The FDA's for Losers.
December 2, 2004 2:55 PM   Subscribe

New York's HIV Experiment. Need test subjects for your highly experimental, possibly lethal drugs but don't want to deal with consent issues? Don't worry, New York City's Association for Children's Services has got you covered! Just ask GlaxoSmithKline about its continuing antiretroviral drug trials. Not only does the ACS provide it and other pharmaceutical companies with high-quality HIV-positive orphans and foster children, but it administers the drugs to them as well! Kids not willing to take the pills? The ACS will stick peg-tubes in their stomachs. Foster parents refusing to give kids the drugs? The ACS will charge them with abuse and put the kids somewhere else. Wondering about Tuskegee comparisons or how the combination of side-effects like diarrhea and swollen joints with no evidence of benefits fits into a cost-benefit analysis? Why? This is the ACS! They can do whatever they want.
posted by schroedinger (81 comments total)

 
How is it that foreign newspapers always seem to break these kinds of stories. Do we just not care?
posted by pmbuko at 3:13 PM on December 2, 2004


Never has our country needed the hilarious antics of Patch Adams more than now.
posted by billysumday at 3:18 PM on December 2, 2004


So... these abuses are currently happening?

Wow, where's the outrage over this?
posted by crazy finger at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2004


When I first heard the story of the "guinea pig kids", I instinctively refused to believe that it could be happening in any civilised country, particularly the United States, where the propensity for legal action normally ensures a high level of protection. But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice of location and subjects, because to be free in New York City, you need money.
posted by three blind mice at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2004


I don't actually believe that Hell exists, but for the people at the ACS and GlaxoSmithKline responsible for this, I really, really wish it did.
posted by apis mellifera at 3:33 PM on December 2, 2004


Reminds me of this.
posted by faux ami at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2004


I hate to be the one to do this.
But you know what they say about men with big feet.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2004


oh my god. wrong thread. *hangs head*
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 3:35 PM on December 2, 2004


Infants in participating low income families will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals over the course of two years.

For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation

posted by faux ami at 3:36 PM on December 2, 2004


This makes me so angry I can't breathe, but unfortunately, given ACS's track record, I'm not surprised. They're basically kidnappers, viewed from a certain angle.
posted by insideout at 3:37 PM on December 2, 2004


:tries not to vomit:
posted by OhPuhLeez at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2004


So it is true? I really can sell my children to medical science for experiments? Wow, someone ought to tell the Duggars, they could retire on those 15 kids.

pmbuko, they may care but not anywhere near as much as they care about catching Paris Hilton drunk and disorderly or some of the other antics of those crazy super rich bags of skin and not much else.

The article is scary to read and makes me want to go and live with my family far out in the middle of nowhere.

This is seriously fucking whack.
posted by fenriq at 3:47 PM on December 2, 2004


faux ami: The below is from the site you linked.

Question: I saw on the Snopes website that this is an urban legend. Please explain.

Answer: The Urban Legends/Snopes website is not addressing this issue correctly. They took their stance based on reading just two articles (see the references they cite at the foot of their OCA EPA-Petition analysis webpage). Of course, the EPA put a positive spin on the study in those pieces and even denounced some of its own scientists who have spoken out against the study, as we are. In contrast, our web alert references and links to literally dozens of scientific resources, including the actual EPA study proposal.


So Snopes has already weighed in. And where's the source that says they're getting video cameras? Not to discount the story, but it seems incredibly loopy for a government agency to be giving out t-shirts and video cameras. If they are, then Jesus, it's sick.
posted by billysumday at 3:49 PM on December 2, 2004


...and will the morally correct President Bush take any action to "protect the children?" Not bloody likely! Not when there's money to be made, and not when the victims can't vote.
This is just horribly nasty...does anyone else think of Josef Mengele when they read stuff like this?
posted by Al_Truist at 3:50 PM on December 2, 2004


Quick note that industrialized nations' drug companies already get to experiment on poor people in Africa and SE Asia currently suffering AIDS. Just sayin'
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:50 PM on December 2, 2004


Billy, it gets sicker if they give the video camera before they take the kids so you can have a memento of your offspring.

Damn, I am thoroughly fucking disgusted now and just want to go home and hold on to my son.
posted by fenriq at 3:52 PM on December 2, 2004


Maybe I'm having a bad day, maybe I havent read the newspapers enough recently, but this truly depresses me, it makes me feel so angry yet so completely impotent.
posted by qwerty155 at 3:58 PM on December 2, 2004


Big Pharma can do anything they want in the Corporate States of America. I bet Mussolini is green with envy in his grave.
posted by nofundy at 4:01 PM on December 2, 2004


Actually, New York Press (possibly my favorite paper) did a story on this a few months ago. But I never saw anyone in the mainstream pick it up.

Of course, I didn't post it at the time either. So I guess I could be culpable too. Thank God I'm not a journalist.
posted by fungible at 4:13 PM on December 2, 2004


I was in foster care for a decade. I couldn't legally refuse medication until the age of 16, whether I needed the crap or not.

That's the real "system."
posted by reflection at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2004


Wow, that is thoroughly awful.
posted by asbates2 at 4:20 PM on December 2, 2004


From Faux Ami's link:

On November 11th, the EPA announced suspension of the study's launch until early 2005 for the sake of "final review." The Organic Consumers Association is taking this opportunity to call on the nation's citizens to demand the EPA permanently terminate this abuse of low income children by the chemical industry

I've been following this story in my newspaper. I thought that the study was dead in the water due to public outrage, but this link says only suspended.

And, yes, I do remember that in addition to the money, the households involved were to get "clothing" and video cameras. I somehow assumed that the cameras had something to do with the study, but I realize now that was a strange assumption to make.

And lest you think this is new stuff, I just started reading The State Boys Rebellion which is about some of the 250,000 children taken from their parents and from foster care and placed in hospitals for the feeble minded if they tested below normal on the Stanford-Binet IQ test. They were taken, even against their parent's wishes , because in the Eugenics-minded United States of America it was believed that "feeble-mindedness" would pass down to the children of "Morons" who could seem normal enough to marry and thus would weaken the overall gene pool.

The group of boys that is profiled in this book agreed to a study which they were told involved eating oatmeal. Specifically to see if "naturally occurring chemicals in Oatmeal called phytates affected the body's absorption of the calcium in milk." The boys agreed to be in "The Science Club" because they were told that they would be rewarded with gifts and field trips. The first year, their gift was a Mickey Mouse wristwatch and the second year-- Hopalong Cassidy mugs.

What they were actually doing was being guinea pigs in a Cold War experiment in which they were fed radioactive oatmeal.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:28 PM on December 2, 2004


I've officially lost faith in humanity.
posted by LunaticFringe at 4:34 PM on December 2, 2004


I've officially lost faith in humanity.

...and my faith has been strengthened.
posted by spacewrench at 4:40 PM on December 2, 2004


I'm physically ill from all the outrage I've felt in the past few months.

"Guinea Pig Kids was broadcast on Tuesday, 30 November, 2004, at 1930 GMT on BBC Two"

Someone please record this and 'torrent it for the rest of us sheltered Americans that aren't allowed to see real journalism. I would be glad to help if any help is needed.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:44 PM on December 2, 2004


billy sumday:
snopes link

The kids are already living next to and subjected to the pesticides in Duval County, Florida. But the families will be paid for their effort chronicling the childrens' activities (and do get to keep the video camera).

It doesn't change the fact which this FPP shows which is pharma companies are all about the money and social (and mental health) services are big business and any time a pharma company says they're trying to rid the world of diseases (like Glaxo's says on the link), you can be sure they're not - and you can be sure the EPA isn't doing this to save children. (I can give you lots of examples, but this FPP is doing just fine without my help.) Oh, and you can be sure they'll couch all these nasty decisions in terms of service, philanthropy and morality, while the poor suckers on the other end have no choice in the matter 'cause they could never pay for these drugs themselves. (Also of note: most people staying in psychiatric hospitals get kicked by their insurance companies unless they agree to be part of some experimental drug trial run by a drug company looking to prove some result.)
posted by faux ami at 4:49 PM on December 2, 2004


The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding
posted by faux ami at 5:01 PM on December 2, 2004


Also, let's not forget the point that the Florida study is short term, and the previous studies indicate that the problem is long term. Its a whitewash effort. Not that I expect any different of course, but its still nasty.

None of which addresses the issue of the ACS, and its seeming evil. Using anyone, child or adult, as an involuntary test subject is utterly indefensible. It isn't hatred for the poor that targets only poor children here, its just convenience and availability. Foster kids have no real resources, and are subject to the whim of the various foster agencies. Transparency and accountability are the only real long term solution.
posted by sotonohito at 5:18 PM on December 2, 2004


They're still trying to peddle drugs for one of the biggest medical scams in history ?
According to many reputable virologists, biochemists, doctors and HIV+ survivors, HIV does not result in AIDS.

Before you flame me, do some reading.

http://www.aliveandwell.org
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids
http://aidsmyth.addr.com
posted by jaydedx at 5:23 PM on December 2, 2004


Like fungible, I read about this a while back. More than a year I think. Astonished it's still going on. I recognize some of the drug trials described as also being conducted at my University's medical school. The consent forms for adults for these trials, often run 25-30 pages long, are read aloud to the subjects, with potential side effects and risks discussed and described by a nurse practitioner or a doctor. They do not recruit children for any kind of AIDS drug trials here, nor, do they in most research centers. The ethical issue of involving someone that cannot consent for themself in this type of research keeps most researchers far away. Any project that does involve children is supposed to undergo even more scrutiny and review than adult trials. Its mindboggling the people who are supposed to be watching out for these children jumped right on in. Federal oversight for human subject research is somewhat limited to federally funded research, and this appears to be industry funded. Nonetheless, I would have expected somebody to have stepped up by now with a class action lawsuit. Even if they can't go after NIH (because they're federal), they could go after the University of Columbia and the city of New York. From where I sit (and I actually am involved with a university IRB) this seems like a slam dunk case. Where are the greedy bastard lawyers when you need them?
posted by MetalDog at 5:35 PM on December 2, 2004


The Florida study reminds me of a Johns Hopkins study on lead paint removal that resulted in two lawsuits, and a ruling by the Maryland Supreme Court that banned any non-therapeutic research on children. Might have been overturned on appeal though, can't find a more recent link.
posted by MetalDog at 5:48 PM on December 2, 2004


Gee, Thanks, jaydedx for posting fringe pseudoscience to this thread! I think you left out the ones for urine therapy, hyperthermia therapy, et al.

The sites are at best quote-mining of researchers taken out of context, and at worst the kind of inabiity to understand science that ends up killing people.

Luckily, no one will be using this thread as a source of information for AIDS research, instead paying attention to the real issue: that Big Pharma has some good friends in the White House and FDA, and will be using that to their profitability until we finally do something meaningful about it.

And before you accuse me of flaming you, I have read those sites, and have been involved in basic science research and HIV prevention since 1987. They're still irresponsible quackery.
posted by ltracey at 6:33 PM on December 2, 2004


Here is the BBC: This World release on the "Guinea Pig Kids" documentary. They give a transcript of the show here.

It's amazing how this situation manages to wrap so many evils into one neat little package: corruption, child abuse, human rights abuses, racism, classism . . . it's an outrage grab bag, yet there's no great outrage.
posted by schroedinger at 7:25 PM on December 2, 2004


Industry boasted about its influence over the CHEERS project, and an enviro group has gotten EPA to temporarily halt the study while they look at the ethics of letting poor parents expose their kids to pesticides in exchange for a modest amount of money and a goody bag.

More info on the industry-funded CHEERS study:

EPA's Cheers Website (check out the loot the kids families get)
Enviro Group Demands Halt to Human Testing
posted by FontMasterTim at 7:36 PM on December 2, 2004


Here's the study mentioned in Gravy's post. At the NIH, of course.

I am sickened.

Everytime I think we can't possible sink any farther, the fucking government starts handing out shovels.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2004


For those of use who don't live in the UK, is there a website where we can stream the documentary? I'm quite curious...
posted by radioamy at 8:17 PM on December 2, 2004


As crazy finger said, where's the outrage? If this is substantiated, it's tantamount to a crime against humanity. We're talking about medical experiments on unwitting subjects. Where's the WHO's (World Health Organization) protest? or the UN's? or the UNICEF's (they do take care of children, don't they?)?

And on another note, as an individual, I feel as impotent as qwerty155. I've dig up the Christmas card my (Canadian) MP sent me to get his address. I intend to ask him to urge the Parliament to inquire into Glaxo's practices (and tax breaks) in Canada. But I fear it's either a waste of time, or not enough.

What can one do?
posted by Non Serviam at 8:18 PM on December 2, 2004


I read the BBC link above, and the others: The Independent and the Scotsman. I know the BBC is a reputable news organization. Someone please tell me this is not true. Yes, I'm in denial. I can't believe this, don't want to believe this. Whenever I think I can't get anymore outraged or sickened by something the government or big business does, something like this comes along. This makes me sick, I don't want to believe this, but I think I may have to or run from reality, which is starting to look kinda good right now ....

Someone please post a link to some cute kittens.
posted by marxchivist at 8:19 PM on December 2, 2004


Okay, so, we're all outraged.

What are you DOING about it?

Personally I've sent this story to a few people I know (+-100) and they'll send it on to people they know, etc...

Voicing outrage is all good and well, action is what's needed. If you are truly disgusted with this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Tell people, your neighbors, your pastor, your hairdresser. Write your congressman, write the president, let them know that this isn't acceptable!

Please, don't just type the words here and go to the next FPP.
posted by kamylyon at 8:22 PM on December 2, 2004


kamylyon: Exactly! How many of us have invested in funds which include stocks from such, well, immoral corporations (or is that immoral corporations)? I know that the university I go to had to change its retirement fund provider due to student groups pressure. Of course, we can dream about changing the system so that such *evil* behaviours are verboten. But in the meantime, we could hurt such corporations where it hurts the most: their pocketbook.
posted by Non Serviam at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2004


ltracey maybe you should slow down for a minute.

The error has been around for 20 years now. Long before 1987.
Do you know anything about Robert Gallo ?
His career was a failure because he wasted lots of time on money trying to prove cancer was caused by a virus in the 70's. The HIV 'discovery' made him super rich over night and was void of any reel peer review.
Maybe you should stop stereotyping and actually do some research without using cool labels like 'quote-mining' and saying these researchers have been quoted out of context.

You're right the inability to understand science has killed people thanks to Robert Gallo's greed and others like him.

HIV does not equal AIDS. It's a fraud.

Gallo(the doctor who 'discovered' HIV/AIDS) had a lot to gain from a patent on an HIV antibody test and the press announcement of HIV/AIDS in 1984. In fact that very thing resulted in him becoming very rich and very famous very quickly even though there was very little scientific peer review.

On April 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo filed a patent application for an antibody test, now generally referred to as the "AIDS test". The same day Gallo announced at an international press conference that he had discovered a new retrovirus that he called HTLV-III (now known as HIV), and that it was "the probable cause of AIDS". This announcement caught even the scientists in the audience by surprise. Gallo had circumvented an essential part of the scientific process; he had not published his research findings in any scientific or medical journal or subjected them to the normal process of peer review prior to being announced to the public.

When Gallo's "evidence" was finally published weeks later there were some serious problems. The laboratory procedure Gallo and his colleagues considered to prove isolation was positive in only 36% of his AIDS patients and only 88% were positive on the "HIV-antibody" test. Also, in order to ensure that only the AIDS patients and not the healthy control group came up positive on his antibody test, he had to dilute the blood an extraordinary 500-fold. At lesser dilutions too many healthy controls would also test positive. These facts alone should have been enough to cast serious doubt on Gallo's claim that he had discovered a new retrovirus or the "probable cause of AIDS" (Gallo, 1984; Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1993a; Koliadin, 1998). An excellent summary of how corrupt, deceitful (and possibly even criminal) his research was can be found in the book Science Fictions by John Crewdson, a Chicago Tribune science writer (Crewdson, 2002)
NIAID/NIH "Evidence" rebuttal - Johnston, Irwin, Crowe
http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/main.html

It has been publicized by many respectable groups and indivuals including a nobel science prize winner, Dr. Kary Mullis.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.


"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

It has been difficult for the proponents of the HIV=AIDS myth to keep the scam going, wether it was there intent or just a mistake, I'm not sure this is going to become more and more of a hot topic as some groups will definately be looking into class action suits in the future around this topic.

Gee, Thanks, jaydedx for posting fringe pseudoscience to this thread! I think you left out the ones for urine therapy, hyperthermia therapy, et al.

The sites are at best quote-mining of researchers taken out of context, and at worst the kind of inabiity to understand science that ends up killing people.

Luckily, no one will be using this thread as a source of information for AIDS research, instead paying attention to the real issue: that Big Pharma has some good friends in the White House and FDA, and will be using that to their profitability until we finally do something meaningful about it.

And before you accuse me of flaming you, I have read those sites, and have been involved in basic science research and HIV prevention since 1987. They're still irresponsible quackery.

posted by jaydedx at 8:37 PM on December 2, 2004


DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

To stop the Rich & Powerful from exploiting the Poor & Powerless, you gotta hit 'em where they live: the pocketbook. (on preview: as Non Serviam says)

There are some lawyers on this board: what would it take to sue the ACS and GlaxoSmithKline?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:40 PM on December 2, 2004


Agreed

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

To stop the Rich & Powerful from exploiting the Poor & Powerless, you gotta hit 'em where they live: the pocketbook. (on preview: as Non Serviam says)

There are some lawyers on this board: what would it take to sue the ACS and GlaxoSmithKline?

posted by jaydedx at 8:44 PM on December 2, 2004


An innocent question--

If HIV wasn't the cause of AIDS, why do antivirals designed against HIV successfully arrest the progression of AIDS?
posted by effugas at 8:46 PM on December 2, 2004


I'm emailing that BBC link to all the TV news and the major newspapers. Am I wasting my time?
posted by marxchivist at 8:50 PM on December 2, 2004


jaydedx: I'm sorry, Sir or Madam, but I can't seem to find a patent assigned to a "Gallo" pertaining to an antibody test, from 1977 forward. Of all 58 patents assigned to a "Gallo" that I've researched on the USPTO search engine, I can't for the life of me find the one you're talking about.

Would you be so kind, Sir or Madam, as to tell us the patent number under contention? Many thanks!
posted by Non Serviam at 8:55 PM on December 2, 2004


jaydedx -- HIV has been isolated, *does* exist, *does* increase numerically in the systems of those suffering from AIDS, who by the way get better and do not die when their viral count is diminished and it has been 'photographed', observed, had its genetic makeup codified and analyzed and has passed about as many tests for existence and correlation to the deaths by AIDS as any health phenomenon has been checked and tested. Your reasoning is tantamount to refuting the utility of all medecine. Go tell my dead friends your theory. Or better yet, go tell someone who is dying to stop taking their antiviral drugs. I'm just glad that you are not the best scientist that the human race can produce. Your comments are inappropriate on this thread, especially. Sickening.

On topic: This is as depressing as something can be. I keep thinking about how my daughter could just as easily have been born one of these kids and it kills me. What can we do? What does one do? Write my Senator? Go appear in person? It is so hard to mobilize politically and it always seems that the good fight is futile. How to stop this?
posted by n9 at 8:58 PM on December 2, 2004


(n9): What can we do? What does one do? Write my Senator? Go appear in person? It is so hard to mobilize politically and it always seems that the good fight is futile. How to stop this?

That's my dillema too: what can be done? How do we, not as "blue staters", "red staters", "libs", "cons", but as HUMANS, can intervene?

I have but one solution, and it may not be enough: spread the word! write your Congressman/woman, your Senator, your MP (for us Canucks, Limeys, etc.). Write your friends, write your fiends. We, and by "we" I mean "decent persons", WILL NOT STAND THIS! We will not passively watch this most gruesome, degrading violation of the most fundamental right of all: the right to live.
posted by Non Serviam at 9:13 PM on December 2, 2004


Okay, so it's embarrassing that I'm having trouble Googling this, but can any Chicago mefites help me out with a good address to write Obama about this?
posted by rustcellar at 10:20 PM on December 2, 2004


rustcellar: here.
posted by Gyan at 10:37 PM on December 2, 2004


jaydedx, you have got to be joking.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:01 PM on December 2, 2004


jaydedx is completely correct HIV does not cause aids. Before anyone argues this point watch this video and learn the truth about HIV and aids and realize the implications of what this means. HIV-AIDS-Fact.Or.Fraud.DivX.avi

cross reference for details from this site.
www.duesberg.com
posted by godseyeview at 11:08 PM on December 2, 2004


the server went down for that video. the torrent tracker for that video is here
posted by godseyeview at 11:24 PM on December 2, 2004


you got to sign up first before you can download that torrent here but seriously watch that video. itll change your life.
posted by godseyeview at 11:31 PM on December 2, 2004


/waiting for MeFi user # 29,202 to blame fluoride for the AIDS.
posted by subgenius at 11:35 PM on December 2, 2004


i must have messed up on the link earlier but the video can be found here. HIV-AIDS-Fact.Or.Fiction.DivX.avi
posted by godseyeview at 11:54 PM on December 2, 2004


Thanks, Gyan.
posted by rustcellar at 12:47 AM on December 3, 2004


Worse and worse . . .

10.22.32
Amanda St John
In a mass grave owned by the Roman Catholic
Church close to Manhattan, over a thousand
children’s bodies, including some who were
enrolled in the trials, lie beneath a tarpaulin.
Officially their deaths are recorded only as
resulting from 'natural causes'.


From the transcript mentioned earlier.

I've been emailing goverment officials and the NAACP--someone has to pick this up.
posted by schroedinger at 12:51 AM on December 3, 2004


godseyeview, you're an idiot.

HIV has been isolated in the lab. Antiretrovirals designed for it (as pointed out above) affect the virus.

This is tinfoil hattery of the highest order.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:58 AM on December 3, 2004


godseyeview - from your link

"He (Duesberg) has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS."

Do you agree with Duesberg that AIDS is caused by taking recreational drugs and/or AZT? Do you agree that "African" AIDS is different to American/European AIDS? Is that what you call science?
posted by longbaugh at 1:59 AM on December 3, 2004


So I can understand more clearly: are people against pediatric drug trials in general?

If you don't test drugs on children, well, you won't know if they work. But if you do test drugs on children, you must rely on the parent/guardian giving consent on behalf of the child (especially for a younger child).

What's the fundamental difference here from any other pediatric drug trial?
posted by kevinsp8 at 5:13 AM on December 3, 2004


The difference is that the state is giving consent instead of parents, and the state is less likely to be devoted to the interests of the child.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:32 AM on December 3, 2004


AZT and the other anti-retroviral drugs are the main cause of AIDS.
As these drugs are forced on more people and children (as everyone on this thread is against) the public will eventually learn the whole truth, it's going to take time and its going to be a traumatic revelation.
This lie will go down in history as one of the biggest crimes in medical history perpetrated against the whole world.

Hate me in your 'religious' zeal, attack me personally, you can believe I am insane, the most deplorable person you've ever heard speak, you dont see yet but you will because I am no liar.
Its a lot to swallow and it seems unbelievable but thats usually how the truth comes out. Many will be freed from fear.

Love and Light
posted by jaydedx at 6:17 AM on December 3, 2004


Are jaydedx and godseyeview going to poop on every single thread remotely related to AIDS, HIV or drug testing?
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:19 AM on December 3, 2004


Eris I hope not. AIDS conspiracy theorists are about as difficult to get along with as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. At least the UFO conspiracy theorists are funny...

It isn't that I believe that the (pick one) government / military / medical complex / whatever wouldn't want to conspire and keep things secret; I just doubt their competence to do so. The government couldn't even keep a presidential blowjob secret, but they expect me to believe that the government is keeping the real cause of AIDS secret? Not only is it impossible for the US government to do that, I can't believe that every other government on Earth would play along.
posted by sotonohito at 9:05 AM on December 3, 2004


Do you agree with Duesberg that AIDS is caused by taking recreational drugs and/or AZT? Do you agree that "African" AIDS is different to American/European AIDS? Is that what you call science?

AZT is the most toxic substance ever administered to humans. Even on the warning label on AZT it says it causes HIV disease symptoms. African AIDS is a completely different epidemic all together. in the usa aids after 90% male and is contained in risk groups. In africa aids is 50/50 and is found randomly in the population. There is mounting evidence that AIDS in africa is a bioweapon part of the WHO eugenics administered through forced vaccinations program to wipe africans from the face of the earth. watch this video. The Strecker Memorandom obviously they are two different epidemics. seriously watch the previous video i posted HIV-AIDS-Fact.Or.Fraud.DivX.avi instead of behaving like such sheeple.
posted by godseyeview at 9:12 AM on December 3, 2004


FYI, this is actually old news. The New York Post ran a story, for example, on 29 February 2004, titled "AIDS TOTS USED AS 'GUINEA PIGS' - PROBE OF CITY FOSTER CENTER'S HIV RX TESTS." (I know, the Post, but I believe it was covered elsewhere, too.)

jaydedx and godseyeview, it has been said since the beginning of medicine that all medicinal drugs are just carefully administered poisions. So what else is knew? Water is wet? Idiots.
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:00 AM on December 3, 2004


Sorry, "new." Knew, gnu, nu.
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:01 AM on December 3, 2004


AZT was first synthesized in 1964, and first approved by the FDA for use as a treatment for HIV/AIDS in 1987.

The earliest confirmed AIDS case (wasnt recognized at the time for what it was) dates from 1959. The first official recognition of AIDS was on June 5, 1981, when the American Centers for Disease Control issued a press release describing five cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in Los Angeles.

godseyeview - how do you reconcile these dates with your allegations?
posted by Irontom at 10:32 AM on December 3, 2004


1. A useful contact for this story: Clifford Levy at the NY Times, who investigated allegations of abuse at NYC homes for adults. levy@REMOVEMEnytimes.com

2. There's quite a history of less-than-informed consent when it comes to experimental treatments. Inmates from Letchworth Village were "volunteered" for polio vaccine trials (the same vaccine that some people believe may eventually have become contaminated with an HIV antecedent, sparking the AIDS pandemic...)

3. Call me twisted, but am I the only one who thought of this? ("I've given this long and careful thought. And it's medical experiments for the lot of you.")
posted by greatgefilte at 10:44 AM on December 3, 2004


AZT was first synthesized in 1964, and first approved by the FDA for use as a treatment for HIV/AIDS in 1987.

The earliest confirmed AIDS case (wasnt recognized at the time for what it was) dates from 1959. The first official recognition of AIDS was on June 5, 1981, when the American Centers for Disease Control issued a press release describing five cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in Los Angeles.

godseyeview - how do you reconcile these dates with your allegations?


the causes of american aids are drug use, azt, azt cocktails, risky homosexual lifestyle. risky homosexual lifestyle and drug use can reconcile those dates. Like i said many times before watch this video. HIV-AIDS-Fact.Or.Fraud.DivX.avi all your questions you are asking is explained in there. After watching that video and if you still have questions then ask. There is too much information covered in that film to explain all at once on this board. it would take 5 pages.
posted by godseyeview at 10:59 AM on December 3, 2004


There is mounting evidence that AIDS in africa is a bioweapon part of the WHO eugenics administered through forced vaccinations program to wipe africans from the face of the earth. watch this video

godseyeview, I recognize that you're trying to convince us of something that you're encountering a lot of skepticism about. But do you not understand the stereotypes of complete nutjobbery that you're playing into? If you want to make a point about the causes of AIDS, you're definitely not going to be helped by throwing in references to "WHO eugenics" or any other theory that (I say this trying to make no judgment about the truth of such a theory) instantly makes us picture your head covered in tinfoil. Stick to your point. If you can't, that makes your beliefs all the less credible.
posted by rustcellar at 11:26 AM on December 3, 2004


godseyeview & jaydedx : take it to metatalk, or make your own FPP. Enough hijacking this thread.

This is a very sad story. It's amazing how Americans hear about atrocities all over the world and think "well, at least not in my country". Not a delusion we can suffer under anymore- for me that changed when I read articles about people sending their own children to camps, and this just one more step down from that.

:(
posted by Four Flavors at 11:31 AM on December 3, 2004


The difference is that the state is giving consent instead of parents, and the state is less likely to be devoted to the interests of the child.

That makes sense. So why do (regular, biological) parents frequently consent to enrolling their children in studies? This does happen, and I presume it's usually because being in the trial offers some possible benefit to the child (e.g. free drugs, or access to new, possibly better drugs).

Other times it's a matter of the parents wishing to help other children, particularly when the study doesn't pose much harm/discomfort to the child.

Perhaps we should say that only [normal, non-government] parents/guardians should be allowed to give consent for their children to enroll in trials unless there is expected to be a significant benefit to the child?

And if we are saying that, are we sure that this trial didn't offer that?
posted by kevinsp8 at 12:01 PM on December 3, 2004


His career was a failure because he wasted lots of time on money trying to prove cancer was caused by a virus in the 70's.

If true it's pretty ironic that some cancers (eg cervical) are caused by viruses.
posted by Mitheral at 1:17 PM on December 3, 2004


/waiting for MeFi user # 29,202 to blame fluoride for the AIDS.

I blame the flouridians. Gee, that seemed like a better joke before I wrote it down...

Are jaydedx and godseyeview going to poop on every single thread remotely related to AIDS, HIV or drug testing?
posted by Faint of Butt


I don't know, but given the pseudonym you've chosen (which amuses me to no end) I'm standing by to find out if every one of your posts is going to have a poop reference.

Here's hoping the answer to that is "yes".
posted by davejay at 1:25 PM on December 3, 2004


yay, back on metafilter. My account died ages ago and the horrors of PayPal have kept me from re-registering till now....

.... people! The most high profile senator in the country represents NY. Write to Ms Hillary Clinton. If she wants me to vote for her in 2008, this is a damn good place to start demonstrating leadership. At the very least I want a much better explanation of what is going on here.

btw I am an American living in the UK so I will write to my MP too. GSK are getting more pressure for being involved in this at home than in the US, I think.
posted by fshgrl at 2:30 PM on December 3, 2004


kevinsp8: And if we are saying that, are we sure that this trial didn't offer that?

Yes, it seems we are pretty sure the HIV trial didn't offer parents/guardians a choice in whether or not the kids were to be put into the trials. From the first link in the original post:

In fact it was the drugs that were making the children ill and the children had been enrolled on the secret trials without their relatives' or guardians' knowledge.
posted by Orb at 2:38 PM on December 3, 2004


Debunked by Rivka of Respectful of Otters.
posted by mcwetboy at 3:56 PM on December 3, 2004


mcwetboy, that article does take a rational look at the sensationalism surrounding this thread, and the documentary, but, it doesn't debunk the crucial point. We're not talking about treatment, we're talking about medical research. Experimental treatment. Nationally, less than 2 percent of all adults participate in medical research that they would be eligible for. Even with drug companies offering to pay for otherwise expensive medications. The percentage for children, is even lower. I have no problem with ACS stepping in to make sure children with AIDS are receiving appropriate medical care. That does not mean they should be enrolled in a research trial. The vast majority of parents, concerned over the medical treatment of their children, would not do what ACS has apparently done.
posted by MetalDog at 4:21 PM on December 3, 2004


Note: For future readers of this thread, there is an important follow-up discussion in this thread.
posted by pmurray63 at 12:45 AM on December 5, 2004


« Older Google "Arabian Gulf" and you'll find that the gul...  |  Chris Hedges on war.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments