Does Mothering Endorse HIV/AIDS denialism - Page 6

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by herbsmd 

I think AZT was the drug of choice at the time, as the HAART therapy was the highly-successful one which was also found to have serious side effects.  I think she was worried about birth defects during pregnancy or losing the pregnancy, and also didn't want her daughter tested because of her test results which turned out to be positive, inconclusive, negative, and then positive again.  But she DID have her son tested.............  Why would she have one tested and not the other?  I just confirmed that she did not test Eliza--at least there was no record of a test in her medical records.  Do you think she had her tested privately?  I read somewhere (but I can't find it now and I'm too tired) that she had her son tested multiple times (sounds fearless, no?) and said that he never tested positive.  Why was she not as fearless with her daughter?

Are her husband and son still alive?  I suppose so since there is no new news on this case.  

Wrong.  She had her son tested after Eliza Jane's death.  Never before.  She played the odds with both of her kids.  She won with Charlie and lost big time with EJ.  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/08/27/the-hiv-disbelievers.html (story originally published in 2000 in Newsweek).  That's how long I've been following Maggiore's story.

[nstewart]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

I think as time goes on people wonder if the belief is still the same.  I think it's worth visiting for clarification. 

I thought that was the initial point of this thread.  It's what I'm really interested in knowing.

[lamamaloca]

I think the issue is that Mothering has not repudiated disseminating these dangerous views. This is a life or death issue, the correct stance of a parenting magazine shouldn't be controversial.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Well, if this is correct it is somewhat judge-worthy.

As time went on, and evidence mounted in favour of AZT, I think she should have considered testing.

In any event, I am going to bow out of this conversation.  I have no interest in crucifying a dead women for choices she made - choices, that certainly at the beginning, she did lack evidence and clarity on.  Yes, she got it wrong - and did she ever pay for it.  It could have gone the other way - hindsight is 100% and all that.

I am also not interested in critisizing MDC for printing articles 12 years ago that adressed HIV/AIDS and motherhood.  Why would I?  They were good articles that explored what some HIV positive moms-to-be were going through.  This is what MDC does (or did) - it asks probing questions of mothering and practices pertaining to it. 

[kaylee18]

Originally Posted by katelove 

I haven't read the articles because, as I mentioned, I couldn't find them online. If anyone has links they could post I'd appreciate it.

There are links to five of these articles in my prior post (#8 in this thread, quoted below).  I have read all of them.  All of those blue text lines below are links; just click to view each article.  To see the one that's listed last, I had to click on the "Impatient?" link that appeared (bottom right), so that the archived version of the page would display.

Originally Posted by kaylee18 

Peggy, the AIDS denialist organization, Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, which was founded by Christine Maggiore, still lists you as a member of their advisory board: http://www.aliveandwell.org/ (if you click on "about us" and scroll down, all board members are listed). Are you still a board member? What is your position on HIV/AIDS denialism? What is the position of Mothering.com?

eta: The articles that Peggy mentions appear to me to be promoting HIV/AIDS denialism in no uncertain terms:

Safe and Sound Underground: HIV-Positive Women Birthing Outside the System (with this cover photo):

(that's Christine Maggiore, pregnant with Eliza Jane, who died at age 3 of AIDS-related pneumonia)

... and at least four other articles:

Molecular Miscarriage: Is the HIV Theory a Tragic Mistake?

AZT Roulette: The Impossible Choices Facing HIV-Positive Women

HIV and Breastfeeding: The Fear. The Misconceptions. The Facts.

AZT in Babies: Terrible Risk, Zero Benefit

Very interested in your current position, Peggy, and that of Mothering.

[Adaline'sMama]

So, what exactly is the point of being on the board of Alive and Well?

[herbsmd]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Wrong.  She had her son tested after Eliza Jane's death.  Never before.  She played the odds with both of her kids.  She won with Charlie and lost big time with EJ.  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/08/27/the-hiv-disbelievers.html (story originally published in 2000 in Newsweek).  That's how long I've been following Maggiore's story.

I can't read this a.m. but I will read it later.  That seems more likely that she wouldn't test either.  Somewhere I thought I remembered her saying that her husband (after a decade of unprotected sex) and her son had never tested positive for HIV.  I thought, for some reason, that that statement was before her daughter was born.  I'll see what I can dig up after I read your article.  It could very well have been after her daughter died.  
 

[AIDSisOver]

I've tried three times to reply to this but somehow my post disappeared before I could complete it.  I was diagnosed with HIV more than 20 years ago.  I'm alive and well today because I didn't believe what the doctors were saying.  Never before in history did an antibody (which is what they test for) cause disease.  AIDS is a big lie and the biggest blunder in medical history.  Don't take my word for it.  Learn for yourself.  There are at least 200 videos on Youtube on the subject and plenty of verifiable web sites.  Check out OSMJ.org, the Organization for Scientific and Medical Justice.

[NoraFlood]

Originally Posted by AIDSisOver 

I've tried three times to reply to this but somehow my post disappeared before I could complete it.  I was diagnosed with HIV more than 20 years ago.  I'm alive and well today because I didn't believe what the doctors were saying.  Never before in history did an antibody (which is what they test for) cause disease.  AIDS is a big lie and the biggest blunder in medical history.  Don't take my word for it.  Learn for yourself.  There are at least 200 videos on Youtube on the subject and plenty of verifiable web sites.  Check out OSMJ.org, the Organization for Scientific and Medical Justice.

On the off-chance you are being sincere: the antibody does not cause disease, the virus does. That is well-established. The antibody confirms exposure to the virus. AIDS is not a lie. And if you are getting medical information from Youtube, you are making an enormous mistake.

Edited by NoraFlood - 7/19/12 at 3:00am

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

NoraFlood- Please edit out the first line of your thread.  It does not contribute to a comfortable and respectful atmosphere. 

[LLQ1011]

Admin: quote removed due to member edit to comply with mod request

20 years ago I am pretty sure they did an older testing method that tested for antibodies. I think thats what she is reffering too. Certain antibodies are linked to multiple diseases and we used to not know that. Like I test positive for anticardiolipin antibodies because I have aps. But this used to be the antibody they tested for syphilis. So I think she is refering to the fact that they did an antibody test and she got a false positive for another reason.

[NYCdoula]

It is so interesting to me that this thread is active right now. I have been following for decades the editorial choices of Mothering Magazine around HIV- and AIDS-related issues. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that the Editor is, by refusing to come out AGAINST claims that HIV is not truly known to cause AIDS, and by instead providing a platform for people who wish to deny that breastfeeding is a risky behavior for transmission of HIV--(and, insult of insults, to  encourage terrible theoretical slippage in implying that the advocates who call for HIV positive mothers to not breastfeed are somehow in the same camp as all the other forces that can make breastfeeding quite difficult in our society)--it is clear that by offering these positions as something other than dangerous and deadly, but merely information so as to make an informed choice, she is de facto supporting  what most people call "AIDS denial." Here, as elsewhere in AIDS denial literature, it is framed by Peggy O'Mara as "informed choice" and by some other people as healthy skepticism of the medical establishments overreach. So then we get, in the culture of the natural parenting community, a slippage between the support of normal birth, breastfeeding, attachment parenting, and what can, in my opinion, only be called AIDS denialism.

In fact, this breed of "skepticism" has been very effectively promoted by Mothering, whether or not the Editor will ever openly admit it. (And she hasn't so far, so we can't expect her to now.) I mean, here we are having a long, drawn out discussion over it, and many of us were not even aware of the ongoing issue in Mothering: however, there are still people on this board debating about whether to forgo HIV testing, or, in the case of a positive status, to not breastfeed and not taking an HIV drug cocktail during pregnancy as possible healthy choices. These views have insidiously infiltrated the AP community at large. Last year, when I was at the Miles for Midwives fundraising race in NYC, I approached the head organizer for Holistic Parents NYC (a large, loose-knit organization) and asked about the group's stance on HIV, and while I don't remember if she said they have an official stance or not, I do  remember that she immediately began to "educate" me on the fact that it hasn't been proven that HIV causes AIDS. Upset by her proud and wacky misinformation, I returned to the friends who I was with. When I shared my dismay with my spitfire, single mother, doula friend, she immediately began to spout the same misinformation at me too, saying, "whatever you say, you can't deny that there have been many studies, so much evidence that calls into question the supposed relationship between HIV and AIDS." 

These cancerous views are alive and well in the AP and "holistic" parenting communities. I have no doubt that Peggy O'Mara's editorial choices played a major role in their spread. It is unfortunate that she continues to portray her position as one of being journalistically unbiased.

This editorial position has absolutely discredited Mothering magazine in my eyes. AIDS is not over in the United States, and as long as we are a responsible community, supporting responsible journalism, and responsible parenting, we must demand that the demon lurking in the background of this debate be faced: HIV is associated in peoples mind with gay men, with death, with drug users, prostitutes, and poverty, and yet it can affect anyone. It is deeply associated in the public mind with sexual shame and religious punishment. In order for us to be responsible, we must not let that association spook us or influence us into living and raising our children as if HIV is something that only affects other people. Every human being has a sexuality. Every human body is vulnerable. Each of our children will have a sexuality and many of us will be blessed with the gift of a gay son, whether or not we are ready for it. One in five gay men who are living in urban areas are HIV-positive today, and HIV is now the leading cause of death for black women aged 25 to 34. We need to learn to talk with our sisters, brothers, doctors AND children about sexuality, shame, and safer sex practices. We need to  give the gift of correct information, not misinformation, so that mothers can, as you say, make informed choices.

My guess is that this is the real issue being talked around on this thread.

[herbsmd]

Originally Posted by NYCdoula 

It is so interesting to me that this thread is active right now. I have been following for decades the editorial choices of Mothering Magazine around HIV- and AIDS-related issues. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that the Editor is, by refusing to come out AGAINST claims that HIV is not truly known to cause AIDS, and by instead providing a platform for people who wish to deny that breastfeeding is a risky behavior for transmission of HIV--(and, insult of insults, to  encourage terrible theoretical slippage in implying that the advocates who call for HIV positive mothers to not breastfeed are somehow in the same camp as all the other forces that can make breastfeeding quite difficult in our society)--it is clear that by offering these positions as something other than dangerous and deadly, but merely information so as to make an informed choice, she is de facto supporting  what most people call "AIDS denial." Here, as elsewhere in AIDS denial literature, it is framed by Peggy O'Mara as "informed choice" and by some other people as healthy skepticism of the medical establishments overreach. So then we get, in the culture of the natural parenting community, a slippage between the support of normal birth, breastfeeding, attachment parenting, and what can, in my opinion, only be called AIDS denialism.

In fact, this breed of "skepticism" has been very effectively promoted by Mothering, whether or not the Editor will ever openly admit it. (And she hasn't so far, so we can't expect her to now.) I mean, here we are having a long, drawn out discussion over it, and many of us were not even aware of the ongoing issue in Mothering: however, there are still people on this board debating about whether to forgo HIV testing, or, in the case of a positive status, to not breastfeed and not taking an HIV drug cocktail during pregnancy as possible healthy choices. These views have insidiously infiltrated the AP community at large. Last year, when I was at the Miles for Midwives fundraising race in NYC, I approached the head organizer for Holistic Parents NYC (a large, loose-knit organization) and asked about the group's stance on HIV, and while I don't remember if she said they have an official stance or not, I do  remember that she immediately began to "educate" me on the fact that it hasn't been proven that HIV causes AIDS. Upset by her proud and wacky misinformation, I returned to the friends who I was with. When I shared my dismay with my spitfire, single mother, doula friend, she immediately began to spout the same misinformation at me too, saying, "whatever you say, you can't deny that there have been many studies, so much evidence that calls into question the supposed relationship between HIV and AIDS." 

These cancerous views are alive and well in the AP and "holistic" parenting communities. I have no doubt that Peggy O'Mara's editorial choices played a major role in their spread. It is unfortunate that she continues to portray her position as one of being journalistically unbiased.

This editorial position has absolutely discredited Mothering magazine in my eyes. AIDS is not over in the United States, and as long as we are a responsible community, supporting responsible journalism, and responsible parenting, we must demand that the demon lurking in the background of this debate be faced: HIV is associated in peoples mind with gay men, with death, with drug users, prostitutes, and poverty, and yet it can affect anyone. It is deeply associated in the public mind with sexual shame and religious punishment. In order for us to be responsible, we must not let that association spook us or influence us into living and raising our children as if HIV is something that only affects other people. Every human being has a sexuality. Every human body is vulnerable. Each of our children will have a sexuality and many of us will be blessed with the gift of a gay son, whether or not we are ready for it. One in five gay men who are living in urban areas are HIV-positive today, and HIV is now the leading cause of death for black women aged 25 to 34. We need to learn to talk with our sisters, brothers, doctors AND children about sexuality, shame, and safer sex practices. We need to  give the gift of correct information, not misinformation, so that mothers can, as you say, make informed choices.

My guess is that this is the real issue being talked around on this thread.

Just to be straightforward here, inductive reasoning (i.e. the scientific method) never PROVES anything.  It only gives statistical evidence in support of a certain viewpoint.  Those women are right to say that it has not been proven that HIV causes AIDS.  All we know is that there is an abundance of evidence linking the two together in succession.  Of course that link is strong--the statistical evidence is very high--and it isn't much of a leap to suspect that HIV causes AIDS.  Nevertheless, you cannot say that inductive reasoning ever proves anything.  It absolutely does NOT have that level of certainty.  

[ricci1003]

''Why does society condone the use of test kit disclaimers for legal purposes to protect rich corporations while denying the relevance of such disclaimers for medical purposes to protect poor Africans, gays and drug users from suicide, murder, divorce, abortion, stigma, life imprisonment and life long regimens of toxic drugs? ''

What about Africa?  I had to go and find out for myself:  Social Worker Shares Scepticism Re: African ''AIDS'' and E.U. Hetero ''HIV Epidemic''  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmClZCaNjo8

[ricci1003]

Nobel Loreate and discoverer of ‘HIV’, Luc Montagnier: The body can naturally get rid of ‘HIV’    
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&feature=related
 

[LLQ1011]

HIV turns to aids in over 90% of infected people.... Ebola kills at a 90% rate. Why is there even a question. We do not question Ebola??? I feel like this entire debate is base don the ridiculous fact that the people who discovered the virus named its dormant form something different than its end stage form. With a less than 10% carrier rate that never gets to the extreme end cycle of the disease. 

 The bodies ablity to cure its self of the disease is not in question here. There are people who's t-cell that combats the virus is presents and works. The issue is are HIV and AIDS related.

[bluedaisy]

This is an interesting debate to me because I work in the development world in Africa - I have seen the incredible impacts ARVs can have on AIDS patients, and I FULLY believe that HIV causes AIDS.  I very much believe the CDC, WHO, etc stance on HIV/AIDS and I am very grateful for the development in AIDS meds that we have seen.

HOWEVER, I do not agree with the idea that people should be forced to take meds or give their kids meds.  I think that is a slippery slope and I fully agree with informed choice.  Eliza's death was very much a tragedy; however, AZT was a very reactive drug and I would guess that there were also babies and children who died as a result of TAKING the drugs.  Their deaths are just as tragic.  No medicine is without risk.  I also know people who were on AZT and it has some very nasty side effects.  We, as mothers, need to weigh the risk vs benefit - As another poster said, hindsight is 20/20.  I personally do not agree with Christine's choices, but I do not think it is as black and white as some are making it to be, and I think she had the right to choose whether or not to give herself and her child medicine.  All medical procedures carry risks, and drugs/vaccines are recalled all the time because of unintended consequences.   

[Peggy O'Mara]

Right on, bluedaisy.

[ricci1003]

Maybe there is another group questioning aetiology of ebola, but for now at least WHO is not claiming that 40 million people are ''living with ebola'' and in need of ''life saving'' drugs.   Assuming your percentage is accurate for ''positivity'' leading to ''AIDS'' then don't you think that a serious determining factor could well be the multi-billion dollar fear campaign  on its own?   ''Why does society condone the use of test kit disclaimers for legal purposes to protect rich corporations while denying the relevance of such disclaimers for medical purposes to protect poor Africans, gays and drug users from suicide, murder, divorce, abortion, stigma, life imprisonment and life long regimens of toxic drugs? ''   From reading in the section of ''limitations'' of  the ELISA test used the world over I recall the text:  ''At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV in human blood.''

 

Edited by ricci1003 - 8/21/12 at 3:14am

[ricci1003]

bluedaisy,  I've also spent a number of years in the field in Uganda and observed ''development'' and how funding for ''health'' and obscure activities gets channeled into mainstreaming ''AIDS'' programes.  Seeing patients recover from immune deficiency must be a compelling observation for anyone, but now if you are honest they didn't all do so well did they?   Many of them deteriorated once given ''life saving'' drugs, even if they had no symptoms at the point of medication.  Of the many others who responded well to the drugs I think you were consistently quick to assume that because a patient does respond well that provides the proof that s/he had ''HIV''.   The main threat of immune deficiency has been bacteraemia in Africa for thousands of years.  The only thing that has changed over the last 30 years is a WHO funded epidemic of antibody testing.  You recall that 60% of ''new infections'' are among clients without symptoms so it doesn't take an illusionist to pull off a stunt to justify the claim that  all these ''patients''' are doing so well even several years down the line.  I have some questions for you.  Perhaps you have also worked in Uganda.  Given that ''access'' to '' life saving'' drugs has been a problem in Sub Saharan Africa how did the population of Africa, in particular Uganda, manage to double between 1984 and 2004 ?

What are the 10 top causes of mortality in any of the African countries you have worked in?

Is it the frequency at which Africans test '''positive'' that continues to convinces entire communities and medical workers/volunteers that the people are indeed ignorant and promiscuous? What if there are 70 conditions other than ''HIV'' causing all those reactions on ''HIV tests''?     Who would that be a shame for and who would it be lucrative for?   In both cases a stupendous self fulfilling prophecy would be created.  ''Why does society condone the use of test kit disclaimers for legal purposes to protect rich corporations while denying the relevance of such disclaimers for medical purposes to protect poor Africans, gays and drug users from suicide, murder, divorce, abortion, stigma, life imprisonment and life long regimens of toxic drugs? ''

Since ARVs have been shown to be antibacterial and anti-fungal it should come as no surprise at all that when used on a population where bacteraemia is endemic recipients respond well.  In Uganda alone there are 8000 AIDS NGOs all claiming to be fighting ''AIDS'' , yet none has any interest in any of the real and millennia old immune deficiency causing pathogens.

Edited by ricci1003 - 8/21/12 at 3:18am

[ricci1003]

Flavia - Recounting Friend's Conflicting "HIV Test" Results        
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjkofHTGXhM