Wednesday, August 13, 2008

There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit

The Reiki Matrix

There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit

Posted: 05 Aug 2008 05:23 PM CDT

WHO confesses to 25 years of misguided AIDS policies. But they still want you to believe them.

It is official: AIDS is not explicable by sexual transmission, at least not outside of Sub-Saharan Africans, gay men, intravenous drug users and prostitutes. For the rest of us, there is no heterosexual AIDS pandemic, and further, there will be no heterosexual AIDS pandemic.

"Threat of world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits," The Independent announced on Sunday, June 8, 2008, mimicking what I have been reporting for years (and what some of my colleagues have been reporting for decades).

No, really. But take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization(WHO): "[T]here will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa."

"A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa," the article concedes, daring you hang them all. And so they're quick to add a massive fiction: "But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts."

The authorities explain that they misled the entire world, for decades, because admitting the grandeur of their farce would have encouraged their critics: "Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease." Of course! We've got to protect flawed science from criticism!

But, regardless of past and current performance (and admissions of outright massive fraud), the authorities at the WHO and UNAIDS still want you to believe them, when they talk about AIDS, Bird Flu, Sars, and other advertised but not achieved super-pandemics.

Such a weak defense might encourage a curious mind to wonder at the other flaws in their paradigm. For example, are we now to believe that there is a virus that causes a fatal disease, but only in Africans, (wherever in the world they may be), gay men and drug addicts? But not the entirety of the human population that is sexually active?

The answer to the riddle may be found in the actual cause of "HIV" – namely, "HIV testing." Figure out who is tested, how the tests work (or, more to the point, how they don't work), and who the tests are said to be accurate for, and you'll get an understanding of how the "AIDS" diagnosis – now, no better than a brand name applied to poverty and drug addiction – actually works.

How do "Hiv tests" work? In sum, they don't work at all. They come up as "false positives" in numbers far exceeding "true positives":

"Sir, In the May 9 issue of The Lancet, Round the World correspondents discussed AIDS-associated problems in former Eastern bloc countries…I would like to emphasize another alarming concern – namely, the rapid growth in false-positive HIV tests in the former USSR, and in Russia especially. In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 12 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives. 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations." (The Lancet, June 1992)

They have no ability to determine if someone has or does not have the antibodies they think they're looking for; the interpretation of "HIV positive" is subjective and not consistent:

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." (Abbott labs HIV-1/2 test, 1986 to the present).

They don't produce singular or diagnostically specific results – they cross-react all over the map:

"Heterophile antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat] proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] type 1 and other infectious serology testing. (CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY, July 1999)

"False-positive ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear." (Doran, et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Family Medicine, 2000)

The secondary tests that are sometimes used to give a sense of validity to an initial test are either reformulations of the same material (the Western Blot), or are synthetic genetic probes (PCR Viral Load) that likewise cross-react and give no diagnostically specific reaction (and these tests are rarely to never used when you're talking about "AIDS in Africa").

"Persons at risk of HIV-1 infection have been classified incorrectly as HIV infected because of Western blot results, but the frequency of false-positive Western blot results is unknown." (JAMA. 1998; 280: 1080-1085)

"The HIV-1 PCR assay was designed to monitor HIV therapy, not to diagnose HIV infection…In patients (like ours) with a low prior probability of disease, almost all positive test results are false positive." (False Positive HIV Diagnosis b HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing. Ann Intern Med, 1999.)

"Helminth (parasitic worm) "load" is correlated to HIV plasma Viral Load, and successful deworming is associated with a significant decrease in HIV plasma Viral Load." (Threatment of intestinal worms is associated with decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)

How is "AIDS" diagnosed in Africa? AIDS in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. It is here too, but we're more attached to a process of testing, which is, in essence, illusory, because the tests are limited to use in certain groups, for whom the non-specific tests are said to have a "higher positive predictive value," or to be "more accurate." But in Africa, this is dispensed with entirely, and "AIDS" is diagnosed based on the symptoms of hunger, thirst, TB and malaria – in other words, poverty.

"Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number of the seronegative group (135/227, 59%) who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhoea, and chronic fever. Many of them also had other AIDS-associated signs, such as lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis, dermatological diseases, and neurological disorders." (Hishida O et al. Clinically diagnosed AIDS cases without evident association with HIV type 1 and 2 infections in Ghana Lancet. 1992 Oct 17).

The numbers that have been reported are also entirely fabricated based on exponential projections from one small group to entire populations. Very recently, these numbers have been revised to such a massive degree so as to drive the the AIDS prognosticators to painful public redaction:

In Swaziland this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% – overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (August, 2004, IRIN News, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Cited by Scheff, 2005, Knowing is Beautiful. GNN)

Who are the tests considered "accurate" for? The tests are only considered to be "accurate" for certain groups. Those considered to be at "high risk" are much more likely to be tested, and to have their tests interpreted as either a "true positive," or, as you can see below, a "false negative." In other words, if they want you for the "AIDS" diagnosis, they'll get you:

"Suppose, for example, a single rapid test that has 99.4% specificity is administered to 1,000 people, meaning six will test false-positive. That error rate won't matter much in areas with a high prevalence of HIV,because in all probability the people testing false-positive will have the disease."

What disease? AIDS? Or Poverty? And can you tell the difference from the tests?

"But if the same test was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban housewives – a low-prevalence population – in all likelihood all positive results will be false, and positive predictive values plummet to zero. (Coming to Your Clinic – Candidates for Rapid Tests. AIDS Alert, 1998)

Here is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it's quite a shift (From the Independent): "Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients."

So how did we get to, "it's only gay men, Africans, drug addicts and prostitutes," from the advertised version for twenty-five years: "Everyone is at equal risk to contract HIV and to develop AIDS." What happened to the theory of sexual transmission?

The 10-year 1997 study by Dr. Nancy Padian had a lot to do with its downfall. The study took 175 "mixed" heterosexual couples (that is, one partner testing "positive" and one "negative"), who practiced vaginal and anal sex [for the latter – 37.9% at the commencement of the study, decreasing to 8.1% by the end], both with and without condoms [32.2% condom use at the beginning, increasing to 74% at the end]. But no matter how these folks did it, nobody who was negative became positive:

"We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…"

"We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.""

Padian determined that outside of intravenous drug use, this was not a very transmissible "sexually-transmissible disease." But there is a contention made by Dr. de Cock that some sort of special sexual activity in Sub-Saharan Africa must (but is not evidenced to) explain the differences in "HIV prevalence". It's worth looking at studies of sex and "HIV positivity" for comparison. Does sex correlate with "HIV positivity" more than I.V. drug addiction?

In West Africa, these women, all prostitutes, have remained negative for more than five years:

"[This study involved] a group of repeatedly exposed but persistently seronegative female prostitutes in The Gambia, West Africa…have worked as prostitutes for more than five years, use condoms infrequently with clients and only rarely with their regular partners and have a high incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases" (Rowland-Jones S et al. HIV-specific cytotoxic T-cells in HIV-exposed but uninfected Gambian women. Nat Med. 1995 Jan)

In sum, lots of STDs, lots of exposure to HIV positive persons, and no HIV. Here, as reported on PBS's "RX for Survival" (2005) a group of prostitutes refuses to get sick:

"In Nairobi, a group of prostitutes appear to have natural immunity against H.I.V…. because they have an abnormally large number of killer T-cells." (New York Times, 2005. Author: ANITA GATES)

In this study in Tel Aviv, girl and boy prostitutes, (with and without original bits and pieces), don't turn "positive," unless they're injection drug users:

"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes … All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive. " (Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr)

In Tijuana, among a group of hundreds of prostitutes, condoms were used by a slight majority, but then, they said, for less than half the time:

"In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico… None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2. Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts. ... Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes." (Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989)

No condoms, no drug use – zero positivity. The same is found in the US and throughout Europe. Injection drug use, not sex, equals "HIV positivity."

"HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas none of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive." (Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr)

That doesn't sound like much of an STD.

So, do you still believe the WHO, and the medical authorities when they talk about AIDS? Despite their incredible, world-changing lies and deceptions, advertising campaigns and persecution of dissenting scientists, do you still believe them when they say that AIDS is still a sex-disease, but now, only if you're Black, gay or poor enough?

We used to have a science in the early 20th Century, that similarly was able to pick the unfit out of risk groups – it was called Eugenics. If humanity is nothing else, we are certainly dogged in our ability to re-invent our old, bad ideas, again and again.

  • For the reprehensibly curious, I've linked my 2003 exploration of the topic of AIDS causes, numbers, drugs and tests. [Here]

  • Posted by Liam
    Liam Scheff - Writer and Journalist on Politics, History, Race, Class and Culture. In 2004, I broke open the NIH clinical trial scandal - government researchers testing New York City orphans with combinations of toxic, speculative drugs. My research was used as the...

    Disclaimer: Statements and opinions expressed in articles published on this site are those of the authors and not of the staff or editors of GNN, unless otherwise stated.

    Journalism Ethics 101 – Liam Scheff's Conversations with New York Times' Reporter Janny Scott

    Posted: 05 Aug 2008 04:41 PM CDT

    Twenty Questions on Ethics and Standards for the New York Times.

    In 2005, I was interviewed by New York Times reporter Janny Scott about the Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) scandal. My investigation had revealed that orphaned children were being used in taxpayer and Pharma–funded drug studies in a Catholic orphanage in New York City.

    The studies involved FDA Black-Box labeled drugs, in high doses and combinations. (The FDA Black Box label indicates that a drug has caused permanent damage or has killed patients taking the drug, at its normal, prescribed dose). Orphans were receiving a half dozen of these drugs at once.

    • My published work featured interviews with the medical director of the ICC, and children, guardians and current and former employees from the drug-test orphanage.
    • In my reporting, I reviewed and cited the medical literature on the putative Aids drugs and HIV tests used in the ICC orphanage.
    • I named and reviewed the studies listed in the government's clinical trials database ( that were being conducted at the orphanage and its referring hospitals.
    • In the course of my reporting, I had also been able to enter the ICC orphanage itself, undercover, with one of the families I was working with, and I reported on what I experienced in meeting the children held there.

    The story was followed up by numerous news agencies, and spawned several independent investigations, as well as a BBC documentary (that was later attacked by pro-pharma/drug activists).

    The New York Times caught up with the story by mid 2005; Times reporter, Janny Scott, interviewed me by phone and then in an email correspondence that lasted over a month. I supplied her with referenced material, and also with contact information, phone numbers and names for my inside sources (as well as my sources permission and agreement to be interviewed by the Times).

    Ms. Scott (and her junior writing partner, Leslie Kaufman), also had access to all the materials already published on the ICC story by myself and independent news agencies [1, 2, 3].

    She took my interview, sources and information, but suppressed all of it in her reporting. She did not cite me correctly relating to the publication of my article. She misquoted me from emails that I sent her, and she actively suppressed the sources I gave her, who had inside information about the ICC trials.

    Her report did not list a single recorded negative drug side-effect, FDA drug warning, or any of the actual studies being done at the ICC; nor did it feature the testimony of any parent or guardian of a child who was being asked or forced to take these drugs.

    At the time of publication, I, and others, wrote critical letters-to-the-editor to Ms. Scott and her employers, but neither she, nor her editors responded to them, and the Times never printed a single opposing view to their front-page story.

    In 2008, I tried again, and wrote Janny Scott, again addressing my concerns to her. She responded, and in the course of this second correspondence, she admits that she had not, in fact, read or reviewed a single medical record of any of the children who were given the Black Box drugs, despite having claimed (on the front page of a national paper), that the trials weren't "anything but a medical success."

    • She also admits that she took, but did not use, interviews with my major sources, mothers who had children in the ICC.
    • She agrees that she did receive materials from me on the drugs in question, but likewise did not use (suppressed) the information.
    • She also claims to have forgotten or lacks the ability to remember important pieces of information, including whether she did or did not interview the medical director of ICC, Dr. Katherine Painter.

    The correspondence ends with a letter from myself to Janny Scott and her editor, Joe Sexton, containing twenty questions regarding the ethics, standards and practices employed by the New York Times in reporting contentious pharmaceutical issues, such as the use of orphaned children in Black-Box-Drug clinical trials.

    Neither Janny Scott, nor her editor, have responded.

    Media and legal inquiries are welcome. Please read the letters and see the open challenge at Rethinking Aids.


    1 The original 2004 expose':

    2 Related and independent follow-up investigation/reporting:

    3 Liam Scheff's ICC and Aids drug/Hiv test reporting prior to Times article:

    Immediately following the Times article:

    Since then:

    4 Interviews with Dr. Katherine Painter, Medical Director of the ICC: "House that Aids Built," "The ICC Investigation Continues," "Orphans on Trial," (see footnote 3). Extended interview with Audio: The ICC Interviews ARAS, 2007.

    5. Janny Scott's 2005 New York Times article Belated Charge Ignites Furor Over AIDS Drug Trial Janny Scott, Leslie Kaufman, New York Times (July 17, 2005). Sunday National Edition, p.A-1, First Section, Front Page.

    6 Unpublished Letters to the NY Times:

    Read the entire correspondence at RethinkingAids.

    Three letters from the correspondence:


    TWO - Monday, June 2, 2008. From: Janny Scott To: Liam Scheff. Cc: Leslie Kaufman (leslie @

    Dear Mr. Scheff,

    Thank you for your note. I will attempt to address your questions in the order you raised them.

    As you know from our conversations in 2005, the aim of the article the Times published was to explain the history and context of the controversy that resulted in 2004 and 2005 from your article; we did not presume to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of, for example, using AZT or micronutrient therapy or other approaches in children with HIV in the late 1980's. We are newspaper reporters, not biomedical researchers.

    We never suggested, as you say, that the cases you cited in your article online were "made up stories." We simply noted that the article that had triggered the controversy did not include the actual identities of the people involved in cases you cited. As you know, the use of anonymous sources and pseudonyms in journalism is noteworthy, in that in some people's eyes it can influence the credibility of allegations being made.

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

    What are the "many factual errors" you say were made in describing the article cited? And I don't know what you mean about "ridiculing" the fact that you know some people who are alive 20 years after their diagnosis.

    There seems to me nothing ridiculous about that. It's simply a fact that, it seemed to me, understandably influenced the way you viewed what was done at ICC.

    I am quite certain that I did not "mis-report" what you told me about the publication of the original story. You certainly did not tell me that it was "in line at Red Flags Weekly and Mothering magazine" and that you decided to pull it. You never said, "Nobody on the Left would touch it." The quote I used was a direct quote and would not have been changed.

    Finally, you say you sent several notes after the piece ran "but never heard back." The Times moved a year ago so I no longer have a lot of older files, but I do not recall receiving your notes and am quite certain I would have responded had I received them.


    Janny Scott


    SIX - Sunday, June 29, 2008, From: Janny Scott To: Liam Scheff.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    TEN - Saturday, July 5, 2008. From: Liam Scheff To: Janny Scott.

    Cc: Joe Sexton (NY Times editor), David Crowe ( Patricia Warren (A&U Magazine), Vera Sharav (

    Subject: Re: ICC story - Liam Scheff to NY Times reporter Janny Scott - reviewing your responses


    I've been reviewing your responses, and have discovered many serious inconsistencies in your answers. I was interviewed at length by you in 2005, and was misrepresented and misquoted by you in print. I have sent letters to the editor that have never received a response or been printed in your paper.

    Please address answers the following, to myself and to your editor.

    (Please find attached a record of our current email correspondence, the letters-to-the-editor sent to the Times in 2005, and three letters from our 2005 email correspondence).

    1. You said that the purpose of your story was not to render a verdict on the ethics of the drug trials at the ICC orphanage.

    You wrote: "We did not set out to render a verdict, a decade and a half later, on the rightness or wrongness of experimental drug therapies used in the late 1980's on children with HIV."

    But your story opens with the line:

    "It was seen as one of the great successes of AIDS treatment. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, hundreds of children in New York City were dying of AIDS. The only approved drugs were for adults, and many of the patients were foster children. So doctors obtained permission to include foster children in what they regarded as promising drug trials."

    You later admit that the "permissions" for many of these children are "missing," (or were never there) but that fact doesn't affect your opening pitch. You don't bother to entertain the question of ethics around inventing "permission" to use orphans in clinical trials. You support it, from your opening line.

    A few lines later, you add:

    "[T]here is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success."

    You provide no data in any portion of your article on any study done on these children at the ICC. You provide no medical data or personal interview from any child from the orphanage. You provide no data on the effects of the drugs used on any individual who was enrolled in any of these trials. You describe no negative effect of the drugs. You credit them with saving lives, but you give no single example of a life that was saved, and you buried the stories of women whose children were made sick from the drugs.

    You rendered a verdict from the opening. Your claim to have done anything else plainly dishonest.

    Q1: What is the New York Times' policy on reporting the details of drug trials?

    Q2: What is the New York Times' policy on reporting "missing permissions" for orphans used in drug trials? Is it standard practice to defend organizations that claim to have "missing permissions," that they can only claim to have ever had, in order to justify the use of orphans in drug trials?

    2. You say that "there is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success." But you admit to not reviewing a single medical case history. You wrote: "No, we did not review patients' medical files."

    Q3: Did you interview any children from the ICC?

    Q4: Did you ask them about their health on and off the drugs, or about the effects of the drugs?

    You also revealed no study data, and no drug warnings or effects.

    Q5: On what grounds do you make a claim that these studies benefited any particular or specific child?

    Q6: Can you name and give a detailed history of any particular child who was benefited by any of the three dozen studies done at the ICC?

    3. You quote Dr. Stephen Nicholas, who set up the orphanage as an NIH clinical trial center, saying that "no child ever had an unexpected side effect" on the drugs at the ICC. The drugs in question are AZT and its analogs, Nevirapine, and protease inhibitors, including Ritonavir.

    You wrote me saying that "An unexpected side effect would have been a side effect not previously seen in response to those drugs, presumably."

    You stated that you did not list a single FDA warning about the drugs used here because: "there are side-effects and FDA warnings on many if not most drugs. The side-effects of early AIDS drugs have been written about extensively."

    Q7: Did you research any of the "expected side effects" of AZT and Nevirapine?

    Q8: Do you know why these drugs have an FDA Black-box warning?

    Q9: Why did you not report on any of the "known side effects," in an article about the allegations that there were major side effects experienced by children at the ICC who were put on these drugs?

    Q10: If the FDA has recorded that a drug has caused permanent disability or death in adults who've taken it, at its normal, prescribed dose, what is the New York Times' policy in reporting that?

    4. You stated that "We did not set out to render a verdict, a decade and a half later, on the rightness or wrongness of experimental drug therapies used in the late 1980's on children with HIV."

    Q11: Why are you referring to the "late 1980s?"

    The ICC trials began in 1992 and continued, in various forms, through 2004 or 2005. From ICC's webpage (as of 2004, when they took this information down):

    "In 1992, an outpatient clinic for HIV-positive children was established; the same year, with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the clinic became a sub unit of the Columbia University Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Unit…"

    The page also gave a list of trials active at ICC in 1996. As for what happened in the late '80s, I'll refer you to their webpage once again:

    "Pediatric AIDS was first recognized in 1982-83. Early in the epidemic, HIV disease of childhood was considered to be down-hill course leading to death. But in the late 1980's, before AZT was available, many very ill children admitted to ICC got dramatically better with proper nurturing and high-quality medical and nursing care."

    Imagine that? Better without AZT, says ICC, in the "late 1980's."

    When I interviewed Dr. Katherine Painter, ICC's medical director, in 2003, she told me that children in ICC could participate in clinical trials by being enrolled in local hospitals. From my 2003 interview with Dr. Katherine Painter (Quoted in "House that Aids Built," 2004; in the New York Press, "Orphans on Trial", 2004,; and reprinted with audio at

    Dr. Painter in 2003:

    "[A]nd again, many clinics that refer to us are participating in clinical trials programs.

    So if a child is on a treatment protocol, they would undergo that monitoring, testing, protocol entry, supply of an experimental drug through um, their outpatient clinic – and we can maintain that treatment here.

    So If a child is on an experimental drug, the um, clinic site supplies the drug to the child, and their caregiver of course is the one who actually picks it up, either the nursing aid who accompanies them from a store or their parent or caregiver, and brings it back, picks it back to us if, if it's not a drug that's available through a pharmacy.

    Currently the children who've been recently here who've been on newer therapies have been on T20 or Fuzeon, and it's now available through a progressive access program from a pharmacy, which is Hoffman La Roche – and previously until very recently was the children who were receiving it were in an expanded access clinical protocol."

    [end citation]

    She's describing enrollment of ICC wards in late 2003 into clinical trials and "expanded access clinical protocols" with "experimental drugs." The kids stay at the orphanage, and are enrolled at neighboring hospitals.

    You radically misplaced and misstated your timeline. Who knows what you were writing about in your article.

    5. You say you're not sure, or can't remember if you interviewed ICC's medical director. You wrote: "I do not recall interviewing Dr. Painter but I may simply not remember. As you know, the Times moved to a new office a year ago. It was not possible to move all of our files. In my case, I threw away files that were more than 12 months old."

    Q12: Did you or did you not interview Dr. Katherine Painter?

    It's not a difficult question. You claim to have memory of individual lines that you attribute to me, remembered from a telephone conversation from three years ago. You claim a perfect memory of these lines, despite the fact that I dispute your use of them as wildly de-contextualized misquotes. If you claim perfect memory on these, then you certainly can remember if you interviewed the medical director of the orphanage whose studies you were defending. If you can't remember, then it should be understood that your entire memory is suspect.

    6. You interviewed Mona, the great aunt and adoptive mother of two children in the ICC, but, according to her, asked her only about my "beliefs about Aids and Aids drugs," but not about her children, or their reaction to the drugs, or their time in the ICC.

    I put this to you, and you responded:

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

    I didn't ask you what you "would have" interviewed her about. I asked you what you did interview her about. Mona is one of three major witnesses/sources for my first story. She says that you asked her about my "beliefs about Aids and Aids drugs, and little else," and she does so on tape, and on the record.

    Q13: What "did" you ask Mona about?

    7. You state that "the aim of the Times story was to explain the background, history and context of the increasingly public controversy that had arisen out of the allegations made in your article."

    Q14: How did you plan to do that when you suppressed your interviews with all three of my major adult witnesses/sources for my first article:

    (1) Mona, the great-aunt and adoptive mother of two children who've been in and out of the ICC their whole lives; (2) Jackie Herger, former pediatric Aids nurse at the ICC and adoptive mother of two children from the orphanage; and (3) Dr. Katherine Painter, the medical director of ICC?

    You claim that you excised interviews from your article for reasons of space: to be able to "produce an article of a length that a newspaper can run." But your piece ran on the front page of section one, in the Sunday edition, nation-wide. Space was not an issue.

    Q15: Why did you bury the interviews with Mona and Jackie Herger?

    Q16: Why didn't you interview Dr. Katherine Painter? Or, if you did, why did you bury her interview?

    You cannot claim to have been looking into the allegations made in my article without interviewing or citing these three witnesses.

    8. In your article, you asserted that I told you that I could not get the first story published anywhere. This assertion is contradicted by the email record of our long exchange in 2005, prior to the publication of your article.

    You grossly misquoted, misrepresented and selectively reported my telephone dialog with you, and this total misrepresentation formed the crux of your article. I've been interviewed elsewhere, on film, in print and on radio, and I've never made any statements consistent with those you attributed to me. This is because you invented them, by wildly de-contextualizing tiny portions of our over-hour long conversation.

    You committed fraud in mis-representing and mis-reporting my statements, and I said so in my letters to you at the time. I've been vocal about it since, in interview with other journalists, and in my own published writing, but I've never had a response from the Times.

    In our telephone conversation I absolutely informed you about the Left (Village Voice, Democracy Now, NPR) and the bias against critical reporting on Aids (which you've proven in practice), and I would swear in court to that fact. It was in that context, and that context alone, that I said that I'd had trouble finding an outlet for the "House" article in 2003. By the time you interviewed me in 2005, however, I'd had at least seven articles published on the subject, in various print and web outlets. The idea that I couldn't get my work published was and is ludicrous.

    I'd worked at a paper in Boston prior to publishing the "House" article at I'd had a great volume of work published in print and online. Your statement was intended to create an illusion that I was not a journalist or a serious investigator. It was a specious and dishonest claim on your part, and I can only assume, it's the angle you intended from your pitch.

    I absolutely informed you that I had pulled "The House" article and research from a print magazine for the purpose of getting out faster to news agencies and the public. I have an email record stating as much.

    You asked me (June 30, 2005): "I can't seem to find in my notes the month that you posted the Incarnation article on Was it January 2004?"

    I answered (also June 30, 2005): "I researched and wrote The House That AIDS Built from June through Nov. 2003, started emailing it out in Dec. 2003. Had a magazine interested in Nov, but they backed out. Had an offer to rewrite it and get it out by Aug 2004 in a print mag, but felt speed was more important."

    (Find those emails attached).

    You claim to be missing emails, files, etc, to have thrown items away, to have perhaps, lost items in a move. The NY Times has a century or more of archived work publicly available. If your description of your disordered and disrupted files were true, I doubt that your newspaper could function.

    Q17: Do you have a complete email record of our 2005 pre-article correspondence? If not, would you like me to email you and your editor a copy?

    Q18: What is the New York Times policy for misrepresenting someone in print?

    9. You claim that you "do not recall receiving," but may have lost in a move, or thrown out, my letter-to-the-editor from 2005.

    You wrote: "The Times moved a year ago so I no longer have a lot of older files, but I do not recall receiving your notes and am quite certain I would have responded had I received them."

    I absolutely wrote the Times with a letter for print, immediately after the publication of your article in July, 2005. I have four sent versions in my email exchange because I sent the letter in duplicate to several NY Times email addresses, including yours, your co-writer Ms. Kaufman, and to the letters department.

    I then posted the letter publicly at GNN, (where much of my reporting has been done), as an open letter to the Times editorial and letters department, and listed the Times "letters" email, in case any reader was motivated to seek a response ("NY Times to the Rescue," GNN, July 2005).

    My letter was then reposted at the website of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (, along with six additional letters from other journalists, researchers and doctors, who'd written the Times about inaccuracies and gross misreporting in your story ("Seven Unpublished letters to the New York Times Re: AIDS drug/vaccine experiments on babies/children in NYC foster care", August, 2005).

    Vera Sharav's letter was sent to Byron Calame, Public Editor New York Times, and was copied to Victor Navasky and Michael Hoyt, Columbia Journalism Review, and Ann Pincus, Center for Public Integrity: Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest. These letters have been online and publicly available for three years.

    In order for you not to have received or been made aware of these letters, you would have to have never used the internet, or have any friends who did, and also have no co-workers, or employers/editors, who receive email, use the internet, or receive feedback on their published work.

    Q19: What is the New York Times' policy on printing letters-to-the-editor from interview subjects who make serious allegations of being mis-quoted and mis-represented in print by a Times' reporter?

    10. You claimed, in your article, that the information I provided was done through un-named sources and un-documented research.

    You wrote:

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

    And you concluded:

    "Whatever the outcome, the controversy has already demonstrated the power of a single person armed only with access to the Internet and an incendiary story to put major institutions on the defensive."

    None of what you wrote is in evidence. It's a total fabrication.

    A. I didn't have access "only to the internet." I took interviews with children who'd been placed in the orphanage because their parents stopped or limited FDA-Black Boxed drugs. I had access to their medical records, and, of course, to their parent's testimonies.

    B. People were, in fact, identified by real names, in my first report, and in subsequent reporting. Jackie Herger, (former nurse at ICC and adoptive mother of children from the orphanage), and Dr. Katherine Painter (medical director of ICC) were featured in my first, second and third reports on ICC ("House that Aids Built", "The ICC Investigation Continues", "Orphans On Trial"), and then in subsequent reporting as well ("The ICC Interviews - Dr. Katherine Painter", "Inside Incarnation").

    Mona, a great aunt (and adoptive parent) of two children in the ICC, was provided an alias, as were the children in the story, and I provided her real name, and contact information to you, which you used to interview her.

    To make a claim that a story is potentially false because of the use of a single alias, is not defensible. To raise suspicions about the nature of a witness using an alias, is only defensible if the reporter is unwilling to share the identity of that alias. I provided her name and contact information for you in 2005, and you used it, interviewed her, and suppressed that information.

    C. "No official documentation." I listed, described and gave detailed analysis to many of the three dozen studies in the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial database (, and directed you to it, to do your work. I reviewed the Physician's Desk Reference, and FDA database on the drugs used in the studies at ICC, and gave a detailed listing of the recorded side-effects of the drugs.

    D. I reviewed, listed, described and gave analysis to dozens of studies printed in the standard medical journals on the non-standardized tests and the drugs.

    E. I was able to enter the physical orphanage itself, record and report my observations of what I saw, and on several children I interacted with, whose stories I followed up with my sources.

    F. In late 2004, through 2005, I conducted face-to-face interviews with nurses and child-care workers who worked at the orphanage, and cared for the children, and reported on their daily drugging, and the vomiting and diarrhea, rashes and deformities, that occurred as the known and predictable result of the drugs; they also reported in great detail on the deaths that occurred - deaths that were very strongly tied to commencement of drugs or of certain drug regimens, or enforcement via stomach tube of new drugs, including Thalidomide.

    G. At the same time, I conducted further interviews with adolescents who'd been residents at the orphanage, and who had been held and drugged there against their will. Some of these children had developed serious illnesses, including cancer, after a childhoods spent on AZT, and its analogues, drugs which are known carcinogens.

    H. This was reported in the New York Press two weeks after your story was released ("Inside Incarnation," NY Press, July/Aug 2005). You never did any follow-up, however, after it was revealed that your assertions couldn't possibly have been true.

    Q20: What is the New York Times policy for committing libel against a source or journalist?

    I look forward to receiving your answers.

    Liam Scheff

    ————–attachments to this email————–

    Four emails from my 2005 email correspondence with Janny Scott, prior to the publication of her NY Times article.

    One and Two - Ms. Scott's request and thanks for interview, Three - her follow-up question, and Four - my answer to why I put the "House" article on Indymedia and


    ONE - June 7, 2005, From: Janny Scott janscott, To:liamscheff; Subject: interview request

    Dear Mr. Scheff,

    I am a reporter at The New York Times and am working with Leslie Kaufman on a piece about the controversy over the testing of AIDS drugs on foster children. Would you have some time in the near future when we could speak?

    Thanks. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Janny Scott
    212 [XXX-XXXX]


    TWO - June 13, 2005 12:43:17 PM EDT. From Janny Scott janscott Date: To:liamscheff Subject: my email address


    Thanks again for your time on Thursday.

    Here is my email address. I look forward to receiving whatever you send.



    THREE - June 30, 2005, From: Janny Scott janscott, To: liam scheff liamscheff Cc: leslie Subject: date of first article?

    Hi Liam,

    I can't seem to find in my notes the month that you posted the Incarnation article on Was it January 2004?

    Please cc your answer to Leslie Kaufman as well as me,, as I may be out of the office.

    Thanks very much,



    FOUR - June 30, 2005. From: liam scheff liamscheff To: Janny Scott janscott Cc: leslie Subject: Re: date of first article?


    I researched and wrote The House That AIDS Built from June through Nov. 2003, started emailing it out in Dec. 2003.

    Had a magazine interested in Nov, but they backed out.

    Had an offer to rewrite it and get it out by Aug 2004 in a print mag, but felt speed was more important. Crossed my fingers and sent it out to 50, 60 people. Put it on indymedia in Dec. 2003, the guys at altheal [] put it up for good in January 2004 - I think it says so at the top of the page.

    The film company contacted me in late jan or early feb.

    Doug Montero from the Post contacted me in Jan or early Feb, I still have his emails.

    He interviewed me, then put out the story w/o credit. They put my name in a day later.

    The published something a week or so ago, and credited me properly.

    Janny, drop me a line, you had some questions for me that I've thought about and wanted to answer better.


    —————-end of attachments to this email——————-

    [There has been no reply.

    This email correspondence, and the published work and research listed in the references section above, provides substantial evidence that I was misrepresented, misquoted and libeled by Janny Scott and the New York Times. Neither Ms. Scott nor her editor, Joe Sexton, has responded to this accusation, or the evidence provided herein.

    Media and legal inquiries are welcome.]

    Gary Null, My Red Herring

    Posted: 05 Aug 2008 03:26 PM CDT

    This is in response to this comment, left by Alan Huyshe.

    It was not my intention to post my views on Mr Null as any kind of red herring. It is also not my intention to make Gary Null my main focus. He, specifically, IS irrelevant. I do not want to aid in making Mr. Null more important than the subject at hand. Mr. Null is doing that job very well for himself.

    My intention was more along the lines of pointing out the destructiveness of unchecked personal egos, greed, and sociopaths. When Mr. Null makes himself more important than the actual topic, is he not, in a way, making himself a red herring? Robert Gallo, by thinking that his reputation and image was more important than saving lives, has set back AIDS research at least two decades. Mr Null, by thinking himself too good to give Clark Baker's investigation any attention or recognition on his website or his radio show, has participated in keeping things status quo. Mr. Null posts daily news stories on his homepage, why not Clark Baker's story? I get the impression it's because of the subject, which Mr. Null has decided belongs to him.

    Yes, we've all got egos. But, how many people think that focus on themselves is more important than saving lives? How many people are in positions to make a huge difference because of the audience that they have? Yes, Mr. Null wrote very little and, like I said, it spoke volumes to me about who Mr Null is. My interpretation has also been echoed from several sources. Though saving lives is no doubt important to Mr. Null, his ego seems to be more important.

    Mr. Baker, by revealing the individual criminal elements behind this topic of HIV and AIDS fraud, is opening up the box for people to see that perhaps the answer to the questions
    "is it possible to tell who has 'hiv'? how can we tell whether or not it spreads? has anybody ever proven that there is a link between the retrovirus and the breakdown of immune function?"
    have already been answered and those answers are being suppressed because they would cost the pharmaceutical and medial industries a lot of money. Otherwise they would not have to go through such criminal means to cover their collective asses.

    I have already expressed my appreciation for Gary Null's work in getting the truth out about HIV and AIDS. Or at least to get people to question "conventional wisdom". That is not in question. I'm sure Robert Gallo actually has done SOME good in his lifetime of work too, but that doesn't mean he is a decent person and not out to help anyone but himself.

    Having an extremely high IQ, in my opinion, does not give anyone the right to be cruel, selfish and destructive to the rest of us. If they have such grand intelligence they aught to be able to figure out how to deal with people and not dismiss them. Does having a high IQ automatically mean one is without compassion or empathy? Or do ignorant souls deserve to be cast aside as "useless feeders" by these paragons of intelligence? Is it OK for millions to suffer and/or die because some ego freak doesn't want to share the spotlight with anybody? Not in my book.

    I thank you for your confidence, Mr. Huyshe, but I somehow doubt that "WE'RE ALL FOCUSSING" on what I have to say about Gary Null - Unless you know something that I don't. I also wrote my follow-up to this open letter to point out that the problem is not specifically Gary Null, but people like him. I don't care which side of an issue you're on, if you have an ego that needs more attention than the problem at hand then you are a hindrance to the solutions for that problem.

    Mr. Huyshe, you said,
    "I have spent a few decades now completely mystified as to why a genocidal holocaust on a scale far greater than Hitler's is not front page news every day. Is not even of much interest to most of my friends. Public inertia over this appalling crime is beyond my comprehension."
    and my point is to bring to attention the fact that we are allowing greedy, sociopaths with over inflated egos to have high positions in places of power. This is the reason we do not see these things on the front page of major newspapers, these fascist own the papers and they all protect each other. I think that the CAUSE of a vast majority of our problems today is that we have allowed greedy people in power who have massive egos and no conscious and that this is not irrelevant. Gary Null may not be a fascist sociopath, but he does appear to have what could be a destructively over-inflated ego with some selfish greed thrown in.

    I guess I would not have reacted as I have, if I had not been so disappointed. I'm disappointed that there seems to be very, very few genuinely altruistic people left in the world. Mr. Null's response did anger me and perhaps I gave it too much attention. But please don't overlook the underlying issue that I'm trying to point out in all of this.

    We may temporarily fix some problems here and there, but until we root out the underlying cause of these problems - psychologically sick people in power - they will keep reoccurring. It is my assertion that the major cause of all the major problems we face in the world today are due to greedy, selfish, egotistical, sociopaths making their way into power and gaining control over the lives of millions.

    So, I'm not bickering with anyone. I am stating my opinions and views as I see things. And I think I will continue to do so as long as there is some sembalence of free speech left. It has been because of my ego - how I will look to others - that has kept me quiet and I'm working to dispense with that and allow myself permission to speak up. If people can get riled up and want to defend Gary Null's ego then certainly I can speak up and defend what I think is right and point out what I think is wrong. I'll also keep using my brain and will be more than willing to admit when I'm wrong.

    I understand why you might see this as a red herring issue, but I'm only saying that maybe it's not.

    Everyone LOOK HERE:

    No comments: