• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Christine Maggiore, AIDS denialist, has died

Deetee

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
3,789
The LA Times has announced the death of AIDS skeptic and activist Christine Maggiore on the 27th December. She came to prominence in the 1990s following her own HIV positive diagnosis, writing a book “What if everything you knew about AIDS was wrong?” and set up an organisation “Alive and Well” to promote her views that HIV did not cause AIDS and to encourage others to “rethink” their own diagnoses. She advocated breast feeding in HIV positive mothers, and the refusal of preventative HIV medications to pregnant women, probably resulting in numerous infants getting HIV. Her activism also caught the eye of President Mbeki of South Africa, who was influenced to think HIV did not cause AIDS. The result of this was the denial of therapy to those with HIV in his country, resulting in what has been estimated at 330 thousand deaths over the last 10 years.

Maggiore did not just influence others, she took her own advice to heart, delivering her own 2 children without taking any HIV medication, and breast feeding them (taking medication and avoiding breast feeding can help reduce the transmission rate from mother to child to under 2%, from the usual 20-25% risk). Her first child, Charlie, was born healthy and had no problems. Her second child, Eliza Jane, developed problems during her second year of life, and died of AIDS with HIV encephalopathy and Pneumocystis pneumonia when she was 2 and a half years old. She had never been tested for HIV.

LA County Authorities, alerted to the case, arranged testing for Maggiore’s first child, Charlie (who was fortunately negative). There was consideration given to removing Charlie from his mother’s care and charging his parents with negligence, but the case was dropped.

Now, it appears Christine herself has died from pneumonia at the age of 52. She had been unwell over the last 6 months. It seems probable that her premature death is AIDS-related, but of course we may never know for sure. Even now, the AIDS denialist propaganda machine is rewriting the story of her life and her death. They will claim this was due to stress, or some other improbable reason (as they did for Eliza Jane, who was said to have died from a reaction to antibiotics).
 
This is very much a side issue, and I can take it to another thread if you think it will derail this one. What is the current advice on breastfeeding with HIV in the developing world? Does the increased risk of HIV transmission outweigh the downsides of bottlefeeding in all cases, or just in those with good access to clean water and enough money that they don't have to "stretch" the formula? Are those figures you quoted for exclusive breastfeeding, or mixed feeding?

ETA: Have just found the current advice and it seems to cover some of the concerns I had:


Given the need to reduce HIV transmission to infants while at the same time not increasing their risk of morbidity and mortality from other causes, UN guidelines state “when replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe, avoidance of all breastfeeding by HIV-infected mothers is recommended. Otherwise, exclusive breastfeeding is recommended during the first months of life” and should then be discontinued as soon as the above conditions are met
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that she didn't die before she became pregnant with her second child.
 
Last edited:
How depressing.
It appears that she was also an antivaxer from the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore#Criticism_and_controversy

Yes, she certainly was a woo of the first order.

The HIV denialist interweb explanation of why she died seems to be that she underwent a radical holistic detox that left her dehydrated, weakened and unable to breathe. The denialists are trying to say this was the cause of death, rather than her underlying HIV. They'd say anything, as long as they could point the finger of blame away from HIV. This being the case, shouldn't someone go after her holistic therapist, and charge them with manslaughter?

She was an antivaxer, and paradoxically, this would be relevant to the cause of death in her daughter. The reason EJ died was because she had AIDS with PCP pneumonia and HIV encephalopathy. Christine's story however was that EJ got an otitis ear infection, didn't get better, got amoxicillin from a doctor to treat it, and had an allergic reaction which killed her. This being the case, vaccination in infancy against Haemophilus influenzae (HiB) and pneumococcus would have likely as not prevented the ear infection (most infections are due to these 2 organisms, and vaccination against them is part of the schedule).

So even if Christine's story of how her daughter died were true (it isn't) one could say she was to blame because she was an antivaxer. Vaccines would have saved her baby from otitis.

And to cap it all, Dr Jay Gordon, antivax supremo, was her pediatrician.
 
And to cap it all, Dr Jay Gordon, antivax supremo, was her pediatrician.

This is a major problem with weeding out quacks. An investigation into his practices would surely lead to the loss of his license. But said investigation requires the co-operation of his patients.

Linda
 
She was an antivaxer, and paradoxically, this would be relevant to the cause of death in her daughter. The reason EJ died was because she had AIDS with PCP pneumonia and HIV encephalopathy. Christine's story however was that EJ got an otitis ear infection, didn't get better, got amoxicillin from a doctor to treat it, and had an allergic reaction which killed her. This being the case, vaccination in infancy against Haemophilus influenzae (HiB) and pneumococcus would have likely as not prevented the ear infection (most infections are due to these 2 organisms, and vaccination against them is part of the schedule).

So even if Christine's story of how her daughter died were true (it isn't) one could say she was to blame because she was an antivaxer. Vaccines would have saved her baby from otitis.

Does vaccination have a significant impact on otitis? Both my kids were vaccinated, and both of them have had ear infections requiring the use of antibiotics (one had a perforated eardrum as a result of the infection).

Otitis media is one of the most common infectious diseases of infancy; a reduction in its incidence would have a significant economic and social impact. Vaccines may play a role in the prevention of otitis media. This report discusses vaccines against pneumococci and influenza viruses. We reviewed the literature for results of studies examining the role of these vaccines in the prevention of otitis media. The 23-valent polysaccharide anti-pneumococcal vaccine did not modify the incidence of otitis media in children aged 2 years less, the age group with the highest incidence of otitis. The heptavalent anti-pneumococcal vaccine did not significantly reduce the incidence of otitis media overall. This vaccine did, however, reduce the number of episodes of otitis media with effusion and the number of recurrences; it also altered the profile of causative microorganisms by increasing otitis caused by different microorganisms. We found the inactivated anti-influenza virus vaccine to be effective in reducing otitis media during peak incidence periods of influenza. As these new vaccines are currently available in Brazil, otolaryngologists must be aware of their potential role and impact in the reduction of otitis media, to counsel patients appropriately.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rboto/v74n4/en_a21v74n4.pdf

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Long term effects of recurrent episodes of otitis media, rapid emergence of drug resistant bacteria associated with AOM worldwide and huge estimated direct and indirect annual costs associated with otitis media have emphasized the need for an effective vaccination program to prevent episodes of AOM. OBJECTIVES: The object of this review was to assess the effect of pneumococcal vaccination in preventing AOM in children up to 12 years of age. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group specialised register (last update, 26th April 2001), the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2000), MEDLINE (January 1966-August 2000) and reference list of all studies and review articles retrieved. We also contacted two vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of some included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of pneumococcal vaccination with prevention of AOM as outcome in children aged 12 years or younger and a follow-up of at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five reviewers independently assessed trial quality and two reviewers extracted data. Two study authors were contacted. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials on pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and two trials on pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) were included. The highest efficacy of PPV was found in children aged 24 months and older: the rate ratio after adjustment for study was 0.833 [95%CI: 0.625-0.970]. The PPV has little effect on the prevention of AOM in children without documented prior episodes of AOM and only a moderate effect in the group of children with documented AOM episodes prior to vaccination. The results of the two PCV trials in healthy infants, which followed children from the age of two months until two years of age, could not be pooled because of lack of data. Both studies showed that the risk of recurrent disease decreased with 9% in the group of children receiving the PCV together with other childhood vaccinations at 2,4,6 and 14 months of age: Study Black et al 2000 : risk ratio=0.91[95%CI:0.86-0.96]; Study Eskola et al 2001: risk ratio=0.90 [95%CI:0.73-1.12]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available results of the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination for the prevention of AOM, a large scale use of pneumococcal vaccination for this indication is not recommended. The results of currently ongoing trials could provide more information whether pneumococcal vaccines are effective in specific high-risk (otitis-prone) populations.
http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/12076412/Pneumococcal_vaccines_for_preventing_otitis_media

Q. Will the Hib vaccine protect against non-encapsulated strains causing e.g otitis media?
A. The Hib vaccines are made from the Hib capsule and therefore only protects against infections due to encapsulated strains. Therefore conditions such as otitis media and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis which are caused by non-encapsulated strains of Haemophilus influenzae will not be prevented through vaccination.

 
Last edited:
Good that she's dead, the evil bitch. Bad if she becomes some sort of martyr.

I wonder if she changed her mind at the end of her life? I mean, what did she think was killing her? Overwork?
 
Good that she's dead, the evil bitch. Bad if she becomes some sort of martyr.

I wonder if she changed her mind at the end of her life? I mean, what did she think was killing her? Overwork?

Why do you consider her 'evil'? Did she not believe what she claimed? Did she wish for others to suffer?

Ignorant, misguided and deluded, but probably not evil.
 
Why do you consider her 'evil'? Did she not believe what she claimed? Did she wish for others to suffer?

Ignorant, misguided and deluded, but probably not evil.

I think she was wilfully ignorant. If you're going to be as vocal as her on a topic that important, you'd better be sure that you have the best possible education about it. You'd better weigh up all the evidence and take advice from the most knowledgeable people. You'd better question yourself daily and reassess based on new evidence. To do otherwise is pretty evil. Not bothered about one of your semantics debates, though, Ivor, so call her what you want.
 
I don't get it. What motive is there for pretending AIDS is not caused by HIV? Is it so people can deny that they are actually sick?

I think she was wilfully ignorant. If you're going to be as vocal as her on a topic that important, you'd better be sure that you have the best possible education about it. You'd better weigh up all the evidence and take advice from the most knowledgeable people. You'd better question yourself daily and reassess based on new evidence. To do otherwise is pretty evil. Not bothered about one of your semantics debates, though, Ivor, so call her what you want.

It appears that she was far more than evil. The woman was strait-up stupid.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it. What motive is there for pretending AIDS is not caused by HIV?
That is a central question for me - why does any AltMed or new age believer persist in believing and practicing things that are patently false by any rational standards of evidence?

Certainly nothing to do with science, medicine or the conventional world view, those things are irrelevant as far as such people are concerned. Possibly to do with attention seeking, group mentality (just like in this group!) or being a big fish in a small pond. Definitely to do with a feeling that only by opting out of "big medicine" can control over personal destiny be achieved.

Next question is why do people feel that they have lost control when involved with conventional medicine and what can be done about it? Why do they feel so let down by a system of medicine that has saved millions and is almost miraculous compared with healthcare even 100 years ago? No point in ranting at people who have opted out of science and medicine - it's a fact, it's already happened; we are losing these sorts of persons from the rational world and berating them will only ensure that more are put off in the future.

This is a desperately sad case.

Yuri
 
I can't find it in my heart to call her evil, though I want to. She was clearly so sucked into the world of denial that she just existed with an entirely different belief system. I know something of her through our phone conversations and emails. She would by anyone's normal estimation count as a decent person, mother an wife. But she was blind to reason, and her inability to realise what she had done to her own daughter really saddened me.

Where she has culpability for harm done to others comes from her encouragement to others to think as she did. She no doubt persuaded hundreds of people to forgo the benefits of ARVs, and probably resulted in numerous babies catching the virus. And her pernicious influence on the global stage was awful to witness, particularly her interactions with Mbeki, whom she even met with to discuss "AIDS". She no doubt bears some of the blame for the genocide in South Africa.
 
Last edited:
Good that she's dead, the evil bitch. Bad if she becomes some sort of martyr.

I second Teek's sentiments - good riddance. But I shake my head at the likelihood that the anti-vax movement will likely turn her into a martyr. From all indications, it seems the propaganda machine is already working overtime on this.

I wonder if she changed her mind at the end of her life? I mean, what did she think was killing her? Overwork?

Who knows? What she thought at the end of her life matters little (unless she left written records saying "all this anti-vax, anti-HIV-causes-AIDS stuff is crap"). What matters now is how the anti-vaxxers will spin it. I'm fairly certain most of us here won't be too happy with the results.

Side Note: Please don't call this woman a skeptic. It's just insulting.
 
Wait... folks, forgive me for being behind the times on this. I don't keep a close a tab on the body of knowledge here anywhere near as closely as I do for the 9/11 CT crap, so I'm a little confused. Anti-vaxers? And HIV-AIDS denialism? Togehter?? Since when did those forces join? I had previously thought they were two seperate phenomena. You don't have to necessarily deny HIV as the central infection of AIDS to be against vaccines. And the reverse is true: You could be totally anti-innoculation and still accept that HIV is the important factor in AIDS. I'm just surprised that there's crossover belief there, and I hadn't previously known that the beliefs were cross pollinating. Anyway, when did this happen?

Granted, I know from other CT's that woo tends to cross pollinate - look at the 9/11 Truthers who also believe in Pearl Harbor and JFK woo. But still... I hadn't heard of this specific mixing.
 
Next question is why do people feel that they have lost control when involved with conventional medicine
Because, as good as it is, there are things that scientific medicine currently cannot cure, cannot fix, and cannot do. It cannot cure AIDS, all cancers, or may chronic viral infections (such as Herpes). It cannot restore full functionality to those suffering from brain, spinal cord, or other nerve damage, or degenerative nerological disorders like schizophrenia or Alzheimer's.. It cannot make a person with autism, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, or aphasia "normal".

But people still want these things, and don't like to accept that they're just not possible right now; so they turn to anyone or anything that promises that they are, with sufficient credibility. Especially if doing so feeds into their own prejudices, egos, and worldviews.
and what can be done about it?
Education and research. But that takes time, and there are no guarantees. People want guarantees, and do not like to wait.
 
Because, as good as it is, there are things that scientific medicine currently cannot cure, cannot fix, and cannot do. It cannot cure AIDS, all cancers, or may chronic viral infections (such as Herpes). It cannot restore full functionality to those suffering from brain, spinal cord, or other nerve damage, or degenerative nerological disorders like schizophrenia or Alzheimer's.. It cannot make a person with autism, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, or aphasia "normal".

But people still want these things, and don't like to accept that they're just not possible right now; so they turn to anyone or anything that promises that they are, with sufficient credibility. Especially if doing so feeds into their own prejudices, egos, and worldviews.
Medicine not being able to fix things is part of the problem; maybe the exuberant optimism, the "technology will solve all our problems" attitude of a few decades ago has left people disappointed. Hard to imagine how science could have measured up against the expectations it gave people in the "western world" really.

But there's something else - "scientific medicine cannot cure AIDS... etc..." and it's at that point that often contact is lost and the "well, where do I go from here" question is too often left unanswered by a system concerned more with patients it can fix than with those beyond "cure" but still in need of support. There's a need there that isn't being answered.

Yuri (typical maudlin Scot on hogmanay)
 
... you'd better be sure that you have the best possible education about it.

You'd better weigh up all the evidence and take advice from the most knowledgeable people.

You'd better question yourself daily and reassess based on new evidence.


Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, evil, or willfully ignorant, because YOU only listen to good smart people.

I hope everyone who doesn't agree with YOU about the things THEY'D BETTER DO dies similarly.

They'd sure BETTER.
 
Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, evil, or willfully ignorant, because YOU only listen to good smart people.

I hope everyone who doesn't agree with YOU about the things THEY'D BETTER DO dies similarly.

They'd sure BETTER.

Yet another wonderful post by interwaff. :rolleyes:
 
Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, evil, or willfully ignorant, because YOU only listen to good smart people.

I hope everyone who doesn't agree with YOU about the things THEY'D BETTER DO dies similarly.

They'd sure BETTER.

That's an excellent argument for pinheads, I'm sure, but that's not what the lady said. This person, who really, along with Fred Phelops, could be the poster child for evil, is dead, and Teek applauded it - not her suffering, if any, or the loss to anyone who may have loved her (I'm sure there may be some), but because the fact that she's gone is a plus for rational thinking as there's one less maroon out there, and she can't harm anyone any longer with her irrational ideas and deeds.

At least that's how I read it, knowing Teek as little as I do. And then you come along and ratchet up the maroon count by one, so we're right back where we started, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom