posted on December 9, 2005 03:58:11 PM
Seems similar to a case here in Texas, where a 5 week old infant died of a cocaine od after nursing from her mother.
This same woman had 4 other children, none of which lived with her.
If there were ever a case for forced sterilization.
"Dear Lord, if you can't make me a better man, don't worry about it. I'm having a real good time like I am.".
posted on December 9, 2005 04:24:46 PM
Interesting Article/show, Maggie.
The only thing that puzzles me is the son who is 8 years old and now tested, is HIV free. Could the daughter have had a different genetic make-up and if so, why was she never ill in her three year life before this? Now, I know HIV can be dormant for up to 10 years (or more) but I would think if you are born with it, the immunity deficiency would be more apparent from the get go?
I ran into a girl I knew from high school many years later and found out she was HIV positive. (I was floored by it for her.) But she had a four year old son who was also positive. He was skinny as a rail and in and out of the hospital all the time. I do feel along with this mother, on some level, that some of those drugs can do more harm than good - it seems especially so when a child is now developing.
spelling
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Dec 9, 2005 04:25 PM ]
posted on December 9, 2005 06:00:49 PM
They had the same sotry line on ER last week, not last night. I think it wrong to bring a child into the world if you are HIV positive chances are that they will develope it if not born with it. Of course that is just my opinion.
It is a sad thing and would be so great if they would find a cure.
************** I'm making a list and checking it twice!
posted on December 9, 2005 06:08:35 PM
If the daughter died of PSP it's not all that unusual that no one knew she was HIV positive. It's usually a first indicator illness. Patients become suspectible to PSP in early stages. If she had told her doctors, they could have made sure the girl was on apprporiate meds as PSP is not preventable. thing is with this mother attitude, I'm not sure I would believe that she showed no abnormal symptoms.
I don't understand why, if child services was called in for her breast feeding her first child, they at least did not order HIVs tests on the sencond as well.
Dbl - Luckily, just like with the flu or the cold, it is possible to have contact with an infected person without contacrating the virus.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 9, 2005 06:10:57 PM
Even children who are born HIV- can contract HIV through a mother's breast milk. All I can say is what a pompous, self-centered, self-righteous bi@!h that mother is. I hope they prosecute her. Yah, I know, how un-liberal of me.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on December 9, 2005 06:26:54 PMDbl - Luckily, just like with the flu or the cold, it is possible to have contact with an infected person without contacrating the virus.
Well duh, fenix. The husband apparently was having unprotected sex with her since she got pregnant twice. He has still not tested positive for HIV. They took chest x-rays and there was no indication of pnemononia. When they didnt know about the HIV/AIDS of the mother, they were saying for three months they couldnt determine the cause of death. IOW, they didnt know. I still dont think they know for sure but proceeded to have made a determination based on biased information.
Even children who are born HIV- can contract HIV through a mother's breast milk.
Cheryl, what does that mean? Did you mean to say NOT born HIV; or do you suppose if one is already born with the virus you can get it MORE?
posted on December 9, 2005 06:47:25 PM
Dbl - was there something in the televised show about chest xrays because it's not in the link you provided. All they say is that she had sniffles and a cold, another thought she had an ear infection. Neither of those would have resulted in chest xrays.
::I still dont think they know for sure but proceeded to have made a determination based on biased information.::
Is there some reason you believe that two different medical examiners falsified report results?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 9, 2005 07:06:32 PM
I think that this mother acted in total ignorance and in accordance with her blind faith in alternative medicine without any intention to harm her child. She claimed in her book for example that flu shots, pregnancy and comon viral infections could lead to a postive test result. It's doubtful that she really understood the fact that her diagnosis was correct and referred to her disease as "my bout of so-called AIDS". This case illustrates so well the problem with alternative treatment of disease.
The Los Angeles Times has very good coverage of this story.
Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet others of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only with trusted family members and doctors who will support their decision to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions.
posted on December 9, 2005 07:06:44 PM
Fenix *I* did not provide a link. You have to read the story of the link Maggie provided and follow the other links to view that other information.
Are you a medical examiner expert now?
Where did you get your qualifications, from watching quincy?
Hate to break it to ya, but they are just like everybody else. And SOME are lazy, overworked, stupid, unqualified..whatever the reason... and will thread and sew up a case because that is the easiest thing to do with the information provided, even though there is no conclusive evidence to support it except for what is catgorized. ex. Man sixty, smoker, heart attack, boom, case closd. I'd wager it happens more than people would ever be comfortable finding out about.
Pathology is a not an easy science to master. I think there are more so-so ones out there then really good ones. Just like doctors.
posted on December 9, 2005 09:49:40 PM
::Are you a medical examiner expert now?
Where did you get your qualifications, from watching quincy?::
So I ask a perfectly resonable logical question based on the info provided and your conclusions and rather than answer you decide to be a b*tch. Why am I not shocked. I cannot believe I thought that you actually were able to have a reasonable conversation.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 10, 2005 04:30:41 AMI cannot believe I thought that you actually were able to have a reasonable conversation.
Why is it that your idea of a "reasonable" conversation, is presuming somebody else doesnt even know the basics of the topic? And What is so "reasonable" about shooting off your mouth in judgment when you havent even read all the facts??
I see you have nothing to say that it was documented there were chest x-rays. I suppose that has no bearing on whether the kid died of aids related pneumonia? Or as you like to say, "PSP" (in a deep Harvard emasculated voice for those of you not up on the medical jargon.)
Sorry you didnt like my Quincy reference. I thought it was cute and apropos. There was a smiley, but I guess you cant take a joke? You can learn a thing or two from those shows... But here's a tip for ya fenix: my lawyer will always kick your lawyers azz here. You know why? Because I am slow to judgment, and I have a much broader view of how people and things operate in the real world.
Cheryl, youre right. I did not read that as meaning, HIV negative. Thought it was hyphen in your sentence.
spelling
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Dec 10, 2005 05:24 AM ]
posted on December 10, 2005 07:01:45 AM
::I see you have nothing to say that it was documented there were chest x-rays.::
Because I aksed and you showed nothing nothing, you just decided to go into snide mode.
What I realize that you are referring to now is the series that was done as part of the autospsy, not pre death.
Are you basing you opinion on the fact that it took four months for autopsy results to be released? If you think back to the Terri Shiavo case, it took the same amount of time for her results to come back as well. It's not unprecendented and it does not mean that no one could figure out a good reason for 3 months before a lightbulb clicked in. Only that with the extensive level of testing that was done, it takes a bit longer to get in all of the results.
:r as you like to say, "PSP" (in a deep Harvard emasculated voice for those of you not up on the medical jargon.)::
That's not Harvard Dbl, that's basic knowledge on the the disease. (For full disclosure - I made a typo - it's actually PCP)
::Sorry you didnt like my Quincy reference. I thought it was cute and apropos. There was a smiley, but I guess you cant take a joke? ::
Were waving a fan gently in front of your face trying to look coy as you came up with that one? For the recod Dbl - I am not blond. You go into that mode everytime you want to attack so lets not pretend that it's anything short of that this time.
BTW - your "some pathologists are just lazy" rant has nothing to do with why you formed the opinion that two different ones came to the same conclusions which was my original question to you.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 10, 2005 08:15:25 AMBecause I aksed and you showed nothing nothing,
No lazy bones. I directed you to the link where I read it; so you can read it for yourself. I choose not to play 'prove it' games with you and do the work for you here.
And look at this! The key jitzie player "analyzing my mode". I did answer your questions (which are like the oldest ploy on earth you try to roll out every time in your "so-called conversations." [So, if one or more says so, how can they both be wrong?]
Too bad for you I rolled that one out a long time ago on kraft with respect to religion. I know all about the non-arguable power of numbers. It still doesnt jive with the medical evidence that was presented. If you actually READ the links of the story...she saw at least two conventional doctors that would have only possibly made a wayward determination of an aids related disease had they thought that was a consideration. What does that say for their expertise? Then you want to talk to me about lazy scientist's (doctors and medical examiners!!) who make diagnosis without verifiable tests????? I dont think so. And ...according to what I read, x-rays were taken in the emergency room before her death. There was no indication of scarring or any abnormality to the bronchi/lungs associated pneumonia.
Do I think this mother was neglectful and irresponsible at best with her kids? Yes, I do. Personally, I would not have taken the gamble with my kids life that she did. But she believed in it. I just dont know if there is criminal intent in that. And its kinda like any gamble: when it pays off, its wonderful. Hooray!...everybody cheers at the magnificence of the choice the poor schmuck made to gamble his last 100 dollars on a long shot; but if he loses it -- the consternation is it was just a bad choice from the beginning. Many people gamble on medical long shots and win. This woman didnt happen to this time.
posted on December 10, 2005 08:34:24 AM
And furthermore, youre penchant for liberal contradiction is showing again. You have stated emphatically you beieve in the right to death as well as the right to life. So why then, even if the kid did have aids, could not the mother, as her legal guardian, "choose" not to treat it. By all conventional knowledge the kid was gonna die anyway, right?
posted on December 10, 2005 08:40:01 AM
Yeah, but you know, Maggie. They do that all the time. Doctors, I mean. If you go to them and say for instance, youre getting headaches. Now perhaps you forgot to mention youve been banging your head against the wall (either literally or mentally) they will clearly and confidently give you a diagnois of migrains or perhaps something else worst!
I agree had they suspected HIV was involved in this somewhere, they may have ordered different tests or went a different way. But she had an ear infection. Common for a three year old. That is my whole point. They too often rely on common knowledge and slough it off as that. And so do medical examiners in their push to move it along.
.
posted on December 10, 2005 09:13:04 AM
Dbl - are you really so dense that you are unable to comprehend the difference between a individual having the right to choose their own fate and a an individual having the right to infect someone else with AIDS? Or did you just want to argue.
Sorry I have much better things to do than argue with you just because you are bored and decided to pick a fight rather than have a discussion.
Please... you reached hard and far for that one.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 10, 2005 09:32:07 AM
Please... you reached hard and far for that one.
No I didnt. Where is the conclusive evidence this child even had HIV, either from at birth or passed from the mothers breast feeding? She was never ever tested for it!! And in all her long life of three years, lived what anyone would esteem a healthy happy life.
You dont want to argue because you have already lost the argument. The physical evidence did not support she died of aids related pneumonia which you have incorrectly stated above on this board.
So Sorry chump. (Wheeewww! blowing on my gun finger and sticking back it in my pocket - ..another one bites the dust! yes, yes...and, another does, and another does....(rump rump bump...) )
posted on December 10, 2005 11:21:26 AM
Yeah OK Dbl - join that exclusive league of crackpots that think that science is just a bunch of VooDoo and declare yourself winner. You are right. You are reigning queen of the crackpots.
As for no proof of her having HIV - perhaps you should check
Page 10 of the LA county coroners report for nuerological proof
Page 16 for the lung evaluation
Page 17 for the blood results
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 10, 2005 03:43:13 PMjoin that exclusive league of crackpots that think that science is just a bunch of VooDoo and declare yourself winner...
LOL! First of all I never made any statements to suggest I have no respect for science. So youre barking up the wrong tree with that little doggie. But I dont believe everything I read, especially because its got some stupid officalized government county stamp on it.
Now, what page was that again for the coroners report? Boy you sure are desperate to prove being sick is a good thing. What a slave mentally you have..and have you had thatidea since you were a child? Didnt you mention on these very boards that antibiotics and other medications did some severe damage to your teeth?
Hey if its science you want...Read and learn. Youre still barking wildly about nothing you truly understand.
PATHOLOGISTS FINDINGS:
Pneumonia is a term that refers to inflammation and consolidation of the pulmonary parenchyma. The microscopic examination of Eliza Janes lungs revealed no
inflammation. The ME did not observe any inflammatory response in the alveoli or in the interstitial tissue to justify a diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia (PCP) or any other form of pneumonia. The lesions of PCP usually comprise an Interstitial infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; an interstitial fibrosis; an interstitial diffuse alveolar damage; and
hyperplasia of type II pneumocytes; the alveoli are filled with characteristic foamy
exudates.
For example, Chen et al.(STUDY CITED)examined lung biopsies from twenty-three individuals who developed PCP using electron and light microscopes. Their examination showed alveolar exudate, inflammation in nterstitium and alveolar space, interstitialfibrosis, and alveolar epithelial damage in all patients . The ME observed none of these lesions in Eliza Janes case.
The presence of Pneumocystis carinii (PC) alone in the alveoli does not justify the
diagnosis of pneumonia, AIDS or HIV Infection. PC was isolated from the lungs of HIVnegative immunocompetent individuals and individuals suffering from immune deficiency resulting from malnutrition and/or treatment with corticosteriods as shown by the following clinical studies.
Contini et al. (STUDY CITED) evaluated the presence of Pneumocystis carinii (PC) in the
respiratory tract in 36 specimens obtained from 28 HIV-negative immunocompetent children who suffered from chronic lung disorders (CLD).
They used a nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. In addition, Gomorimethenamine silver stain (GMS) and indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA)
were performed in parallel. [B]Of the 36 specimens, 12 were PC PCR-positive
compared to 10 positive by GMS-IFA.[/B] These results suggest an association between PC and exacerbations of CLD in childhood, in the absence of HIV infection or other immunodeficiency syndromes.
Takahashi et al. (STUDY cITED)analyzed bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens obtained from 45 non-HIV immunosuppressed individuals for the presence of
Pneumocystis carinii (PC) by staining and by PC 5S rDNA determined by PCR. PC was observed by staining of BAL specimens in 20% of these patients. [B]rDNA was also detected by PCR assay in four (8.9%) of these patients for whom staining was negative. None of these patients developed PCP within the follow-up
period. [/B]
posted on December 11, 2005 06:28:30 AM
Whatever the findings, to not have your child tested and treated (if HIV+) is neglegent. When the child is old enough to understand and to make his or her own decision, then treatment can continue or be stopped. I've been under the impression that as parents we're supposed to protect our children and give them the best chance at life. Alternatives are fine for a cold, the winter duldrums, the flu, etc. They are even fine when combined with modern medicine. However, they are not fine all by themselves for terminal illnesses such as AIDS and Cancer. IMO, this parent did not act in the best interest of the child, which is her responsibility from the time that child is born.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on December 11, 2005 07:21:24 AMIve been under the impression that as parents we're supposed to protect our children and give them the best chance at life.
Cheryl, if you read some of the articles, I think she thought that was what she was doing. But she is against AZT and drugs.
I still find it interesting that her first child is not HIV postitive, nor is her her husband. They have both been tested since this.
And she wasnt a careless mother. She did things like made sure her kids had nutritional meals as opposed to quick-fix 'boxed' junk and devoted alot of time to them. I think to her, she WAS doing the best for her children. I am convinced that kid had a fatal reaction to amoxicillin. Either that..or the ear infection traveled. Ear infections can be really dangerous. The fact she never was vacinacted or had any pharmacuticls introduced into her body prior to this, couldnt have helped much though.
posted on December 11, 2005 07:45:22 AM
Why does it seem like people are under the impression that contact with the HIV virus means you'll get HIV. It isn't a guarantee you'll get it no matter how you come in contact with it, but certain forms of contact increase your chances.
Mainlining heroin from an infected needle is a pretty sure way to get it, whereas it is actually less than likely that a man will get it from an infected woman through normal (ie - non-anal) sexual contact. A woman is a little more likely to get it from an infected man purely because of the make-up of our sexual organs, and a mother is even likelier to pass it on to an unborn child. But the statistics I've seen show that its not unusual that a mother not pass it on to all her children, or that a repeated sexual partner not get it.
Of course, since 62% of all statistics are wrong, I don't know what to believe anymore.
posted on December 11, 2005 07:59:49 AM "IMO, this parent did not act in the best interest of the child, which is her responsibility from the time that child is born."
She acted in accordance with her conception of responsibility. That was, from her viewpoint, to avoid conventional treatment in favor of alternative treatment. She was so confident in her belief in alternative treatment that she stated after the death of her child that she did not have any questions about her understanding of the issue or second guesses about how she handled the illness.
posted on December 11, 2005 08:40:03 AMShe acted in accordance with her conception of responsibility.
Exactly right, Helen.
Nerfball, do you supposed they base these statistics on compiled data, or not? I've read the percentage of women (even those not taking treatments) passing HIV on to their children is very small..like 10% and if you add breastfeeding it is said to increase 10-15 percent more. So a total of 25% chance of passing this on to a child? Am I wrong in thinking thats a LOW risk?
Cheryl, I dont know how you can say "Whatever the findings..."
If all the evidence that is previously known to indicate aids related pneumonia is not in the tissue autopsy, how do you conclude this child was HIV positive - and the cause of death was Aids pneumonia? Mostly all of her counts were near normal. Her TCells were in the normal range. But her leukocytes were high and there was an indication of anemia. That can be caused by many factors, not just HIV/AIDS. I'm not sure but I do have a suspicion certain medications interfere with vitamins and minerals that could cause anemia or other deficiencies.
The sad thing is we still really dont know enough about this virus.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Dec 11, 2005 08:47 AM ]
I'm making a list and checking it twice!
The husband apparently was having unprotected sex with her since she got pregnant twice. He has still not tested positive for HIV. They took chest x-rays and there was no indication of pnemononia. When they didnt know about the HIV/AIDS of the mother, they were saying for three months they couldnt determine the cause of death. IOW, they didnt know. I still dont think they know for sure but proceeded to have made a determination based on biased information.
r as you like to say, "PSP" (in a deep Harvard emasculated voice for those of you not up on the medical jargon.)::