More Lies from Liam Scheff
Liam Scheff's latest drivvel...
It seems almost as if Liam has moved from the realms of misrepresentation to downright fiction. The kind of descriptions coming out from this article are appalling...and therefore probably untrue.
Clinical trials simply aren't run like that - especially ones with kids - especially ones using existing therapies in an attempt simply to expand the access.
I should know - I've worked on several clinical studies with kids, some of them designed to expand access (none with HIV though).
They describe dosing schedules of midnight, 3am, 5am...these simply wouldn't exist. They're entirely impractical for post-study use. They describe changes in medications, as if ideas were being thrown around at will. You simply cannot run a study like that (literally, you will get meaningless information and the IRB won't let you!) The regulatory issues are addressed by a letter from the NY State health department here.
Liam describes a child "bleeding from every orifice" after being given thalidomide, which has actually been used to TREAT gastrointestinal bleeding and doesn't have bleeding as a side effect (except abnormal menstrual bleeding). If you're going to name-drop a well known "disaster" drug, at least have the sense to check whether it can cause the side effects you're accusing it of causing...
If a child "expressed that [they] don't want to take the drugs" they don't. You are not allowed to force someone, anyone, even someone below the age of "consent" to participate in a clinical trial. Kids get special protection under international agreements for clinical research.
I've written to the ICC, maybe I can get more information about this thing.
It seems almost as if Liam has moved from the realms of misrepresentation to downright fiction. The kind of descriptions coming out from this article are appalling...and therefore probably untrue.
Clinical trials simply aren't run like that - especially ones with kids - especially ones using existing therapies in an attempt simply to expand the access.
I should know - I've worked on several clinical studies with kids, some of them designed to expand access (none with HIV though).
They describe dosing schedules of midnight, 3am, 5am...these simply wouldn't exist. They're entirely impractical for post-study use. They describe changes in medications, as if ideas were being thrown around at will. You simply cannot run a study like that (literally, you will get meaningless information and the IRB won't let you!) The regulatory issues are addressed by a letter from the NY State health department here.
Liam describes a child "bleeding from every orifice" after being given thalidomide, which has actually been used to TREAT gastrointestinal bleeding and doesn't have bleeding as a side effect (except abnormal menstrual bleeding). If you're going to name-drop a well known "disaster" drug, at least have the sense to check whether it can cause the side effects you're accusing it of causing...
If a child "expressed that [they] don't want to take the drugs" they don't. You are not allowed to force someone, anyone, even someone below the age of "consent" to participate in a clinical trial. Kids get special protection under international agreements for clinical research.
I've written to the ICC, maybe I can get more information about this thing.
posted by Bennett at 1:58 PM
9 Comments:
Sam - I've deleted the duplicate AND the article. I'm not going to give Scheff more space to promote his lies/misrepresentations. I've already provided a link to the original story so my readers can follow it if they want to. Unlike many dissidents I believe in providing the reader with all the facts.
My argument is that the kind of things that he is describing simply couldn't be allowed to happen under the remit of the clinical research I've been involved with. I find it hard to believe that the FDA would audit this place and walk away without a massive stink. Audits will get you in trouble for not noting down a runny nose!
Note the misrepresentation about thalidomide, and the accusations of ignoring participant's wishes. It sounds too horrific to be true, and my case is that it's simply because it ISN'T true.
The point about the regimens wasn't that they aren't to be followed, but simply that it seems too daft to be true to have a regimen that involved waking the kids up at midnight, 3am 5am or whatever just to be in a study. There's no way that could be translated to a post-study regimen in real life, so the data would be worthless anyway.
I did get to speak with a spokesman from the ICC and we exchanged a few emails also. It turns out that this woman was fired for incompetance and then went to Scheff (or Scheff tracked her down) to cause trouble. Simple as that. Scheff, being an untrained gullible trouble-maker either swallowed her story or deliberately twisted it, as far as I can tell.
These people are working and have worked to save children's lives, and to be faced with these accusations is utterly gut-wrenching. The guy I spoke to was torn between being angry and feeling helpless. The first thing he said when I was allowed to talk to him was "Is this for real? Are you Scheff?" The entire story, from the BBC "documentary" (written by Scheff! - he created the whole myth himself) to this latest article is seriously affecting the people there.
I'm afraid this kind of trial is EXACTLY what should have been done. Think about this: a bunch of new drugs are available to treat cancer. They have been shown to be safe and effective in adults. Do we: (A) give them to kids without checking (B) withhold them from kids, since we can't possibly do studies on children or (C) enroll some kids into studies to see if the drugs are just as useful in them? How would you feel about that if your kid had a disease that could be treated only through a study?
You're forgetting that without these studies these kids had access to NO ANTIVIRALS. It was a two-fer - you could treat them with drugs that were already tested in adults (minimal risk) and providing them with therapy when the current standard of care was to wait for the coroner (maximum benefit).
Liam is commenting on something he knows nothing about, with a scientific and medical knowledge base of zero, with an agenda of his own and using witnesses with a grudge against the ICC. And you trust HIM?!
Tut tut Sam.
Bennett
I should also add - this woman tried to fight the dismissal case and HER OWN UNION refused to support her. Basically she was trouble. And she still is.
Sam, you've missed the point.
Scheff cares about no-one except himself and causing trouble. My openmindedness is irrelevant - Scheff is lying and misrepresenting things. As a scientist I cannot be openminded to lies, only the truth. Scheff is demonstrably lying, either through ignorance or intentionally. I've recorded several instances of that on this Blog.
It doesn't matter if ICC did or not did adhere to clinical protocol, and the real evidence I've seen is that they generally did with the exception of keeping good consent records. Scheff wants only to twist science to suit his own ends.
The only thing I have against Scheff is that he lies and twists the truth. He could be doing the same thing about GM foods and I would feel the same way. I cannot condone a study that is cruel to children, of course not! No-one could. I could not defend the actions of ICC as Liam presents them, my point is that Liam has lied about several things, ICC being just one of them.
My point about the woman is that she has a very good reason to also lie about ICC, to cause them trouble. If someone like her says that ICC was cruel, my first reaction is that she's lying to give back a little trouble.
I'm amazed you accept it at face value! I'm less amazed that Liam did, since he in all likelihood sought her out to "support" his case. In my eyes he only undermined it further.
If Liam really cared about people he wouldn't be a journalist.
Instead of ranting and raving aout his lie lies lies. Why don't you find a way to prove that Mr Scheff i wrong. You say he lies but you provide no proff of his lies.
You seem to be partially ashamed of the already currupt medical establishment/pharmacuetical establishment and when someone esposes it for what it is, you get angry. HOw and Why do you know he is lying?
Hi Dude,
The simple fact is that most of what Scheff says scientifically is easily rebutted by reading a basic textbook or attending some classes.
Most of what he says about other stuff (e.g. abuse at ICC) makes no sense and runs counter to my experience and the real-life findings (e.g. the NYS inspection of ICC). My original posts lists many of the reasons why Scheff is at best stretching the truth and at worst making it up!
Ultimately it is not up to me to prove that something was NOT done, it is up to Scheff to prove that something (abuse) WAS done. He has no evidence.
Read my other post here about Scheff and how he says basically whatever he wants without providing proof.
Cheers
Bennett
if liam scheff were the immature trouble maker you claim he is - and i must say you are very personal in your attacks rather then illustrating factual evidence - why did the BBC
FOLLOW THIS STORY ON The Incarnation
Child Centre and investigate for themselves and establish that everything he said was in fact TRUE.
As for your great american laws to protect the child you clearly do not know that in many of your US States there are no laws to protect
orphans in care when they have been forcibly or otherwise taken in to state care.
this is the very reason that this kind of medical experimenting can continue .
Hopefully the BBC exposure of this disgrace will be the catalyst for
lobbying in your country to change the laws and ensure that minors have the right to refuse this kind of barbaric intervention in the name of medical 'research'.
Without a doubt there is a degree of arrogance in the medical and research establishment and much of
it is corrupted to the degree that we no longer observe ethical standards when the human life we
are dealing with is not considered
important enough in its own right to resist refuse or protest this
medical rape.
it is medical rape , pharmaceutical
rape and i think that whoever sanctioned the use of stomach tubing for the purpose of this trial should be jailed.
anna, anna, anna. Sadly the BBC were duped by the AIDS denialists, who portrayed themselves as unbiased concerned citizens. The BBC has since launched a high-level investigation into the ICC story after they realised who people like Liam Scheff and David Rasnick were. Although I cannot state officially the results of that investigation, suffice to say that I'm looking forward to posting about it on the blog.
I suggest you redirect your anger against the medical establishment to the people, like Liam, who have lied about it in a misguided attempt to "protect" people, when in fact they are putting lives at risk by misrepresenting the truth.
I would add that the NY State Medical Board also reviewed the ICC and found NO evidence of wrongdoing. Now, who are you going to believe - the medical board given the task of protecting human beings' health or a television company looking for ratings who was demonstrably lied to about the quality and qualifications of their witnesses...?
I do know something about the protection of minors in state care, as our clinic has the county center for foster-care children and is a national model of excellence.
Liam demonstrably lies. He asks how a virus cannot travel from mother to child who share a blood supply, when mother and child DO NOT share a blood supply. He states that AZT is a toxic chemo drug when AZT is a "chemo" drug that was canned due to LACK of toxicity.
He complained about the HIVNET012 study using an unapproved RNA test to confirm HIV infection, when in fact the study used the ELISA/Western blot protocol, virus culture and an accepted protocol of multiple RNA testing - a far MORE stringent diagnosis than that made in the US.
This information is all available either online or in basic textbooks. Liam Scheff is a journalist of the worst kind - promoting a personal agenda without fact-checking and putting lives at risk by advocating a lack of protection and treatment for HIV infection. This is not a "personal" attack, I am simply stating the facts as I see them. If Liam were to recheck his statements and recant his views I would have a higher opinion of him. His views have no basis in fact and so without his misunderstandings of the science they are unsupported.
He isn't even a person I particularly dislike - their are other AIDS dissidents who rile me up far more, but Liam is just someone who write far too much for other people's good.
Nick, you write that:
"Liam demonstrably lies. He asks how a virus cannot travel from mother to child who share a blood supply, when mother and child DO NOT share a blood supply. He states that AZT is a toxic chemo drug when AZT is a "chemo" drug that was canned due to LACK of toxicity."
Do you dispute that AZT is a toxic drug? Does it or does it not bear the FDA's Black Box label? (do all Aids drugs not bear this label, Nick?)
What does the Black Box mean, Nick?
Nevirapine in Utero:
Does the baby share any part of the mother's body, Nick? Or is the fetus immune from all toxic substances imbibed by the mother (Hint: what are the effects of AZT in utero, on the health of children)?
Awaiting your ridiculous responses.
Sorry, did that slip? I meant, "Awaiting your generous, and humanitarian responses to the situation in which particularly trusting, innocent people are duped into taking extraordinarily toxic drugs, because helpful doctors,
(who are adored by one Nick Bennett),
tell them that they MUST! Because they manage to give them a non-specific, non-standardized antibody test.
Let us know, we're spellbound by your tap-dancing.
You can reach me for one-on-one debate, or just old-fashioned Direct Q&A, at my webpage:
http://liamscheff.com
Don't be a stranger, Nick. I'd hate to see you hiding out in your little hole on this blog, afraid to mix it up with those you defile.
Most sincerely,
Liam Scheff
Liam -
"Does the baby share any part of the mother's body, Nick?"
Answer. No.
Is it immune to toxic stuff? No, not always, but the fact that you don't understand basic anatomy unfortunately undermines much of your attempts to teach me anything on medicine :o)
I have answered your AZT question elsewhere. Long-term followup of AZT-exposed kids have not revealed adverse clinical outcomes (although it has revealed some AZT-incorporation into DNA, probably mitochondrial).
I suppose it doesn't cross your mind that it's better to have a kid with a low risk of AZT side effects many years later (short-term followup over a few years has revealed no issues) than a kid dead from HIV (as proven in many studies, contrary to Duesberg's theory of vertical transmission being harmless).
Bennett
Post a Comment
<< Home