Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Elle “science writer” lets down Maggiore


Gretchen misleads Christine, reports semi-fictional piece for Elle

Elle editor sends corrections to its lawyers

A member of the press reporting on HIV?AIDS turned in a typically disbelieving, fact-mangled profile on dissenter Christine Maggiore to Elle magazine, which publishes it this month as Gretchen Reynolds’ article “The Believer” (Elle, September 2006. on newstands now, $4).

The Contents page (buried some 60 ads deep from the cover) of the 560 page, ad thick Fashion Shopping Celebrity Sex How To glossy celebration of the power of female charms describes it thus, one all important factual error right there in the headline:

468 The Believer
Activist Christine Maggiore maintains that HIV does not cause AIDS, and not even her daughter’s death from the disease could change her mind. By Gretchen Reynolds

Elle now has its lawyers poring over the copious collection of errors objected to by Christine which were racked up by the unfortunate female reporter, a freelance. All the errors were published despite fact checking over the telephone with Christine Maggiore, which omitted some checks and ignored Maggiore’s corrections to others.

Needless to say, Maggiore is smarting from the betrayal of trust as well as from the inaccurate, discrediting reporting. Reynolds led her to believe that she respected Maggiore’s point of view and she was not going to be the only source critical of HIV?AIDS quoted in the piece. In fact it is a profile of Maggiore as misguided wretch who failed to follow the precriptions of conventional wisdom and paid for it.

Big, big mistake

Big mistake. Christine Maggiore is quite capable of defending herself. She writes:

Last fall, I met with Gretchen Reynolds, a freelance journalist on assignment from Elle, a fashion magazine that includes articles on health and current affairs. A self-described science writer, Reynolds said she was working on piece about AIDS that would explore unanswered questions about HIV, introduce some the individuals raising those questions, and include something on the controversy surrounding the death of my daughter.

As it turns out, Reynolds’ dishonesty was not limited to her pitch. I am the sole focus of “The Believer,” a mendacious and sensationalistic article that abstains from any intelligent examination of science fact. Reynolds errors are so extravagant and numerous, the magazine’s editor-at-large, Lisa Chase, asked me for a complete list to forward to Elle’s legal department for investigation.

She got the list. Here it is. First, some selections. The wretched Gretchen can’t seem to get much right, even that which she can observe with her naked eye, such as the skirt length Christine was wearing, or the color of her husband’s hair. But worse, she maligns even the quality of Christine’s relationships with cheap mistakes.

A two-month pre-coital courtship with my husband is described as “they met, dated once or twice, had sex.”

My two day wait for treatment of a faulty root canal is described as me “still being bothered by an excruciating mouth abscess” a year after my daughter’s death.

My husband’s four-day trip to New York last year was described as him “spending long periods away from [home] in New York and elsewhere.”

I am described as wearing a “cut off denim miniskirt” when I wore a skirt with a hemline that falls mid-knee.

The article states, I “scheduled the appointment [for an abortion], arrived at the office, and then, at the last moment, uncertain, unsettled, left.” In fact, as I explained to Reynolds, a doctor halted the procedure after a pre-operation ultrasound mistakenly indicated I was 15 weeks pregnant.

My husband is described as having “dark, unruly hair” when his hair is sandy blonde and straight.

The article includes a fictitious scene in which I “set my son up with his homework at the kitchen table.” In fact, school he attends does not assign homework until third grade which he begins this fall.

These examples of blatant sloppiness are only the minor errors, as Maggiore rates them, but they reveal a carelessness for the reputation and dignity of the source which already condemns the hapless Gretchen as incompetent and irresponsible, if not downright biased. (On the other hand, let’s remember that freelance reporters do not normally get paid enough for their work to allow them to do it as well as they would wish).

The list of major errors reveals that Gretchen completely messed up her description of Eliza Jane’s symptoms, misreported Maggiore’s critique of the process and of HIV and evidently automatically assumed that Christine and her experts were wrong, ie that child died of HIV?AIDS, when she clearly died of an allergic reaction. In other words, the writer was not capable of imagining that conventional wisdom may be wrong, contrary to the impression given in her introduction to Christine. So the whole interview was conducted under false pretenses.

What the list of errors brings out is just how faulty the assumed expertise (and ethical conduct) of journalists, doctors and coroners may be, but it will also be useful now as a corrective to the ongoing hideously false tale of Christine as misguided challenger of modern scientific professionalism who paid for her “mistake” with the life of her daughter.

Is Gretchen John Moore’s alter ego?

This obscene and almost criminal libel, which is now happily peddled by scientists and activists at AIDSTruth.org who should know better – and specifically stated by John P. Moore of Cornell at the session on HIV Science and Responsible Journalism, to his everlasting shame – is actually dispensed with by one single error that Christine lists, the plain fact that the child’s lymphocyte count was as high as anyone would wish.

12) In her “quick primer” on AIDS, Reynolds mentions that AIDS conditions occur when CD4 T lymphocyte cells are depleted, weakening the body’s ability to fight off infection,” but does not mention that my daughter’s total lymphocyte count at the time of her death was well above normal and five times higher than World Health Organization’s guidelines for diagnosing AIDS via total lymphocyte count (Costello C et al. Predictors of low CD4 count in resource-limited settings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 39: 242-248, 2005).

Eliza Jane died of allergy, not AIDS

In other words, Christine Maggiore’s infinitely precious daughter plainly did not die of HIV?AIDS, but at the hands of conventional medication with known risks.

As she herself has said,

“I believe the unfortunate irony in this situation is that the one time we were asked to and that we complied with mainstream medicine, we inadvertently gave our daughter something that took her life.

We made that point in A lay dissenter’s travails and courage – Christine Maggiore: A personal tragedy, our original post (May 19 2005) on this tragic tale, and we can only hope that this vile process of the press magnifying the tragic irony by reporting the lie instead of the truth will come to a halt with Elle’s so far responsible treatment of Christine’s corrections.

Hardly a serious magazine, but still damaging

But it is hard to imagine that the magazine will print any major correction, or if it did that the readers would notice. Flipping through it, in fact, it is clear that it probably had no business treating the topic in the first place, especially if it didn’t think there was something to Christine’s stance. The concerns of almost all the coverage seem to center on enhancing the attraction of its readers for the opposite sex, either in glamor (Lindsay Lohan is the cover story just now (pics)), clothing, cosmetics or health, and standard HIV drugs are no way to enhance your health or attractions for the opposite sex.

The news it should be bringing its readers is that the mainstream medical and scientific literature tells us that if they fear HIV, they don’t have to worry about contracting it from successful suitors, even if one is HIV positive. HIV simply doesn’t transmit, heterosexually.

The woman it should profile next is the savior of all heterosexual lovers from the fiendish witchcraft of the HIV?AIDS paradigm, Nancy Padian. Let’s hope editor Lisa Chase can assign a writer who can get her facts straight on that one.

We suggest a chastened Gretchen herself, now that she will learn the error of her ways with the embarrassing process of being grilled by the Elle lawyers.

The basic problem is endemic

What’s of more general concern is the evidence that the writer, an obviously smart and accomplished professional, simply is incapable of true balance ie of giving Christine full credit for her view, ie believing that Christine has valid reasons to contradict the conventional wisdom, or at least of giving her views equal credit with those of the paradigm footsoldiers that she, the reporter, consults. Though a practiced writer of talent Reynolds is apparently not aware that a global monster of medical belief in HIV∫AIDS can have a very small head, that is to say, be initiated and controlled by the one or two scientists who originated this misdirection, and the federal bureaucrats who diverted all AIDS funding into it and protected it from nearly all media review.

The truth is that this is par for the course, and quite predictable and understandable. The idea that the scientific critique of HIV∫AIDS is not a conspiracy theory on the same level as the 9/11 is not going to get through unless the writer is shown the scientific literature, and given time to adjust to the knowledge of its existence and its apparent validity, in that so far it offers an alternative explanation for all that has happened in HIV∫AIDS, and one much more in line with mainstream research now than the original speculations of how HIV caused AIDS.

Apparently Christine Maggiore may have made the mistake of not having plenty of the key literature on hand, and merely argued her own case based on her own excellent book and common sense. This is simply not enough to persuade mainstream reporters and editors, even ones who understand that sometimes conventional wisdom is science and in medicine is proved wrong. Judging from the piece this is what happened, though it is no fault of Maggiore if the writer didn’t give her a chance to present her case in convincing fashion, which is likely.

All in all, as the experience of Celia Farber at the hands of the Observer reporter showed earlier, the chances of even a smart and sophisticated writer catching up in several weeks with what is going on in HIV∫AIDS well enough to educate his or her editors is low to non existent, especially if a publication has zero intellectual or serious public affairs content, and no investigative side at all, as is evident in the case of the ad-fat Elle and its alluring commercial celebration of the grand prizes of sexual and social success on behalf of its readers.

Elle celebrates belief, not skepticism. Thus the upside down title, The Believer, when the woman profiled is precisely a disbeliever, which is her entire claim to fame. Her view is represented as “faith” – the word is used in the article headline:

The Believer: For more than a decade, HIV-positive activist Christine Maggiore has fought against the assertion that HIV causes AIDS. Last year, he young daughter died of AIDS, and not even that could shake her faith. By Gretchen Reynolds.

In line with this stifling, foregone conclusion of an introduction, her predicament is represented as one of clinging to a belief even when the death of her daughter has exacted a price for what is represented as an unwarranted disdain for authority, medicine, science and sense, as expressed by the pieties mouthed by Jay Gordon, the primary pediatrician chosen by the trusting parents who has belatedly decided it was AIDS that the child suffered from, though it wasn’t his opinion at the time. Now he is saying foolishly (if the article is accurate):”I feel we failed that child…We could have saved her. I regret this case more than any I’ve ever had in my career.” This looks like utter rubbish. Saved her how? With HAART? The credulous Reynolds doesn’t even ask.

Perhaps the most objectionable lines in the piece are these, a brief assumption of the role of judicious arbiter on the part of the writer which is entirely unwarranted:

Modern science cannot, at least not yet, explain all aspects of AIDS. But, to be frank, it does a more persuasive and dispassionate job than Maggiore.”

The paradigm’s role players now covering their asses are more “persuasive” to Reynolds, it seems, than the mother who has lost a child the one time she entrusted her welfare to standard medicine, though applied it seems by a Denver pediatrician who practices “anthroposophical” medicine, he says, according to the article (shades of Rudolf Steiner! Perhaps he supplies patients with Hawthorne Valley Farm yogurt, certainly the best yogurt in the world).

Oh sure. The mouthpieces of unexamined conventional wisdom are in their “dispassionate” way more convincing than an intelligent woman who has studied the topic for years, written one of the most cogent books on the subject, staked her reputation in every way on the conclusions of her independent study, and whose infinitely loved daughter was the subject of the treatment which Dr. Gordon might have perpetrated, he says, if only he had suspected that Eliza Jane was HIV positive (the coroner has never claimed she was).

Here’s a decent piece about Christine

If the sloppy and petty-authority-credulous Gretchen would like to check out a respectable article on Maggiore, she should read this one for a start, on Gadfly, The Trials and Tribulations of Christine Maggiore by Kathleen F. Phalen. Kathleen Phalen is everything that Reynolds is not – capable of independent thought, for one, and capable of treating her source with the respect that she deserves.

(The email address of editor-at-large Lisa Chase and of the wretched Gretchen is included in the notes below – click “show” to expand. With Slate now reporting this sentence from Reynold’s copy, we suggest she deserves all the complaints she gets: “Modern science cannot, at least not yet, explain all aspects of AIDS. But, to be frank, it does a more persuasive and passionate job than Maggiore.”)

Facts from Christine Maggiore:

Elle Magazine Makes Me a Believer

Last fall, I met with Gretchen Reynolds, a freelance journalist on assignment from Elle, a fashion magazine that includes articles on health and current affairs. A self-described science writer, Reynolds said she was working on piece about AIDS that would explore unanswered questions about HIV, introduce some the individuals raising those questions, and include something on the controversy surrounding the death of my daughter.

As it turns out, Reynolds’ dishonesty was not limited to her pitch. I am the sole focus of “The Believer,” a mendacious and sensationalistic article that abstains from any intelligent examination of science fact. Reynolds errors are so extravagant and numerous, the magazine’s publisher, Lisa Chase, asked me for a complete list to forward to Elle’s legal department for investigation.

Below please find my letter to Ms. Chase along with a summary of Reynolds’ deviations from reality. The article is found in the September issue of Elle, and if you can make your way through all the spins without becoming nauseated, please consider sending your own comments to editor-at-large Lisa Chase (lchase@hfmus.com) and writer Gretchen Reynolds (gretchenxr@msn.com)

===

Dear Lisa,

Thank you for your response to my concerns regarding Gretchen Reynolds’ article “The Believer” (Elle, September 2006).

As I mentioned during our telephone conversation, I asked Corrie Pikul for permission to tape record the fact check after noting two false claims at the beginning of our review:

1) That my former boyfriend had died of AIDS years ago, when in fact, he is alive and well.

2) That I held up my children to cheering crowds on stages and at rallies, when in fact, my children have never joined me on a stage or at any public event.

Below is a list of most of the errors in the article, which are divided between points major and minor as per our discussion. Please note that I provided Ms Reynolds with documents and explanations for all points of fact listed here.

I look forward to learning how this matter can be resolved, and in the meantime, am grateful for your interest and involvement.

With appreciation,

Christine Maggiore

Major Errors:

1) Reynolds states that “In all probability, Eliza Jane became infected with HIV during gestation, labor or breastfeeding,” when in fact, the autopsy report does not give her HIV status, and we have no laboratory evidence from the coroner of a positive HIV test, despite multiple requests for such evidence by our attorneys.

2) Reynolds states that the coroner found “strands of HIV’s molecular proteins throughout [my daughter’s] inflamed brain” when in fact, her brain was normal (not inflamed) per a CAT scan taken at the emergency room, per the findings at autopsy, and per a neuropathology exam included in the autopsy report. Further, the finding of a single protein, rather than “strands of HIV’s molecular proteins,” was added as an amendment to coroner’s report four months after the original autopsy.

3) Reynolds claims that “the pathologists didn’t order an HIV test in the normal course of investigating the death of a white, middle class three year old
” as if race and income dictate testing decisions. Instead, the coroner’s office has stated that cases of unexplained death “are not routinely tested for HIV because AIDS is so obvious.”

4) Reynolds changes my definition of pneumonia from the correct one, “inflammation of the lung caused by disease,” to a medically incorrect interpretation, “swelling of the lungs,” and falsely attributes this mistake to me. The correct definition is crucial to the story as my daughter’s autopsy report states that medical examiners found “no inflammation” of her lungs, thereby ruling out pneumonia.

Reynolds compounds this error by omitting a correct reference to swelling, that is, that the autopsy notes swelling of all my daughter’s vital organs, a hallmark of toxic reaction, especially in lungs described at autopsy as having “no inflammation.”

5) Reynolds claims my daughter endured “a day of nausea, vomiting and wheezing,” before she died, a description of events that is not in 911 transcripts; in medical, EMT or hospital records; in my testimony included in the autopsy report; or in my interview with Reynolds.

Please note that the error about “a day of vomiting” was specifically corrected during the fact check yet appears in the article nonetheless, and the unsubstantiated allegation that my daughter was also “wheezing” and had “nausea” was not mentioned during the fact check.

6) Reynolds claims that, “a number of pathologists have examined both the original autopsy and the alternative version. All have publicly concluded that the original was correct,” when disagreement with the original findings by pathologists and other medical experts appears in the public record. In fact, the “alternate version” of the original autopsy was published in a peer reviewed medical journal with an editorial board consisting of 10 PhDs and 12 MDs with whom I have no association.

7) Reynolds claims my response to the coroner’s September declaration was “an immediate ‘it’s not true!'” when in fact, my first public statement on the issue came during a December 5th broadcast of ABC’s PrimeTime, and did not contain the words “It’s not true!” (Per the program transcript: “I believe the unfortunate irony in this situation is that the one time we were asked to and that we complied with mainstream medicine, we inadvertently gave our daughter something that took her life.”)

8) Reynolds claims I “fought back” against the September declaration my daughter died of AIDS by hiring a pathologist. In fact, the pathologist’s request to receive a copy of the autopsy report was submitted to the coroner’s office in May, four months before the declaration was issued.

9) Reynolds claims “as soon as Eliza Jane had been declared dead, a large, unwieldy investigative mechanism swung into action” when in fact, the police investigation began several weeks after her death, and the Department of Children and Family Services was not involved until four months later.

10) Reynolds states that “DCFS closed its investigation after insisting that [my son] be tested for HIV or lose custody” when in fact, Charlie had three times tested HIV negative prior to the DCFS investigation. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, “After reviewing recent test results from three labs showing that the boy is HIV-negative, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is expecting to close its child endangerment investigation

11) Reynolds claims, “When I ask [Maggiore] about the current HIV tests that isolate actual viral RNA, she dismisses them as meaningless, saying they reveal only ‘protein strands,'” when in fact, I cited the test kit’s disclaimer for Reynolds which states that it is “not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm HIV infection.”

12) In her “quick primer” on AIDS, Reynolds mentions that AIDS conditions occur when CD4 T lymphocyte cells are depleted, weakening the body’s ability to fight off infection,” but does not mention that my daughter’s total lymphocyte count at the time of her death was well above normal and five times higher than World Health Organization’s guidelines for diagnosing AIDS via total lymphocyte count (Costello C et al. Predictors of low CD4 count in resource-limited settings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 39: 242-248, 2005).

13) Reynolds states that my daughter had “sores in her mouth suggestive of herpes” when the autopsy report makes no mention of sores of any kind in her mouth.

14) Reynolds writes that I looked into “HIV deniers
at the suggestion of a friend,” omitting the well known fact that a year into my positive diagnosis, I experienced a series of conflicting HIV test results that fluctuated between positive, negative and indeterminate, and that this prompted my investigation into AIDS science.

15) Reynolds quotes Dr Jay Gordon as saying, “I’m sure I urged [Maggiore] to have the children tested,” yet medical records show that Gordon did not discuss or order HIV tests for Eliza Jane or her brother Charlie, not even at an exam with Charlie two days after his sister’s death.

16) Reynolds writes that “At last on May 14
Maggiore called Philip Incao [to see Eliza Jane]” omitting a May 7 exam with Dr Incao that followed the visit with Dr Gordon. Reynolds also omits that at the May 7 and May 14 exams, records show my daughter had no cough. Instead she writes, “the child’s runny nose, cough and malaise lingered.”

17) Reynolds’ article leaves out why my daughter’s case was referred to the LA County Coroner’s office: A physical exam, two chest Xrays, a CAT scan, a spinal tap, blood work and other tests performed at the ER provided no insight into why Eliza Jane had died.

18) Reynolds omits mention of the fact that the credibility of Dr James K Ribe, the coroner brought in to resolve my daughter’s case, has been challenged by the District Attorney as well as in numerous judicial proceedings, or that Ribe is currently a defendant in a civil suit for having altered autopsy reports of several murder victims to conform to a confession later determined to have been fabricated by police.

Minor Errors:

A two-month pre-coital courtship with my husband is described as “they met, dated once or twice, had sex.”

My two day wait for treatment of a faulty root canal is described as me “still being bothered by an excruciating mouth abscess” a year after my daughter’s death.

My husband’s four-day trip to New York last year was described as him “spending long periods away from [home] in New York and elsewhere.”

I am described as wearing a “cut off denim miniskirt” when I wore a skirt with a hemline that falls mid-knee.

The article states, I “scheduled the appointment [for an abortion], arrived at the office, and then, at the last moment, uncertain, unsettled, left.” In fact, as I explained to Reynolds, a doctor halted the procedure after a pre-operation ultrasound mistakenly indicated I was 15 weeks pregnant.

My husband is described as having “dark, unruly hair” when his hair is sandy blonde and straight.

The article includes a fictitious scene in which I “set my son up with his homework at the kitchen table.” In fact, school he attends does not assign homework until third grade which he begins this fall.

34 Responses to “Elle “science writer” lets down Maggiore”

  1. Claus Says:

    TS,

    Are those pictures of Gretchen, in which case I’m more willing to overlook her journalistic incompetence on condition she doesn’t give up her modelling job.

    Or perhaps you just wanted to add some spice, since Maggiore wasn’t wearing a miniskirt after all?

  2. Orwell's Ghost Says:

    The female in the photos is celebrity Lindsay Lohan, the subject of the cover story in the issue of Elle magazine that takes apart Christine Maggiore.

    The story about Christine Maggiore is not online but the cover story/interview with Lohan is. It’s worth a quick look just to see to what depths things have fallen. Here’s the intro of the story, titled La Vida Lohan:

    It’s nothing less than shocking when Lindsay Lohan bounds into Da Silvano, an Italian restaurant at the bottom of Sixth Avenue in Manhattan. She’s 40 minutes late for lunch; for anybody with even a glancing familiarity with the 20-year-old actress and sometime pop singer, this particular fact does not shock. What is shocking is that she materialized at all. She’s blown off two interviews already; the morning of the first, her longtime publicist reported that she had missed her flight from Los Angeles to New York “due to meetings,” which cynical Lohan-ologists might conclude had something to do with the fact that she was seen partying at Paris Hilton’s house early that morning.

    A serious and worthy publication, indeed. Unfortunately, the damage to Christine comes not just in its pages. The magazine’s advance PR has preceded the hard copy, and blurbs about the September issue of Elle and the article on Christine Maggiore have appeared all over the place, including at Slate.com:

    Gretchen Reynolds profiles an HIV-positive woman, Christine Maggiore, who denies that HIV causes AIDS. After Maggiore’s 3-year-old daughter died, autopsy results showed she had the disease, but Maggiore claims it’s not true. Reynolds writes: “Modern science cannot, at least not yet, explain all aspects of AIDS. But, to be frank, it does a more persuasive and passionate job than Maggiore.”

    Time perhaps for letters to the editor of Elle.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Reynolds writes: “Modern science cannot, at least not yet, explain all aspects of AIDS. But, to be frank, it does a more persuasive and passionate job than Maggiore.”

    Apologies for cutting this vile miscreant any slack at all.

  4. Claus Says:

    TS,

    I wholeheartedly second that in spite of my not very serious first comment. Reynolds is pure disrespectful slander.

  5. noreen martin Says:

    Well, this is pretty much par for the course when it comes to any truthful reporting about Aids except of course, by you truthseeker and other Rethinkers. Everyone should fire off a letter to the editor and to the slanderous reporter.

    If the other side can have an annual convention, why don’t we as it can’t hurt and we might get some new support and attention to the issue.

  6. Celia Farber Says:

    I actually found it too sickening to read, this ELLE article that not only debases print journalism but also the most elemental standards of humanity. I will use one of the last words Serge Lang used on the phone to me before his death, in describing the gang at IOM, whitewashing the HIVNET investigation: “Monstrous.”

    He said: “What they have done is so monstrous that it is beyond anything one has…”

    I can’t remember the whole sentence, but Lang was talking about something very important. What happens when the very measure by which which all things are measured, is desecrated? This is what has happened in the age of HIV/AIDS.

    I am in the wilderness for a few more days right now without electricty or phones etc, (came to a cafe to check email briefly.)

    I urge those of you who still have emotions left other than blank, blind despair, to do what you can to make the culprits at ELLE uncomfortable and to invoke shame on their part, which may be very difficult.

    Maybe not though.

  7. Dan Says:

    I hope nobody’s surprised at this treatment of Christine. Yet another cowardly “journalist” playing another game of beat up on Maggiore.

    Christine is definitely able to take care of herself. Although I would think that this game can get tiring for her.

    I’m seeing a pattern here…pretty young women holding tarantulas, or world cup soccer babes with exposed mid-riff, now a slew of Lindsay Lohan pictures. It’s time for some balance, truthseeker. I think we need some pictures of Brad Pitt, preferably shirtless and with facial hair.

  8. mark Says:

    I would urge Christine to only do live radio or TV. That way they cannot edit her. As a former PR guy, that was my recommendation to clients when so many “journalist” misrepresent themselves.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    Brad hasn’t done enough lately. How about Johnny Depp?

    That man could make a movie blockbuster out of the phone directory.

  10. Martin Kessler Says:

    Truthseeker, I think you missed the point Johnny Depp while a much better actor than Brad Pitt is not as beautiful – showing pictures of females that to me at least have no other redeeming qualities than their sexual attractiveness to straights a corresponding picture of a beautiful guy was what Dan had in mind.

  11. Dan Says:

    Martin,

    yes, that’s what I had in mind. Although…I was mostly kidding about it. And I feel a bit embarassed about it coming immediately after Celia’s rightfully impassioned post.

    Back to the subject, and onto the bigger picture.

    How often are outright lies written about Christine Maggiore? And how often do the perpetrators get away with it? It might do the Scovill-Maggiore family some good to get out of the spotlight, for their own well-being. That dead-tired picture of Christine that truthseeker had up earlier told the tale. As long as she’s putting herself out there, there will be “journalists” who will summon up all their incredible courage to attack her.

  12. Martin Kessler Says:

    I believe such falsehoods will remain as long as HIV=AIDS=Death is the hegemony. Once when religion was strong, questioning any religiously based “scientific” theory (the sun revolves around the earth) was regarded as heresy, once science became dominant, such views were rightly catagorized as religious views. Unfortunately, we have what is to the lay public a very abstruse and difficult to understand oganism: a pathogenic retrovirus that is difficult (if not impossible) to isolate and even more difficult to prove it is pathogenic. As Duesberg has pointed out in his Cancer Research paper in 1987, retroviruses do not make good carcinogens or pathogens. But when a “scientific” hypothesis like HIV causes AIDS is the hegemony, and the lay people see people die ostensibly from the effects of HIV, it becomes self perpetuating. As long as a scientific falsehood serves some sort of a useful purpose, it will perpetuate, once it is no longer useful, it will go away, only time and the acceptance of other explanations will change the current beliefs.

  13. nohivmeds Says:

    We’re all forgetting something very important (which Gretchen forgot too): We don’t know what killed EJ yet. “We” don’t believe it was AIDS, many do. But the verdict is still out, and I know personally from Christine that all she truly wants is to know definitively what killed her daughter. The ELLE article does not help, but neither does pretending that a bunch of idiots like us posting on line have the answer either.

  14. mark Says:

    I’m no idiot, but the facts point to a non-pnuemonia and a non-HIV cause. No inflammation in the lungs and ambundent white blood cells at the time of death as stated in the autopsy back this up. No, we don’t know 100%, but that doesn’t mean we are idiots for evaluating the case thus far. Critical thinking does not mean waiting for aothorities, who won’t confirm her HIV status, to decide. I think if Eliza had been HIV+ the DA would have been crowing long ago.

  15. nohivmeds Says:

    Mark — we have to wait for the HIV test results. That’s all there is to it. You cannot engage in “critical thinking” about something like this when we are missing such a vital piece of information. Do you think you’re helping, Christine, Robin, and Charlie? You’re not. The truth is what we are after — not a bunch of conjecture, which is what this all is without that test result. I would not appreciate someone on a blog conjecturing about the death of my child, would you?

  16. nohivmeds Says:

    cause let’s face it — all anyone in this strand has offered is decent CONJECTURE – not the truth. Perhaps the truth, but not confirmed. Christine, as I have stated, wants to know what took EJ from us WHATEVER THE TRUTH TURNS OUT TO BE. You should respect that viewpoint.

    TS — I think that covering the bad reporting in ELLE was great — but let’s not let this strand get carried away like this. Let’s give Christine, Charlie, and Robin some peace, yes? In other words, let’s shut down this strand. Christine and her family know all of these permutations and conjectures. Enough, I think.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    We don’t know what killed EJ yet. “We” don’t believe it was AIDS, many do. But the verdict is still out, and I know personally from Christine that all she truly wants is to know definitively what killed her daughter. The ELLE article does not help, but neither does pretending that a bunch of idiots like us posting on line have the answer either.

    Speak for yourself. The Elle article quotes Maggiore as follows: “My daughter died of a reaction to amoxicillin.” All the evidence quoted has indicated this from the beginning – the lack of serious preceding symptoms, the speed of decline, the fit with the known danger of amoxicillin, the lack of fit with the supposed symptoms of HIV etc – and it is only the civilized and scientific instinct you demonstrate of not reaching a definitive judgement till all the facts are known and all involved agree on them, and your equally civilized instinct to protect Maggiore’s privacy as a grieving mother, that keep the issue open, hand in hand with the tendency of “idiots posting on line” to imagine all kinds of possibilities. Unfortunately, that latter tendency plays into the hands of those who foolishly rush to endorse almost anything in line with the official paradigm, even though if freed of this latter tendency they are quite smart enough to see that the duck which quacks and waddles is a duck.

    The post is an attempt to free readers of this latter bias, the emotional attraction of authority endorsed conventional wisdom right or wrong, which visibly imbues the article and the mind of its writer. Presumably the attraction derives from the fundamental habit of humans to model themselves after the parents on whom they depend for survival and love, and whom they love in return. This after all is how the store of human knowledge and skills is passed from generation to generation.

    A few people manage to free themselves from this trainee mode once they have grown up, and they are the truthseekers of society, who lead. The rest follow. They are the sheep. Unfortunately, for society to exist as a coherent organization the number of sheep relative to the number of shepherds has to be large, of the order of 99,999 to 1.

    This blog is written for the shepherds, and those who wish to help them save the sheep from the wolves. The baaing of the sheep evokes sympathy but does not deserve attention in this context.

  18. nohivmeds Says:

    I hear you TS. Right on. please save me from myself! Please shepherd me to the truth! I’m beginning to see that it is you — has always been you. You didn’t really need Duesberg! You would have come to this shining truth on your own. So yes, please, lead us!

  19. nohivmeds Says:

    You see, TS, the LA District Attorney has not yet made any statement indicating that Christine is no longer being investigated. And in some ways, until that happens, public coverage can be dangerous for Christine, whom I do understand believes that a fatal antibiotic reaction occurred (and I concur). But until this case is officially dropped, then I personally feel it’s best to let Christine speak for herself and her family. I know she has been open about people speaking about the case — and I think that’s brave. But I’m not going to do that until I know she’s safe from prosecution. Just something to consider.

  20. Gene Semon Says:

    NoHIV, I appreciate your sense of humour and concern for Christine but the Coroner’s case hinges on the misdiagnosis of PC pneumonia, which has been demonstated elsewhere. Anything THIS idiot has to say about the matter is NOT going to shift the Prosecutor from not prosecuting, if that is his tendency. As far as “Mark – we have to wait for the test results”, I suggest you check that against the 1987 CDC Surveillance Definition of AIDS.

  21. Orwell's Ghost Says:

    From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16, 2006:

    L.A. County D.A. Won’t Act in Girl’s AIDS-Related Death

    There is too little evidence to charge Christine Maggiore in the death of her daughter, but a state panel accuses Dr. Paul Fleiss of gross negligence.

    By Charles Ornstein, Times Staff Writer

    September 16, 2006

    The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said Friday that it would not file criminal neglect charges against prominent HIV skeptic Christine Maggiore, whose daughter died last year of what the county coroner ruled was AIDS-related pneumonia.

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

    Los Angeles police had been investigating whether Maggiore and her husband, Robin Scovill, were negligent in not testing or treating Eliza Jane Scovill for human immunodeficiency virus prior to her May 2005 death.

    Maggiore, who is HIV-positive, has said that she did not take antiviral medications during her pregnancy and that she did not have her daughter tested for the virus after birth.

    In a one-page document made public Friday, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s office said it didn’t have sufficient evidence to proceed against Maggiore, 50, or Scovill, 37.

    “We are all oftentimes moved by our own sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, but we are governed by the law,” said Victoria Adams, head deputy of the office’s family violence division. . .

    The complete article can be read at this URL.

  22. noreen martin Says:

    Not wanting to appear insensitive to the death and loss to the family, however, since Christine has emailed me about the article, I feel inclined to comment. How has the coroner ruled this to be an Aids’s related death? What evidence was used to determine this?

    I tend to believe that there is no evidence since the coroner’s office refuses to give the family the lab evidence from the autopsy. How can they do this?

    More convincing is the fact that after a year, the County Family Services who investigated this matter, reviewed the lab reports and found HIV negative results, have not taken Charlie from his parents. It sounds like the coroner’s office needs to be investigated for sloppy findings.

    For Dr.Fleiss, he is a victim of the times. Until the tide turns, all physicians have to spout the accepted protocol in regards to HIV and AIDS, even if they don’t personally agree with it, or else accept the consequences.

  23. Dan Says:

    I’ve felt quite confident since the beginning of this tragedy that Christine and Robin would not be found to be negligent. They’ve come through this legally-unscathed, but the emotional toll has to be incredible.

    Noreen, your comment about Dr. Fleiss is on the mark. But we need more doctors to question this thing. Until they do, the testing and drugging will continue, along with the hysteria.

  24. john Says:

    I also think that they want to avoid a lawsuit where the existence of the rethinkers of the hiv/aids is revealed in broad daylight. They want to avoid that the argumentation of the rethinkers can make them lose the face.

  25. Dan Says:

    John,

    I agree. The last thing they want to do is to get the rethinkers’ views aired on such a large scale. It’s been the most effective tactic so far, although things are definitely changing.

    It’s got to be just a little bit mind-boggling for casual observers of the Maggiore-Scovill family. Here’s Christine who’s “positive” and drug-free for fourteen years, and doesn’t have “AIDS”. Her husband and son both test negative. We still don’t have the actual “HIV” test results for EJ, now, do we?

    The Padian study helps us to understand why Robin isn’t “positive” after all these years. And the non-standardized, non-specific nature of the “HIV” tests themselves provide insight into Christine’s varied test results.

  26. noreen martin Says:

    I encourage all HIV and Aids person to keep on seeing their doctors, I do. I want them to see the results, good health, of those who are refusing the HAART and who are suppose to be dying from this. My non-Aids physicians, allergist and environmental doctors, sure are curious about how I am doing so well.

    The above comment about avoiding the publicity of law suits, etc. is true. In this regard, they keep a low profile. The way to press ahead is to stay on the websites and tell others in person. I do not hide the fact that I was diagnosed with Aids and do not take HAART. Sometimes, seeing is believing and more powerful than words

  27. pat Says:

    I would have been quite shocked had Maggiore been prosecuted. It would have been a whole new chapter in the development of “parental-subjugation-to-some-other-dude” form of health care”.

    And I think the last one in charge of this chain of events felt it wise to pull the plug before the obvious became , well… obvious. They couldn’t prove what they were saying. It appears they have never publicized Elisa Jane’s HIV test results (is it true?)

    If the evidence was so clear cut that Elisa Jane died of an AIDS-related desease due to her mother’s HIV+ status why suddenly drop the ball?

    I suspect it is because the premise’s “raison d’etre” rests solely on the people’s will/need to believe it. No guilty verdict necessary, just a dismisal on technical grounds and a guilty public opinion. The Scovil/Maggiore’s have been calously dragged through the mud in spite of their loss for months on end, and now, after all the kings men have ran out of tomatos to sling at them, they simply declare victory (on compassionate grounds?) and go home.

    HIV/AIDS or not, they have endured the lowest of the low. If science is there to serve humanity then scare tactics and witch hunts have no place in modern history.

    Science may not be populist or democratic in its purist designs but it is absorbed in society as such (a few must convince the many). And the basic measure for the health of a democracy is expressed in the treatment of its minorities. What this family has been subjugated to is plain ochlocratic bullshit.

    PS: I suggest our scientific minds and other MD’s, PHD’s and SchmeeAytschDee’s, take “Basic People Skills 101, and other lessons your MOMMA has already taught you, but you apparently need a refresher course!”

  28. pat Says:

    A few who talk shit, can cause many to go barking mad.

  29. pat Says:

    confusius

  30. mark Says:

    Situations similar to Maggiore’s merit our verbal outrage, despite nohiv’s call for us to wait for the orthodoxy’s/coroner’s finding. Why? The opposing view has been vocal on blogs, media articles and letters to the editors. Dissidents can and should speak out through all the aforementioned manners. Even if Maggiore’s case had gone the other way, hopefully numerous missives supporting the belief that EJ was fatally harmed by antibiotics rather than HIV would show the world that those questioning HIV are not of a lunatic fringe. I encourage everyone to write the LA Times with our views to offset the letters from the other side sure to come.

  31. Dan Says:

    Situations similar to Maggiore’s merit our verbal outrage, despite nohiv’s call for us to wait for the orthodoxy’s/coroner’s finding. Why? The opposing view has been vocal on blogs, media articles and letters to the editors.

    I agree. The orthodoxy has been misleading the public for more than 20 years. There’s no reason whatsoever to wait (for anything) to speak out. Unless – you’re a pollyanna that believes the good folks who are making so much money off of this construct will decide to correct themselves. You may die of old age before that happens. Each to his/her own, though.

  32. Truthseeker Says:

    Before adding some comments on the current developments, we think it should be noted that Christine in an email earlier commented on the concern in the post that she had not emphasized usfficiently that mainstream literature supports everything she says, saying that was not the problem, the problem was the closed mind of the journalist:

    Regarding the mistake you say I made with Gretchen Reynolds, I don’t agree. There was no lack of references for what we discussed. What was lacking, unbeknownst to me, was her interest in the facts.

    Reynolds presented herself as a science writer assigned to a report on outstanding questions about HIV raised by so-called AIDS rethinkers. The article would mention but not focus on me, and include me as one of many raising these questions. My daughter’s death would be a part of the story only because it’s a part of my life. With this description in mind, I gave Reynolds contact information for several doctors and scientists, as well as for healthy HIV positives not taking the drugs, along with ones who were healthy before taking them and who then recovered their health after stopping treatments. I am just now learning that none of these people ever heard from Reynolds.

    Becasue Reynolds seemed intelligent and well intentioned, we met at my home which has a well stocked library of books and publications on the AIDS discussion, photocopies of test kit inserts and other information. She did not ask for copies of anything to take with her. I wasn’t concerned because it’s pretty much all on the internet.

    My mistake was taking Reynolds at her word and not having a tape recorder running. I always record interviews. But since she seemed smart and fair minded, and I needed to go pick up Charlie at school while we spoke, I let down my guard. Reynolds came with me to meet him and we sat on a bench under a tree and talked while he played with his friends.

    Never again will I not have a tape recorder at an interview, not even for Oprah.

    With regard to your comments that the article isn’t too terribly awful, it may not seem so bad to someone who doesn’t stand accused of killing their child. Reynolds’ dishonest tale does more than hurt me emotionally and socially, it actually puts me in harm’s way. The way Reynolds spins it, I come off as someone who let her daughter suffer due to bullheaded adherence to an ideology and without taking proper helpful action to save the child’s life, and worse still, I remain “in denial” about it all. On top of that, I am described as emaciated and ill, which makes it seem I’m also “in denail” about my own health.

    Suggestions that I am ill has become a common theme in articles that seek to hurt me–the writers make me ill, literally. Some insinuate illnesses with made up or exaggerated symptoms, others blatantly claim “Maggiore has at least one AIDS defining illness,” when in fact, I have not and do not. And of course, none mention the incredible strength it’s taken to live through the loss of my beautiful little girl and the threat of losing my precious son to state custody plus all the accusations and investigations–and without so much as a cold sore. Instead, they take the slightest thing, in this case a root canal gone bad, and turn it into a 12 month battle with “an excruciating mouth abcess.”

    Why? Why lie to tell a story if the story is true?

    Points taken, Christine. The decline of journalism can have really appalling effects in cases like this when it really matters that it is done well. Let’s hope that many people realize how unreliable it can be.

  33. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael Geiger writes:

    ——————————

    L.A. County D.A. Won’t Act in Girl’s AIDS-Related Death

    ——————————

    There is too little evidence to charge Christine Maggiore in the death of her daughter, but a state panel accuses Dr. Paul Fleiss of gross negligence.

    By Charles Ornstein

    Times Staff Writer

    September 16 2006

    The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said Friday that it would not file criminal neglect charges against prominent HIV skeptic Christine Maggiore, whose daughter died last year of what the county coroner ruled was AIDS-related pneumonia.

    The complete article can be viewed at:L.A. County D.A. Won’t Act in Girl’s AIDS-Related Death

    Visit Los Angeles Times

    Christine Maggiore writes:

    On the year anniversary of the release of Eliza Jane’s autopsy report, as I was watering the bougainvillea plant immortalized in Elle magazine, Charles Ornstein of the LA Times phoned requesting an interview on today’s announcement from the District Attorney’s office about charges in the EJ case.

    My heart began to pound. “What announcement?” I asked, wondering if these would be my last words before squad cars rounded the coroner and I was handcuffed and hauled away with the hose still running.

    Instead, I learned from Ornstein (who always seems to know more about my life than I do) that the District Attorney closed the criminal investigation against me today with no charges filed.

    After all I’ve been through, I had only one thought in mind: Get a tape recorder.

    The conversation I taped with Ornstein will post to the JusticeForEJ.com web site as soon as I can figure out how to do that, so at least one uncensored, unedited, unadulterated version of the facts will exist in the public record.

    I have no idea what will appear in the LA Times tomorrow, but get the feeling it will focus on what Ornstein told me when he called back an hour later: Dr Paul Fleiss—our honest, brave, and kind hearted pediatrician—has been charged with negligence by the state medical board for his handling of Eliza Jane’s non-existent pneumonia.

    Robin and I are devastated to learn of this horrific new injustice and hope that those of you who know and love Dr Fleiss will join us in supporting him and his courageous support of informed choice.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    Christine Maggiore writes today

    Many of you asked how we can help Dr Fleiss.

    Here is contact information for the Medical Board of California where calls, letters, faxes and/or emails concerning the charges against him can be sent.

    Medical Board of California

    1426 Howe Avenue, #54

    Sacramento, CA 95825

    Tel 916-263-2389

    Fax 916-263-2387

    E-mail: Webmaster@medbd.ca.gov

    Board President: Steve Alexander

    Division of Licensing President: Richard D. Fantozzi, M.D.

    Division of Medical Quality President: Cesar Aristeiguieta, M.D.

    The following excerpt of an article by medical journalist Marcus Cohen shows how awareness and outcry helped another doctor falsely charged by the Medical Board of California.

    Thank you Marcus, and thanks to all who speak up for justice.

    TOWNSEND LETTER FOR DOCTORS

    Tale of Medical License Suspension Vigorously Opposed and Overturned

    by Marcus A. Cohen

    An earlier series in Townsend (2001-2003) documented disciplinary actions [by state medical boards] which flouted laws and regulations meant to insure fair proceedings. That series also suggested that the word “proceedings” for those actions is too mild, too neutral. If one scrutinizes and adds up the due process abuses reported, and calculates the losses in pocket and reputation to doctors – omitting the “collateral damage” to patients dependent on improperly tried MDs – one carries away the impression that these flawed investigations and prosecutions resemble back-alley muggings more than they do the orderly, civil administrative hearings they are presumed to be.

    Townsend readers are prone to believe that state medical boards disproportionately target providers of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). True, but in general the boards seem to train their sights at physicians who, having distanced themselves from the herd, make easy prey. Doctors specializing in CAM by definition depart from community practice. Others get hit for using standard therapies in ways frowned on by a majority of mainstream practitioners, for instance; MDs who treat chronic Lyme disease with long-term IV antibiotics. Others appear to wander under fire largely because they have solo practices and often treat patients without supervision by institutional review boards (IRBs). Still others are tracked by insurers who find the treatments given by these doctors in conflict with patterns of use that the insurers approve; the insurers then notify the state medical boards, calling for penalties to force the doctors to conform to insurance industry standards.

    Lately, I’ve heard allegations of racial and ethnic bias in state medical board disciplinary actions. The prejudice seems chiefly directed at black MDs, including physicians born and medically trained in the US and those born and educated in medical schools abroad. Since 9/11, in at least several states, the proportion of MDs with names common in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent has risen noticeably. I’m now investigating these apparently prejudiced prosecutions.

    This column tells about MDs whose licenses were suspended, who then refused to serve as game animals, hiding in the tall grass to escape detection or pursuit, and pounced back on their attackers. One case, dating to the mid-1990s, involved the California medical board; I detail this case here. The second, quite recent, involves the OPMC; I mention it here for its precedent-setting value but reserve extended coverage for a column in the near future. In both, political factors appear to be the prime activators.

    Dr. Rosalind Scott is the first black women to earn board certification in cardio-thoracic surgery. In 1995, she held the position of Assistant Chief of Surgery at Martin Luther King, Jr., Hospital and Medical Center, situated in a black neighborhood in Los Angeles. At the time, the Chief of Surgery was black, too. Many attending and resident physicians were black.

    One evening, the surgical chief asked her to stand in and supervise recoveries from emergency surgery, a duty routinely requiring the supervising physician to drop into intensive care units periodically to assure that no medical problems were cropping up.

    That evening, the first Asian member of the LAPD blundered or had the misfortune of sticking his face into a botched drug bust in the neighborhood served by Martin Luther King. Rushed to this hospital with 14 bullets in him, the trauma staff fought to save his life, giving him 22 pints of blood. To no one’s great surprise, he succumbed two days later.

    Gil Garcetti was the LA District Attorney in those days. He had gained national attention by indicting O.J. Simpson for murder, and reportedly was ticked after the case went to trial and the jury cleared Simpson. Garcetti reacted to the death of the Asian law enforcement officer by convening a grand jury and trying to bully its members into indicting Dr. Scott for Murder 2. When the jury wouldn’t swallow that, he again sought to bully it into indicting Dr. Scott for manslaughter. The jury also gagged at that. Garcetti’s abuse of the grand jury in this matter is on public record, and considering the fact that Dr. Scott wasn’t directly involved in the officer’s treatment, that death was the likely outcome of his profuse wounds and loss of blood, Garcetti’s thirst for an indictment seems unreasonable, even bizarre.

    Apparently frustrated by the grand jury’s rebuff, Garcetti sent information to the California medical board, prodding them to investigate Scott. Without conducting an investigation, as required by state law, the board suspended her license to practice.

    Scott’s initial response was to keep a low profile and deal with the suspension as a matter for her and the California board to thrash out – the first reaction by most MDs hit with crippling disciplinary penalties (with or without advice from defense lawyers). Some time after assuming this defensive posture, a lawyer counseled her to go public, and to enlist support from colleagues.

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appealed to the board, which is required by law to provide a time period for public comments on its cases. Next, the American Board of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons wrote on Scott’s behalf [recognizing] that what had befallen Dr. Scott could befall any of its members. Finally, the California Medical Association (CMA) weighed in.

    Several very distinguished black physicians added their support, foremost among them, Dr. Eddie Hoover in Buffalo, NY, a cardio-thoracic surgeon then serving as president of the Society of Black Surgeons. Dr. Hoover also persuaded the Society to send a sizable contribution to Dr. Scott’s defense fund.

    Bit by bit, an action that the California medical board had taken, probably thinking that the worst consequence might be a controllable local outcry, had exploded into a national protest by supporters of Dr. Scott who were too powerful to fob off.

    Squirming under the intensifying heat of numerous spotlights, the California agency resorted to a habitual expedient by medical boards in wiping egg off their faces – without signaling that they were caving under pressure. They ordered Dr. Scott to submit to a test of her fitness to resume practice, appointed a cardio-thoracic specialist to test her, and set an exam date. Sixty days later, the medical board issued a two-sentence ruling, stating in effect that they had dismissed their case against her: no apologies for barring her from practice and preventing her from earning income from her profession for two years, for stigmatization in the media, for emotional duress suffered throughout her unjustified ordeal.

    Few physicians can count on the solid outpouring of support that Dr. Scott mustered. A crucial impediment is the fear of reprisal by state boards. MDs who testify in person or in writing on behalf of colleagues under investigation or trial can face investigation and even prosecution themselves. Intimidation of friendly witnesses has been reliably documented, particularly among CAM practitioners.

    The defense usually advised by attorneys savvy to the strong-arm tactics and threats of state medical boards is a negotiated settlement (where the health commissioner or prosecutors are not panting in pursuit of a doctor and may consent). Instead of imposition of the penalty proposed, the MD accepts a less severe form of discipline, and flees away rapidly, content to keep his or her license, relieved to be released with skin intact.

    Less often, physicians aggrieved over charges of professional misconduct believed by them to be unwarranted, convinced that the medical board is incapable of hearing them fairly, will go to state court and ask it to stay the proceedings and rule on the fairness of the hearing. Almost routinely, the court orders them back into hearings, telling them to return if they still believe they haven’t gotten a fair shake – after the conclusion of the administrative process. At that point, if they’ve been suspended or they’ve had their license revoked, and they’re in a state whose laws forbid them to practice while appealing a disciplinary action, they’ll sooner or later be strapped for money to continue the appeal; there’s no current practice income, and they’ve exhausted their savings.

    When Dr. Antonia Novello, NY’s commissioner of health, summarily suspended Dr. Mario DiBlasio’s license in 2000, this NY radiologist sued her for malicious prosecution in the Federal court (2002); he brought suit only after a health department hearing panel had dismissed his case.

    The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued a decision (2003) holding that Novello and her co-defendants were not protected by absolute immunity while performing their official duties, and that Section 230 of the NY Public Health Law inadequately protected physicians from wrongful deprivation of their professional licenses.

    For a complete copy of the article excerpted here, please send a request by email to Marcusacohen@aol.com.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.