Saturday, January 31, 2009

Mike Adams' Virtual Stoning of Jason Cairns

The following is simply all my own opinions and observations. I have no proof of anything regarding this situation either way. I'm just writing about it and speculating, as usual.

I'm still upset for what Mike Adams of has done to Jason Cairns of and though I'm sure I'll let it go soon, I'm not quite ready to do so just yet. Mike doesn't seem to be ready to let go of anything either.

I know a lot of people think that this should just go away and blue skies and rainbows should appear and we should all dance into the sunset. I'm sorry but I do not believe in putting my head in the sand. Things do not go away by ignoring them. It just gives unscrupulous people a chance to do their thing with minimal interference. If you are a spiritual person, a "The Secret" type of person, then maybe you are suppose to take that spiritual strength that your building and use it to tackle the reality that is in front of you instead of burying your nose in your navel and pretending nothing but good exists. That's a trap that appears to be the easy way out, but it's not. If you allow something the opportunity to get worse because you ignore it then it probably will get worse. Look at the state of America today. Your attention just may be the bucket of water that puts out a fire that would otherwise burn out of control.

Why do I care so much?

The Natural Health movement has enough problems to tackle without people like Mike Adams coming along and making it a big ego trip and acting like they have exclusive rights to a subject. Mike scours the ALREADY WRITTEN NEWS, changes the words around and acts like he made a discovery. If you want to get the news that Mike puts out a day before he does, just put in some keywords to Google news and let the internet bring it to you, then watch how it shows up on within the next few days slightly rewritten to Mike's style. contains very little original news people. Shall we do some comparison and then accuse Mike Adams of plagiarizing the AP, Reuters, etc...?

Gary Null has done the same thing and I've written about him also here and here. It's not about Mike Adams or Gary Null. They have not revealed any previously undiscovered news. They do not have exclusive rights to take the news and make it theirs. People like this just end up nullifying (no pun intended, but it works) all the good work done by making it more and more about themselves than about the mission.

I don't like being upset with these big players that are supposedly on the same side that I'm on. But fat headed egos are what has gotten this world into so much trouble already and WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE. I find these situations to be very upsetting, frustrating and sad. Why do they have to act this way?

I also care because if it can happen to Jason, it can happen to me or you or anyone else who is defenseless against such wrath. If someone with the readership and influence that Mike Adams of NaturalNews has can simply decide that they suspect someone of doing something they don't like and can then direct their influence over their readership to carry out their wishes against that person, who will then do it without much question, then that's pretty scary. Just because some people are able to attain power and/or influence does not mean they deserve to have it or that they will not abuse it. That should be pretty obvious to just about anyone by now. And guess what? Regardless of what he thinks of himself, Mike Adams is just a human being subject to the same flaws as the rest of us. Most of us are just more willing to admit it.

Is it really OK to endanger another persons life, put them through hell and shred their budding reputation as a fellow natural health advocate for something so trivial? I say trivial because I do not believe that Jason Cairns was being consciously malicious - unlike Mike Adams has been. Mike Adams instigated the violence by writing the article encouraging people to harass Jason as well as publishing Jason's personal info. Jason's info could, admittedly, be found on the web if you know where to look, so it was already out there. But, the phone number was not correct and another innocent person is paying for that. Mike made it very easy by handing it out. Most people would not have taken the time to search out Jason's personal info on their own. Of course none of those people would have done anything if Mike Adams hadn't directly encouraged them to act.

For all you people who followed Mr. Adams orders out of sheer blind loyalty, you are just a bunch of mindless sheep following yet another authority figure so you don't have to use your own freaking brains for anything. You will eventually end up being a target of people like Mike Adams. Mike is well aware that 70 Percent of People will Torture Others if Ordered. Even if Jason did everything Mike is accusing him of, becoming a vigilante mob is, in my opinion, not the most enlightened answer to the situation.

I don't think it's right that Mike Adams can do what he did to Jason Cairns on the World Wide Web and then, when he achieves his objective, simply delete the article that instigated the "escalating violence" from his site so most people will never see how it got started and yet continue his character assassination of Jason anyway. It's like he shot Jason and then ditched the gun and picked up a knife. So, the article is reprinted at the bottom of my rant. Mike says he removed it to stop the violence that it inspired, but I think he mainly wanted to cover his ass because his objective was plainly to get as many people as possible to harass and threaten a single individual via email, telephone and physical address for what is looking more and more to me like nothing but an error, a MISTAKE! Thousands against one is not exactly a fair fight. Mike knew that when he put that article out there, it would stay out there regardless of whether he removed it from his site or not. You cannot convince me that Mike did not know exactly what he was doing. Mike Adams truly abused his power this week.... And he is showing no signs of letting up.

Mike Adams has written an email update to this situation still accusing Jason of extreme wrong doing and yet Jason has apologized several times publicly, has corrected his errors and apologized some more. To hear Jason tell it he has complied with everything Mike Adams has requested... What happened between then and Mike's latest assault?

>From Mike's latest email update on this matter: - (Bold parentheses mine):

"As far as the update on the web content pirate goes, the guy has turned out to be quite a trickster. He insisted I call him to resolve the issue, but his phone was disconnected (The number for Jason that Mike published was old and so now, per Jason who has been contacted by attorneys, an innocent person is receiving harassing phone calls and is having to seek legal action). He emailed me and promised a public apology for pirating NaturalNews content, then went back on his word. (Really?) He claims he didn't know that stealing other peoples' work was wrong (Again, Mike is accusing Jason of being criminally libel without presenting anything but circumstantial evidence - I don't think Jason didn't know that stealing other peoples' work was wrong, but that he did not realize that he was stealing in the first place - there is a big difference), and he's suckered in quite a few people (I guess I would be one of those people but I only feel suckered by Mike Adams) by playing the victim here, claiming he's the "small guy" attacked by the NaturalNews "Goliath."

Well, I have news for everyone: I'm the small guy! (Global traffic - 853k monthly) NaturalNews is run by a tiny group of people (If you have a staff - paid or not - your not a "small guy"), and I'm 100% volunteer. I don't get paid a dime by NaturalNews (He makes his money somewhere), and I'm up against Big Pharma and the FDA, fighting for our health freedom every day and expecting no compensation in return for it. (can you hear the violins playing?) When I'm working 16 hours a day creating content to fight for our health freedoms, and (allegedly) a con artist comes along and copies it, puts his own name on it, makes money off it, gets exposed for it and then claims HE's the victim (He is a victim if he only made a mistake and meant no harm - but Mike has found Jason guilty without a trial - he has presented, thus far, NO clear-cut evidence that this was anything other than an error on Jason's part - guilty until proven innocent?!?!), I can only laugh out loud. Has morality in America sunk so low than even a common thief can claim he didn't know he was stealing anything and some people are fooled by his act?" (Like they are fooled by your self claims of being something akin to a nearly faultless super hero destined for sainthood)

Has common decency dropped so low that the only way a person can handle a perceived problem is with retaliation and attorneys?

Notice how he twists everything to make Jason look really, really bad and himself practically a saint. He never once admits that he handled the situation ALL wrong or even a little wrong. Never does he apologize for unnecessarily dragging his readers into this or for endangering someone's life over a COPYRIGHT issue for God's sake! I don't think anyone is ever 100% correct about everything, but Mike seems to think he is.

Mike then goes on in the email update to praise himself some more. It's quite amazing what Mike thinks of himself. If Mike is the "little guy" then Jason really is a nobody and shouldn't even show up on Mike's radar. So what is really going on with Mike Adams? Am I the only one that thinks charges should be brought up against Mike for libel? slander? character assassination? Reckless endangerment of life and limb?

It seems that I'm not the only one, as this comment was recently left at

"Jason, I’m not a reader of your blog nor do I read naturalnews, but a colleague of mine does follow health news quite dutifully and he brought this specific situation up in our law ‘meetup’ this week. Well, some of us are curious now to find out if any legal action has been taken by you (or Mr. Adams because he seems to be the one intending to do so)."
"Well, the elements of the rules, which he would need to establish you broke, regarding plagiarism are vague (and usually difficult to prove). However, your position that Mr. Adams attempted to intentionally character assassinate you is much more established. Here is the definition of ‘character assassination’ according to Wikipedia,
“Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death. In practice, character assassination usually consists of the use of double speak, spreading of rumors, innuendo and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one’s morals, integrity, and reputation.”
"Do you have a copy of his initial post? Either way, I would be documenting everything. The one thing in our group everyone agreed on was that they would much rather be in your position than his."

But according to the following quotes from Mike Adams, he must feel that he is covered and justified in "having some fun" with Jason and directing a vigilante mob of people to do what's necessary to destroy him online (and offline, otherwise why publish his home address?). Because Mike Adams feels that intentional harassment, even if it leads to suicide of the victim, is not a crime and therefore there should be no punishment for it. That's taking character "assassination" a little too far, but Mike thinks it's not a crime. It's OK to kill people if you can get them to do it to themselves.

"...Listen: If a person decides to go kill themselves based on something you said, that's their problem, not yours. Words and thoughts are not crimes. ACTIONS are crimes. If Lori Drew pummeled that teen girl to death with an oversized computer monitor, then that would be a crime. But creating a false online personality and taunting the girl with words is no such crime.

It may be stupid. It may be mean. It may even be psycho. But it's not a crime...."

"...The law, you see, is selectively applied to whatever prosecution the public mob is calling for. We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of Oprah-fied justice, where people are first found guilty in the tabloids, and then prosecutors scrounge around for some law they can find that might somehow apply.

The whole thing has turned out justice system into a complete joke..."

So please, Mike Adams, continue with your stupid, mean, psycho - but not a crime? - harassment. After all the system is a joke and you're protected by "Oprah-fied justice".

For a man that is practically a saint in his own eyes, Mike Adams sure does come across as extremely cold hearted. What happened to plain old right and wrong? Watch out Jason, Mike Adams evidently thinks it's OK to harass you to the point of suicide.

Here's what Jason's brother, Ryan, had to say in a comment left on one of my blogs to give you an idea of what Mike Adams started because of his insecure, vain, ego:

Ryan has left a new comment on your post "More thoughts on Mike Adams of and...":
"I'm Jason's brother and what Mike has done and pushed people to do is far worse than anyone knows. Jason is trying so hard to remain positive and NOT continue to blog about it. He’s sent Mike repeated genuinely apologetic emails, he’s fixed the citing issues, removed parts of his site, posted an apology etc etc."

"Mike has explained if he does these things he'll tell his readers that they've solved there issues, but he’s not telling them that. He keeps sending out malicious newsletter updates. This entire situation is crazy. Do you know before this Organicjar had under 20 readers, and my brother only posted several articles a month just on issues he wanted to make sure everyone knew about. He only had 44 articles total on his blog and 12 had referenced Mikes work. I’ve found hundreds of blogs that republish all of Mikes work, everyday. It seems so unfair that my brother would be targeted like this."

"I love my brother and he is truly an inspiration to everyone. About a year ago, he decided to dedicate his life to helping others in need and he always wanted to help get truthful information out there. He did forget to cite articles, he did have his authorship misplaced, he makes mistakes but they were all mistakes that could have been privately corrected."

"I would never wish what my brother is going through on anyone. It’s truly shocking how negative everyone has been, I mean to send death threats, posting his photos on xxx sites, spamming his email accounts, making sure fraud, con appear in google. I guess it only shows you how totally unconscious the world is. I wasn’t aware people couldn’t make mistakes."

Posted by Ryan to David G. Collins at January 30, 2009 11:21 PM


This is the original article BY MIKE ADAMS OF NATURALNEWS.COM - as it originally appeared here.
------Only Jason's personal information has been deleted. Mike allows and encourages his articles to be republished as long as they contain proper credit to the source.

"As I've mentioned many times, I openly give people full permission to post my articles with proper credit. That means giving the author the credit as the author and linking back to the source. When people do that, it's all fine by me, and I actually support that practice." - Mike Adams

So here it is.
(NaturalNews) Those who can create, create. Those who can't sometimes steal other people's work and call it their own. Over the last several months, I've watched a clever content pirate called Jason Cairns rip off the NaturalNews website and content, calling our articles his own. He's created a website called which is essentially a giant rip-off of NaturalNews articles and content.

Almost all the articles published on OrganicJar were, in fact, written by me or other NaturalNews contributing writers.

For example, his article entitled "Vitamin D Reduces Risk of Cancers by 77 Percent!" is a direct rip-off of my article called New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention at:

In another example, the Organic Jar article Medical Students Fed Up with Professors' Secret Financial Ties to Big Pharma is a word-for-word ripoff of my original breaking news summary at: which just happens to be entitled Medical Students Fed Up with Professors' Secret Financial Ties to Big Pharma. My story was published November 28th, his appeared on November 30th.

By the way, as any good con man would do, Cairns might retroactively change these pages on his site to appear to be original text, so if you're reading this after January of 2009, don't expect the links to his site to corroborate my story here. But I've made a full archive of his entire website for legal purposes, and it's rife with piracy from NaturalNews and many other natural health websites. He's probably stealing from Mercola, too.

But Jason Cairns gives no one credit other than himself. He simply puts his own name on top as the author, runs a lot of ads, and uses social networking tools to try to gather a lot of traffic. He even stole my words for his "about the author" section, in which he describes himself as "...deeply dedicated to the mission of helping people transform their health, improving our planet and empowering individuals to make positive changes in their life."

It those words sound familiar, it's because I wrote them in 2005 in my own bio. What Jason Cairns is really committed to, it seems, is pirating other people's work and calling it his own. Even the look and feel of the OrganicJar website is a rip-off of NaturalNews.

(If Mike doesn't like that Jason's website has "the look and feel" of his website, then he need to call up a posse to attack the maker of that template that is for sale on the internet because they are obviously "pirating" Mike's web design and making money from it. Oh why, oh why is everyone stealing from Mike Adams?! Mike also invented nutrition, ya know.)

To some extent, his piracy has worked, too: His social network includes a lot of natural health people who have been duped by this con man into thinking HE wrote the articles! I even saw the Raw Spirit Fest as a friend on one of his social networking sites.

Like many con men, Jason Cairns is a master of social networking. His Facebook site has attracted plenty of followers who obviously don't know they've been conned.

Cairns also has a well-populated MySpace page and a page.

He even has his twitter site blazing away, claiming he's living some sort of natural health lifestyle. Does that involve eating salads between content pirating sessions?

What a loser, huh? The funny part in all this is that I openly GIVE people permission to use my articles if they just give proper credit to the author and a link back to NaturalNews. But I suppose that's too much to ask from some people: They want all the credit, even for things they didn't write.

Jason Cairns is a thief, a pirate and an embarrassment to the natural health community. We need to work together to expose the dishonest of people like Cairns. Here's how we do that...

Let's have some fun with this guy, shall we?
The last thing con men want is to be outed as con men. So the most effective thing we can all do is publicize the truth about Jason Cairns by linking to this article using his own name. That way, anybody searching for "Jason Cairns" on Google will be likely to find this article.

Here's how you do that: Just copy and paste the HTML code below onto your website:

Jason Cairns from OrganicJar is a con man

Place that on your website or just link to this article using the name "Jason Cairns."

The next thing you can do is start slamming him with emails and phone calls. His contact email is listed as XXX@XXX and his phone number is listed as xxx-xxx-xxxx, although it's worth mentioning these could all be fake. In fact, the whole name "Jason Cairns" might be fictitious.

His listed address is:

(deleted) San Francisco, California (But that's probably fake, too.)

Jason Cairns claims his education as follows: University of Iowa BS, BA, Chemistry, Biology, 1997 - 2002

Activities and Societies: Published article in Journal of Neurobiology, Editor of UIHC newsletter, Licensed EMT Drake University Physics 1999 - 2000

He also claims to be the founder of, a small software development firm where he probably created the technology to steal articles from other peoples' web pages.

Perhaps the best way to reach Jason Cairns is through his MySpace page or page. He's sure to be checking those social networking sites for messages. Imagine the shock when he hears about this, huh?

By the way, all the links in this article use the "nofollow" attribute so that his websites do not benefit from the NaturalNews popularity in any way. The last thing we want to do is give him a boost in the search engines, huh?

Let me put a warning out to other would-be pirates (there are many) who are stealing NaturalNews content: We will expose you as the pirates you are, including all the pirates working over at who steal NaturalNews articles and pass them off as their own.

If you want to use NaturalNews content, folks, just use it with proper credit. Give the author who wrote the story the credit he or she deserves. I don't mind people copying articles if they at least have the decency to give credit to the original author and source. In other words, I support open sourcing content, but the one requirement is that you give credit where credit is due.

So, folks, if you want to have some fun with this pirate, just link to this article using words like "Jason Cairns" and "OrganicJar" and let's watch the search engine rankings rise for this article when people are searching for Jason Cairns. Google can be fun, after all! And sometimes people deserve to be publicly shamed for being such dishonest thieves of other peoples' hard work.

Once again, here are the social networking sites for Jason Cairns:

Facebook | MySpace | LinkedIn

Let him know that his mass piracy of other peoples' content is unacceptable in the natural health community.

Pretty angry and malicious, huh?


Jason's responses to Mike's attempt to "have fun" with him can be found here:
I also wrote more about it here:

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Media Alert: Thursday January 29, 2009 6-6:30 EST: Journalist Liam Scheff to Discuss Official Report on NYC Orphans Used in HIV Drug Trials

edia Alert January 2009

Investigative journalist, Liam Scheff on the WBAI Evening News for Half an Hour Discussing the Latest ICC Investigation Findings

Thursday January 29 from 6 to 6:30 p.m. Eastern

The ICC Investigation - Deaths in Studies with NYC Orphans - AHRP on the VERA Institute Report

Investigative journalist Liam Scheff will be on 'WBAI News' to speak about the latest developments in the New York City's Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) investigation concerning the findings of the recently released final VERA Institute Report. Liam Scheff did the initial investigative journalism that led to the investigation of the secretive experimental AIDS drug trial conducted on New York City orphans at the Incarnation Children's Center.

You can listen to the live stream at

If you miss it live, you can watch the rebroadcast at 11 p.m. Eastern or download the podcast at

For general information about the show, please visit

For more information about Liam Scheff's other investigative work, please visit

More thoughts on Mike Adams of and Jason Cairns of

OK, has it been verified that Jason willfully posted articles from intending to take credit for himself?  Or has it been ascertained that he made a mistake for which has shown to be more than willing to fix?

Or do NaturalNews readers accept anything Mike Adams says without question?  Even though he supposedly "educates" people to do the opposite?

All you people throwing stones at Jason: Would you please share the evidence from your professional investigation with us?  I really do not support thieves or unscrupulous people as a rule.  This why I'm so angry with Mike Adams, because as a role model his behavior has been atrocious.  He seems to have based this whole accusation on circumstance and guessing... Is this how he researches his articles too?  What happened to innocent until proven guilty?  Has Mike abandoned the US Constitution too?

Would you want to be crucified and your life threatened on circumstantial evidence?  Mike could have handled this quietly.  Instead he decided to publicly call for a cyber stoning of Jason and put Jason's life at risk.  WTF?

I'm not "working" for Jason.  I've been a reader and fan of NaturalNews for a few years now.  I'm basing my reaction on Mr Adams not Jason.  Even if Jason did everything that Mike claims he did, Mike still handled it all wrong.  I've seen it over and over.  People start out with good intentions, then they get popular, then they get a massive ego, then they lose the vision and then they don't care who they hurt.  A couple of examples are Oprah Winfrey and Gary Null.

It seems that Jason has been working to create a successful website.  Do you really think Jason thought he could become successful and huge and no one notice that he's stealing from  I don't get the impression that Jason is stupid.  It's obvious that Mike jealously scours the internet to see where his work shows up.  Jason could not have gotten far without someone putting two and two together and figuring out that he was a fraud.  Again, I don't get that Jason is stupid.

I've been increasingly dissatisfied with NaturalNews over the last few months because it looks more and more like Mike is selling out.  I was drawn to Mike because of his bravery of speaking up to the "big guys" in defense of the "little guys" and now we have to defend the little guys against Mike because he's become one of the big guys.  Is it simply inevitable?

I, too, have tried over and over for months to Mr Adams to contact me about the HIV/AIDS fraud (but he avoids this issue - though it affects everyone on the planet - while talking about other issues over and over and over)... So I find it strange that Mike acts like all you have to do is pick up the phone and call him.

The fact that Mike avoids the AIDS issue and supports Scientology and has now attacked Jason deepens my suspicion that Mike is extremely homophobic, which doesn't sit well with me either.  I do not like to support people who would wish me dead because of my private life that's no one's business and hurts no one.

And I find it very embarrassing that Mike Adams is trying to come off as a black rapper with his "Beyond All Reason" "album".  Personally, I don't wish rap to be promoted, but hope that it goes away someday.  Surely there is another way... But, I think Mike wants to continue raising his "star status"...  Ego.

My emotional response is based on being betrayed once again by someone I looked up to, respected and tried to somewhat model myself after (is that plagiarism too?).  This is my own fault.  I admit it.

But, as a amateur natural health advocate and webmaster and student of Naturopathy, I have learned a lot from this episode and I give Mike Adams all the credit.  He is helping me fill in the chapter "What not to do".

From the ashes rise the Phoenix.

Check out: for someone who's not afraid to tackle ALL the issues... Mike Adams is now a regular on weekly radio show too.

Is Mike Adams and NaturalNews losing credibility?


Mike Adams, known by many as the outrageously courageous and outspoken Health Ranger, has committed himself to a top-level affiliate relationship with the company Moxxor. Is Mike Adams now just a pill peddler like the companies he reports on? An open letter to Mike follows.

Will the Internet now be riddled with headlines like:

Formerly independent, Mike Adams is now peddling pills like the companies he reports on. But his pills are better…or are they?


Mike Adams, through his financial affiliation with Moxxor, can no longer call himself an independent journalist.

Is Mike’s official stance still valid?

The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.

You decide.

Continued here...

Mike Adams of endangers fellow natural health advocates' life

Mike Adams, in a fit of overinflated ego, called for a public cyber stoning of a fellow natural health advocate today. It appears that Jason Cairns of inadvertently angered natural health Nazi Mike Adams by incorrectly posting some of Mike's articles without proper attribution. Well, Mike would have none of this and published an article vilifying this man and directing his minions to harass him and threaten him. It worked because Jason is now receiving death threats. Mike Adams demanded an apology after cutting off all routes for Jason to be able to do so... Then to cover his own ass Mike removes the article he published and feigns worry for Jason's well-being and pretends that he did not intend for an all out attack on Jason.

Whatever the full truth, Mike Adams handled the situation like a real ego controlled prick.

Thanks Mike, you're a swell human being there! You've crossed the line and now you are one of "them". A Nazi is a Nazi regardless of the agenda your pushing.

I no longer support or Mike Adams - We are not that desperate.

Mass Pirating of NaturalNews Content Escalates into Threats of Violence - Article Removed

Actually it was Mike Adam's article that started and then escalated the violence. It was not the "Mass pirating" that started the trouble. Mike could have easily contacted Jason directly and handled this, but he decided to behave like an unprofessional, ego-driven maniac (and score up some publicity and web hits in the process).

Goliath Attacks David: Response to Mike Adams ‘Hit Piece’ Targeting Me and My Blog

I don't know Jason Cairns and I was not familiar with his website until Mike Adams introduced it to me, but I can see who is acting more mature and professional here and that tells me a lot. Jason has not removed his article or comments (except for some nasty and pointless ones). Mike has removed them all from his site. has been going down hill over the last few months and though it has provided a good service I don't believe people like Mike Adams should be encouraged because they end up becoming dangerous. If he could do the work without thinking it's all about him, Mike might continue to do well. But, can he subdue the monster of an ego he has created for himself?

Mike Adams does not have a corner on the natural health market and all he does is report on what other people are doing and saying (like anybody else)... He's not creating anything new! There are plenty of natural health advocates out there needing support and Mike may find out he's is expendable and not the god he seems to think he is.

And what about those mature and intelligent readers of Natural News that came forth spewing venom and making death threats? This is the Natural Health Industry? Is this being learned from Mike's example?

The following was recently removed from the contact/feedback page of to show you the level of immaturity and UNprofessionalism that is happening there (I think there is more truth about how Mike Adam's really feels about his readers than there is satire here):

"Please note that much of the article content written on NaturalNews contains satirical comments, jokes and off-the-cuff remarks about all kinds of groups, institutions and individuals. If you feel "offended" by any of these remarks, we ask that you please document the full emotional experience of being offended, and email us a 5,000-word essay on exactly what it was like to allow yourself to feel that offended as you read the words on your monitor. Please also include lab testing results that indicate levels of endocrine chemicals in your brain, as well as a list of any medications you might have been taking at the time of the offense. We also require you to obtain the signature of 100 other individuals who felt similarly offended by the same text, along with their names and social security numbers so we can verify their identity. Please submit all this information to us using the form below, at which point we will alert a team of Harvard psychoanalysts who will fly chartered jets to the NaturalNews headquarters where they will all huddle together and study your documents in order to determine what, exactly, should be done in response to you feeling offended. We spare no expense to take full responsibility for the emotional state of internet users!"

Warning! Under threat of cyber attack do NOT repost or share any of Mike Adams writings... Evidently Mike Adams thinks he is more important than the message.

Guinea Pig Kids

This website is dedicated to Guinea Pig Kids - a BBC documentary that exposes how the city of New York has been forcing HIV-Positive children under its supervision to be used as human guinea pigs in tests for experimental AIDS drug trials.

Liam Scheff is the investigative journalist who first broke this story. You can read his original 'expose' and continuing investigation here.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Mike Adams of shows true colors?

Well, it appears that Mike Adams fat ego is finally doing him in..... I'll have more to say about this soon.


Goliath Attacks David: Response to Mike Adams ‘Hit Piece’ Targeting Me and My Blog

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 | by Jason Cairns

(OrganicJar) Well, I didn’t expect to wake up today and see that I’m being vilified by someone that up to today I had a lot of respect for. As some of you may already know, Mike Adams published an “attack post” on his blog calling me a “liar, con-man, etc.”…basically stating that I ‘pirate’ content from his blog.

I don’t even know where to start. You state that “almost all” my content was written by you, but this is not true. I skim the headlines of over 50 global news sources everyday. We occasionally write about the same topic because it’s breaking headline news. And when I do use information from your articles I list you as a resource. I will say I did forget to list you on the Vit D article, but have quickly fixed this and do apologize. I have always given credit to my sources and the authors.

Throughout your post, you attack me personally, insinuating that I only “claim” to live a natural life. I’m not sure how you can make these assumptions when we’ve never met. I am an extremely dedicated organic raw foodist, who has decided to dedicate my life to helping others get educated on the powers of health and nutrition. I am a real person and not “fictitious” as you state. My desire, my passion and motivation are real.

In my estimation, you did the online health community a complete dis-service today Mike. It’s like “Goliath” tried attacking “David” today. It’s as if you don’t want anyone else reporting on health related news. I barely made $35 last month from OrganicJar, and my expenses were $105 so there’s no need to worry about your profits at, because they are surely insulated from the operation of my blog. It’s never been about the money for me though; I’m passionate about health. My site is like many others out there, simply a collection of information written and sourced that I find important.

When you take a break from using your site as a vehicle to assassinate the character and integrity of competing blogs, go back and re-read your ‘hit piece’; it’s just oozing with class. I recommend you read a book called “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz.

Overall, I suggest you stick with the health related posts Mike, they’re much better than the ‘hit pieces’…and if you have a problem or a question, why don’t you personally call me; pick up your phone and call me…instead of trying to persuade the readers of your blog to do so themselves. I am amazed that I’ve received emails from people wishing that I die in response to your ‘attack post’. I guess you can call it a success then Mike.

I’m not perfect and I always try and do my best. Mike, you’ve never met me and I have made repeated attempts to contact you, but have had no luck. To pass judgment and make these assumptions is wrong. We live in a crazy world, it’s to bad we can’t all work together. I’d gladly give you a call as I’d like to resolve this issue so we can all get back to helping others get truthful health information.

About the Author

Jason Cairns is an organic raw foodist with a passion for teaching people how to transform their life through health and nutrition. He holds degrees in biology and chemistry with plans on a masters in nutrition. "I am deeply dedicated to the mission of educating others on transforming their life through health and nutrition. I truly want to live in a world where people are healthier, and more environmentally conscious."

Comments: 4

  1. There is no way that his ‘attack post’ was merely just about you forgetting to mention him as a source; if so, than he could have easily called you or contacted you through email and corrected the problem quickly like professionals do. No, his post was engineered more to completely dis-credit and smear you in the eyes of the online community as your blog and its’ cool design, function and attempts at integrating social media are far superior to anything that his blog is involved with. Grow up Mike! As we often say in the infantry “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

  2. Wow, interesting happenings today. There was definitely no class in Mike’s post, more people should spread health news, not less. Good luck to both of you though I hope everything works out.

  3. Mike, did you even try calling or emailing him? LoL, for you to say this is only about him not listing you as a source on an article…come on, you and most people who can ‘think past their big toe’ realize that this is more about him and his blog becoming your newest competition. And it shouldn’t even be competition you should work together not fight.

  4. I’m kind of glad he attacked you in that he gave you a lot of publicity. I agree your defense. Your site is not a copy, but a supplement to the Natural News site for alternatives to conventional health advice. Thanks!

No Details Allowed - My Interview with Anne Lifflander of the Vera Institute of Justice


January 28th, 2009 -

Please find below my correspondence with the Vera Institute of Justice, which purported to be doing an investigation into the NIH/ICC orphanage clinical trial scandal. Reading their questions to me, and their refusal of my materials during the interview, you can get a sense of what the Vera Institute accepts, and does not accept in an interview with a journalist:

1. No names, no dates, no files, no interviews, audio, video, no pertinent, relevant, detailed information can be given to a Vera interviewer during a Vera Institute interview.

2. But questions about “feelings” are fine.

Anne Lifflander, Vera Institute Researcher, requests interview with Liam Scheff

— Anne Lifflander alifflander [at] wrote [Aug, 2007]:

Dear Liam,

I hope this e mail finds you well and having a good summer.I am writing to follow-up on the previous correspondence between you and Tim Ross about Vera’s Clinical Trials Project.

As you know, the Vera Institute, at the request of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services, is researching questions related to the enrollment of foster children in clinical trials of treatment for HIV/AIDS.We would very much like to interview you for our study. The final product of our research will be a report to the public.

You can choose to be interviewed confidentially (your name will not be mentioned as an interviewee in our final report) or for attribution. If you choose to be interviewed for attribution, we will allow you to review any part of the report where your name is mentioned or where you are quoted.We will ask you to sign an informed consent before the interview.The interview protocol has been approved by Vera’s Institutional Review Board.

I am very much looking forward to hearing from you soon.


Anne Lifflander, MD, MPH
Senior Research Associate
Vera Institute of Justice
233 Broadway

Liam Scheff to Anne Lifflander - Accepting invitation to interview for Vera study.

From: liam scheff [mailto:liamscheff [at]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Anne Lifflander
Subject: Re: Vera Institute of Justice

Hello Anne,

Give me a ring this week at [private non-work number withheld here]

Of course, I will happily be interviewed, and supply my materials to your research.



ps - I’m moving back to Boston next week, so am here on the east coast, and can do things in person, with enough warning for preparation.

Lifflander to Scheff - Requesting a meeting place, directions and establishing approximate time

— Anne Lifflander alifflander [at] wrote:

Dear Liam,

I am very much looking forward to our interview on Friday.I will be flying to Boston on Friday morning, arriving at 9:45AM.I don’t know Boston very well and have no idea how long it will take to get from the airport to wherever we will be meeting.

Where would you like to meet and can you send me travel directions for getting there? I anticipate that the interview will take about two hours.

I will be sending you the informed consent and a guide to the questions we will be discussing on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Enjoy the holiday weekend!!!

Anne Lifflander, MD, MPH
Senior Research Associate
Vera Institute of Justice
233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279

Scheff to Lifflander - Giving directions and suggesting a meeting place, as requested by Vera Institute Researcher

From: liam scheff [mailto:liamscheff [at]]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:35 PM
To: Anne Lifflander
Subject: RE: Vera Institute of Justice

Hi Anne,

Thanks for the note. I see you’ll be sending questions, that’s good. If I have any questions about materials after I receive your list, I’ll ring.

I’m going to bet it’ll run a bit (or more) over 2 hours. There is a lot of material and ground to cover from my end.

As to where in Boston - well, there are a dozen lovely hotels, with nice lobbies and bars and restaurants, good for meetings, for sitting in reasonable comfort, etc.

If you are coming into the city, that might be best. Something in the Copley Place perhaps (it’s downtown, easily accessible).

I take it you are leaving the same day? If so, you are coming into Logan airport, and will either take a taxi or the “T” downtown. (The “T” is the MBTA - subway - easy enough and much cheaper).

It shouldn’t take more than an hour to get from the airport to downtown, probably less, once you’ve cleared the rigamarole at the airport.

You can look here for information on public trans. from the airport to downtown.

here for airport info specifically

My recollection is that it’s a shuttle bus to our little subway.

Here Copley Place, and its many hotels.

Finally, I won’t be able to meet until 11am at the earliest on Friday. A little later would be better, 12 or 1. You’ll have to tell me when you are leaving.

Let me know what looks good to you,



Lifflander to Scheff - confirming Hotel as meeting place for interview, establishing time table, sending questions (see following letter).

— Anne Lifflander alifflander [at] wrote:

Dear Liam,

Thanks for the information and suggestions.I arrive in Boston at 9:45AM and leave at 4:55PM the same day.I’d like to stay longer but have family obligations that I need to be back for.It’s not much time, so if you can make it by 11AM, that would be great.

I think the idea of meeting in a downtown hotel is a good one.You name the hotel and I will be in the lobby.

This is considered a research interview, which may be confidential or for attribution.Whichever option you select, we will ask you to sign an informed consent form. I am attaching a copy and a guide to the interview questions for you to look over.

I am really looking forward to this interview and to meeting you.

Please call me or e mail if you have any concerns.

Anne Lifflander, MD, MPH
Senior Research Associate
Vera Institute of Justice
233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279

- Lifflander Questions

Liam Scheff to all Vera Institute Staff, regarding Anne Lifflander’s Termination of Interview with Liam Scheff

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:20 AM
From: “liam scheff” liamscheff [at]
To: mjacobson [at], nweiner [at], kgoldstein [at], “Anne Lifflander” alifflander [at]
Cc: mjacobson [at], nweiner [at]
subject: Vera Institute of Justice - Violation of stated goals for my interview by Anne Lifflander

To Vera Staff and Director,

I am writing to express my dismay and alarm at the interview I was given yesterday, one which was terminated by the Vera staff member while in progress.

I am the journalist who broke the story that is the basis of the research into orphans used in government drug trials. I had certain expectations for the interview, none of which were met.

I was under the impression that I would be permitted to give actual, viable information to the Vera Institute that would allow them to do further investigation. And that, because I was being sought for an interview, that my work was actually wanted, or desired for this investigation. Neither of these proved to be true, in actuality.

Instead, I met with a number of repeated roadblocks. First, I was told that in order to make interviews I have done with other people usable, I would have to verify their validity to the Vera institute. When I tried to do this, by giving personal material to the Vera interviewer, I was told to stop.

Second, I was prevented from giving any relevant or viable material concerning an actual, meaningful investigation into the use of orphans in Aids drug trials to the Vera interviewer, who refused to take from my hand the disks I had put together expressly for the purpose of the interview.

In truth, I have little idea about why I was chosen to be interviewed, if whatthe interviewer or the Vera Institute was seeking was a palliative, near-meaningless regurgitation of my “feelings” about what had happened. My work in the ICC story was as the primary investigative journalist who brought the story to national and international attention.

I spent a great deal of time and energy, (and candor), sharing and explaining in good detail the basis for a critical understanding of what is happening in the Aids paradigm, especially regarding the standard (non-standardized) method of Hiv testing.

My materials for review of the evidential understanding of my criticism were rejected; the verification of the personhood of my primary sources was rejected, though it had been demanded, less none of my research material featuring interviews with sources be rejected.

I was treated in what I consider a strange, and I think, disingenuous manner by the interviewer, Anne Lifflander, whose training and expertise in any field I have come to be concerned over. I have rarely met a person so uninviting of discourse, of revelation of important material for an actual investigation into a matter so terribly, horribly serious as the use of orphans in government/pharmaceutical drug investigations.

In the end, I was not permitted by Lifflander to relate much in the way of meaningful information regarding the Incarnation Children’s Center. When I would attempt to, I would be interrupted by protests that I had mentioned a child’s name. I am the journalist who broke the story; I had no idea that the investigating body into the question of ethics in this abuse of children would have so little interest in gathering actual, viable, useful information.

I stated the name (first name only) of children who I knew, to Lifflander only, who protested that I shouldn’t state their names. I have no idea what this means. If you are seeking to do research, how could it be possible that you wish to be given false names upon which to base your research?

I had been demanded, or informed, by Lifflander, that no interviews with that had already been published and verified by journals would be usable, unless the identities of the persons interviewed could be re-verified by the Vera Institute. I offered to do that immediately, by giving some audio from my interviews with two adult sources, on the condition that they not be released publicly. I tried to play some of a file for Lifflander in our meeting, to let her know what she would be hearing and from whom. At that point, she ended the meeting. I should say, actually, that she told me that she had to go to the bathroom, disappeared for 10 minutes, and returned, saying that she had called legal council, and that “this interview is over.”

As a journalist, I made it clear that I am free to write about any experience that I have, including my interview with Vera. She also cited this as a reason that she was “ending the interview.”

One of the protests seemed to be that we were in a hotel lobby, a public place. The reality was that we were in a distant corner of the lower lobby of a large hotel, with sufficient ambient noise and music playing in the hotel, to drown out non-local conversation.

The other issue here is that I was made a tour-guide by Lifflander, who asked me to choose a location in Boston to meet. I am not accustomed to meeting a person who is going to interview me, and also establish the location for the interview, that meets all of their hidden criteria and guidelines.

Given Lifflander’s many needs for a certain ambience and specific privacy concerns, I would have expected that she would have simply spoken with me on the telephone for important parts of the interview. Or, that she would have behaved like she was a professional interviewer, and established a site for the interview herself, without impinging on the interview subject to do her work for her.

I have trouble understanding all of this, from the point of view of utility, if the Vera Institute’s goal is to understand and investigate what actually happened in the ICC orphanage, and what is happening in Aids medicine, from a critical point of view.

I have even more trouble understanding any of it, given that my research is publicly available, publicly published, and that I do name names in my work. I do question received wisdoms, on the basis of major conflicting evidence, I do not report what is the conventional wisdom in Aids, or in anything I cover, but that I always try to get beneath the surface (because there is always a surface to get beneath), and see the actual structure of any public edifice or paradigm.

That is to say, I am clearly, by my work, a contentious figure, whose work is probably polarizing, but survives because it is remarkably, defiantly well-researched.

Why the Vera Institute would claim to want to interview me, and then pitch me nothing but self-limiting, emotionally-manipulative, softball questions, is beyond me. Unless your purpose was other than interviewing me for useful information.

In any case, because my interview was terminated by the Vera staff member, and because all relevant information I had agreed to give Vera was likewise rejected, I see no reason why I should freely sign off on permitting any information gathered by Lifflander to represent my work, my person, or my involvement with the investigation.

She proved herself to me to be a terrible investigator and gatherer of information. I remain in a state of shock that a person of her apparent inexperience and demeanor was sent to interview me, unless, and I repeat this question, the purpose of contacting me was something other than to gather useful information for investigating what happened at ICC?

Given the circumstances, I hereby withdraw any permission I may have been falsely convinced to give to the Vera Institute, under falsely stated pretenses by Lifflander, to record an interview with me or to use any material from an interview for your research.

I instead direct you to my website, and the body of research that is there regarding the ICC investigation.


Liam Scheff

(please see the Investigation section for the materials relating to the ICC orphanage investigation).

PS, Immediately below, I have included the verbatim questions I was sent by Lifflander (many of which seem to have more to do with “feelings” than with research into orphaned children being used in government clinical trials). I tried to answer her questions by being as open as possible, but this was not acceptable either.

Following that you will find the email exchange in which I am sought to arrange a meeting place for Lifflander’s staging of the interview.

Vera Institute Questions for Liam Scheff

1. Can you tell me about yourself? I know that you are a journalist and have written a lot about HIV/AIDS and other science related issues. How did you come to do this work and what is your training and background?

2. How did you come to be involved in the issue of foster children with HIV/AIDS?

3. A major focus of your reporting on this issue has been on the Incarnation Children’s Center and you have interviewed former staff and residents of ICC. How did you come to be connected with them? Did you do any additional interviews besides the ones that have been quoted in your articles and in shown in Guinea Pig Kids? Did you approach other employees, family members or residents for interviews?

4. There has been a lot of reaction to your articles about ICC and clinical trials. Did you expect this kind of reaction?

5. During the New York City Council Hearings on this issue, some of the people who testified characterized critics of the clinical trials as “AIDS Denialists.” How do you feel that statement?

6. Based on the research you have done, as Vera reviews the files of foster children who may have been enrolled in clinical trials, what should we be looking for in the files? What type of analysis should we do? How should we present the information?

7. Do you have suggestions for us about who we should be interviewing for this project?

[Yes, and I tried to make them. They were rejected].

Response from Vera Institute, Michael Jacobson

From: “Michael Jacobson” MJacobson [at]
To: “liam scheff” liamscheff [at]

Dear Liam,

We have received your email about the interview this past Friday (September 7th). I think there have been some misunderstandings which we should clear up. One of us will get back to you shortly with a fuller response to the various points you made.


Michael Jacobson, Director
Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.
233 Broadway, 12th floor
New York, NY10279
mjacobson [at]

Response from Michael Jacobson pt. 2

RE: Vera Institute of Justice - Violation of stated goals for my interview by Anne Lifflander
Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:03 AM
From: “Michael Jacobson” MJacobson [at]
To: “liam scheff” liamscheff [at]

Dear Liam,

Please find enclosed my response to your email of September 8.



Attached letter explaining why the interviewer was unwilling or unable to receive any pertinent information from me during the interview regarding the details of the NIH/ICC clinical trials. [Vera letter.pdf]



New York Times - Children Die in Aids Drug Trials, but the Drugs are Fine, Fine, Fine


January 27th, 2009 —

ICC Update - 25 deaths in ICC studies - but drugs ‘not to blame’. Vera Report and NY Times come back to save face, once more.

The ongoing non-investigation by the major media into the NIH clinical trials scandal. Try to make sense of the New York Times continual burial of the ICC story:

First, no children died:

“It was seen as one of the great successes of AIDS treatment. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, hundreds of children in New York City were dying of AIDS. The only approved drugs were for adults, and many of the patients were foster children. So doctors obtained permission to include foster children in what they regarded as promising drug trials….”

“[T]here is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success.”

That was the line in 2005, when reporter Janny Scott and the New York Times first tried to bury the story.

Now, children have died, but not really.

“An investigation into the participation of New York City foster children in clinical drug trials for H.I.V. and AIDS over a nearly 20-year period has found no evidence that any children died as a result of the trials or that the foster children were selected because of their race.”

And then, down the page:

“Twenty-five children receiving treatment as part of the trials died during the trial years.”

Yes, children died while in drug trials at the ICC. But, “So what!” Says the Times, because the trials were ethical:

“The report also found that foster children were not removed from their families by the city because a parent had refused to consent to a child’s treatment, as some had alleged.”

(The allegations came from mothers whose children were taken into the ICC). But, no.. it’s all fine.

But down the page:

“We found a disturbing lack of medical consent forms.”


“No children were yanked from their homes. That is all completely false.”

Really? “Disturbing lack” or “completely false?” I guess I’ll have to stick with the women, children, childcare workers and the ICC doctor who game me lengthy interviews, and told me that “adherence” to the drug regimen was now the primary cause for children to be placed in the drug-study orphanage.

I am quoted in the Times piece, but not quite as I gave the quote:

Liam Scheff, the journalist in Boston who first made the alarming charges about the trials, questioned that finding.

“Now they admit that the children died, but, oh, it couldn’t have been the drugs,” Mr. Scheff said in an e-mail message. “How do they know? How do they tell the difference?”

He said that the drugs in question had Food and Drug Administration warnings on them and that they had “caused permanent injury and painful death in adults who have taken the exact same drugs at normal prescribed doses. These children died, and countless others were made sick while taking these drugs, because of a diagnosis that is itself overly harsh, overly deterministic” and, he said, based on faulty H.I.V. testing technology.

Here’s what I actually provided on a phone conversation, and in several emails, confirmed and okayed by the reporter, Lisa Foderaro. (see bottom of the page for details):

“Now they admit that the children died, but ‘Oh, it couldn’t have been the drugs,’” said Liam Scheff, a journalist in Boston who first investigated the drug trials. “How do they know? How do they tell the difference? The drugs in question are F.D.A. Black-Box label drugs that have caused permanent injury and painful death in adults who have taken the exact same drugs at normal prescribed doses.”

“These children died, and countless others were made sick while taking these drugs, because of a diagnosis that is itself overly-harsh, overly-deterministic, and based on faulty, poly-reactive HIV testing technology.”

It’s a good deal better than Janny Scott did, but what’s so hard about the words “Black Box?”

Why is it so carefully omitted? ” F.D.A. Black Box label.” Why? I guess the details matter, and leaving out certain details helps them bury the story better. The FDA was decent enough to mark these drugs as possessing extraordinary toxicity. But the reporter leaves that out. I suppose the New York Times just can’t find it in its charter to report that Aids drugs have killed people so well, that the FDA has taken special, official and legal notice of it.

“Oh what tangled webs we weave” should be the imprimatur atop the New York Times logo.

Which of their versions is true? “No permissions,” or “no violations?” “Refuted claims” or deaths while children were in drug studies?

Well. Like I said in 2004….

ICC Background story [Here].

In 2003 I investigated the Incarnation Children’s Center, a Catholic Orphanage in New York City, which took in abandoned children of drug (crack) addicts, in the city’s poor, immigrant Black and Hispanic Washington Heights neighborhood. The orphanage reported that the children got “dramatically better” without the very toxic, Black-Box Aids drugs.

From ICC’s Webpage:

Pediatric AIDS was first recognized in 1982-83. Early in the epidemic, HIV disease of childhood was considered to be down-hill 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.

But in the early 1990s, Dr. Stephen Nicholas, ICC’s then medical director, decided to turn the orphanage into an NIH (government-funded) drug trial center, for very strong pharmaceuticals like AZT and Nevirapine, and their analogues. These drugs all bear the FDA’s Black Box warning label, meaning they’ve permanently injured or killed adults who’ve taken the drugs at the normal, prescribed dose.

The street-drug orphans were enrolled in pharma-drug studies featuring 7 or 8 pharmaceuticals, “at higher than usual doses,” in children as young as four years old. The studies also enrolled children of indeterminate and negative Hiv status, and used children in vaccine trials, drug trials, and as stated, high-dose, multiple-drug trials. This is recorded in the NIH database at [Download Zip File of ICC Studies]

In investigating this story, I interviewed mothers, children, nurses, childcare workers, and the doctor in charge of the ICC. I reported their stories and testimony over two years in print magazines and on the web. [NIH/ICC Investigation]

Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, which oversees the orphanage/test center, has consistently plead ‘no fault,’ to charges that children died in the trials, but they have never released publicly any medical records from any of the children in the trials.

The Vera Institute of Justice was hired to investigate the trials, to see if wrong-doing is attributable to Columbia Presbyterian. They have just published their report. I was informed of the report today (1-27-09), by New York Times reporter Lisa Foderaro. In sum, the Vera Institute agrees with my original reporting that:

1. Drug trials were being conducted in orphaned children.

2. There were “missing permissions” - ie - they were using children without consent. My sources had their children removed from their homes when the parents expressed serious concerns about some of the Black-Box labeled drugs, and their visible deleterious effects.

3. Children enrolled in these trials died.

  • According to the Institute, 80 Children in Foster Care, and 25 in the studies.

But, says the Institute, we can’t blame the drugs.

The Vera report wants to propose that children, enrolled in illegal drug trials, with “7 [FDA Black-Box] Drugs, Some at Higher Than Usual Doses” were made sick and died, but NOT as any result of these 7 drugs:

Drug: Ritonavir
Drug: Nelfinavir mesylate
Drug: Saquinavir
Drug: Nevirapine
Drug: Lamivudine
Drug: Stavudine
Drug: Didanosine

This despite the fact that every one of these drugs bears the FDA’s Black Box - a fatal warning at normal dosing. The study itself had already been reduced from EIGHT drugs, because significant toxicity and/or death.

[AS PER AMENDMENT 01/07/00: Pancreatitis, which may be fatal in some cases, has occurred during therapy with ddI [Didanosine]. The risk of pancreatitis may be increased when ddI is used in combination with HU. ACTG A5025, a study that had a d4T/ddI/HU arm, was terminated because of significant toxicity concerns related to the HU-containing arm. Patients enrolled in ACTG P1007 [This study] may be at increased risk of developing pancreatitis given their advanced disease state and the use of multiple drugs including HU. The study had been amended to address these concerns.] [AS PER AMENDMENT 12/19/01: HU has been removed from the drug regimen.]

Patient enrollment is staged to allow study physicians to aggressively monitor patients for signs of toxicity. …[AS PER AMENDMENT 12/19/01: “8-drug regimen” is replaced by “7-drug regimen”]

What can I say that Robert Lifton hasn’t written so clearly, and so well already? We are practicing a corrupted medicine. There is a taint of racism running through Aids science. We are over-burdening groups with the permanent and fatal ‘Aids’ diagnosis, based on faulty technology, and an immovable assumption that we then enforce by the overly-toxic regimens you witness above.

How do we propose to save children by first, giving them a death sentence based on faulty and poly-reactive (poly-diagnostic) tests [HIV Tests - Yes, They Do Not Diagnose Nor Are Specific For Only One Condition];

Then enrolling them with or without permission into drug trials with the most severe toxic effects recorded in a pharmaceutical [Nevirapine]

- Nevirapine Toxicity. Yes, that’s the result of an Aids drug. Yes, we give it to human beings.

The Aids diagnosis based on the poly-reactive “Hiv test” is overly-brutal, overly-deterministic; it allows otherwise sane and cautious people to force-feed copious volumes of these drugs to the most vulnerable, defenseless human beings on earth - abandoned babies in the poorest part of New York City.

What would have happened to these children in they had not been force-fed these drugs? They got “dramatically better” before AZT and Nevirapine. They get dramatically better on Selenium and other immune-building, pathogen-suppressing micronutrients. Our current drugs may have application in future treatment - but at significant decrease in dose and toxicity. We’ve allowed drugs to be overly toxic because we measure them against a pre-determined and irrevocable diagnosis of “death,” despite what we know about Hiv testing, and the ten thousand contradictions in the overly-large, and deterministic Aids diagnosis.

What happens we stop pretending that these drugs don’t kill on their own?

Will we have to find other solutions? Maybe so. But there are plenty of other solutions available. The Aids establishment has had no patience for individuals or groups that have sought to treat Aids as a multi-factorial, and recoverable illness, despite the success of those who have tried, and lived beyond their “mandated expiration date.” It’s time for the Aids establishment to move themselves over and make some room for new approaches - multifactorial approaches that seek to get to the underlying issues in immune weakness and immune building.

We can and must do better for orphans than enrolling them in Nevirapine trials, just because Columbia Presbyterian says they want to, and because the Vera Institute “of Justice” will unforgivably let them get away with it.

“They would have died anyway,” is the final verdict of the Vera Institute. Anybody who knows anything about medicine, about good Aids research, and about ethics knows that a statement like that isn’t medical, scientific or ethical.

Liam Scheff, January 27, 2008.

I am available for interview, radio, television, or print. Email me for contact details.

Addendum - Correspondence and Quote Provided to Lisa Foderaro and the NY Times

1) Liam Scheff to Lisa Foderaro, response to request to quote accurately, after phone call.

Re: Can I use it Liam?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:27 PM
From: “liam scheff” liamscheff [at]
To: “Lisa Foderaro” foderaro [at]

Please use this version. You’ll note the changes. I do not approve of the other version.

(I’m not sure about capitalization of Black-Box vis a vis your guidelines).

“Now they admit that the children died, but ‘Oh, it couldn’t have been the drugs,’” said Liam Scheff, a journalist in Boston who first investigated the drug trials. “How do they know? How do they tell the difference? The drugs in question are F.D.A. Black-Box label drugs that have caused permanent injury and painful death in adults who have taken the exact same drugs at normal prescribed doses.”

I absolutely would add for utmost clarity of my position:

“These children died, and countless others were made sick while taking these drugs, because of a diagnosis that is itself overly-harsh, overly-deterministic, and based on faulty, poly-reactive HIV testing technology.”

I very much thank you for your effort in representing this quote as I’ve submitted it to you, in full.

Thank you for your time, for your information, I’d recommend examining the medical literature on Nevirapine and AZT.

Here are two complete studies, outlining one of the major effects: [1, 2]

Kind regards,

Liam Scheff

— On Tue, 1/27/09, Lisa Foderaro foderaro [at] wrote:

> From: Lisa Foderaro foderaro [at]
> Subject: quote
> To: liamscheff [at]
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 1:06 PM
> This is the quote I’d like to use…thanks.
> “Now they admit that the children died, but ‘Oh,
> it couldn’t have been the drugs,’” said Liam
> Scheff, a journalist in Boston who had investigated the drug
> trials. “Well, why couldn’t it have been? The
> answer is that they are F.D.A. black-box label drugs that
> have caused permanent serious injury and death in adults who
> have taken these exact same drugs at normal prescribed
> doses.”

2) Liam Scheff to Lisa Foderaro, immediate follow-up with link to data on HIV testing.

ps - tests, for your use.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:31 PM
From: “liam scheff” To: “Lisa Foderaro”
ps - tests in review, you’ll find the standard journals saying the standard things:

The tests have no standard, are poly/cross-reactive, and must be interpreted according to risk group; ie, identical test results mean different things from group to group.

Have a walk through, the links go to articles, the articles have the original document attached or linked. It’s necessary for understanding what we did wrong by these kids.


3) Lisa Foderaro to Liam Scheff - Accepting Corrected Quote:

Re: corrected quote.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:34 PM
From:”Lisa Foderaro” foderaro [at]
To:liamscheff [at]

Great…thanks for clarifying. I think this quote is more clear.