Comments on: Elle “science writer” lets down Maggiore http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm Reviewing scientific paradigms and other general beliefs in the light of the scientific amd professional literature Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:03:45 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Truthseeker http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4214 Truthseeker Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:45:13 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm#comment-4214 Christine Maggiore writes today <br /> <br />Many of you asked how we can help Dr Fleiss. <br /> <br />Here is contact information for the Medical Board of California where calls, letters, faxes and/or emails concerning the charges against him can be sent. <br /> <br />Medical Board of California <br />1426 Howe Avenue, #54 <br />Sacramento, CA 95825 <br />Tel 916-263-2389 <br />Fax 916-263-2387 <br />E-mail: Webmaster@medbd.ca.gov <br /> <br />Board President: Steve Alexander <br />Division of Licensing President: Richard D. Fantozzi, M.D. <br />Division of Medical Quality President: Cesar Aristeiguieta, M.D. <br /> <br />The following excerpt of an article by medical journalist Marcus Cohen shows how awareness and outcry helped another doctor falsely charged by the Medical Board of California. <br /> <br />Thank you Marcus, and thanks to all who speak up for justice. <br /> <br />TOWNSEND LETTER FOR DOCTORS <br /> <br />Tale of Medical License Suspension Vigorously Opposed and Overturned <br />by Marcus A. Cohen <br /> <br />An earlier series in Townsend (2001-2003) documented disciplinary actions [by state medical boards] which flouted laws and regulations meant to insure fair proceedings. That series also suggested that the word "proceedings" for those actions is too mild, too neutral. If one scrutinizes and adds up the due process abuses reported, and calculates the losses in pocket and reputation to doctors - omitting the "collateral damage" to patients dependent on improperly tried MDs – one carries away the impression that these flawed investigations and prosecutions resemble back-alley muggings more than they do the orderly, civil administrative hearings they are presumed to be. <br /> <br />Townsend readers are prone to believe that state medical boards disproportionately target providers of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). True, but in general the boards seem to train their sights at physicians who, having distanced themselves from the herd, make easy prey. Doctors specializing in CAM by definition depart from community practice. Others get hit for using standard therapies in ways frowned on by a majority of mainstream practitioners, for instance; MDs who treat chronic Lyme disease with long-term IV antibiotics. Others appear to wander under fire largely because they have solo practices and often treat patients without supervision by institutional review boards (IRBs). Still others are tracked by insurers who find the treatments given by these doctors in conflict with patterns of use that the insurers approve; the insurers then notify the state medical boards, calling for penalties to force the doctors to conform to insurance industry standards. <br /> <br />Lately, I've heard allegations of racial and ethnic bias in state medical board disciplinary actions. The prejudice seems chiefly directed at black MDs, including physicians born and medically trained in the US and those born and educated in medical schools abroad. Since 9/11, in at least several states, the proportion of MDs with names common in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent has risen noticeably. I'm now investigating these apparently prejudiced prosecutions. <br /> <br />This column tells about MDs whose licenses were suspended, who then refused to serve as game animals, hiding in the tall grass to escape detection or pursuit, and pounced back on their attackers. One case, dating to the mid-1990s, involved the California medical board; I detail this case here. The second, quite recent, involves the OPMC; I mention it here for its precedent-setting value but reserve extended coverage for a column in the near future. In both, political factors appear to be the prime activators. <br /> <br />Dr. Rosalind Scott is the first black women to earn board certification in cardio-thoracic surgery. In 1995, she held the position of Assistant Chief of Surgery at Martin Luther King, Jr., Hospital and Medical Center, situated in a black neighborhood in Los Angeles. At the time, the Chief of Surgery was black, too. Many attending and resident physicians were black. <br /> <br />One evening, the surgical chief asked her to stand in and supervise recoveries from emergency surgery, a duty routinely requiring the supervising physician to drop into intensive care units periodically to assure that no medical problems were cropping up. <br /> <br />That evening, the first Asian member of the LAPD blundered or had the misfortune of sticking his face into a botched drug bust in the neighborhood served by Martin Luther King. Rushed to this hospital with 14 bullets in him, the trauma staff fought to save his life, giving him 22 pints of blood. To no one's great surprise, he succumbed two days later. <br /> <br />Gil Garcetti was the LA District Attorney in those days. He had gained national attention by indicting O.J. Simpson for murder, and reportedly was ticked after the case went to trial and the jury cleared Simpson. Garcetti reacted to the death of the Asian law enforcement officer by convening a grand jury and trying to bully its members into indicting Dr. Scott for Murder 2. When the jury wouldn't swallow that, he again sought to bully it into indicting Dr. Scott for manslaughter. The jury also gagged at that. Garcetti's abuse of the grand jury in this matter is on public record, and considering the fact that Dr. Scott wasn't directly involved in the officer's treatment, that death was the likely outcome of his profuse wounds and loss of blood, Garcetti's thirst for an indictment seems unreasonable, even bizarre. <br /> <br />Apparently frustrated by the grand jury's rebuff, Garcetti sent information to the California medical board, prodding them to investigate Scott. Without conducting an investigation, as required by state law, the board suspended her license to practice. <br /> <br />Scott's initial response was to keep a low profile and deal with the suspension as a matter for her and the California board to thrash out - the first reaction by most MDs hit with crippling disciplinary penalties (with or without advice from defense lawyers). Some time after assuming this defensive posture, a lawyer counseled her to go public, and to enlist support from colleagues. <br /> <br />The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appealed to the board, which is required by law to provide a time period for public comments on its cases. Next, the American Board of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons wrote on Scott's behalf [recognizing] that what had befallen Dr. Scott could befall any of its members. Finally, the California Medical Association (CMA) weighed in. <br /> <br />Several very distinguished black physicians added their support, foremost among them, Dr. Eddie Hoover in Buffalo, NY, a cardio-thoracic surgeon then serving as president of the Society of Black Surgeons. Dr. Hoover also persuaded the Society to send a sizable contribution to Dr. Scott's defense fund. <br /> <br />Bit by bit, an action that the California medical board had taken, probably thinking that the worst consequence might be a controllable local outcry, had exploded into a national protest by supporters of Dr. Scott who were too powerful to fob off. <br /> <br />Squirming under the intensifying heat of numerous spotlights, the California agency resorted to a habitual expedient by medical boards in wiping egg off their faces – without signaling that they were caving under pressure. They ordered Dr. Scott to submit to a test of her fitness to resume practice, appointed a cardio-thoracic specialist to test her, and set an exam date. Sixty days later, the medical board issued a two-sentence ruling, stating in effect that they had dismissed their case against her: no apologies for barring her from practice and preventing her from earning income from her profession for two years, for stigmatization in the media, for emotional duress suffered throughout her unjustified ordeal. <br /> <br />Few physicians can count on the solid outpouring of support that Dr. Scott mustered. A crucial impediment is the fear of reprisal by state boards. MDs who testify in person or in writing on behalf of colleagues under investigation or trial can face investigation and even prosecution themselves. Intimidation of friendly witnesses has been reliably documented, particularly among CAM practitioners. <br /> <br />The defense usually advised by attorneys savvy to the strong-arm tactics and threats of state medical boards is a negotiated settlement (where the health commissioner or prosecutors are not panting in pursuit of a doctor and may consent). Instead of imposition of the penalty proposed, the MD accepts a less severe form of discipline, and flees away rapidly, content to keep his or her license, relieved to be released with skin intact. <br /> <br />Less often, physicians aggrieved over charges of professional misconduct believed by them to be unwarranted, convinced that the medical board is incapable of hearing them fairly, will go to state court and ask it to stay the proceedings and rule on the fairness of the hearing. Almost routinely, the court orders them back into hearings, telling them to return if they still believe they haven't gotten a fair shake - after the conclusion of the administrative process. At that point, if they've been suspended or they've had their license revoked, and they're in a state whose laws forbid them to practice while appealing a disciplinary action, they'll sooner or later be strapped for money to continue the appeal; there's no current practice income, and they've exhausted their savings. <br /> <br />When Dr. Antonia Novello, NY's commissioner of health, summarily suspended Dr. Mario DiBlasio's license in 2000, this NY radiologist sued her for malicious prosecution in the Federal court (2002); he brought suit only after a health department hearing panel had dismissed his case. <br /> <br />The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued a decision (2003) holding that Novello and her co-defendants were not protected by absolute immunity while performing their official duties, and that Section 230 of the NY Public Health Law inadequately protected physicians from wrongful deprivation of their professional licenses. <br /> <br />For a complete copy of the article excerpted here, please send a request by email to Marcusacohen@aol.com. Christine Maggiore writes today

Many of you asked how we can help Dr Fleiss.

Here is contact information for the Medical Board of California where calls, letters, faxes and/or emails concerning the charges against him can be sent.

Medical Board of California

1426 Howe Avenue, #54

Sacramento, CA 95825

Tel 916-263-2389

Fax 916-263-2387

E-mail: Webmaster@medbd.ca.gov

Board President: Steve Alexander

Division of Licensing President: Richard D. Fantozzi, M.D.

Division of Medical Quality President: Cesar Aristeiguieta, M.D.

The following excerpt of an article by medical journalist Marcus Cohen shows how awareness and outcry helped another doctor falsely charged by the Medical Board of California.

Thank you Marcus, and thanks to all who speak up for justice.

TOWNSEND LETTER FOR DOCTORS

Tale of Medical License Suspension Vigorously Opposed and Overturned

by Marcus A. Cohen

An earlier series in Townsend (2001-2003) documented disciplinary actions [by state medical boards] which flouted laws and regulations meant to insure fair proceedings. That series also suggested that the word “proceedings” for those actions is too mild, too neutral. If one scrutinizes and adds up the due process abuses reported, and calculates the losses in pocket and reputation to doctors – omitting the “collateral damage” to patients dependent on improperly tried MDs – one carries away the impression that these flawed investigations and prosecutions resemble back-alley muggings more than they do the orderly, civil administrative hearings they are presumed to be.

Townsend readers are prone to believe that state medical boards disproportionately target providers of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). True, but in general the boards seem to train their sights at physicians who, having distanced themselves from the herd, make easy prey. Doctors specializing in CAM by definition depart from community practice. Others get hit for using standard therapies in ways frowned on by a majority of mainstream practitioners, for instance; MDs who treat chronic Lyme disease with long-term IV antibiotics. Others appear to wander under fire largely because they have solo practices and often treat patients without supervision by institutional review boards (IRBs). Still others are tracked by insurers who find the treatments given by these doctors in conflict with patterns of use that the insurers approve; the insurers then notify the state medical boards, calling for penalties to force the doctors to conform to insurance industry standards.

Lately, I’ve heard allegations of racial and ethnic bias in state medical board disciplinary actions. The prejudice seems chiefly directed at black MDs, including physicians born and medically trained in the US and those born and educated in medical schools abroad. Since 9/11, in at least several states, the proportion of MDs with names common in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent has risen noticeably. I’m now investigating these apparently prejudiced prosecutions.

This column tells about MDs whose licenses were suspended, who then refused to serve as game animals, hiding in the tall grass to escape detection or pursuit, and pounced back on their attackers. One case, dating to the mid-1990s, involved the California medical board; I detail this case here. The second, quite recent, involves the OPMC; I mention it here for its precedent-setting value but reserve extended coverage for a column in the near future. In both, political factors appear to be the prime activators.

Dr. Rosalind Scott is the first black women to earn board certification in cardio-thoracic surgery. In 1995, she held the position of Assistant Chief of Surgery at Martin Luther King, Jr., Hospital and Medical Center, situated in a black neighborhood in Los Angeles. At the time, the Chief of Surgery was black, too. Many attending and resident physicians were black.

One evening, the surgical chief asked her to stand in and supervise recoveries from emergency surgery, a duty routinely requiring the supervising physician to drop into intensive care units periodically to assure that no medical problems were cropping up.

That evening, the first Asian member of the LAPD blundered or had the misfortune of sticking his face into a botched drug bust in the neighborhood served by Martin Luther King. Rushed to this hospital with 14 bullets in him, the trauma staff fought to save his life, giving him 22 pints of blood. To no one’s great surprise, he succumbed two days later.

Gil Garcetti was the LA District Attorney in those days. He had gained national attention by indicting O.J. Simpson for murder, and reportedly was ticked after the case went to trial and the jury cleared Simpson. Garcetti reacted to the death of the Asian law enforcement officer by convening a grand jury and trying to bully its members into indicting Dr. Scott for Murder 2. When the jury wouldn’t swallow that, he again sought to bully it into indicting Dr. Scott for manslaughter. The jury also gagged at that. Garcetti’s abuse of the grand jury in this matter is on public record, and considering the fact that Dr. Scott wasn’t directly involved in the officer’s treatment, that death was the likely outcome of his profuse wounds and loss of blood, Garcetti’s thirst for an indictment seems unreasonable, even bizarre.

Apparently frustrated by the grand jury’s rebuff, Garcetti sent information to the California medical board, prodding them to investigate Scott. Without conducting an investigation, as required by state law, the board suspended her license to practice.

Scott’s initial response was to keep a low profile and deal with the suspension as a matter for her and the California board to thrash out – the first reaction by most MDs hit with crippling disciplinary penalties (with or without advice from defense lawyers). Some time after assuming this defensive posture, a lawyer counseled her to go public, and to enlist support from colleagues.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appealed to the board, which is required by law to provide a time period for public comments on its cases. Next, the American Board of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons wrote on Scott’s behalf [recognizing] that what had befallen Dr. Scott could befall any of its members. Finally, the California Medical Association (CMA) weighed in.

Several very distinguished black physicians added their support, foremost among them, Dr. Eddie Hoover in Buffalo, NY, a cardio-thoracic surgeon then serving as president of the Society of Black Surgeons. Dr. Hoover also persuaded the Society to send a sizable contribution to Dr. Scott’s defense fund.

Bit by bit, an action that the California medical board had taken, probably thinking that the worst consequence might be a controllable local outcry, had exploded into a national protest by supporters of Dr. Scott who were too powerful to fob off.

Squirming under the intensifying heat of numerous spotlights, the California agency resorted to a habitual expedient by medical boards in wiping egg off their faces – without signaling that they were caving under pressure. They ordered Dr. Scott to submit to a test of her fitness to resume practice, appointed a cardio-thoracic specialist to test her, and set an exam date. Sixty days later, the medical board issued a two-sentence ruling, stating in effect that they had dismissed their case against her: no apologies for barring her from practice and preventing her from earning income from her profession for two years, for stigmatization in the media, for emotional duress suffered throughout her unjustified ordeal.

Few physicians can count on the solid outpouring of support that Dr. Scott mustered. A crucial impediment is the fear of reprisal by state boards. MDs who testify in person or in writing on behalf of colleagues under investigation or trial can face investigation and even prosecution themselves. Intimidation of friendly witnesses has been reliably documented, particularly among CAM practitioners.

The defense usually advised by attorneys savvy to the strong-arm tactics and threats of state medical boards is a negotiated settlement (where the health commissioner or prosecutors are not panting in pursuit of a doctor and may consent). Instead of imposition of the penalty proposed, the MD accepts a less severe form of discipline, and flees away rapidly, content to keep his or her license, relieved to be released with skin intact.

Less often, physicians aggrieved over charges of professional misconduct believed by them to be unwarranted, convinced that the medical board is incapable of hearing them fairly, will go to state court and ask it to stay the proceedings and rule on the fairness of the hearing. Almost routinely, the court orders them back into hearings, telling them to return if they still believe they haven’t gotten a fair shake – after the conclusion of the administrative process. At that point, if they’ve been suspended or they’ve had their license revoked, and they’re in a state whose laws forbid them to practice while appealing a disciplinary action, they’ll sooner or later be strapped for money to continue the appeal; there’s no current practice income, and they’ve exhausted their savings.

When Dr. Antonia Novello, NY’s commissioner of health, summarily suspended Dr. Mario DiBlasio’s license in 2000, this NY radiologist sued her for malicious prosecution in the Federal court (2002); he brought suit only after a health department hearing panel had dismissed his case.

The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued a decision (2003) holding that Novello and her co-defendants were not protected by absolute immunity while performing their official duties, and that Section 230 of the NY Public Health Law inadequately protected physicians from wrongful deprivation of their professional licenses.

For a complete copy of the article excerpted here, please send a request by email to Marcusacohen@aol.com.

]]> By: Truthseeker http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4213 Truthseeker Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:43:06 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm#comment-4213 Michael Geiger writes: <br /> <br />â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€" <br />L.A. County D.A. Won't Act in Girl's AIDS-Related Death <br />â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€" <br /> <br />There is too little evidence to charge Christine Maggiore in the death of her daughter, but a state panel accuses Dr. Paul Fleiss of gross negligence. <br /> <br />By Charles Ornstein <br />Times Staff Writer <br /> <br />September 16 2006 <br /> <br />The Los Angeles County district attorney's office said Friday that it would not file criminal neglect charges against prominent HIV skeptic Christine Maggiore, whose daughter died last year of what the county coroner ruled was AIDS-related pneumonia. <br /> <br />The complete article can be viewed at:<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-aidsmom16sep16,1,4434901.story?coll=la-health-medicine" rel="nofollow">L.A. County D.A. Won't Act in Girl's AIDS-Related Death</a> <br /> <br />Visit <a href="latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com" rel="nofollow">Los Angeles Times</a> <br /> <br /> <br />Christine Maggiore writes: <br /> <br />On the year anniversary of the release of Eliza Jane's autopsy report, as I was watering the bougainvillea plant immortalized in Elle magazine, Charles Ornstein of the LA Times phoned requesting an interview on today's announcement from the District Attorney's office about charges in the EJ case. <br /> <br />My heart began to pound. "What announcement?" I asked, wondering if these would be my last words before squad cars rounded the coroner and I was handcuffed and hauled away with the hose still running. <br /> <br />Instead, I learned from Ornstein (who always seems to know more about my life than I do) that the District Attorney closed the criminal investigation against me today with no charges filed. <br /> <br />After all I've been through, I had only one thought in mind: Get a tape recorder. <br /> <br />The conversation I taped with Ornstein will post to the JusticeForEJ.com web site as soon as I can figure out how to do that, so at least one uncensored, unedited, unadulterated version of the facts will exist in the public record. <br /> <br />I have no idea what will appear in the LA Times tomorrow, but get the feeling it will focus on what Ornstein told me when he called back an hour later: Dr Paul Fleissâ€"our honest, brave, and kind hearted pediatricianâ€"has been charged with negligence by the state medical board for his handling of Eliza Jane's non-existent pneumonia. <br /> <br />Robin and I are devastated to learn of this horrific new injustice and hope that those of you who know and love Dr Fleiss will join us in supporting him and his courageous support of informed choice. Michael Geiger writes:

——————————

L.A. County D.A. Won’t Act in Girl’s AIDS-Related Death

——————————

There is too little evidence to charge Christine Maggiore in the death of her daughter, but a state panel accuses Dr. Paul Fleiss of gross negligence.

By Charles Ornstein

Times Staff Writer

September 16 2006

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said Friday that it would not file criminal neglect charges against prominent HIV skeptic Christine Maggiore, whose daughter died last year of what the county coroner ruled was AIDS-related pneumonia.

The complete article can be viewed at:L.A. County D.A. Won’t Act in Girl’s AIDS-Related Death

Visit http://www.latimes.com” rel=”nofollow”>Los Angeles Times

Christine Maggiore writes:

On the year anniversary of the release of Eliza Jane’s autopsy report, as I was watering the bougainvillea plant immortalized in Elle magazine, Charles Ornstein of the LA Times phoned requesting an interview on today’s announcement from the District Attorney’s office about charges in the EJ case.

My heart began to pound. “What announcement?” I asked, wondering if these would be my last words before squad cars rounded the coroner and I was handcuffed and hauled away with the hose still running.

Instead, I learned from Ornstein (who always seems to know more about my life than I do) that the District Attorney closed the criminal investigation against me today with no charges filed.

After all I’ve been through, I had only one thought in mind: Get a tape recorder.

The conversation I taped with Ornstein will post to the JusticeForEJ.com web site as soon as I can figure out how to do that, so at least one uncensored, unedited, unadulterated version of the facts will exist in the public record.

I have no idea what will appear in the LA Times tomorrow, but get the feeling it will focus on what Ornstein told me when he called back an hour later: Dr Paul Fleiss—our honest, brave, and kind hearted pediatrician—has been charged with negligence by the state medical board for his handling of Eliza Jane’s non-existent pneumonia.

Robin and I are devastated to learn of this horrific new injustice and hope that those of you who know and love Dr Fleiss will join us in supporting him and his courageous support of informed choice.

]]> By: Truthseeker http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4212 Truthseeker Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:36:05 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm#comment-4212 Before adding some comments on the current developments, we think it should be noted that Christine in an email earlier commented on the concern in the post that she had not emphasized usfficiently that mainstream literature supports everything she says, saying that was not the problem, the problem was the closed mind of the journalist: <br /> <br /><i>Regarding the mistake you say I made with Gretchen Reynolds, I don't agree. There was no lack of references for what we discussed. What was lacking, unbeknownst to me, was her interest in the facts. <br /> <br />Reynolds presented herself as a science writer assigned to a report on outstanding questions about HIV raised by so-called AIDS rethinkers. The article would mention but not focus on me, and include me as one of many raising these questions. My daughter's death would be a part of the story only because it's a part of my life. With this description in mind, I gave Reynolds contact information for several doctors and scientists, as well as for healthy HIV positives not taking the drugs, along with ones who were healthy before taking them and who then recovered their health after stopping treatments. I am just now learning that none of these people ever heard from Reynolds. <br /> <br />Becasue Reynolds seemed intelligent and well intentioned, we met at my home which has a well stocked library of books and publications on the AIDS discussion, photocopies of test kit inserts and other information. She did not ask for copies of anything to take with her. I wasn't concerned because it's pretty much all on the internet. <br /> <br />My mistake was taking Reynolds at her word and not having a tape recorder running. I always record interviews. But since she seemed smart and fair minded, and I needed to go pick up Charlie at school while we spoke, I let down my guard. Reynolds came with me to meet him and we sat on a bench under a tree and talked while he played with his friends. <br /> <br />Never again will I not have a tape recorder at an interview, not even for Oprah. <br /> <br />With regard to your comments that the article isn't too terribly awful, it may not seem so bad to someone who doesn't stand accused of killing their child. Reynolds' dishonest tale does more than hurt me emotionally and socially, it actually puts me in harm's way. The way Reynolds spins it, I come off as someone who let her daughter suffer due to bullheaded adherence to an ideology and without taking proper helpful action to save the child's life, and worse still, I remain "in denial" about it all. On top of that, I am described as emaciated and ill, which makes it seem I'm also "in denail" about my own health. <br /> <br />Suggestions that I am ill has become a common theme in articles that seek to hurt me--the writers make me ill, literally. Some insinuate illnesses with made up or exaggerated symptoms, others blatantly claim "Maggiore has at least one AIDS defining illness," when in fact, I have not and do not. And of course, none mention the incredible strength it's taken to live through the loss of my beautiful little girl and the threat of losing my precious son to state custody plus all the accusations and investigations--and without so much as a cold sore. Instead, they take the slightest thing, in this case a root canal gone bad, and turn it into a 12 month battle with "an excruciating mouth abcess." <br /> <br />Why? Why lie to tell a story if the story is true?</i> <br /> <br />Points taken, Christine. The decline of journalism can have really appalling effects in cases like this when it really matters that it is done well. Let's hope that many people realize how unreliable it can be. Before adding some comments on the current developments, we think it should be noted that Christine in an email earlier commented on the concern in the post that she had not emphasized usfficiently that mainstream literature supports everything she says, saying that was not the problem, the problem was the closed mind of the journalist:

Regarding the mistake you say I made with Gretchen Reynolds, I don’t agree. There was no lack of references for what we discussed. What was lacking, unbeknownst to me, was her interest in the facts.

Reynolds presented herself as a science writer assigned to a report on outstanding questions about HIV raised by so-called AIDS rethinkers. The article would mention but not focus on me, and include me as one of many raising these questions. My daughter’s death would be a part of the story only because it’s a part of my life. With this description in mind, I gave Reynolds contact information for several doctors and scientists, as well as for healthy HIV positives not taking the drugs, along with ones who were healthy before taking them and who then recovered their health after stopping treatments. I am just now learning that none of these people ever heard from Reynolds.

Becasue Reynolds seemed intelligent and well intentioned, we met at my home which has a well stocked library of books and publications on the AIDS discussion, photocopies of test kit inserts and other information. She did not ask for copies of anything to take with her. I wasn’t concerned because it’s pretty much all on the internet.

My mistake was taking Reynolds at her word and not having a tape recorder running. I always record interviews. But since she seemed smart and fair minded, and I needed to go pick up Charlie at school while we spoke, I let down my guard. Reynolds came with me to meet him and we sat on a bench under a tree and talked while he played with his friends.

Never again will I not have a tape recorder at an interview, not even for Oprah.

With regard to your comments that the article isn’t too terribly awful, it may not seem so bad to someone who doesn’t stand accused of killing their child. Reynolds’ dishonest tale does more than hurt me emotionally and socially, it actually puts me in harm’s way. The way Reynolds spins it, I come off as someone who let her daughter suffer due to bullheaded adherence to an ideology and without taking proper helpful action to save the child’s life, and worse still, I remain “in denial” about it all. On top of that, I am described as emaciated and ill, which makes it seem I’m also “in denail” about my own health.

Suggestions that I am ill has become a common theme in articles that seek to hurt me–the writers make me ill, literally. Some insinuate illnesses with made up or exaggerated symptoms, others blatantly claim “Maggiore has at least one AIDS defining illness,” when in fact, I have not and do not. And of course, none mention the incredible strength it’s taken to live through the loss of my beautiful little girl and the threat of losing my precious son to state custody plus all the accusations and investigations–and without so much as a cold sore. Instead, they take the slightest thing, in this case a root canal gone bad, and turn it into a 12 month battle with “an excruciating mouth abcess.”

Why? Why lie to tell a story if the story is true?

Points taken, Christine. The decline of journalism can have really appalling effects in cases like this when it really matters that it is done well. Let’s hope that many people realize how unreliable it can be.

]]> By: Dan http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4211 Dan Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:00:16 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/elle-science-writer-lets-down-maggiore.htm#comment-4211 <i>Situations similar to Maggiore's merit our verbal outrage, despite nohiv's call for us to wait for the orthodoxy's/coroner's finding. Why? The opposing view has been vocal on blogs, media articles and letters to the editors.</i> <br /> <br />I agree. The orthodoxy has been misleading the public for more than 20 years. There's no reason whatsoever to wait (for anything) to speak out. Unless - you're a pollyanna that believes the good folks who are making so much money off of this construct will decide to correct themselves. You may die of old age before that happens. Each to his/her own, though. Situations similar to Maggiore’s merit our verbal outrage, despite nohiv’s call for us to wait for the orthodoxy’s/coroner’s finding. Why? The opposing view has been vocal on blogs, media articles and letters to the editors.

I agree. The orthodoxy has been misleading the public for more than 20 years. There’s no reason whatsoever to wait (for anything) to speak out. Unless – you’re a pollyanna that believes the good folks who are making so much money off of this construct will decide to correct themselves. You may die of old age before that happens. Each to his/her own, though.

]]>