Talk:Incarnation Children's Center

Edits to article

Liam Scheff (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Liam Scheff 3/2014:

I am asking that future edits follow these rules:

   Be polite, and welcoming to new users
   Assume good faith
   Avoid personal attacks
   For disputes, seek dispute resolution

As it has been reworked prior to this, this has become a propaganda piece from a pro-pharma point of view without reference to half of the story.

I (Liam Scheff) never published "The House that AIDS Built" on "my blog," which was asserted. The first paper was published by Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society, and Altheal.org, respectively, two sites which I do not own, run or regularly contribute material to. The next reports were published by a variety of papers by other journalists, in the New York Press, UK Guardian, A&U Magazine, and the Associated Press did a national investigation, finding orphans being used in large numbers across at least 7 states.

In 2003-2005, I investigated the clinical trials at the orphanage by interviewing the doctor, Catherine Painter, and a dozen staff and children/teens from the orphanage: childcare workers, nurses and teenaged residents/ex-residents. All of this was published over three years in the New York Press, Guerrilla News Network (now defunct), and other journals. I was a contributor but not lead author on the "Hustler" article. The clinical trials were tipped to me by the aunt of two kids who were in an out of the place. I took the chance to search "incarnation childrens center" on clinicaltrials.gov - and there were dozens.

The VERA Institute was paid 3 million dollars to do nothing. They were forbidden access to medical records. They roundly admitted this. The AHRP criticized them roundly and took them to task in no uncertain terms for their duplicity.

The New York Times first "reported" (asserted) that there was "no evidence" of death - while having interviewed NO children, no parents, not the doctor who was running the place. Their article received hard criticism from members of the Alliance for Human Research Protection as a cover-up. A few years later, the Times changed their tune and reported that there were 25 deaths during the trials and 55 after. Then Tim Ross of VERA said that 29% of the over 500 children in trials had died in foster care. He said this in a report with WBAI in New York, with Rebecca Myles on air. I'd be happy to upload that for you.

The movie was not made by me, nor did I 'mislead' or 'trick' the BBC into making a movie. This assertion is an attack on an individual (me) and not about the center or the trials. As that is the case, it seems the article should take greater care to quote the various articles and sources on both sides of the argument, or make the trials themselves the center of the issue.

I had no contact with BBC. My contact was Milena Schwager; she was the director of the film. She took my research, shared it with the producer at a UK company, they checked it and because it was accurate - there were clinical trials going on in an orphanage - we had witnesses - family members, kids who were in and out of the place - and we had an entire body of NIH documentation about the studies with many drugs at once - Black Box labeled drugs plied into children - even infants. So, they made a movie. They sold it or had an agreement with BBC. Then the AIDS establishment's media arm attacked, a few years later, and got the BBC to issue a kind of warmed over 'apology' for - and it wasn't very specific, except that they didn't like Dr. David Rasnick, because he's on the 'unfriendly' or 'discredited' list according to the Wikipedia/major media managers, because he reads AIDS drug labels and doesn't ignore their major toxicities.

The 'alleged abuse' was and remains the practice of inserting PEG tubes - or percutaneous endoscopic tubes surgically into the stomachs of children who cannot or will not take drugs. This is easily discoverable in the medical literature, it was validated by children, nurses and childcare workers from the orphanage, and the doctor who ran the orphanage described the process in detail, the audio of which is available here: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/icc/PainterInterview.html

It is a brutal practice accepted in the standard literature for "adherence."

"The medical records of 17 pediatric HIV-infected patients, in whom GT was used to improve HAART adherence, were retrospectively reviewed for clinical and laboratory parameters."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10835093

And here:

http://aras.ab.ca/audio/04%20Painter%20-%20G%20Tube.wma

The "controversial" position I take has nothing to do with the details of the trials. All of that is in evidence, and is, in fact, how this piece starts - by validating the major claim of the investigation: That orphans were being used in clinical trials.

If you wish to name the controversy in my position, it's that I don't believe (because of detailed evidence) that HIV tests are accurate. Period. That the drugs are toxic is available to be read in their package inserts. That's not remotely controversial.

I will try to upload WBAI (New York Public Radio/Pacifica)'s news report on the issue. Hopefully - that is "non-biased" enough for you. (on edit - I don't know how to upload an audio news report onto this site).

Liam Scheff (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Liam Scheff 3/2014

......

I noticed that an obscure AIDS denialist blog remained linked as a source. In my opinion, this sort of fringe-of-the-fringe material does not belong on Wikipedia, and I removed it.

[Oh, did you? That was the source of the article. It's not your right to remove it because you don't like it. If you want to quote the source, you have to quote the source. And that was ALTHEAL.org, and ARAS.AB.CA, where the first article appeared. You can also quote the three articles in the New York Press by me (Liam), if you're trying to be unbiased, etc, as you claim]

Also, "journalist" is Scheff's description of himself.

[Note from Scheff: Working as a journalist in newspapers, getting movies made - that's journalism. What you do is propaganda. Back to you.]

I'm not sure that posting on a denialist blog or the "Guerilla News Network" makes one a journalist. Accordingly, I've removed it. If Scheff is described as a journalist in reliable sources, I encourage others to restore the description. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

After further consideration, I don't see a need to mention Scheff at all. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Though WP:YOUTUBE does permit the use of youtube videos if used judiciously, the Guinea Pig Kids documentary should not be an EL. First, the first rationale for including YouTube as a link is that it be an "official channel". It is not, since this page is about the ICC, not the movie. Second, it's not a reliable source. It is an AIDS-denialist piece, meaning it is inherently a fringe topic that raises red flags. AIDS denialism is a recognized form of pseudoscience that should not be cited except perhaps as a form of "primary source" that indicates something exists. Since we have actual reliable sources that indicates the film exists, there is no need for the actual documentary. The BBC itself acknowledged that the documentary was flawed.

The three types of links that should be in the EL section are official sites, if it's a book, score or other media then a copy of the original material, and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". GPK fails all three, particularly badly the third one - it's not a reliable source. This brings us to WP:ELNO, point 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." As an inaccurate documentary, acknowledged as such by the producer, the material should not be linked to, period. In fact, the entire page should be expanded so this AIDS-denialist manufactured controversy represents proportionately less of the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The producer of the video is the BBC. As producer it has upheld some of the complaints against it, but by no means all, as can be seen in this document, formerly the reference for footnote 8, having since been replaced.

Your remark, above, that Since we have actual reliable sources that indicates the film exists, there is no need for the actual documentary may I think be interpreted as follows: Since we have actual reliable sources that indicates the film exists, there is no need for readers to view the actual documentary.

Your remark, above, regarding Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting indicates that you either viewed the video yourself yet consider yourself not mislead, or you are simply assuming the video is misleading without having seen it. But YouTube as a site itself doesn't mislead, and no one will take the GPK video on Youtube as an endorsement of its veracity. I take it that your goal is to simply block access to the video any way you can. Bear in mind, however, that access to the video can be achieved merely by highlighting the title as provided (twice) in the article, and then right-clicking on it. Providing the link directly merely saves the reader a bit of time while reaffirming Wikipedia's principle against censorship.

To summarize my position thus far: Use of the Youtube link to the GPK video is acceptable. It is directly referred to twice in the body of the article by title; and directly in references found at current footnotes 3 (on page 3 of the newspaper story); 4; 7; and 8. It is indirectly mentioned in current footnote 1 and is referenced in footnote 4, page one of current footnote 6.

I have started a Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard discussion of this dispute. BruceSwanson (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Any source that adopts an AIDS denialist position should not be used as if it were a reliable source. Indeed, I do not wish this documentary to be used as a source because it promotes a fringe conspiracy theory that is not accepted by anyone who is not a crank. You want it linked because you yourself deny AIDS. There's no reason to link to the video as a source, or as an external link and the entire discussion already occupies too much of the page itself.

Wikipedia doesn't have a position against censorship. Wikipedia does not censor its contents on the basis of sexually objectionable content, but it does have a position against factually inaccurate sources and fringe points of view. We also have policies against being used as a advocacy site, or to predict the future, in this case the idea that HIV will be found unrelated to AIDS at some point in the distant, utopian future. I am not trying to censor anything, I am attempting to maintain wikipedia as an accurate source of information on the mainstream, evidence-based, scientific point of view by ensuring AIDS denialist propaganda is excluded as a source of verification for content, and to ensure it is not portrayed as anything but the incorrect nonsense it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The BBC has noted that Guinea Pig Kids contains "serious failings" and that "some of the online material based on it was misleading." It has published a prominent disclaimer and correction notice to inform readers of those failings, and attempted to "contact other websites featuring the material in order to draw their attention to its ruling." It seems deeply misleading, if not outright deceptive, to link the video on YouTube, where those disclaimers are absent. By doing so, you're not "informing" the viewer - you're actively deceiving him by withholding key information needed to form an accurate impression. In that context, accusations of "censorship" are particularly facile and hypocritical. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Denying AIDS

Denying AIDS has something about GPK on page 99 but my google books preview skips that page. If anyone has it, can they check? I've requested it from the library but it won't show up for a couple days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)