A clear case of medical misconduct turned into a scientific triumph
March 5, 2013 § 2 Comments
By Petros Arguriou (hellashell.wordpress.com)
Since AIDS was artificially upgraded to a public health menace, there has been a conflict between AIDS establishment dictates and patient rights.
The AIDS patient has two choices: either he conforms to the AIDS dictates, or he is forced to conform.
There have been amble examples of these big brotherish tactics. We thought that the AIDS dictatorship had run out of cruelty when we learned that orphans were forced fed AIDS experimental drugs in the Incarnation Children’s Center (http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/orphans.htm).
Not quite so.
Patient rights violations continue to occur. And the violation of rights extends to the sphere of civil rights and basic human rights. An AIDS patient is faced with the gruesome possibility of being denied his right to be a parent. This is clear in the case of Rico Martinez Nagel, a baby who’s punishable by death crime was that he we was born to an HIV positive mother who refused to conform to the AIDS dictates. Rico’s mother, Lindsey had a very good reason to not do so: diagnosed with HIV when she was an infant, she was a victim of an presumably anti-AIDS treatment that made her so sick that her foster parents were forced to stop it.
Lindsey survived despite the doctor’s conviction that she would die if the parents took her off the AIDS treatment. She became a mother. And her boy was abducted by the authorities so that it would enjoy the “privileges” of AIDS treatment. Arrested growth, sickness and rapid health debilitation.
That is what is happening to Rico right now (for more on the Rico story read his grandparents testimonies and plea for help: http://saverico.com/).
A baby has been abducted and is being force fed with chemicals. Not even the Colombian mafia would resort to such tactics. But the Aids establishment lacks such moral restraints. When it wants something it gets it. No matter what.
There are a few things though that the AIDS establishment failed to obtain, now matter how hard it craved for them: A cure and a vaccine.
In a peculiar twist of fate, the AIDS establishment mounted by accident or purpose a response to the challenges created by Rico’s plight.
It miraculously found a cure for AIDS!
Well actually it did not found a cure. No new drug or vaccine was invented. In a clear violation of patient’s rights and even of AIDS protocols, a pediatrician gave a baby more of AIDS drugs sooner. Lets follow the NYT account of the story:
“Doctors announced on Sunday that a baby had been cured of an infection for the first time, a startling development that could change how infected newborns are treated and sharply reduce the number of children living with the virus that causes AIDS.
The baby, born in rural Mississippi, was treated aggressively with antiretroviral drugs starting around 30 hours after birth, something that is not usually done”
“The mother arrived at a rural hospital in the fall of 2010 already in labor and gave birth prematurely. She had not seen a doctor during the pregnancy and did not know she had H.I.V. When a test showed the mother might be infected, the hospital transferred the baby to the University of Mississippi Medical Center, where it arrived at about 30 hours old.
Dr. Hannah B. Gay, an associate professor of pediatrics, ordered two blood draws an hour apart to test for the presence of the virus’ RNA and DNA.
The tests found a level of virus at about 20,000 copies per milliliter, fairly low for a baby. But since tests so early in life were positive, it suggests the infection occurred in the womb rather than during delivery, Dr. Gay said.
Typically a newborn with an infected mother would be given one or two drugs as a prophylactic measure. But Dr. Gay said that based on her experience, she almost immediately used a three-drug regimen aimed at treatment, not prophylaxis, not even waiting for the test results confirming infection.
Virus levels rapidly declined with treatment and were undetectable by the time the baby was a month old. That remained the case until the baby was 18 months old, after which the mother stopped coming to the hospital and stopped giving the drugs.
When the mother and child returned five months later, Dr. Gay expected to see high viral loads in the baby. But the tests were negative.
Suspecting a laboratory error, she ordered more tests. “To my greater surprise, all of these came back negative,” Dr. Gay said” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/health/for-first-time-baby-cured-of-hiv-doctors-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
Now, let us do a reality check.
Dr Gay, confessed that she started the treatment on the baby prior to getting the test results she ordered as clearly indicated by the relevant paper presented in the 20th Conference of Retroviruses and Opportunistic infections:
“We report a case of functional HIV cure in a 26-month-old infected child who initiated ART at 30 hours of age.”
“Infant infection was confirmed by positive HIV DNA and RNA testing on 2 separate blood samples obtained on the 2nd day of life”
The good doctor did not hide the fact of her grave medical misconduct: As reported: “A doctor gave this baby faster and stronger treatment than is usual, starting a three-drug infusion within 30 hours of birth. That was before tests confirmed the infant was infected and not just at risk from a mother whose HIV wasn’t diagnosed until she was in labor.
“I just felt like this baby was at higher-than-normal risk, and deserved our best shot,” Dr. Hannah Gay, a pediatric HIV specialist at the University of Mississippi, said in an interview.” (http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-baby-born-hiv-apparently-cured-213124051.html)
Now. I admire brave doctors. Doctors who do what they have do no matter what. I always did. As long as they know what they are doing and why they are doing it and as long as they explain to us what they did and why they did it. But this is clearly not such a case: A doctor giving a 30 hours old baby stronger medication faster without a diagnosis, is clearly a case of medical misconduct. It also consists a clear case of involuntary medical experimentation.
A lot of serious questions are raised: How is it possible that informed consent was acquired by the mother of the infant in such a short period of time for a “treatment” never before attempted?
The good Doctor defied everything: she defied AIDS treatment protocols. She defied diagnosis. She defied patients rights. She defied informed consent. She defied international conventions on medical experimentation. Yet she was heralded as a pioneer by mass media.
All would be well, if the doctor’s arbitrariness and disregard resulted in a cure for AIDS. But we have absolutely nothing to verify this: The only thing we have is a non peer reviewed paper and unverifiable claims by some experts. We know not the name, age, health condition of the mother. We know not the general health condition of the baby at birth, during treatment and after treatment.
We know nothing.
Even hardliners high up in the AIDS hierarchy doubted the news of miraculous cure: ““The one uncertainty is really definitive evidence that the child was indeed infected,” said Dr. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.”
Yet millions of people heralded the news of yet another AIDS cure, based only on allegations with no hard evidence backing them up.
In my book, what the public opinion accepted with enthusiasm was actually not an AIDS cure: The public opinion embraced the demolition of patient rights, human rights, applauded involuntary medical experimentation on infants and glorified a possible medical fraud.
AIDS is not going the end of our western civilization. A more dire epidemic is far more threatening and it is called ACTDS: Acquired Critical Thinking Deficiency Syndrome. When this disease is manifested upon a culture with a weakened morality, the prognosis is cultural mortality.