AIDS: A mother's denial

The only thing I think can trump a stupid decision is evidence that it IS a stupid decision.

These idiots tell one another there is no evidence for HIV. Well there is. There is the double rna virus, there is reverse transcripase (that gets tested for), on and on...low levels of T cells in a patience with AIDS.

They hit misinformation back and forth, mix it with conspiracy theories, and then try to blame the death on an alternative cause. Typical.

There needs to be a system in place that can take these parents to a court to prove them wrong, and then have the kids get their treatment. The parents don't have a leg to stand on with their false notions. Tests would prove the children either do or don't have the virus. The children who DO have the virus then need preventative medicine to prevent their deaths. Parents can do what they want with the lucky kids that managed to escape infection. All we need is a judge with a scientific background that can tell pseudoscience from science.

I'm asking for a perfect world, and don't expect it, but this is the only solution I can think of. We see these cases going to court sometimes, and it's a frustrating battle. At least in those cases someone is fighting for the child's life though. It's usually another parent. We need a system where someone can advocate for these kids, someone a doctor can report to when a case comes up. A doctor doesn't have the time or resources to fight these causes. Society has to step in with a system.

It doesn't matter what autopsy reports say. The idiots will say and believe otherwise no matter what. They will still say HIV does not exist. They will still say their daughter was poisoned by evil doctors instead.
 
Melendwyr said:
I have to side with the editor. It's disingenuous to say parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children, and then declare that they have to make "correct" decisions. That's just substituting society's judgment for that of parents'. If you're going to rule that people must accept medical treatment for their children when society decides it's desirable, then just say so.

I'd love to be able to overrule each and every person who makes an uninformed, stupid, or disagreeable decision on the behalf of someone else... but I shouldn't have that power, and neither should anyone else.

Letting people make their own decisions inevitably means letting them make stupid, tragic decisions. That's the price of autonomy.
Click to expand...

I mulled this over last night, and realized that there is something very dangerous in letting someone with a serious communicable disease "make their own decisions".

The problem with HIV (and TB, plus a few other diseases) is that there are no, or very few, symptoms while it is communicable. All the while that Maggiore has decided she really did NOT have HIV, she did manage it pass it on to one child. THAT child is now dead... but as a infant and toddler she could have drooled onto a playmate and perhaps (it is a very low probability) and perhaps transmitted the virus.

Where does "doing with your own body as you so wish" become a matter of not giving someone else your disease. This is further emphasized in that there is an outbreak of polio in an Amish community... and recent outbreaks of certain diseases have been from those who chose NOT to vaccinate to go overseas where the herd immunity was non-existent.

Okay, now back to HIV... (sorry for the derail)... Another thing that Maggiore did was to convince other people that HIV+ status was not a thing to worry about. She apparently knows of 50 other women who have stopped taking transmission precautions. There are now dozens of men and children who are potential future HIV carriers because of the writings and film by Maggiore and her husband.

Check it out, in her own words on http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/top_bar_pages/aboutus.html#WORDS she still has "That same year, I met a wonderful man who became my husband. We have two beautiful, healthy children, ages six and two, who have never had so much as an ear infection."

Except one problem: One of those chidren is very very dead.

Do you really want to take medical advice from someone like that?
 
Do you really want to take medical advice from someone like that?
Click to expand...

She got her information from "credible" sources. That convinced her to spread the message onto others. Others listen to her and her "credible sources". I'm sure the sources of her information support her efforts.

It's good to be aware that these people are out there spreading the disease around. We have to be vigilant in our own protection. How do we protect our kids from drooling HIV deniers' babies though? Ugh. We can't quarantine the whole population in the face of these ridiculous deniers.

What to do? Convict parents who don't allow medical care? Start taking these "experts" to court when a child dies after their parents listen to them? Make some new laws?

If this disease weren't so horrible I wouldn't worry about it so much. But this is a horrible disease. I don't want my kids or future generations suffering because of idiot notions. How in the world do I protect them though?
 
Not trying to derail this thread, but I wonder what the procedure is for parents who refuse that their children be operated in a situation of emergency (JW's for example). Does the government have means to enforce the operation if it's regarded as necessary for the survival of the child?

Also, Melendwyr, what is wrong with "substituting society's judgement with that of parents'", when the parents are clearly incapable of making a responsible decision? Does the parents' freedom to make any decision they want worth more than the life of their child?

Letting people make their own decisions inevitably means letting them make stupid, tragic decisions. That's the price of autonomy.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between making a stupid, tragic decision for oneself and making it for someone else. Also, as has been noted before, there's the issue of endangering third parties.
 
Last edited:
SwissSkeptic said:
Not trying to derail this thread, but I wonder what the procedure is for parents who refuse that their children be operated in a situation of emergency (JW's for example). Does the government have means to enforce the operation if it's regarded as necessary for the survival of the child? *snip*
Click to expand...

I think that in the USA, parents have the right to refuse having their children treated if they refuse for religious reasons*.

At least that´s how I remember the paper Dr Carlos Bertha presented at TAM3.


*And I seriously doubt that they have to prove that (a) their religion holds the belief that such treatment is bad or (b) that they really, devoutly believe in that religion
 
Chaos said:
I think that in the USA, parents have the right to refuse having their children treated if they refuse for religious reasons*.

At least that´s how I remember the paper Dr Carlos Bertha presented at TAM3.


*And I seriously doubt that they have to prove that (a) their religion holds the belief that such treatment is bad or (b) that they really, devoutly believe in that religion
Click to expand...
Martyrdom by proxy.

Idiots. :mad:
 
I remember some inane US chat show where a mother was defending her decision not to allow her kid to have treatment for something serious, as her beliefs said any such treatment was against gods will. One member of the audience slammed her for wearing glasses. She argued that the glasses had been prescribed for her as a kid.
Right! But every ****ing day of her ****ing life she chooses to defy her beliefs because it's convenient, but when it comes to her kids life she comes over all pious. I can still feel the rage years later.
 
These denial of medical care comes into play with medications as well. Parents will buy into the scientology claims about therapy and medications. I simply asked a mom if she did try any meds for her child since the kid WAS receiving special services for her child's behaviour in school. She just glared at me and and walked away. Could have uttered a polite no or something, but no, she got angry about it. Sorry for even asking. Sheesh.

BTW, Tom Cruise will be holding a talk about the ""How Psychiatry Invented Schizophrenia, and What Scientologists Can Do About It".
http://socialitelife.com/mt/archives/tom_cruise_to_speak_on_the_modern_science_of_mental_health.php

I really hate that b@startd, but rumors are the "talks" are a hoax, and he's not doing them. Still, they do hold seminars on that subject matter.
 
Last edited:
Eos of the Eons said:
BTW, Tom Cruise will be holding a talk about the ""How Psychiatry Invented Schizophrenia, and What Scientologists Can Do About It".
http://socialitelife.com/mt/archives/tom_cruise_to_speak_on_the_modern_science_of_mental_health.php

I really hate that b@startd, but rumors are the "talks" are a hoax, and he's not doing them. Still, they do hold seminars on that subject matter.
Click to expand...

Hoax, I gather....
I can't see Tom talking on the subject of :
"Neuroanatomical Changes Resulting from Chronic Methamphetamine Abuse: Can Narconon's Sauna and Niacin Treatment Program Help?"

I just hope Katie doesn't dare get any post-natal depression, or shes in for a major shock.
 
Chaos said:
I think that in the USA, parents have the right to refuse having their children treated if they refuse for religious reasons*.

At least that´s how I remember the paper Dr Carlos Bertha presented at TAM3.


*And I seriously doubt that they have to prove that (a) their religion holds the belief that such treatment is bad or (b) that they really, devoutly believe in that religion
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Thanks for the answer, Chaos.
 
Chaos: perhaps you meant "Dr Seth Asser" rather than "Carlos Bertha" in your post on the 16th?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort during my "Fighting Fideism" presentation at TAM 3... :-)

Carlos
 
Little update. The emminent Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, he of 'Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS' fame, reviewed the case and concluded that "Eliza Jane’s death resulted from acute allergic reaction to amoxicillin [a form of penicillin] which caused severe hypotension, shock, and cardiac arrest.”"(pdf report). So they asked King Woo to review the case, and he came up with the conclusion that the eeeevil conventional doctors killed her? Wow, I am SHOCKED!
Oh, in case this doesn't work, they are also mudsling the LA pathologist.
 
I read through it. I'm curious: how the hell does the good doctor maintain his professional standing at all? Wouldn't an Amoxicillin allergy have caused a more immediate, (and perversely in this case) more merciful death? He might be a board certified pathologist, but that clearly means jack in this case.
 
Donks said:
Little update. The emminent Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, he of 'Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS' fame, reviewed the case and concluded that "Eliza Jane’s death resulted from acute allergic reaction to amoxicillin [a form of penicillin] which caused severe hypotension, shock, and cardiac arrest.”"

<snip>
Click to expand...


A very thorough examination of Al-Bayati's 'report' appears in Orac's "Respectful Insolence" blog, which I recommend to all JREF forum members (the specific article, and the blog in general).

Not enough posts for me to be able to post a clickable link, but the URL is:

oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/11/hivaids-skeptic-questions-my-honesty.html

Cheers,

Hank
 
I too have been following the developments, and have managed to resist posting here til now.

The only thing the Maggiore/Scoville family could do was to find a sympathetic doctor who would come up with a revised cause of death which totally exonerated HIV.
They need to try and do this to help avert any future legal action against them.
Unfortunately for them, the only person they could come up with was a rabid HIV-denialist, whose track record on logic and critical thinking makes Kumar look like a genius. Faced with the impossible task of coming up with an alternative diagnosis, this doctor has had to contrive (without any evidence for the existence of either), 2 highly unlikely coincident causes (having been unable to come up trumps with an even remotely "plausible" single cause).
And then he manages to ignore the fact that Eliza had been losing weight, was HIV positive by serology and p24 antigen testing, had pneumonic infiltrates on her initial lung Xray and the pathologist found pneumocystis and foamy pink exudates within the lung at autopsy (suggesting that the proper controls for HIV testing were not followed, and that having pneumocystis pneumonia is somehow a normal finding).

Gobsmakingly ridiculous.:eek:
:mad: :mad: :mad:

And they all carry on in complete denial.
 
Last night I watched the TV program "ER"... one of the stories involved a mother bringing in her sick son. First she told them that she did not vaccinate, and then she did not want her son X-rayed after being told he possibly had pneumonia. After the child had a crisis... they X-rayed him, check his lab results with very low white blood counts (always faster on TV), and came to the conclusion he had an AIDS related pneumonia.

Turns out the mom was told that she was HIV+ about fifteen years before, but refused to take meds. She claimed that the government made up the "story about the virus" to cover the ailments caused by pollution, etc. Does this sound familiar?

Anyway, after a talk from a sympathetic nurse, she accepted treatment and a test for her son.

I get the feeling that this was based on Maggiore, but with an outcome that the writers thought would happen if she had seen competent doctors. Especially since it was broadcast on "World AIDS Day".

Oh, I checked the alt.tv.er on groups.google.com --- the mom is called by one person "CrazyMom", and more than one poster there cannot believe that the story was outlandish, and that scenerio would never happen in real life. One person noted that "Yes, there are those people who do believe that!"
 
I have discovered that Maggiore and Al Bayati will be interviewed as a double act this Sunday on "Eye on the Future" radio 11pm - 1am EDT.

http://www.eyeonthefutureradio.com/upcoming_shows.htm

I see that you can actually participate interactively via Paltalk.
I'll try and listen or at least email questions. Is it possible to record the programme?

Looking through the list of other attractions, it seems this radio station is intended for an altie audience - UFOs, reiki, dowsing, spiritualism, mercury toxicity, mind control, conspiracy theories etc, etc.

Perhaps this is where HIV denial should appropriately reside - buried amongst the pseudoscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom