Christine Maggiore, AIDS denialist, has died

[Mojo]

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.

Once you start ignoring the evidence, and (for example) resorting to attacking your opponents as part of an arrogant and monolithic establishment, it's probably difficult to draw a line. Hence you get creationists attacking evidence based medicine.

 

[tkingdoll]

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.

I have no idea who you are. But by your logic, given you appear to be disagreeing with me about the harm this woman caused, I am not listening to you. Therefore this reply doesn't exist and the whole forum is about to explode in a puff of logic.

For the record, if she kept her wacky beliefs to herself, I wouldn't have a problem. That's not what happened. Oh, look, a dead baby! How pretty!

 

[CFLarsen]

Crossover beliefs have definitely found their way to the woo fairs. Before, you would see Tarot booths next to Astrology booths next to Healing booths. Now, you will see Tarot/Astrology booths with a dash of whatever tickles their fancy.

When you, as a believer, give up your critical sense, what stops you from believing anything? If you believe that magical planetary powers rule your life, why not believe in magical healing powers?

When you, as a salesman, mix the beliefs, it is easier to get more customers. Those that are attracted to X might also be attracted to Y - and the other way around.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Darwin wins.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Darwin wins.

Nope cause she was able to reproduce.

Susan

 

[luchog]

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.

Except that "science" did not give people any such expectations. People who sensationalized the capabilities of scientific research gave each other those expectations. Some of them were, unfortunately, scientists who overreached themselves, or were speaking about fields other than their own; but the majority were people, particularly journalists, who were just as ignorant of science and the scientific process as it's detractors are today.

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.

Erm, yes, the "where do we go from here?" question is being, and repeatedly has been, answered. It's just that the answers are not what they want to hear.

The answers that the scientific medical community can give right now are:

"We can't cure it yet; but we do have treatments available right now which are capable of relieving a considerable amount of suffering, and extending lifespan for a signifcant duration beyond what it would normally be without treatment, at a certain cost and risk."

And...

"We're continuing to research the problem. These are the difficulties we are facing, this is the progress that we've made so far, and these are the projections we can reasonably make based on the information we currently have."

But since neither of those answers is "We can definitely cure AIDS by this date, if not immediately, and entirely for free!" many people will not be satisfied with what the scientific medical community can tell them.

Contact is lost because too many people do not want to accept that reality. Some people will simply and flatly refuse to accept any answer that is not what they wish to hear; and in desperation will turn to anything that gives them more hope, which claims to give them the answer they do want, however false and clearly unworkable it may be.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Lots of websites still say she is alive and well.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nope cause she was able to reproduce.

Susan

But she won't anymore.

 

[blutoski]

Crossover beliefs have definitely found their way to the woo fairs. Before, you would see Tarot booths next to Astrology booths next to Healing booths. Now, you will see Tarot/Astrology booths with a dash of whatever tickles their fancy.

When you, as a believer, give up your critical sense, what stops you from believing anything? If you believe that magical planetary powers rule your life, why not believe in magical healing powers?

When you, as a salesman, mix the beliefs, it is easier to get more customers. Those that are attracted to X might also be attracted to Y - and the other way around.

I call it "The Raveen Screen"

Escalating scams is the reason three-card monte is illegal. The police couldn't care less about you losing a dollar... it's the fact that it's a gateway to more sophisticated scams.

I think Scientology's tier system is similar. If you bought into e-meters, then you're more likely than the general public to buy into Xenu.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What an odd story. This lady seems to conform to the Robert Heinlein aphorism about sin, crime, and stupidity, the punishment for stupidity being death.

DR

 

[blutoski]

What an odd story. This lady seems to conform to the Robert Heinlein aphorism about sin, crime, and stupidity, the punishment for stupidity being death.

DR

Nothing's new under the sun, though.

Today, a mother refusing to protect her kid from HIV because she believes in "health freedom"; fifty years ago, it was "health freedom" promoting pregnant mothers' right to defy the FDA ban and take thalidomide.

Yep. They showed us.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Once you start ignoring the evidence, and (for example) resorting to attacking your opponents as part of an arrogant and monolithic establishment, it's probably difficult to draw a line. Hence you get creationists attacking evidence based medicine.

Yes, another example of this is how faith-healing woo has begun to mix with Newage woo. This last week, I walked past a fundamentalist Christian church which espoused all manner of psychic and Newage woo along with its faith-healing claims. Where once the fundies and Newagers seemed to be at odds (many fundies thought Newagers were in league with Satan), I'm seeing more and more cross-pollination between them these days.

And, speaking of creationist woo, Ben Stein (Mr. Expelled himself) came right out and stated publicly that "Science leads you to killing people." No kidding - the epitome of an anti-scientific attitude.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Lots of websites still say she is alive and well.

Wha? Where?

 

[I Ratant]

Just don't get downwind!

 

[borealys]

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.

I agree ... maybe I wouldn't use the word "evil," but I agree wholeheartedly with the idea here. To mouth off so loudly and publicly about something without making a genuine effort to make sure you know what you're talking about is, in some ways, as bad as -- or worse than -- outright lying. (Shades of Harry Frankfurt, anyone?)

I'm sure she genuinely believed everything she said, and was motivated at least partly by a real desire to help people, which makes it difficult to judge her too harshly. But from what I know of her, she was more interested in being right than in finding out what the truth was. If you aren't willing to be proven wrong, you've got no business giving anyone advice about something as important as their health, and the health of their children.

 

[Lucky]

Lots of websites still say she is alive and well.

Just a minute - are you saying that lots of websites haven't been updated to report her death, which wouldn't be too surprising (and hardly worth mentioning), or that there are websites denying her death? That seems not to be the case - I googled everything I could think of ("Christine Maggiore" + "is alive", etc.) - nothing there.

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?

I think she quite possibly did change her mind when she became ill (it was what she had dreaded since her positive HIV test in 1992) - but how could she admit it? She would have to face the enormity of what she had done by devoting 15 years of her life to HIV/AIDS denial (not only by her efforts in reducing the availability and uptake of treatment, but also in sabotaging campaigns to limit the spread of HIV). And her responsibility for the death of her daughter.

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?

That clearly is the main motive for HIV-positive people (well, they want to deny that they will become sick) - understandable, if foolish. I guess the denier types also tend to have a personality/belief set that predisposes them to accept the Government/Public Health/Big Pharma conspiracy theory. There's no doubt that denial of her medical condition was Christine Maggiore's motive, as this article shows:

During a routine visit to a gynecologist, she was encouraged to get an HIV test. It came back positive, which wreaked havoc on her relationship and her business. For the next year she worked with AIDS Project L.A. (APLA) and was a board member of Women At Risk. She became one of APLA’s most popular speakers on the risks of AIDS. Then, friends in Europe called about a doctor from California that debated a European AIDS specialist, and Maggiore’s life changed again.
The doctor was Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1987, Duesberg began voicing his doubts about the virological and epidemiological evidence of the “HIV causes AIDS” hypothesis.
Maggiore credits Duesberg as being the most important person in freeing her from the mainstream view that HIV inevitably leads to AIDS, and that toxic drugs are the only solution. “He personally answered my questions about HIV and sent me a stack of research that changed my life,” she said.

When rushing to pass judgement on her, perhaps we should remember that she was also a victim - Duesberg's victim. He does not have her excuse of personal terror of a lethal disease - his motives were (primarily) ego and (presumably) bank balance - which is why I think he and his kind are far more deserving of the description "evil". Having said that, I have to agree with tkingdoll that Christine Maggiore's death is on balance a good thing, and will help to undo some of the harm she has caused (I still pity her, though).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I just bet it takes a loooong time for some websites to be updated with her death. Some sites still state that she is the mother of two living children.
http://www.theothersideofaids.com/meet_the_people.html

Christine Maggiore has lived in health without the use of AIDS drugs since testing positive in 1992. She resides in Los Angeles with her husband, filmmaker Robin Scovill, and their healthy children ages six and two. Both children were born without medical intervention and were breastfed.

Maggiore runs the group Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives from her suburban Los Angeles home

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/hiv-underground.html

I think the name of her group is ironic. I wonder if anyone will take up the group now, to keep the message alive and ironic?

...this book deconstructs popular myths about AIDS and fortifies its scientific data with powerful accounts from HIV positives who, like author Christine Maggiore, defy the HIV=AIDS=Death paradigm by living in wellness without pharmaceutical treatments and without fear of AIDS.

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/aids.htm

I really wonder if they will update that one. The news of her death is widespread... but...

Being aware you might die and choosing to have a shortened lifespan is one thing. It's another thing to deny that you are living with HIV viruses in your body.

In addition, People magazine just described a healthy woman who is HIV-positive for an estimated 15 years, and "needs no medication". The woman has since founded a support group, termed Center for Positive Connections, for HIV-positive heterosexuals in Miami (Cheakalos and Rosza 2002). In Los Angeles, Christine Maggiore is HIV-posi-tive since1992, has given birth to two very healthy chil-dren, ages 1 and 5, and has never taken anti-HIV drugs.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Aids/duesberg.htm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Denial is a mental defense mechanism. It isn't necessarily always a willful act nor one of ignorance. It can be, but isn't always.

I think it's interesting why people sometimes choose to believe sources of information that are so unreliable. The extreme conspiracy theorists believe sources which are not connected to 'the establishment' to be more reliable than those which are connected. That's an ignorant view.

But severe mental distress also can result in extreme forms of denial. I recall the mother of a very ill newborn saying her child looked fine, how could it be sick? The baby was jaundiced (yellow), flaccid (floppy, no muscle tone), thin and so obviously extremely ill I was quite surprised by the mother's comments.

Apparently Maggiore was influenced by Peter douchbag Duesberg

All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS -- including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition -- place him well outside the scientific mainstream.

It would seem her case was one of extreme wishful thinking.

It also looks like Maggiore contributed to the deaths or potential deaths of dozens of children.

Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them plot medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their children tested.

These fanatics are indeed dangerous to others. It's one thing the authorities chose not to prosecute her for he own child's death by neglect, but they should have considered at least bringing to light Maggiore's contribution to any other child who died as the result of her influence on the parents.

And the authorities apparently also let the doctors involved slide.

David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California, said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child neglect.

"If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from The Times, "I would punish the pediatricians."

It looks like the Medical Boards in CA and CO took some wrist slapping actions against 2 of the pediatricians involved in treating Maggiore's daughter.

In September 2006, the Medical Board of California filed charges of gross negligence against one of these physicians, Paul Fleiss, a convicted felon[25] who was Eliza Jane's pediatrician, alleging a failure to test Eliza Jane for HIV (or to document her parents' refusal of testing), a failure to counsel Maggiore to avoid breast-feeding at any time during the three years Maggiore breast-fed her daughter, given the risk of transmitting HIV, and similar violations of standard medical practice in Fleiss' care of a second HIV-positive child.[24]

In September 2007, the Medical Board of California issued its decision in the Fleiss case, effective October 8, 2007.[26] The Board revoked Fleiss' medical license, but stayed this action in favor of a 35-month probation period during which Fleiss must submit to regular monitoring, pay costs, notify insurance and hospitals of the decision against him, and take continuing medical education (CME) classes and record-keeping courses. He is not permitted to supervise Physician's Assistants and has affirmed the practice of referring HIV-positive patients to a specialist.

In an admonition letter dated September 13, 2007, an Inquiry Panel of the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners issued its finding that Philip Incao's "care and treatment and lack of timely documentation" in the case of Eliza Jane Scovill "falls below the generally accepted standards of medical practice". The Panel warned Incao that any further instances of such behavior could result in "formal disciplinary proceedings against your license to practice medicine".[27]

On another note, I wonder about this woman's husband. She was diagnosed in 1992. Her oldest child is about 10 and her younger child died at the age of 3 in 2005. I wonder if he has HIV and met her after she was diagnosed or whether he too may be a victim of ignorance and has contracted it during their marriage?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
When rushing to pass judgement on her, perhaps we should remember that she was also a victim - Duesberg's victim. ...

And according to blog replies on Orac's entry re this topic, the douchebag is still a full professor at Berkeley.

How is it possible for Peter Duesberg to still be an NAS member and a professor at Berkeley? Perhaps there needs to be a fresh and concerted campaign to hold him accountable.

 

[Skeptic]

If being willfully ignorant was equivalent to being evil, they'd be very few non-evil people around.