Half Way Home

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/virginia02132008.pdf

Please see the link above, to better understand how we got into this mess, and how it can affect you, it’s a very important link.

Audit Reflects Tragedy of Child Welfare System

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press
Published: 3/1/2009  12:32 PM
Last Modified: 3/1/2009  12:32 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — A critical performance audit of the Department of Human Services says the state takes too many children from their homes, keeps them too long and rotates them among foster homes too frequently to adequately meet their needs and prepare them for adulthood.But Buddy Faye doesn’t need to read the 170-page report to understand the depth of the childhood tragedies created by Oklahoma’s child welfare system. She’s seen plenty of tragedies with her own eyes. “This is not a new problem,” said Faye, a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in Oklahoma City since 1995 who has also served on post-adjudication review boards.

“This has been going on ever since I got involved in the system,” Faye said. “It’s not like they haven’t known about this situation. They study it to death, but there’s never any meaningful change.”

But that’s exactly what state lawmakers are promising with legislation that would implement some of the 25 recommendations in the DHS audit to fix problems in the child welfare system that prevents it from improving the lives of thousands of Oklahoma children who are in DHS custody every year.

Lawmakers say the recommendations would resolve most of the allegations leveled against DHS by a federal court lawsuit filed last year on behalf of nine foster children that accuses the state of victimizing its foster children and inadequately monitoring their safety.

“Our system is broken,” said Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, a frequent critic of DHS who has called for the agency

CM8ShowAd(“336×280”);

to be broken up into three separate parts to better focus its resources on children and families.”The Department of Human Services is a mess. It’s terrible for kids,” Morrissette said. “We still have children dying. We still have children being moved around. The more we ignore the reality of this, our children are going to pay.”

Morrissette opposed the $400,000 DHS audit when it was first proposed by House Republican leaders. But he praised the reports findings and urged implementation of its recommendations.

Morrissette also called for the resignation of DHS Director Howard Hendrick, a former state senator who has received support from legislative leaders since the audit’s release.

“The present status quo is not sufficient,” Morrissette said. “Let’s rebuild this thing with a new team in place.”

A spokesman for DHS, George Johnson, declined to comment directly about Morrissette’s demand.

“We’ll be back at work Monday morning and working as hard as we can to do the people’s business,” Johnson said.

Among other things, the independent audit found that the rate of out-of-home maltreatment of children in DHS care is more than three times the national average. Over two and one-half years, about 1.2 percent of children in DHS care were being abused or neglected compared to a national standard of 0.32 percent.

“There’s all kinds of abuse,” said Faye, who said problems with the state’s child welfare system are well documented in the cases of 11 children she has worked with since they were removed from two different abusive homes.

Nine of the children have left the system after turning 18, but only one graduated from high school and none have job skills, she said. Some have been incarcerated several times and are homeless.

“Out of the 11, I have one who I hope will become a productive citizen. And she’s really struggling,” Faye said.

One girl taken into DHS custody at the age of 3 was placed in 42 different locations before aging out of the system including psychiatric placements although she had no diagnosed mental illness, just defiant behavior, Faye said.

“She was angry. She was very frustrated,” Faye said. “They were moved frequently. They didn’t maintain any placements very long. They didn’t get their educational needs met. They certainly didn’t get any independent living training.

“That’s the kind of thing that is not uncommon.”

Nationally, 70 percent of people who age out of a child welfare system do not have a high school or general equivalency diploma, she said.

The DHS audit found that the state takes children from allegedly abusive homes almost twice as much as the national average and takes too long to have them reunified.

Laurie McClanahan of Edmond experienced firsthand those problems. Her two children, now 6 and 4, were taken from her for more than three years after she said she was accused of abusing her newborn son, who had a diagnosed bowel ailment that required two surgeries.

She said DHS officials suspected her of Munchausen by proxy syndrome, a form a child abuse that involves the exaggeration of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker. The diagnosis was rejected when a judge ordered her children returned to her in February.

“For three and one-half years I didn’t even have a visit,” said McClanahan, a disabled veteran. She said one son “was bounced around from foster home to foster home to foster home.

“I think I was treated horribly,” she said. “They didn’t look at the facts. They were extremely judgmental.

“I made a lot of people angry. But I’m sorry — no one is going to mess with my children.”

The DHS spokesman, Johnson, said state law prohibits the department from openly discussing child welfare matters.

The audit found that DHS does not have the full scope of legal authority granted to protective agencies in other states and some of the basic resources it needs to perform its duties.

Also, the agency attempts to control the course of events so tightly that it presents an overbearing and even disrespectful face to its own workers and clients, according to the audit.

Among the recommendations lawmakers plan to implement are removing children from their homes only if there is an imminent safety threat, being involved with law enforcement officials whenever children are removed and shifting funding from out-of-home care to in-home services for the families of children not in imminent danger.

“This is the year to do it,” Morrissette said. “This body has to have the political will to make these hard decisions.”

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press

YOUR LIFE AND THE LIFE OF YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN JEOPARDY! NO ONE IS IMMUNE!

By Sandra Ami

Both these videos above, are not special to their area. This problem is infecting the entire country, and if one has done research as I have, will notice this is not just an American problem. Though I focus on American Families and children most. This is a disease within this country that MUST BE  STOPPED!  The only way we will be able to stop this, is by those who have not YET had their children taken.  By the time I hear from parents who are in a complete tailspin from CPS, it is almost to late. There are very important things one must know, BEFORE the knock on the door, or the phone call.

For example, when your children are FIRST TAKEN, upon your FIRST hearing in court.. you MUST file an “Answer” it’s an Answer to the allegations. The petition states:

“Your parental rights may be permanently terminated. To protect your rights, you must appear in court and answer this petition”

What most people assume, is that you must appear in court and stand before the judge and tell them what happened.. NOT TRUE.. This is HOW THEY KEEP YOUR CHILDREN!

What it really means is… FILE A PAPER  “ANSWER” in court with the Clerks office PRIOR to the court hearing, give a copy to your attorney (if you don’t have one, have a copy to give to the attorney you will be presented with) a copy to the judge, a copy to each child’s attorney, a copy to County Council, a copy for yourself, and an extra copy just in case.

The “Answer” must state the explanations to the allegations. Unfortunately, you will not even know what those are until you appear in court the first time, therefore, it’s ALWAYS BEST to file an extension, or a “continuance”, most parents do not want to do this.. because that appears longer time your children are away from you.. but trust me.. without this YOU MAY NEVER GET YOUR CHILDREN, THEY MAY (AND PROBABLY WONT) EVER SLEEP IN THEIR BEDS AGAIN! You will not be able to EVER cook them dinners, go shopping, experience the park and feeding the ducks.. your children MAY NEVER be a part of your home AGAIN.

(( keep in mind also.. on that first hearing.. Child Protective Services/ Social Services / Depart. of Human Service.. (or whatever they are going by) will request of the court that YOU BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN AND THEY BE REINBURSED FOR WHATEVER FEES AND FUNDS THEY DECIDED TO USE FOR YOUR CHILD.. (and trust me.. they will bank that up into the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars.. you will lose your job, and you WILL  lose your homes!.. then.. they will present to the court that “YOU HAVE INADIQUITE HOUSING FOR YOUR CHILDREN, therefore they feel it is in the BEST INTEREST of the child(ren) to be PERMENANTLY PLACED either in Foster Care or UP FOR ADOPTION. .. Don’t even get into your head that you may have family to take the child(ren) because THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN (the chance is less than 20% in my opinion) It is not financially in their best interest to place the children in a home of a family member. )

For more information, or if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If I do not have the answer, I will see what I can do to GET them for you, or guide you to where to go for them.

SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE CRIMINAL BACKROUNDS

By Sandra Ami 

ASSAULT – THEFT – PROSTITUTION – SELLING ALCOHOL TO HONORS – BURGLARY – DWI / DUI – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE –  INDECENT EXPOSURE – POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND MARIJUANA

This problem is everywhere, even as in the UK where a former social worker put a girls body into kebabs in their restaurant. These are just some of the charges against almost 400 Social Workers that are in charge of the cases against many parents that DID NOTHING to deserve their children being taken away. These are the people writing up reports against GOOD parents and families, to justify putting the children up for adoption. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE.. HIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT… TO DETERMINE THE FATE OF OUR CHILDREN.. YES OUR CHILDREN… YOURS AND MINE… You are No better and No worse than those accused. In fact, they are you.. they are just like you. Many come from wealthy families, many from poor. Many Blond haired, red haired, dark haired. Children in Baseball, Wrestling, Karate, Theater, Ballet, Dance.. the list goes on.

There is no criteria, as some may suggest, in the ‘kidnapping’ of our children. The only criteria is that they are under 18 years of age. Attorneys have had their children taken, even police have had their children taken. All on false allegations. Oh sure, I’m sure you are thinking ‘how can this be’, well I would have thought that too, until I saw how the process works. I’ve spoken to Police officers, Firemen; I’ve spoken with CPS workers (the non corrupt ones – who I might add, are BLIND) I’ve spoken to many Governmental officials, some aware of what is going on, some in complete disbelief. But I can assure you no matter which view you are looking at this system from, it is NEVER.. “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN”. The only “best interest” is the Money brought in and paid out to the people in the positions to make the policies, and implement them. How? In the way of BONUS’. Yes.. MILLIONS of dollars in Bonus’ for your children. Oh sure, the social workers are the low man on the totem pole, and they are expendable, but they are given incentives and bonus’ too, they are trained to be careless, and heartless. Their thought process is exactly that of a Bill Collector, who has had the job for several years. Uncaring, and out for only ONE PURPOSE.. THE COMMODITY. Collecting Children, is the same as Collecting Money.

Those who do even a small bit of homework, research, investigating, will find all the same answers I do, and many other parents who have been cheated on, lied to, seen the court deceived before their eyes, and the court allowing it.. This is NOT what we grew up thinking America “the land of the Free, Home of the Brave” was all about. Free? Who’s free? The government is FREE to lie, cheat and steal away from you through deceit, coercion, to create duress, put you under distress, through THREATS of your life. Think it’s not true? Give me YOUR phone number and address, let me call CPS on you , then lets see you FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE to get your children back.

Because .. in the long run, I can promise you, though your chance is SLIGHT, you do have a chance of stearing clear. My opinion? I think you may have a 10% chance of NOT losing your children, regardless of truth, facts, or allegation. You could be the most honest person, you could have a perfect record, you could have a MILLION people standing behind you to PROVE your credability, you could have a perfect profession, and extended formal education, you could be PTA president, and you could be a Football coach, you could be anyone.. all you have to be .. is .. a parent!

THEY DON’T USE PADDYWAGONS ANYMORE, THEY DRIVE NEW SMALL SUVs

By Sandra Ami

I read the story on Alexis ( http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,alexis,tv,story,12,9,08.htm ) and I must tell you, if you don’t already know, this is NOT an isolated incidence. Many parents are screaming foul. Many parents are doing their homework and finding that CPS/ DHS is failing to follow the laws. The problems are not just with the social workers, but unfortunately the Public Defenders are in on it too.

I personally attempted to contact over 450 attorneys last year, those of which I got in touch with, all told me the same thing “Private attorney’s can not win in Dependency cases” One attorney told me that “it’s a Good Ol’ Boy network, and all the people in the court room are all hired by the same person, it’s an independent court administrator” He told me that even Family Attorneys are afraid to take on Dependency cases. I spoke with two seperate other attorneys who told me they had taken on a dependency case before, but would never do it again.

Once a call goes into social services about a parent, their first goal is to “adopt the child” before they even do their investigation. The problem is, it’s Big Business. Children are the commodity of the government, and specifically social services. Without the children, there is no business. So, therefore, when a call comes in.. it’s Money on the phone for them. Social workers receive bonus’, as does the department and the county. There is absolutely NO ONE working on the side of the parents.

Dr. Bruce D. Perry, did a study on the separation of children. Documenting the child’s brain growth in separate situations. He documented that the brain of a child in foster care is not much different than that of a child caged for the first 5 years of life, with no physical or emotional contact, as apposed to those children left in the homes of their families where the brain was normal.

The DHHS (department of health and human services) is, I believe, the second largest Federally Funded Organization in this country, second only to the military. And I believe I read that 54% of that funding is strictly for Taking Children and separating them from their parents. CPS / DHS cases.

Many of the Amber Alerts are parents trying to ‘steal’ back their children from the kidnappers hired by the Government. I contacted the US Department of Justice, who told me that they do not do a statistic on how many of the children Alerted are CPS/DHS cases. Though it does not take a genius to see the descriptions of the parents on the Amber Alerts are exactly parallel to the description of the parents by CPS/DHS.

Getting someone to take on these issues, has proved almost impossible by the parents who are screaming for justice, crying out for their children, and far to often burying them after the “system” has gotten a hold of them.

Parents are threatened by social workers into pleading, being told “if you do not plea, your child(ren) will go into a Foster home, where he/she/they are 7-10 times more likely to DIE” and those pleas must be done on that day, without contest. They are not even given the choice to plea Guilty, but instead must plea “No Contest”, meaning they can never attempt to reverse their plea, even by proof of the threats, coercions, duress or distress.

The entire process is created, and implemented to RAILROAD the parents into losing their children. For what you may ask? MONEY. BIG MONEY. On one estimated calculation, I approached the Board of Supervisor’s office here where I live, and was told that $113 BILLION dollars a year, JUST IN THE DETENTION of children could be accurate, and could also be underestimated.

This reminds me of the movie Oliver Twist, where children were scooped up off the streets in Paddywagons. This is really no different; the only difference is the children are taken in an unmarked newer SUV. The social workers pull with them usually 2 policemen, and still come with NO WARRANTS, as stated in our constitution. Many parents are placed with “gag orders” as to not discuss the process that is happening to them, and they are not allowed any contact with their children, as to ‘break the bond’ between parent and child, making it easier to tell the court at a later date “there is no more bond with the parents and the child has bonded with the foster parent”. There is a list of things they do, and a list of reasons why.

CHILDREN TAKEN FROM PARENTS AND USED AS GUINEA PIGS / LAB RATS BY OUR GOVERNMENT

The House That AIDS Built

Liam Scheff

This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC. This piece was investigated and written in summer through winter of 2003 and published in January 2004, with occaisional updates. The story broke wide in early 2004, with coverage in the New York Post and the New York Press. It served as the basis of investigation for the BBC film “Guinea Pig Kids,” and has prompted further investigation by the Associated Press – as well as a pointed attack by the New York Times. The investigation is ongoing.

Liam Scheff. E-mail : liamscheff@yahoo.com

---

Introduction:

In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.

The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after.  Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.

This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact — HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2)  The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results. These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy.(3,4,5) This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.

Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York.

---

Sean and Dana Newberg are two children from ICC. Their mother used drugs and was unable to care for them properly, so they were raised in foster care, until their great-aunt Mona adopted them. Mona Newberg is a teacher in the New York Public Schools, and has her Master’s degree in Education. She adopted the children when Sean was three and Dana was six. She was already raising their older brother, who was never given an HIV test or AIDS drugs. He’s now grown, healthy and serving in the Navy.

Their mother used heroin and crack cocaine since she was a teenager. She was given an HIV test in the late 80s and tested positive. “She had three children before Sean and Dana,” said Mona. “Nobody told us that the test cross-reacted with drug abuse, let alone pregnancy. It’s not a valid test.”

Because of the test result, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian put Sean on AZT monotherapy when he was 5 months old. Use of AZT monotherapy is now considered malpractice because it can cause debilitating, fatal illness including fatal anemia.

Dana spent her first four years at Hale House, a NY orphanage for children whose parents abused drugs. Hale house was participating in an AZT drug trial when Dana was there. “We can’t get the records from Hale House, so I don’t know what happened there,” Mona said. “I never gave Dana the drugs after I got her, but I know she arrived with a filled prescription for AZT.”

Sean has been on life support twice as a result of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Dana was put on AIDS drugs in 2002, even though she wasn’t sick. Since being put on the drugs, Dana has developed cancer.

Both children have been taken into ICC and kept there against their will and against Mona’s wishes for one reason – Mona has questioned the safety of the AIDS drugs AZT, Nevirapine and Kaletra and stopped giving the drugs when they made the children ill. In the summer and fall of 2003, I visited Mona, Sean, Dana and ICC. I spoke with Mona about her experience and her decision. (The names of Sean, Mona and Dana are aliases which they requested to protect their identities, but their stories are accurate and unaltered).

Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the drugs?
Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable. He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his nose into his stomach. AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT, especially, makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this tube, which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to change it.

When I got Sean, I continued to give him the drugs as prescribed for about 5 months. But after each spoonful, he got weaker. I thought, wait a minute – this stuff is supposed to be making him better, why is he getting worse?

Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage the AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days. He was like a limp doll.

Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.

It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months, he was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born with a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin for him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy for the first time in his life.

I was so happy, I told everyone – including the doctors and nurses – what had happened. I didn’t know not to. When the hospital found out I wasn’t giving him the drugs, they contacted Agency for Child Services (ACS). An ACS worker came to my door, and told me I had to register the kids with an infectious disease doctor – Dr. Howard at Beth Israel. I was taking Sean and Dana to a Naturopathic MD, and they were both healthy and strong. I told them that we had a doctor. They said, “Too bad, you have to see Dr. Howard now.”

Howard was terrible for the children. He ignored the only thing that actually bothered Sean – his lung condition, and insisted that he go on a new drug for HIV. He said, “There’s a new miracle drug. It just came on the market. I guarantee if you give it to Sean, you’ll watch the miracle happen”.

LS: What was the miracle drug?
Mona: Nevirapine. Howard put Sean on Nevirapine. Sean’s health immediately deteriorated. He got sicker, his lungs congested, he lost weight, his cheekbones sunk, his liver and spleen started to go. Six months after he went on Nevirapine, he had complete organ failure. He was on life support for two weeks at Beth Israel Hospital. Then I did some research on Nevirapine, and found out that it caused organ failure and death. When Sean finally got out of the hospital, Howard discharged him on hospice care. Six months earlier, he was healthy. Now they were telling me to prepare for his death.

Once I got him home, I stopped giving Sean the Nevirapine, and he was able to eat again. He started to gain some weight back. Sean was so weak after being on life support, with all those tubes in him. He’d gotten so thin. But he finally started to recover. When I took Sean to Dr. Howard, he was always surprised to see that Sean was improving. Howard would ask me, “Are you sure you’re giving him the medication, Mrs. Newberg?”

LS: In times of improvement, he suspected that you weren’t giving Sean the Nevirapine?
Mona: Right. He only worried when Sean wasn’t sick! AIDS doctors always think there’s something wrong if you’re not dying.

After that Howard started keeping Sean in the hospital for longer periods of time for the lung problems we used to treat at home. Howard kept Sean for 25 days and fed Sean the Nevirapine himself. Sean ended up back in intensive care with organ failure. He was placed on life support for two weeks. He got a hospital staph infection because Howard wouldn’t let him leave. He was eight years old, and just wanted to come home.

A month later, the hospital finally discharged him. Then ACS called me for a meeting. The ACS worker told me I should put Sean into Incarnation Children’s Center until he was stronger. They told me that ICC was this wonderful place. They said in four months he’d be strong enough to come back home. ICC took Sean off the Nevirapine and put him on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit and Bactrim. Sean improved off the Nevirapine, but the new drugs definitely made him sick – just not as badly. He had trouble walking, and his arms and legs got even thinner.

I visited Sean at ICC for five months. Then, when I wanted to bring him home, they said, “We don’t recommend that Sean leave here. You have a reputation for not giving meds.”

LS: ICC refused to let Sean come home?
Mona: Right. They kept him for a year and a half. I had to get a lawyer to get him out.

LS: What was it like for Sean at ICC?
Mona: There were children in wheelchairs, on crutches, with deformations. There were AZT babies. Their heads have a different shape, with the eyes spaced wide and sunken in. The drugs cause severe developmental problems. Many children have misshapen, weak limbs and distended bellies. Many are learning disabled. The kids at ICC are constantly medicated with all kinds of drugs. When children refuse the drugs the nurses hold them down and force feed them. Sean wanted to get the hell out of there.

During my visits I noticed that many children at ICC were walking around with tubes hanging from their undershirts, and I wondered what they were. Then one day, I saw the nurse come in with a whole tray of medications and syringes, and I watched her inject this medication into the tubes coming out of their stomachs. I couldn’t believe it. I thought, my god, what’s going on here?

Every child who had a stomach tube took their medication that way, from the three-year-olds to the teenagers. It horrified me. I couldn’t understand it. When I found out what was being done, I thought, surely this must be illegal. There’s no way they could be doing this legally.

I expressed my concerns to Sean’s ACS case worker. I said, “Do you know what they’re doing to those kids in there? This reminds me of Nazi Germany.” He said, “They’re doing wonderful things for these children.” I called Albany, the state capital, and talked to Dan Tietz at the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute. He said, “What are we going to do if these little children refuse to take the medication? How are we going to save their lives if we don’t perform this operation?”

LS: Who performs this operation?
Mona: The children are sent to Columbia-Presbyterian for the operation. The surgeons there do it.

I was at ICC one day, and saw a fourteen-year old boy named Daniel refusing the pills. I actually saw him run from the nurse when she came to give him his medication. He said, “The medication makes me sick and I don’t want to take it.” His aunt was there, and she said, “The medication makes him very ill.”

The ACS case worker, Wendy Wack, came in, and said to the aunt very clearly, “Daniel has refused to take his medication. We’ve changed it three times and he’s still refusing. Now, the only thing left is the operation.” She said, “If you refuse the operation, we’ll call Agency for Child Welfare – and take Daniel away from you.” His aunt signed, and they took Daniel away. When he came back a few weeks later, he had a tube in his stomach.

LS: Does Sean have the tube?
Mona: No. He doesn’t want that tube in his stomach. He’s been there long enough to know you get the tube if you say no to the medication. He’s terrified, so he never refuses the drugs.

The children at ICC who don’t have the tubes tend to be a whole lot healthier and live a whole lot longer than the ones with the tubes.

I was talking to a boy named Amir. He’s 6. His stomach was so swollen. He said, “My stomach is swollen, it got big.” He said, ”They cut me,” and he showed a little cut on his side. He’s had a tube for a long time. Amir was an AZT baby. His face has that wider shape. He also has lypodystrophy from the drugs. He has huge fat lumps on his back and neck. They’ve taken him away for surgery twice but the lumps grow back.

Sean’s little friend Jesus just died. He was 12. He had a tube. He had a stroke from the drugs. There was a little girl, Mia. She had a tube. She had a stroke and went blind. She died recently too. Carrie, a 14-year-old girl died last year. She had a tube. There’s a three-year-old, Patricia. She’s had a tube since she arrived. She’s going home with it in her. I don’t think she’s going to make it.

I used to talk with the child care workers about the drugs. I got to know all of them and they were all very friendly with me. I said, “These drugs are killing the children.” They said, “We know.”

LS: They agreed with you?
Mona: Yes, but what can they do, they just take care of the kids. The doctors and nurses give the medication. Telling the doctors that the drugs make you sick doesn’t do anything. They just stare at you blankly. They don’t care. Compliance is the main goal of ICC. All the kids in ICC come from families who’ve failed to comply with the drug regimen.

LS: ICC is part of a national program running AIDS drug trials. Have you ever signed a waiver permitting them to use your children in a drug trial?
Mona: No, never. But ACS has signed for me when I didn’t want to give Sean drugs. When I said, “No,” the ACS case worker grabbed the form and said, “I’ll sign it. You don’t need to.” They’re always switching medications – they never ask me if it’s okay.

Right now, most of the kids at ICC are on Kaletra. Kaletra was on fast-track approval. It was released before testing was complete. But they do know something about Kaletra. It causes cancer. It says on the label, that this drug causes cancer in test animals.

I fought for a year to get Sean home. ICC wanted to put him in a foster home where someone would be paid to feed him the drugs every day. I got a lawyer and we finally got Sean out of there. My lawyer was able to get Sean’s ICC medical records. He told me, “Sean was tortured at Incarnation. He was tortured.”

---

Photos from ICC

Drugs used in clinical trials conducted at ICC, Columbia Presbyterian
and at hundreds of participating hospitals in pediatric AIDS clinics nationwide:

Drug	Drug Company	Known Toxicities (manufacturer’s label)	Therapeutic Value (manufacturer’s label)
Retrovir (AZT)	GlaxoSmithKline	“Retrovir (AZT) has been associated with hematologic toxicity [blood toxicity], including neutropenia [anemia] and severe anemia…” “Prolonged use of Retrovir has been associated with symptomatic myopathy [muscle wasting].” “Lactic acidosis and severe hepatomegaly [liver swelling] with steatosis [fat degeneration], including fatal cases, have been reported with the use of nucleoside analogues [Retrovir, Epivir, Zerit]  alone or in combination…”	“Retrovir is not a cure for HIV infection.” “The long-term effects of Retrovir are unknown at this time.” “The long-term consequences of in utero and infant exposure to Retrovir are unknown, including the possible risk of cancer.”
Epivir (3TC, Lamivudine)	GlaxoSmithKline	(see above) “Parents or guardians should be advised to monitor pediatric patients for signs and symptoms of pancreatitis.”	“EPIVIR is not a cure for HIV infection.” “Patients should be advised that the long-term effects of EPIVIR are unknown at this time.”
Zerit (Stavudine)	BristolMeyersSquibb	(see above) “Fatal lactic acidosis has been reported in pregnant women who received the combination of Didanosine and Stavudine with other antiretroviral agents.”	“Zerit will not cure your HIV infection” “There is limited information on the long-term use of Zerit”
Viramune (Nevirapine)	Boeringer-Ingelheim	“Patients should be informed of: the possibility of severe liver disease or skin reactions associated with Viramune that may result in death.” “Severe, life-threatening and in some cases fatal hepatoxicity [liver damage], including hepatic necrosis [liver death] and hepatic failure, has been reported in patients treated with Viramune.” “Severe, life-threatening skin reactions, including fatal cases…have included cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis [skin death]…”	“Viramune is not a cure for HIV-1 infection.”
Ritonavi (Norvir)	Abbott Laboratories	“Redistribution/accumulation of body fat including central obesity, dorsocervical fat enlargement (buffalo hump), peripheral wasting, breast enlargement,” “Lipid Disorders,” “Substantial increases in the concentration of total triglycerides and cholesterol.”	“Norvir is not a cure for HIV infection”
Kaletra (Ritonavir + Lopinavir)	Abbott Laboratories	(see above) “Long term carcinogenicity studies of Kaletra in animal systems have not been completed.” “In male mice…there is a dose dependent increase in the incidence of both adenomas and carcinomas [malignant tumors] in the liver.”	“Kaletra is not a cure for HIV infection.” “The long-term effects of Kaletra are not known at this time.”

Photos of an infant with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a blistering, peeling, potentially fatal skin rash. It is one of the known side-effects of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Nevirapine is one of the primary drugs being readied for distribution in Africa.

---

Eight of over 200 current or recent drug studies conducted at ICC
and Columbia Presbyterian (and 800 nationally):
http://www.icc-pedsaids.org/page4.htm www.clinicaltrials.gov

• The Effect of Anti-HIV Treatment on Body Characteristics of HIV-Infected Children
• Conditions: HIV Infections; HIV Wasting Syndrome; Lipodystrophy
  Sponsors: NIAID and NICHD
• The Effects of Anti-HIV Therapy on the Immune System of HIV-Positive Children
  Sponsors: NIAID and NICHD
• Comparison of Stavudine Used Alone or in Combination with Didanosine in HIV-Infected Children
  Sponsor: NIAID
• HIV Levels in Cerebrospinal Fluid and Brain Function in Patients Receiving Anti-HIV Drugs
  Sponsors: NIAID, NINDS (Nat. Inst. Neurological Disorders and Strokes), NARC (Neurologic AIDS Reseach Consortium)
• A Study of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Infants with HIV
  Sponsors: NIAD, NICHD
• A Study to Compare Different Drugs Used to Prevent Serious Bacterial Infections in HIV-Positive Children
  Sponsors: NIAID, Pfizer, Glaxo
• The Safety and Effectiveness of Valacyclovir HCI in the Treatment of Herpes Simplex or Varicella/Zoster Infections in HIV-1 Infected Children
  Sponsors: NIAID, Glaxo
• The Safety and Effectiveness of Treating Advanced AIDS Patients between the Ages 4 and 22 with Seven Drugs, Some at Higher than Usual Doses
  Sponsor: NIAID, NICHD

---

The Doctor at ICC

To confirm Mona’s story, I spoke with Dr. Katherine Painter, the medical director of ICC. I asked her about AIDS drugs, clinical trials and the stomach surgery for children who can’t or won’t take the drugs. Dr. Painter told me that the greatest challenge facing children at ICC isn’t illness, but compliance with their drug regimen. She also confirmed that there are “loads and loads of studies being done on children.”

Click The Icon To Access Audios Of The Interview With Dr Painter.

Liam Scheff: What does ICC do?

Dr. Katherine Painter (Medical Director of Incarnation Children’s Center): ICC deals with children who are medically complex but not acutely sick, and whose medical care provides more challenges than most. We’re having an increase in referrals over the last years to deal with medication adherence. There are a fair number of children whose HIV illness may be well controlled but whose families are experiencing difficulty complying with the child’s medication regimen.

What we’re asking of our families and patients in terms of adherence is something beyond 100% – All of their medicines all the time, whether they have them on-hand or not, whether the medication makes them sick, or whether they’re sick with a concurrent illness.

ICC is affiliated with Columbia Presbyterian. We work as a magnet for about six New York hospitals – Columbia Presbyterian, Harlem Hospital, New York Hospital, St. Luke’s/Roosevelt, King’s County Brooklyn and SUNY. We get referrals from outpatient HIV clinics in the city, in the five boroughs and in Westchester along the island. Most clinics are set up in medical centers.

LS: Does ICC participate in clinical drugs trials?
Painter: Many of the clinics that refer to us are participating in clinical drug trials. Children participating in a drug trial undergo monitoring, testing, and supply of an experimental drug through their outpatient clinic and we maintain that treatment here.

LS: When I search the Government Clinical Trial database, I find loads and loads of studies being done on children.
Painter: There are loads and loads of studies being done on children.

LS: I know that the medications are hard to take and have side effects. How do you get a child to take the drugs?
Painter: One of the issues with children is that they can’t swallow large pills.  Many of the meds are horse pill size and come in multiple pills. The alternative liquid or powder formulations are not very palatable. They have a significant, lingering, bitter taste. We mix them with chocolate syrup. Some children can take this, others can’t. For some cases, it’s better administered through a Gastric tube.

LS: Is that the nose or stomach tube?
Painter: That’s the stomach tube. The nose tube is a Naso-Gastric tube. It’s appropriate for short term interventions. It has to be changed weekly from one side of the nose to the other to minimize sinus infection. You have to listen each time you push the medication or supplementation through the tube to make sure that the air bubbles you’re hearing are in the stomach, and not in the lungs, because it can be displaced.

LS: What’s a Gastric tube?
Painter: A Gastric tube (G-tube) goes through a small opening into the stomach.

LS: How do you put in a G-tube?
Painter: A surgeon does that. It’s done in the operating room, under anesthesia. The surgeon passes an endoscopy tube [a fiber-optic camera down the throat] which allows him to see the inside of the stomach. Then from the outside, the surgeon places the tube surgically –

LS: He cuts through the abdomen?
Painter: Well, right, yeah, you’re actually cutting through the skin, through the abdominal wall musculature, and then through the stomach. It creates a very small hole, about a quarter inch. It takes several weeks to heal well, so it’s a bit tender. A small tube is placed through the opening or stoma. From the outside you can connect a syringe or feeding tube. The opening can be closed when not in use [by a plastic seal], which extends less than half and inch from the stomach. Some types are called buttons.

On the inside of the stomach is a device that holds the tube in place called a balloon, which is filled with water to a size that can’t be pulled back through the stoma.

LS: When is this surgery deemed necessary or appropriate?
Painter: When other interventions to help a child take a medicine by mouth have failed.

G-tube or PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastronomy) Tubes. G-tube Surgery.
The brochure for ICC reads – “a sanctuary of love, a home-like nurturing residence…”

Side Story: Read The Nurse’s Story: A pediatric nurse from ICC gives her account of successfully treating HIV positive children without AIDS Drugs.

---

Dana

In 2002, just as Mona got Sean back from ICC, the doctors decided that Dana (Sean’s sister) should be put on AIDS drugs, even though she wasn’t ill.

Mona: Dana wasn’t sick. She’d never had a major illness. The doctors said her Tcells were low, so he put her on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit, and Bactrim.

LS: What was her reaction to the drugs?
Mona: She was throwing up constantly. Over the next two months, she started complaining of back and head pain, which got so bad I had to take her to the emergency room.

Beth Israel diagnosed it as Langerhans Syndrome, which is a childhood disease similar to cancer. Langerhans affects bone. It damaged one of her vertebrae. It can be treated with chemotherapy, but it’s a low level dose, much lower than a standard cancer treatment.

Beth Israel knew about Dana’s HIV status. They told me, “We’re going to ship her over to Presbyterian for a new diagnosis. Because of her HIV status, there may be a possibility that this is AIDS.”

So they sent her to Presbyterian, where the doctor wrote in her records – “Langerhans Syndrome” but added, “May be associated with HIV.” Langerhans Syndrome is not an AIDS-defining illness. There is no entry anywhere in the medical record of an association between Langerhans and HIV. But Presbyterian called it AIDS and gave her a much stronger chemotherapy appropriate for an adult cancer. Then they switched her medication to Kaletra.

LS: Kaletra – that’s the fast-track approved drug that causes cancer?
Mona: Right. It states clearly in the manufacturers insert that Ritonavir – one of the ingredients in Kaletra – causes cancer in test animals, and that testing isn’t complete in humans. How do you give a child with cancer a drug that causes cancer?

The Kaletra made her heave and throw up. They were afraid that she’d become crippled if her back shifted in any way. So they put a brace on her to keep her still, and kept her on the drug. They gave her three months of chemotherapy, and the cancer was gone. They couldn’t find a trace of it. But they gave her another 3 months of chemotherapy anyway.
Right after her diagnosis in January (2003), Presbyterian called ACS and said I was putting Dana in jeopardy by not giving her the drugs. ACS took Dana out of our home and put her into ICC.

We went to court to get her back. Dana’s doctor at Presbyterian had to testify. When she was questioned under oath, she listed all the deadly side effects of the drugs – all of them. She knew exactly what all of them did. The judge asked her how she got the kids to take the drugs. And she said “We’re like Nazis when it comes to compliance.” Those were her words.

The Department of Health came to ICC three weeks ago for an inspection. They said that the children could no longer be restrained when they didn’t want to take the drugs. They said that the children didn’t have to take the drugs if they didn’t want to; they have a legal right to refuse medications. But the social workers and doctors told the children, “Sure you can refuse, but if you do there will be consequences.”

LS: What are the consequences?
Mona: The surgery.

Today Dana remains at ICC. She is 16. ACS is trying to put her in a foster home where she’ll live with a stranger who’s paid to give her the drugs. Mona is trying to bring her home. In August 2003, The Make-a-Wish foundation gave Dana the gift of a Disney Cruise to Bermuda. ACS told Dana that she was not allowed to leave the country, and cancelled her trip.

Sean’s blood is tested regularly to make sure that he’s taking the drugs. He’s been on AIDS drugs all his life. He weighs 51 pounds and is about 4 feet tall. Sean is now 13 years old.

During our interview, Dr. Painter of Incarnation Children’s Center told me that there was some good news about HIV. She said, “HIV is no longer a death sentence, it’s a chronic, manageable condition,” – as long as you take the drugs. But Jacklyn Herger (see link below to – “The Nurse’s Story” – part of complete story) and Mona Newberg both successfully treated pediatric AIDS without AIDS drugs. In fact, their children were most sick when the drugs were used. Is their experience valid? Is it reproducible? According to Incarnation Children’s Center, the answer is “Yes.”

From ICC’s published history: “Early in the [AIDS] epidemic, HIV disease of childhood was considered to be a downhill course leading to death. But in the late 1980’s, before AZT was available, many very ill children admitted to ICC got dramatically better with proper nurturing and high quality medical and nursing care.”

ICC successfully treated pediatric AIDS without toxic AIDS drugs. This startling revelation brings to mind a number of questions: Are the drugs necessary? Why are we using them if there are better options? And…

---

What Do We Really Know About HIV?

In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine published an article called “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” by AIDS researcher Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The article was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition.(6)

From the introduction:

“Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated… considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded.“

According to Stevenson, twenty years and 118 billion dollars in AIDS research (“considerable efforts”), have given no reliable proof as to how HIV might cause disease (“the mechanisms” by which HIV is presumed to be “pathogenic”). While it is always claimed that HIV is proven to cause illness, Stevenson spends the bulk of his review article pouring over what he describes as two “major hypotheses”that try to describe how HIV might work.

In science, a “hypothesis” is an idea or proposal about how something might work. A hypothesis isn’t a fact, it’s a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a hypothesis fails, it’s discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be heard.

In the article Stevenson explains that we don’t know how HIV might damage, let alone kill cells, “…it is debatable whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing of infected cells…” and we don’t have any idea how HIV affects immunity, “…processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1 infection are not well understood…” The HIV hypothesis states absolutely that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us the underpinning of this assertion is still debated.

Stevenson concludes the paper by returning to the main theme – the vast unknowns in HIV science:

“There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known.”

Stevenson tells us that after 20 years of research into the various HIV hypotheses, we know “a thin veneer,” about HIV’s “biology and pathogenesis,” that is, what HIV might look like, how it might work, and, as such, how – and therefore if – it is responsible for AIDS illnesses. We’re told that it is, but according to Stevenson and “Nature Medicine,”, we don’t have proof

By the standard of “First do no harm”if we don’t know how a molecule works (HIV or any other), then it is unethical to treat any presumed HIV positive person with extraordinarily toxic, and often fatal pharmaceuticals, which the manufacturers themselves admit, do not cure AIDS.

In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal side-effects, all major AIDS drugs also bear a version of this printed warning:

“This drug will not cure your HIV infection…Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease…Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time.”

What Do HIV Tests Measure?

When you take an HIV test, your blood isn’t tested for a virus, it’s tested for your body’s natural antibody response to the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for HIV.

In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful its proteins should accurately represent the proteins of a specific virus or particle.

But the proteins in the HIV test are not derived from purified viral particles, but rather from a variety of leukemia T-Cell cultures, or from synthetic production. A 1993 Bio/Technology paper gives an analysis of the nature of the HIV test proteins, and concludes that the proteins derived from these sources for HIV tests are, in fact, commonly-occurring (16).

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm

The lack of specificity in the test proteins would seem to logically translate into a lack of specificity in the reaction to the test, but this is rarely addressed in the public conversation about HIV. However, the medical literature on HIV tests does call into sharp question their accuracy and utility. A comprehensive, updated list of citations on the tests can be found at the Albert Reappraising AIDS site: http://www.aras.ab.ca/test.html

All medical research can be challenged and disputed. But there is considerable evidence that the putative HIV test proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy people. Unfortunately, the scientific community has tended to punish dissent and debate about popular and profitable paradigms like cancer and AIDS research. (For a good introduction to the problem of rigidity in flawed but profitable science, take a look at “The Cancer Industry” by Dr. Ralph Moss – http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/books.shtml

What does HIV-Positive mean?

The HIV test measures antibody response to these proteins. We produce “antibodies” to all the foreign material we encounter – germs, yeast, fungi, bacteria, pollutants, even food. Antibodies are proteins that are produced by our white blood cells to help identify foreign matter in our blood. They “grab” onto the foreign protein so that it can be processed safely.

Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. That is, one antibody can grab onto a wide variety of proteins. The proteins in the HIV-test are commonly-occurring, and have demonstrated cross-reactions with a wide variety of antibodies. Given the non-specificity of the test proteins, and the variety of reactions to them, it would follow logically that the reaction of HIV tests should also be considered non-specific. It is, however, used as an entirely specific diagnostic tool.

How cross-reactive is the HIV-Test?

According to the medical literature, HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly 70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis, inoculations, colds and prior pregnancy (1-3). The HIV test is also more reactive with people who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi, parasites and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food and clean water, such as in Africa).

If you’ve been exposed to any of these conditions, it is possible that your body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins.

Based on the extensive review of HIV tests in the medical literature, the term “HIV-positive” could be seen to have one non-debatable meaning: “Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive.” An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of antibodies in their blood. This might indicate a high historical exposure to illness, which might serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving general health. But a positive HIV test result on its own does not seem to be capable of indicating the absolute diagnosis a terminal, fatal virus or condition.

This is, of course, very different from what we’ve been told about HIV tests for 20 years. But the FDA and the test-makers are legally obligated to state the limitations of their tests. (From HIV test package inserts):

• “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – ElA)
• “The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.” (Genetic Systems HIV Test – Peptide EIA)
• “The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection” (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test – PCR).
• “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection.” (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test – Western Blot)
• “[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions… and other potential nonspecific reactions.” [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].

The medical literature is also clear about the lack of specificity of HIV tests:

“False-positive ELISA [antibody] test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear… The WB [Western Blot antibody test] is not used as a screening tool because… it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results. ”
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Archives of Family Medicine. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.

“False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated to HIV infection…. False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV or nonviral components in the tests… Notable causes of false-positive reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of other viruses have been reported to cross-react with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed recently in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B virus”
Proffitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7:203-19.

Regardless of what the FDA-mandated warnings or the clinical research tells us, these tests are used to tell people that they’re infected with a deadly virus.

The test makers are aware that HIV-positive test results occur because of “prior pregnancy, blood transfusion…and other nonspecific reactions,” “vaccines,” “human or technical errors,” “transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” Given all of this cross-reactivity…

How do we know who is really HIV-positive?

The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test manufacturers to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and sexual criteria.

The HIV test has two different names for similar or identical reactions: “nonspecific” and “specific.” A “nonspecific reaction” (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given to people determined to be in the “low-risk group.” A “specific reaction” (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis determined to be in the “high-risk group.”

Social, Sexual and Economic Bias in HIV Testing:

Who are the people in these groups? The “high-risk group,” according to the test manufacturers, consists of “prison inmates, STD clinic patients, inner city hospital emergency room patients… homosexual men [and] intravenous drug users.” The “low-risk group” isn’t defined, but can be assumed to include people outside of poverty situations who are under less social, ethnic and economic stress.

For people in the “high-risk group,” an antibody reaction is more likely to be considered “specific” (HIV positive). However, for the “low-risk group,” the test manufactures state that “nonspecific reactions [HIV negative] may be more common than specific reactions [HIV positive]. (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).”

What makes a “nonspecific” (HIV negative) reaction “more common” [more likely] than a “specific” (HIV positive) reaction in the “low-risk group”?

What makes a “specific” reaction “more common” in the “high-risk group?”

The answer to this question is different from test to test, lab to lab, and country to country. There are no standards for what makes a test “HIV-positive.”

• “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – ElA)

The final analysis belongs to the subjective interpretation of the person or institution giving the test. The test manufacturers are telling the lab technicians, doctors and nurses who are reading these tests that it’s acceptable to determine HIV test results based on subjective consideration of an individual’s ethnic, social, sexual and economic status.

• “Both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test” – (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – EIA)

It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual preference, but that seems to be precisely what is being done every day in HIV test labs.

Given the subjective, variable interpretation of HIV tests, how accurate are they at predicting illness? The medical literature makes this very clear:

“Most patients (68 to 89%) from low risk groups who show reactivity on screening tests will have false-positive results… The predictive value of a positive ELISA varies from 2% to 99%….The Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns. ”
Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988;63:373-9.

“[I]n low prevalence populations the predictive value [of an HIV test] was 11.1%, while in populations with known HIV-1 infection, the predictive value was 97.1%.”
Abbott Laboratories. HIV Antibody Test. April, 1996.

HIV antibody tests are believed to be somewhere between 2% to 99% accurate, depending on a subjective interpretation of your “risk group,” made by whoever is reading your test.

The result of this lack of medical standards is that if you’re Black, Hispanic, poor, using drugs, in prison, gay or pregnant, then a “nonspecific” test result becomes, in essence, a life sentence. You can be put on toxic drugs and your children can be drugged and taken away from you.

The tests being used on Sean, Dana, Elaine and Liz (see “The Nurse’s Story”), as well as thousands of people around the globe, certainly don’t tell us anything about them that we can’t tell by hearing their life stories: they’re poor, Black, Hispanic, pregnant, they’ve used drugs, and they’ve been exposed to stress and illness.

But even if it is assumed that a non-specific antibody reaction actually represents a virus, there’s still a problem. No one knows how HIV works. As Stevenson points out in Nature, no one has proven how HIV infects a cell, let alone how it causes disease, if, indeed, it does. The hypotheses state that HIV is the primary agent responsible for AIDS, but have yet to fundamentally prove that AIDS is a disease with a single cause.

Meanwhile, researchers of note who have posited alternative disease models that more successfully explain the immune suppression that occurs in AIDS patients, have typically been attacked for dissenting from the mainstream, and are actively kept out of the medical discussion. And so, as far as understanding and treating AIDS is concerned, despite “considerable efforts,” we are only permitted to have “two major hypotheses.”

Stevenson concludes his “Nature” article by acknowledging how little is known about HIV. “[W]hat we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface…” But like most AIDS researchers, he remains stuck to the failed hypothesis. In order to understand HIV better, Stevenson writes, “a permissive, small animal model would be a key experimental tool.”

AIDS researchers, failing to prove the HIV hypothesis accurate, have instead clung onto it stubbornly for 20 years, prescribing extraordinarily toxic drugs to patients in spite of the well-documented inaccuracy of the HIV test. According to Stevenson, they haven’t even done the appropriate experiments in animals before inflicting toxic pharmaceuticals onto the general population.

But this doesn’t seem to bother NIAID, the NIH, Genentech, Glaxo, Pfizer, Harlem Hospital, Beth Israel, Columbia Presbyterian, or any of NY hospitals that feed children to ICC. They don’t need an animal model. They do their experiments on children.

Afterword

The treatment of patients at ICC currently violates every one of the ethical standards for medical experiments set out by international courts after World War 2.

• The children at ICC are enrolled in drug trials without their knowledge,
• And without the consent of their parents or guardians.
• The experiments are neither safe nor necessary.
• The drugs used are known to cause disability and death.
• Children who refuse the drugs are force fed, then surgically altered.

Is this acceptable behavior? Or do we need another Nuremberg Trial to remind ourselves how to be civilized?

The experience of Mona, Jacklyn and their childen is not unique. It is mirrored by patients throughout the United States and across the globe who have made sick by the irrational, profit-driven use of dangerous pharmaceuticals. Informed mothers who try to protect their children from deadly drug therapies are labeled renegades, and risk losing their children to state agencies closely aligned with – and even by funded by – the very companies that produce and sell the drugs.

If this is to stop, it will be up to all of us – citizens, scientists, health advocates, activists, mothers, fathers and family members – to bring this to public attention, to protect the rights of these children, and to remind the medical establishment of their sacred oath: “Primum Non Nocere.” First, Do No Harm.

There are organizations dedicated to protecting human rights and preserving medical and social ethics. If you’re disturbed by this story, let them know about it.

Organization	Phone / Fax	Address	Web Address/Email
Amnesty International	T (212) 807-8400/ F (212) 463-9193	322 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10001	www.amnestyusa.org admin-us@aiusa.org
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine	T (202) 686-2210 F (202) 686-2216	5100 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20016	www.pcrm.org pcrm@pcrm.org
Alliance for Human Research Protection		548 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY 10012	http://www.ahrp.org/about/about.html veracare@rcn.com
A.C.L.U. New York	T (212) 344-3005 F (212) 344-3318	125 Broad Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004	http://www.nyclu.org/ nyclucrc@capital.net
N.A.A.C.P.	T (877) NAACP-98 24 Hour Hotline: T (410) 521-4939	4805 Mt. Hope Drive, Baltimore Maryland 21215	http://www.naacp.org washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
Public Citizen	T (202) 588-1000	1600 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009	http://www.citizen.org/ hrg1@citizen.org
Prevent Child Abuse New York	T (518) 445-127 T 1-800 CHILDREN F (518) 436-5889	134 S. Swan St. Albany, NY 12210	www.preventchildabuseny.org cdeyss@preventchildabuseny.org

It’s never too late for any doctor to examine what he or she is doing and make a change. Following the leads of Jacklyn Herger and Mona Newberg, we may not only find that a cure for Pediatric AIDS is possible, but that it’s always been possible. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by exploring these options.

For the sake of the children at ICC, and the children yet to come – Doctors, it’s time for a new hypothesis.

See the ICC picture gallery.

---

References:

1) Giraldo Dr. RA. Everybody Reacts Positive on the ELISA Test for HIV. Continuum (London) 1999; 5(5): 8-10.
2) Giraldo, Dr. RA. Tests for HIV are Highly Inaccurate. Posted during the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, 2000b. http://www.robertogiraldo.com
3) Johnson C. Is anyone really positive? Continuum (London) April/May 1995.
4) Johnson C. Whose Antibodies are They Anyway? Continuum (London), September/October 1996; 4(3):4-5
5) Johnson C. Factors known to cause false-positive HIV antibody test results. Zenger’s Magazine, San Diego, California; September 1996; 8-9. http://www.virusmyth.net
6) Stevenson, Mario. HIV-1 Pathogenesis. Nature Medicine, HIV Special. July 2003. Vol.9, No. 7. 853-861.
7) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 1996;4:1s-24s.8.
8) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. A critical analysis of the evidence for the isolation of HIV. At Website http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epappraisal.htm 1997.
9) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, et al. Between the Lines. A Critical Analysis of Luc Montagnier’s Interview Answers to Djamel Tahi. Continuum (London) 1997/8; 5(2):35-45.
10) Scheff, Liam – The AIDS Debate – The Most Controversial Story You’ve Never Heard. Boston’s Weekly Dig. May 7, 2003. http://www.altheal.org/texts/liamscheff.htm
11) Lauritsen, John – The AIDS War.
12) Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C., and Rasnick, D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J. Biosci., 28: 383-412, 2003.
13) Durack, D. T. Opportunistic infections and Kaposi’s sarcoma in homosexual men. The New England Journal of Medicine, 305: 1465-1467, 1981.
14) Oppenheimer, G. M. Causes, cases, and cohorts: The role of epidemiology in the historical construction of AIDS. In: D. M. Fox
(ed.), AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease, pp. 49-83. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
15) Jaffe, H. W., Choi, K., Thomas, P. A., Haverkos, H. W., Auerbach, D. M., Guinan, M. E., Rogers, M. F., Spira, T. J., Darrow, W. W., Kramer, M. A., Friedman, S. M., Monroe, J. M., Friedman-Kien, A. E., Laubenstein, L. J., Marmor, M., Safai, B., Dritz, S. K., Crispi, S. J., Fannin, S. L., Orkwis, J. P., Kelter, A., Rushing, W. R., Thacker, S. B., and Curran, J. W. National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: Part 1, Epidemiologic results. Ann. Intern. Med., 99: 145-151, 1983
16) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papdimitriou JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/Technology 1993;11:696-707.
*) Christine Maggiore: “What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong,” http://www.aliveandwell.org
**) Some Continuum magazines : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/esprit-libre/continuum/continuum.htm

Liam Scheff
liamscheff@yahoo.com

French version / En français : http://www.sidasante.com/journal/maison.htm

---

Read The Nurse’s Story:

Jacklyn Herger is a pediatric AIDS nurse who worked at ICC in the early 90s. In 1996 she began the adoption process for two HIV-positive children from ICC through Catholic Home Bureau In 1998, the girls, Elaine, age six, and Liz, age four, came to live with Herger, her husband and five-year-old daughter as a family. A trained nurse, Herger gave AIDS drugs “by the book.” To her shock and amazement, it was only when she stopped giving the drugs that the girls got better.

---

Latest news!

(Update 14th July 04)

The New York Press, (NYC’s independent weekly) has picked up Liam Scheff’s investigation of Pediatric AIDS medical abuse.

The article reports the facts about AIDS drug toxicity, HIV test non-specificity, and exposes the current practice of force-drugging children who refuse their medication through surgically-implanted stomach tubes (g-tubes).

The paper deserves credit for its courage. The NY Press has a large and active letters page. They will, no doubt, receive their share of “fan mail” from the mainstream for publishing this.

Please let them know that their decision to publish this is appreciated, and important to the health and welfare of people everywhere who are fighting medical tyranny.

So many thanks to the NY Press.

Read “Orphans on Trial“.

---

5th July 2004

In January, 2004, I published “The House That AIDS Built.” The story was picked up by several international papers, including the New York Post and the UK Guardian, and was reprinted throughout the world on the world wide web.

German journalist Torsten Engelbrecht read the story and formulated a series of questions for Columbia Presbyterian, the hospital which presides over ICC. He was answered by a PR firm. The answers were dishonest and unsatisfactory. What follows is a response to and a dissection of their answers using NIH documents, clinical trials, interview material, Medline articles and Department of Health statistics. Given the material provided here, it is clear that the practice of surgical forced-drugging of HIV positive children with toxic compounds is ongoing, in violation of the rights of wards of the state, and must be addressed immediately.

Read the result of this additional research:
“The ICC Investigation Continues.
Hospital PR firm gives insufficient response to ICC Investigation”

---

Patricia Nell Warren, author of fiction bestsellers like The Front Runner, also writes provocative commentary has recently taken up Liam Scheff’s reporting.

Her article “Asking the Questions” is available on http://www.aumag.org/viewfinder/leftMay04.html

What does it mean when a story about possible clinical trial abuses hits the wire, but most news media ignore it? For years, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour has been saying—not on CNN, of course—that courageous reporting is vanishing from the U.S. major media.

---

March 2004.
Phase I Drug Trials Used Foster Care children in Violation of 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56
http://www.ahrp.org/ahrpspeaks/HIVkids0304.html
Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) has called for a Federal investigation into Incarnation Children’s Center, and the NIH’s Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials program. The AHRP letter contends that Federal Regulations regarding the use of children and wards are being violated.

---

April 2004
London Observer/Guardian Confirms “The House That AIDS Built”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1185305,00.html
The incarnation Children’s Center story has again been picked up and validated by another major paper – this time by Antony Barnett of the London Observer.

---

New York Post Confirms “The House That AIDS Built”

Liam Scheff investigated and wrote “The House That AIDS Built” throughout 2003, and web-published it in 2004. In early February, 2004, Douglas Montero, a columnist for the NY Post, contacted Scheff after reading the article. Soon after, the Post printed (stole) Scheff’s article in a tabloid format rewritten by Montero, without a single mention of Scheff.

Two days after the intitial Post cover, Scheff was mentioned in the Post as “a health advocate who investigated ICC and posted his findings on the internet…”

Scheff is indeed a health advocate, but he is also an investigative reporter whose previous work on politics, film and HIV/AIDS has been widely read and praised. Scheff remains hard at work on this and other stories relating to human, medical and civil rights. If you feel so inclined, please contact the NY Post, thanking them for covering this important issue, and reminding them that proper credit should be paid to Scheff and sites like altheal and aras (the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society), who had the courage to post Scheff’s story first, and honestly.

letters@nypost.com

---

Back to Toxicity General index

Cover-Up of Abuse by Social Services and Staff

When a whistle blower comes forward to file a report of abuse on a child detained in the Children’s Home, the ‘cover -up’ runs deep.

A whistle blower, employee for the Children’s home, witnessed a boy getting punched in the face by a staff member and tries tenaciously to report it only to be ignored.  The cover up by Social Services runs deep within the agency, and as a result the employee gets fired.

Still trying to hold someone accountable, his voice continues to fall upon deaf ears, as no one will listen.

SELF DEFENSE AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATONS

By Sandra Ami

We all get caught up in proving we are not guilty, when approached with someone’s possibility of such. Especially when we actually did do nothing wrong, we feel the need to defend ourselves. Well, don’t get caught up in the tangled web of deceit, lies, allegations and accusations. Remember, you have NOTHING to prove.

When pulled over by an officer, even if one comes to your door (including a Social Worker investigating a retaliatory report) never say ANYTHING! It won’t matter if you are innocent or not, these people are not here to “protect you” they are not there to find anything but a reason to write up a report of guilt. So, if you are not guilty, you can almost guarantee you will be when they are done with you.  Watch the video above, as it will explain exactly HOW you can and WILL be found guilty in a court of law.

An officer or anyone carrying a badge’s motto should be:

If at first we don’t deceive, then we try again, till we succeed.

CPS DHHS CORRUPTION VIDEO

The corrupt system that surrounds Child Protective Services (CPS) is unbelievable.

Just when you think everything seems fine, a social worker can enter your life acting like your friend telling you that they “Will help you” when their only real intention is to take your child away and keep them.

Their deceiving schemes are perfect examples as to how they have everyone convienced they are helpers of children, however very soon afterwards you learn, they are not helpers of children, in fact, the “system” doesn’t even care about children or families. It’s the money they are after.

By them telling you to “trust” them and they are “there to help you” is only one tactic they use to try and gain your confidence in turning over your most valued and beloved treasure.  This, I can assure you, is what it looks like when a CPS worker comes to the door to take your child away.

http://www.brokenspectrum.com/

An informational site to read about many issues, including some about Child Abuse System called,  the  for the purpose of creating a delusional smoke screen across the PEOPLE of America (and beyond) Child Protecive Services, Child Welfare

THE PEOPLE THAT PROTECT CHILDREN??

Imagine for one moment, this is your child, taken while an investigation is being made against you, even if findings are “unsubstantiated” But this is your child waiting to come back home. All that is necessary for our social workers to succeed is that “good honest people” do absolutely nothing to hold social workers accountable for there actions. It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our social workers. But is this a reason to do nothing?
“First they came for my neighbors children . I was silent. It was not my children they were there for. Then they came for my friends children, again I was silent. It was not my children they were there for. Then they came for my children. There was no one left to speak for me”.
The race we are in towards correcting neglect and wrong doing and abuse by the social workers that are supposed to be there to protect, is a race against time for many of us now and many more if we do not fix the system that is currently in place. Washing one’s hands of the wrongs by the social service and the powerless; means to side with the social service, not to be neutral.
If we don’t wake up and take a stand against this horrible horrible system that has been put into place, for no other reason than to Tear Families apart, so that the Government can take total control over our lives, then you too are doomed to be a victim of the same injustice. If you can’t stand up today to protect the families that have been torn apart, and children who have died, then you are not protecting yourself, and you are as guilty as those doing it.

Sandra Ami

TERRORISM AGAINST CHILDREN IN AMERICA BY THE GOVERNMENT

By: Sandra Ami

How  would  you feel to see a child’s face terrified with fear, with tears flooding their cheeks, arms reaching out for help “MOMMY! MOMMY! DADDY! DADDY!”  The child is being pulled away by strangers, the pain and pure agony of fear.  The screams so piercing they draw a crowd.  It not only breaks your heart but makes one think.

Where is the compassion and where was the law?

I’ve seen this far more often that I would have ever liked, more often than I would have ever chosen, far more often than I could have ever imagined possible.  But it happens every day.  Each day thousands of children and parents are going through this same painful torture.

It all starts with a report made to Children and Family Services.  Perhaps a neighbor that you’ve gotten into an argument with over a barking dog, or the methods of a teacher you challenged or you showing your disapproval of the teacher locking the children in the classrooms during school hours. Maybe it’s because of your husband’s new wife who doesn’t like you or doesn’t like having to pay child support to your children.  Or even a mother who files a complaint against the father out of anger or jealousy.  The reasons are endless but the results are the same.

When a mother calls in to report the father (or visa-versa), she’s cutting her nose off to spite her face.  She doesn’t realize that not only are they writing up reasons to alienate the father, but they are also writing up reasons to take the children from the mother for “Neglecting to protect the children.”

CPS, DHS, DCFS, DYFS, whatever name they go by in a particular county, they are still one in the same.  Their only intention upon any report is to put children up for adoption.  When a call comes in it is handled just as a sales call.  If any one of you have ever worked as a sales person, or owned a business, you  know how valuable a call in to place an order is.  The “department” is no different.  Each call that is made into their offices is a valuable financial, incoming call.

The Social Workers  are not interested if there was any actual abuse or neglect, they get a bonus to place children up for adoption. They use the calls as their guideline, on how the reports will be written up.  But, those reports will also have added allegations, accusations and almost always the SW will put in the report that one or both of the parents have “mental issues that prevent the mom (or dad) from parenting their child(ren).” The mental statements on the reports are to cause the parents more obstacles to prevent them from getting their children back and are rarely ever mentioned by anyone. The parent may never have seen a psychiatrist or therapist, and may never have been diagnosed with such conditions.

This is how it works.
A call comes into Social Services; you are completely unaware there is even a complaint. You get a knock on the door within a few days, or it could even be as simple as a phone call, with a Social Worker asking you a few questions. You know there is nothing you have done to justify any reporting, and the Social Worker tells you “don’t worry it’s just routine, we have to investigate each report we get.” So, you don’t worry.

A day or so later, at 6:30am, time to get ready for school. You tickle the children out of bed, and if that doesn’t work, tell them you will “sprinkle them with LOVE KISSES” to which they know a cup of water is coming that you will dip your fingers in and flick them with it to wake them up, as you’ve done before.. “LOVE KISSES.. LOOOVE KISSES” the giggles are just enough to wake them up.  Now that the children are awake and sitting up, you give them the option.. “Do you want to dress yourself today? Or do you want ME TO??” They know that if you do it, you will dress them in that nice green, stripped, button down shirt with the green Levis you love them in, but if they dress themselves, they will get to wear their cool Black Dickies and the Black shirt with the cool skateboarder on it.  So, just the mere mention of Mom dressing the children is just enough to get their butts in gear. In the kitchen, you fix sausage, eggs and toast and while the children are eating breakfast you jump in the shower. After breakfast, there’s no time to do the dishes, so you save it for your return. Just before you drive them off to school, there’s Teeth Inspection Time where you play Dentist after they’ve brushed, and as you comb their hair, creating several different hair styles, the Mohawk look, then the bangs, the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty, just before making them presentable for their teacher. One last thing before they walk out the door, you squirt them with some Smell Pretties, a man’s cologne you bought them for their last birthday or Christmas time. Now all the homework’s in order, their lunch has been made, and you’re off to school. Kiss them good bye and tell them to “Have a great day, I love you” as you hear the little voices “I love you too”.

Driving back up your driveway, you see a strange car and someone standing in the driveway. You approach the stranger as she identifies herself as Kim the Social Worker, she’s dressed casually and looks rather harmless, in fact, she looks like she could be one of your nice new neighbors from down the street. She says “hello, how are you doing? I love your flowers, you have a nice house. Did you plant that flower bed yourself?” As you engage in a casual conversation, she sounds rather normal, you then invite her in. She looks around, but not so much as to inspect the home or look suspicious. “You have a very nice home” she says. You show her the family pet Duck you have (in diapers) who is quite friendly and as docile as a well tamed cat. She then proceeds to ask questions after explaining why she is there. “I just want you to know, I’m here to help you, I know this all sounds so silly, but I just have to make sure I have the paperwork done right, in order to close the case” She asks you if you have been under any doctors care, or if the children have. Puzzled you think to yourself “is this a loaded question?” Searching for the best answer for this question, you think if you say “yes”, they may perceive that the children have a problem, however if you say “no”, they may think you don’t take them when needed. So you answer the question, “yes, I take the children or myself whenever we need to go”. You also inform the Social Worker that you have insurance, and the children have been seeing the same doctor all their lives, pretty much. The Social Worker isn’t at your house for very long, maybe a matter of 3 or 4 minutes. She thanks you as a friend would do as she gets in her car. Again, you don’t worry.

A week later, the same routine, 6:30am, breakfast, shower, comb the hair, lunch and off to school. “I love you honey, have a great day” “You too mommy, I love you too.”

This time, you come home, you start the dishes, take something out for dinner, moping the floors, bathing the duck; it’s the regular routine.

THEN A KNOCK ON THE DOOR.

“Oh Hello Kim, don’t tell me, let me guess, you took my kids” in an extremely naive and friendly voice you say to the woman, jokingly.

“Yes, I did”
”WHAT? You’re kidding me right?”
”No, we took your son from School”
”Where is he now? Where did you take him, OH MY GOD! He knows never to get in the car with strangers, OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD” as the tears bellow down your face.
”WHY? WHY? Why did you take him?”
”Well, we called a Doctor who said to detain the child”
”What? Who?”
”Dr. Granet”
”But he only saw my son once when my son was a few months old??!! He knows nothing about my son”
”Here’s the address, you will need to attend a TDM (Team Decision Meeting) meeting tomorrow, and you will have a court date the following day”

Now, you pick up your phone, you call your husband, even though you are not living together (thank goodness your still very close friends), where he shows up within minutes from across town; he speaks with the SW and tells her the “mother is a good mom”, a call to your attorney who speaks with the SW for a few seconds only to return back to you with “She’s a BITCH”. A frantic call out to your mother, sister, brother, friends anyone and everyone you know. CRYING, feeling like someone has just taken a hatchet to your knees. You feel the blood draining out of your body as though they clipped off your extremities. Tight wrenching pains from the middle of your torso with one single laceration from the tip of your chin to the farthest end of your body. As if you were dissected like a fish. Even these words are not harsh enough to express the feeling. It is beyond one’s self, a painful death in a living state.

The next day you go to this “TDM” (which stands for Team Decision Meeting) where you take your adult son, your teenage son, your mother, sister, husband, and his brother who are all willing to take the child home with them “just in case”. The purpose of the meeting, as they tell you, is to “agree on a placement for the child”. Well everyone in the meeting agrees that the child should go home, everyone except the Social Worker that is. The Social Worker says she will do an “investigation” on the relatives, asking if any of them have ever been arrested, asks what they all do for a living, what their lifestyles are like, and then constructs a list of Strong Points and Weak Points.

It is actually about 3 days after that that you go to court where you meet your Public Defender for the first time and get handed a “report”. The Public Defender after handing the report, gives you a few moments to read it over before he speaks with you. You read the report where you learn you are just about to be “raped”.

The report reads: “Mother is under a doctor’s care for Mental Conditions that prevent her from parenting her child… Mother neglected to take the child to the doctor for over 3 years, placing the child in immediate or immanent danger” “NO FAMILY AVAILABLE REQUEST CONFIDENTIAL FOSTER HOME” “father has agreed with the child’s mother, despite knowledge that such actions could have potential negative effects on his well-being” “several dirty dishes were in the sink, and the children were living in dirty conditions” (never mind the fact that you took him to the doctor 3 months before for a cold, and even as soon as 2 ½ weeks ago he was released from the hospital where you took him for Strep Throat). Never mind the fact that your son has been to the doctor every time he was sick, and/or anytime there was even the slightest possibility of danger. The report makes allegations that the Social Worker pulled out of her butt, and got from nowhere else. YOU’RE SHOCKED! And looking up at the court room doors where you are going to be entering to answer for such allegations. No problem you think, I’ll just tell the
attorney to fight for me. Right?
WRONG!
Your Public Defender (Bob) comes back to speak to you, he tells you to “plea in the case”,, “WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING?? NO! I WILL NOT! I’M NOT GUILTY OF ANY OF THIS” you tell him. Bob then says to you “Yeah, yeah I’ve hear that all the time, I’m telling you, you will lose your children to adoption if you do not plea”. “ADOPTION?? WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ADOPTION?” “But Bob, I’m not guilty and I can PROVE every bit of it.” “Well, let’s just push the hearing up a few weeks and give you some time to think about it”.

You go home and spend every waking moment researching what is going on, how this all works, why this is happening, and how can they get away with this. You give up your business for the chase to get your child back from the clutches of such evil people, to protect him! Your business suffers, therefore your house payment suffers and soon it will be all gone! You learn some statistics like a child in Foster Care is 7-10 times more likely to DIE than if kept with the parents. You learn that Child Protective Services gets anywhere from $12,000 to upwards of $20,000 “PER CHILD” “PER MONTH”, and only has to pay out approximately 10% to the caregivers. You learn that in your county alone more than 3000 children are taken away EVERY MONTH. You become scared, very scared.
(oh and I forgot to mention, when the Social Worker took your child they placed him immediately into the hospital, putting him on I.V.s and giving him all kinds of other medications.. with NO PARENT allowed there, no familiar person to your frightened child.)
Afraid? You can’t sleep, you can’t eat, you can’t do anything but research, investigate, think of some kind of strategy, but.. you’re not an attorney. What to do?

You try to make sense of it all, speaking to as many people as you can, only to find out that the mere mention of your children being taken away, feeds an immediate judgment that YOU ARE GUILTY “what did YOU do WRONG?”. The conversation ends there, as no one will listen. They all believe you are guilty. No one will help. You start to speak with other parents, moms and dads who have also been put into the same situation. Parents fighting for their children, parents who also were lied about in court, and many were “FORCED” to give their children up for adoption.

Two weeks later, you go back to court. Bob tells you to “the Social Worker has agreed to let the child go home with his father if you plea in this case, if not he WILL go into a Foster Home TODAY!” You then ask him “is it true that a child is 7-10 times more likely to DIE in a foster home?” He answers “YES!”
Oh my god, Oh MY God! You are given no other choice, you must plea guilty.
Your attorney, along with the father’s attorney, the child’s (appointed attorney), the Social Worker’s attorney, clerk and judge are in the courtroom, where, YOU are not allowed. After they discuss your case, they sometimes call you into the courtroom, they read their agreement, and ask you if you agree. Then, 30 seconds later, it’s over and you are walking out.

Only, as agreed in court, they DO NOT return your child, as the judge ordered. They make excuses not to. You call your attorney, and he says he’ll talk to the SW, and call you back. He may, and he may not for a few days. (and that’s if you’re lucky enough to have an attorney that actually takes your calls, or calls you back)

During the time your son is in the hospital, you are allowed to see him the next day. You ask the doctor there; “why is my son in here?” the doctor replies “Oh it’s just routine maintenance, your child is NOT SICK”.

After asking the doctors several questions, and staying with your son, every day and every night while he’s in the hospital, the Social Worker gets nervous, this does not look good for her case against you, so she must get rid of you. One day, a security guard comes to your child’s room and tells you “you must leave”. WHAT? Why? You later learn that someone somewhere said you “want to slay the doctor and take your child out of state” (that in later reports turns into “slay the doctor and his family”) NONE OF WHICH IS TRUE (but you aren’t so surprised by now, because none of it is true, NONE OF IT!)
There is another court hearing to put you on “monitored visitations” for such allegations, and you are now only allowed to see your son 2 times per week for 2 hours at a time, only there is NO ONE to monitor your visits, so you are lucky if you get them.

Monitored Visitations: The Social Worker will set up a schedule they have no intention of keeping. Say your schedule is Tuesday and Thursday from 10am – 12pm. Well they will call you at 9 on Tues. and tell you they have to go to a meeting and need to reschedule. So they will ask you if Wednesday at 9am is ok. Being one of the lucky one’s that doesn’t actually work for someone else, you are able to accommodate any time schedule, only that makes them change it up even more, to find out what WILL BE the most inconvenient schedule they can come up with. (the purpose is to get you to say “no” so they can write up in their report “mother missed scheduled visit” or “mother unable to make visitation schedule” or “mother canceled visitation” (even if the Social Worker was the one to cancel)

The day you walked out of court (a Wednesday) the SW (a new one, because they have already changed Social Worker’s 3 times by now) tells the father “you can not take your child home, until you meet with the doctor (the same one that told the social worker “if you take the child I will get him a room at the hospital”. You know the one that only saw your child ONCE?!) You along with the father and your adult son go over to this doctors office to get “education on the medical needs of the child” (which there ARE NONE) per the Social Worker. They tell you you can not get an appointment for a month. The father fights and fights for several days to get a sooner appointment, so he can bring his baby home.

On Friday, two days after the court ordered your child to his father, you decide to move your other two boys into their father’s as well, so that when your little guy comes home he will have his entire family back, minus you. While moving your other children in, a Second and Third Social Worker show up to check on your one son that is has not been released by the social worker yet.   You inform them that you know you are not supposed to be there after he comes home, however he’s still in the Orphanage. The very nice lady says “I’ll check with the first Social Worker to find out why they didn’t tell me” The next day, the first Social Worker leaves a message on the father’s voice mail stating “the mother is to be  OUT OF THE PICTURE COMPLETELY.. I CAN HAVE HIM PULLED AND THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF RETURN” threatening yet again, for approximately the 30^th time by now “ADOPTION”.

Once the father does bring the child home, the following day, the Social Worker calls and says that now the adult son needs such training or the child will be taken again, she also demands the adult brother take CPR training. (Though you research and the WIC codes state 362.04 (a),(e),(f) that they can not demand such training (paraphrased).

You call the Social Worker’s Supervisor and ask that he look into what the Social Worker is doing, and explain there was NO INVESTIGATION made, and the allegations are all false. He says back to you” I will not investigate the case, that is her job, I will not check to see what she is doing” You learn that he too is aware, as though this is common practice.

You know, you have this gut feeling, they are going to take your child again. You just know.

Two weeks after your son went home with his father, there is a doctor’s appointment where the second Social Worker and your adult son and the father attend, you have been banned from all appointments. During this time, the father asks the doctor attending, “we are here to give my adult son ‘training’. The doctor says “do you know how to read a prescription bottle?” “yes” your son says. “that’s all the training you need”.

The following day, the first Social Worker comes to take you son again, stating “the adult son didn’t have training”. (Oh but now.. we know this is not true, and there was even a Social Worker there, unbeknown to the first Social Worker) Your child is put back into the Orphanage. While you are on your monitored visits, you are told “don’t kiss your son, don’t hug him for any amount of time, and don’t let him (though very despondent, depressed, confused, crying, and scared) sleep on your lap. If you do it will not look good in the reports to the court. (you later learn, through more research, that this is how they try to separate the “bond” between you and your child.

Each statement by Social Workers, each report, each action is to set the ground work for Adoption.
Why? Money!

The process goes on. You are told if you accept “services” you will get your son back within 6 months, however the court hearings are continued each time, to extend the process out longer. You are NEVER allowed to defend yourself, your child’s attorney never even meets the child. AND KNOW THIS: after 12-18 months (no longer than 18 months) the child MUST BE ORDERED TO A PERMANENT PLACEMENT and you can pretty much guarantee it will NOT be with you!

The services they tell you to go to, are not even ordered for several months, so you will not be able to complete them by the time the case must be decided on. The hours of the “classes” and the “therapy” and the visitations, make it almost impossible for you to complete. The visits are sometimes scheduled during your other appointments they put you through, and if you can not do ‘both’ at the same time, then it is written up that you are either missing them, or “refused”. You know this is not true. But this is what the reports say. Upon the 6 month review, they tell you they will ‘drop the monitor and allow you to be with your child, if you agree that all reports against you are correct” now, you haven’t seen your child much in the past 6 months, so you are at the mercy of these evil people. You make another coerced decision, for the sake your son, your family, yourself. Only to, yet again find you were lied to. They took off the monitor, that is also a Social Worker, but placed you on monitored visits with the father being the monitor (remember you are very good friends, so this is not the worst thing that could happen). The Social Worker tells you, they will lift the monitor completely if “you attend a doctor’s appointment to be trained”. Two months go by, and you attend the doctors appointment (by now you have realized to take a digital tape recorder with you were ever you go, and tape the entire time.. thankfully). During that doctor’s appointment, your Social Worker says “your monitor is now lifted completely, aren’t you happy? I will send it to the courts so that it will be reflected on the record”. Great! Now you are able to see your son (after 8 months) any time! The next hearing, 2 weeks later, you get the report (they are always handed out minutes before your hearing … that again you are not allowed to be a physical party to). The report states “16 hours per week of liberal unmonitored visits”.
ANGER?? Can you say ANGER?

The above events are true, don’t think this can’t happen to you, because this is exactly what happened to me.

Now what?

In my next post I will uncover the truths of Charities and Foundations involved in this corruption. I’ll discuss how the Judges are on the Board of Directors to the Adoption Agencies. How Social Services does Fund raisers for United Way, where the money comes back to Social Services. I’ll tell about how the Social Workers get bonuses for each adoption they force, and how Federal taxes are are being used to take children from their homes.

http://www.amiablyme.wordpress.com

CPS Workers Admit to Falsifying Documents

Government Kidnaps Your Children for Money

This is only ONE story of the horrors families and children all over are facing each day. In Orange County California alone, over 3000 children are taken each month. I’ve been told that number is conservative, and is more like 4700, though I haven’t verified that as of yet.
I was also told by a CPS (Social Worker) that over 50% of the children come from average, good homes. That means these children could be yours. At the rate this is happening… It is only a matter of time, and it will be your child too. Imagine for one moment, your child being traumatized, kidnapped by strangers, not being able to call you, then being told YOU did something wrong and are “UNABLE TO CARE FOR THEM”.
I will tell more about how this happens in a later blog.
This CAN happen to you.. No one is immune!