-organisms but anything that will kill bacteria will also cause harm to the rest of the living organism, sometimes death. Anyway, micro-organisms are only there to feed off the feast of excessive metabolic waste. (They only contribute to symptomology in that their waste matter adds to the body’s toxic load. They are not causative.) It happens all the time but, of course, the worsening symptomology is attributed to whatever one has been diagnosed with, when really the only diagnosis is toxemia. Drugs are all poisons. If one is drugged while undergoing an eliminative process, the body has to stop this corrective, life-saving process and now defend itself from the drug/poison as it becomes the top priority of survival to the organism. So the elimination process stops. You see, it’s the body that acts upon that which it is subjected to, not the other way around – the living acts upon the non-living. It would be like putting a cork in a certain bodily orifice when nature calls.

Medical care is only appropriate when it comes to accidents, injuries, emergencies, birth defects and some corrective surgeries and even in these cases, there are plenty of treatments that contribute to patient pathology and potential subsequent demise. Unfortunately, medical schools teach just that – medicine, and as such, approximately 80 to 90 per cent of what these future medicine men/women are taught is incorrect because medicine is based on empiricism and appearances not scientific fact. It is medical science, not real science.

The correct thing to do when one is sick is to go to bed in order to restore nerve energy so that the body can continue the detoxification process. Usually the person is not hungry anyway but even so, it’s best to not eat but rather to just drink pure water if and when thirsty. Once the body has sufficiently brought the toxic load down to acceptable levels, the symptoms stop, the individual feels much better and can get back to their daily lives. Unfortunately because they have not been taught that they causes their illness, they just end up doing the same things and eventually “get sick” again at some point in time. Symptom treaters live off the ignorance of the masses and, they too, in most cases, are victims of their own miseducation so everyone loses.

It’s education not treatments that people need in order to maintain health.

Thank you Christine for contributing to my education. I have two copies of your book in my health library as well as Dr. Duesberg’s and a host of others.

I am contacting you with regard to an interview you gave to Benjamin Ryan of Gay.com this past December on the subject of the death of my daughter Eliza Jane Scovill.

I would very much appreciate clarification of some remarks attributed to you in that interview in order to better understand your interpretation of my daughter’s autopsy report.

Currently, a transcript of the interview is posted online and contains a note that I called your office back in December seeking clarification but to date have received no response. I’m hoping email is a more effective way to reach you and that you will take a moment to reply to the three questions below. The answers are of interest to me personally, and I would also like to post them online. Below please find your quotes and my questions.

Benjamin Ryan: “Dr Harry Vinters reviewed the autopsy and he told me that he found the pathological finding ‘very well described’ and that it was ‘a very thorough report.’ He also said ‘the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe and the PCP was extremely severe as well.’”

1. Approximately how much time did you spent reviewing my daughter’s autopsy report?
2. To what do you refer as evidence of “extremely severe” PCP? My understanding of the autopsy report is that there was no inflammation of the lungs and there is only microscopic evidence of PC rather than evidence of a fulminate case of PC pneumonia, and no evidence of death by asphyxiation.

   On the same topic, Benjamin Ryan states: “Vinters said it’s possible to have a low amount of inflammation but still have PCP.” In my daughter’s case, however there was *no* inflammation noted in the autopsy report. Were you correctly quoted by Ryan?

3. To what evidence do you refer in your statement that “the HIV encephalitis was extremely severe?” My daughter’s spinal fluid was clear at the ER and remained clear after many weeks of attempts to grow any microbe in culture. A CAT scan performed at the ER shows no swelling of her brain and medical records show no symptoms that would correspond with “extremely severe” encephalitis such as high fever, head pain, or loss of mental acuity.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With appreciation for your time and cooperation,

Christine Maggiore

As of today, no reply has been received

Those data show regularities and trends which prove that HIV is not a sexually transmitted infection. (More than a dozen studies report a transmission efficacy of about 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse; none has reported anything appreciably higher).

My first article analyzing these data has just been published. I am attaching a pdf of the page proofs; there were no significant changes in the actually published version

Please look at the data, check the original sources, think about it. Mainstream science and medicine are sometimes wrong.

Response from Benjamin Ryan: Sorry, not interested. I’m sorry you have these opinions.

I support Christine and Robin 100% and am so sorry for their loss. Don’t ever stop telling the truth!

Dear Christine,

The letters department [of the LA Times] forwarded to the readers’ representative office your letter because, as before, it alleges errors (“omissions and misrepresentations”) in the Dec. 9 article. The letters department did not publish your previous letter because editors in that department do not publish letters that dispute facts. If facts in an article are wrong, a correction would be published. However, no correction is warranted in this case. As we discussed before, your letter can present your perspective, but letters are not forums for disputing facts, so in its present form, the letter cannot run.

Jamie Gold, Readers’ Representative

Our Thoughts: Once again, the Los Angeles Times has refused to publish a letter from Christine Maggiore, the subject of three articles that include errors, omissions and misrepresentations.

As occurred with Maggiore’s previous attempts at drafting an acceptable letter following the Times’ September 23 article “A Mother’s Denial, A Daughter’s Death,” Reader’s Representative Jamie Gold cites the policy that silences challenge. In the above email message to Maggiore, Gold reminds her that the paper does not “publish letters that dispute facts.” And as with the last run around, facts are defined by the LA Times as any claim or statement contained in the article itself or a reporter’s notes, whether or not the notes or the article is correct.

In this case, Maggiore was informed her letter of reply could not mention the fact that Dr Al-Bayati’s review of her daughter’s autopsy had been accepted for publication by a medical journal with an editorial board of some 20 medical doctors and scientists because reporter Daniel Costello felt “the journal exhibited an ideology opposing mainstream medical thinking.” Apparently, Costello’s opinion of the journal renders the fact of its publication of Al-Bayati’s review a non-fact or, worse, a fact that disputes the LA Times’ notion of fact.

I suppose this circular logic makes sense in the world according to Daniel Costello, Charles Orenstein and the Los Angeles Times...

In their desire to depict Al-Bayati as biased, Costello and Orenstein fail to mention that his analysis of my daughter’s death has been published in a medical journal whose review board consists of 20 physicians and scientists with no association to Alive & Well.

Further obscuring the facts, your dynamic duo suggest Al-Bayati’s work resulted in the conviction of a Maryland babysitter when in fact his autopsy analysis in this case was commissioned two years after the woman’s incarceration and is being presented as evidence in her bid for a new trial. I encourage readers feeling dizzy from all the spins to stop in for a check up at www.JusticeForEJ.com.

To say that Christine Maggiore’s research, logical analyses and conclusions about ‘HIV’ and AIDS must be dismissed because she is not a formally-accredited scientist or medical practitioner is purely contemptible and utterly false.

This whole issue ultimately becomes one that revolves around the validity and true nature of formal accreditation and letters…thus determining whether one can be an “expert” without formal accreditation.

After all, the true measure of real expertise in any discipline, is the extent to which that person applies valid rules of logic to evaluate the valid causality of supposed causes and effects, with regard to actual evidence and ideas. Advanced graduate training programs which place letters such as “MD” or “PhD” after a professional’s name, do nothing more than teach these methods, applied to various specific tasks and human enterprises, such as sociology, chemistry, medicine, or whathaveyou.

Thus, the professional letters and titles are ultimately meaningless, without the use of proper logical analysis. Anyone who possesses these formal accreditations and letters, but who does not practice meticulous logic in their analysis, is a fraud.

I’ve read both Maggiore’s and Duesberg’s books, and they have actually applied the most meticulous and thorough logic possible in this regard. Thus, their conclusions really are “expert” conclusions.

The mainstream medical industry has not employed such rigorous standards, thus both their opinions and status as “experts” are invalid and fraudulent.

In conclusion, Maggiore, Duesberg, and all those who support them in their cause based on an actual evaluation of their logical methods, are the true experts on this issue. Everyone outside this group that I have just described are not true experts, no matter their priestly puffery and attempts at psychological domineering of all those who dissent. What’s more, those outside this group who claim to be the “experts” are actually frauds, despite their vain, deceptive titles and affiliations.

Logic matters. Labels do not. Christine’s side is right. The other is wrong.. It’s just that simple.

Bioethics is the study of the moral and ethical choices faced in medical research and in the treatment of patients. Dr. Nancy Dubler is the Director of the Division of Bioethics at the Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York. As part of the ABC Prime Time segment on Christine Maggiore that aired December 8, 2005, Dubler made the following statements regarding Maggiore’s decision to not subject her children to HIV testing:

“I would say that the next time a child is born to an HIV-positive woman and that woman refuses to have the child tested and treated if positive, that the state has a moral obligation to proceed immediately…There are only three choices in this kind of situation: Take the child, take the child, take the child.”

Read about the lack of citations to back these comments up…

Christine Maggiore is not, and does not present herself as, “HIV-positive.”  She tested positive for HIV in 1992 but has received mixed test results since then.  According to her published testimonial, available on her group’s Web site and at the front of her book, some subsequent HIV tests revealed negative and inconclusive results.  This is the very reversal that led her, a mainstream AIDS activist at the time, to question the HIV-positive diagnosis itself and the accuracy of the test.

To describe Christine Maggiore as “HIV-positive,” without qualification and background, is therefore not correct.

If, however, Christine is “HIV-positive,” her healthy survival for 13 years while taking none of the recommended drugs for this condition is certainly worthy of investigation.

Christine found that her questions about her mysterious sero-conversion were not welcome at the organization for which she was a spokesperson, so she looked elsewhere for research.  What she came up with led to the research in her book.  She did not, as you imply, go from “HIV-positive” to “radical” with barely a step in between.  To leave this out is to distort her work and to leave the public dangerously in the dark as to a public health matter, namely, the questionable accuracy of the HIV test.

I was, however, unaware that the pathologist hired by Christine and her husband to review EJ’s cause of death was on the board of her organization.  Please confirm that this is correct and verified by ABC.  Please also reveal the affiliations of ABC’s independent pathologist, as this is just as relevant to the credibility of those results.  Is this pathologist saying specifically that EJ showed signs of pneumonia?

I would say that the consequences to the Maggiore-Scovill family are severe if this story about them is allowed to stand without rebuttal.  Not only have Christine and her husband, Robin Scovill, been exposed to a police investigation; they have also been found guilty without trial on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.  Christine has tried unsuccessfully (as far as I know so far) to correct the record at the Times, or even to publish a letter to the editor.

Response from Christine Maggiore: Thanks for writing in to ABC. I appreciate your support and your interest  in following this story.

As I stated on a radio interview on KPFK recently, yes, Al-Bayati is on the Alive & Well advisory board. To me that means I can count on him to give an honest and factual accounting from an expert perspective. As a parent, I want to know why my child died, so I turned to someone I could trust to go strictly by the facts. I was not and am not seeking exoneration or to appear right. I am seeking the truth. As any attorney in criminal law will tell you, there are great numbers of pathologists and other experts for hire who, if you go through enough of them, will tell you what you need or want to hear. We wanted one who would tell us the truth.

We had no idea what happened to our daughter when we sent the autopsy report to Al-Bayati for review and had no idea what Al-Bayati’s conclusion would be. It didn’t even occur to me that I should not allow an expert I know and trust to analyze the case because it might appear inappropriate on a TV show. We wanted to know why our daughter died and Al-Bayati is uniquely qualified in his field.

From what I understand, there are very few dual board certified toxicologists with a degree in comparative human pathology with the experience he has in unexplained death in children and fewer still with the record he has for taking unpopular positions when the facts lead him there. Several pathologists who concluded the same as Al-Bayati would not put their name on a report or speak for the record. They wanted no part of the controversy.

Despite the risks of being associated with me, Al-Bayati’s report has been accepted for publication in a medical journal with 11 medical doctors and a dozen scientists on their review board who don’t know me, and I have no idea who they are either.

Please note we have not paid Al-Bayati for his autopsy analysis and his board position with Alive & Well always has been that of an unpaid advisor.

Ultimately, the facts are the facts and the facts are what must stand up to challenge.

Thanks again for writing,

Christine

I don’t believe in coincidences: ear infection, mild cold, clear lungs, antibiotics, death. I work in the field of allergies. I cannot stress how dangerous antibiotics are. Every week I hear patients tell me how they have reacted to antibiotics in the past. So many patients are allergic to eggs and chicken. When tested, it is quite often the tetracycline they are reacting to.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family. Keep strong. And thank you for the work you are doing.

Further, the way I understand it, breastfeeding offers antibodies to the baby to fight illness caused by viruses; does that not hold true for HIV as well? I breastfed my three young children and I know what a bonding experience that is. I continued to nurse them when I came down with illnesses, understanding what I just stated above about helping to fight off illness.

Now, I do not know anybody who has died of AIDS, but I am pretty sure that people who die of that disease do so slowly, much like cancer. It seems to me that Eliza's death was too sudden, thus Dr. Al-Bayati’s report seems to make sense (to me, anyway).

Christine, I am sure you will never stop grieving over your beautiful daughter – this is a parent’s worse nightmare. I hope that God gives you strength to get through this. I hope the law has mercy on you and I really hope they find your case to be true.

Many years ago my first HIV test was positive. The clinic that did the test made me come in to the office to get the result and immediately tried to sell me some counseling after telling me I was positive. I decided I didn’t need to pay for that. All my HIV tests since then have been negative.

Response: Christine has tested positive, negative and ‘indeterminate’ at various times. She has not been tested recently on so-called HIV antibody tests or for ‘viral load’ but has stated that she would love to get funding to test every week for viral load and T-Cells.

I wish that God will bless you all and keep your Faith.

Amoxicillin also is made with a red dye and this dye is also in question, and as I recall, as I do legal and forensic nursing, it may be RedLake 40 which is considered unhealthy. Feingold Association may have the data for you.

Amoxicillin depletes vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B12,Biotin and Inositol, K, and important gut flora - both part of the immune system in the gastro-intestinal tract.

I am so very sorry for your loss.

First off I must say i am so sorry about your loss.

I was wondering why you chose a doctor who is already know as a “dissenter”? It seems that this would just add fuel to the fire of those that want to charge that the autopsy report that you sanctioned was biased. I follow your work and am in agreement with what you and others have to say about HIV and AIDS, I just thought it may have been better to have a Doctor who is more distanced from the whole debate do the autopsy report. Also, not that it matters, but did L.A. county or the other doctors ever do an HIV test on Eliza Jane?

Again, I wish you and Robin and your son all the best

Response: There are very few doctors with expertise in analyzing these situations. Al-Bayati is one of very few, and he's also one of the very best. There is already a very positive comment from a similar medical expert who is not a dissident.

Dr. Al-Bayati was very careful not to include any rhetoric or side issues in his report.

As for HIV tests, there was mention that one was done, but the results were not included in the coroner’s report (which is very strange). Christine and Robin are following up to obtain more information.

By accusing Ms. Maggiore of being in denial of some health condition that the LA Times reporter imagined her daughter to be suffering from and publishing prematurely and without all the facts, The LA Times is responsible for causing additional pain and suffering to a family overcome with grief. The LA Times owes an apology to the Maggiore-Scovill’s for their part in a modern day witch hunt. Let’s hope that an error of this magnitude never happens again on the LA Times’ watch.

Dr. Al-Bayati will be a guest on Eye on t