Journalism Ethics 101 – My Conversations with New York Times by Reporter Janny Scott-Continuation C – of Current research findings… in progross:

Continuation C – of Current research findings… in progross:

Journalism Ethics 101 – My Conversations with New York Times Reporter Janny Scott
August 3rd, 2008 — —

Twenty Questions on Ethics and Standards for the New York Times.
In 2005, I was interviewed by New York Times reporter Janny Scott about the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) scandal. My investigation had revealed that orphaned children were being used in taxpayer and Pharma–funded drug studies in a Catholic orphanage in New York City.
The studies involved FDA Black-Box labeled drugs, in high doses and combinations. (The FDA Black Box label indicates that a drug has caused permanent damage or has killed patients taking the drug, at its normal, prescribed dose). Orphans were receiving a half dozen of these drugs at once.
• My published work featured interviews with the medical director of the ICC, and children, guardians and current and former employees from the drug-test orphanage.
• In my reporting, I reviewed and cited the medical literature on the putative Aids drugs and HIV tests used in the ICC orphanage.
• I named and reviewed the studies listed in the government’s clinical trials database ( that were being conducted at the orphanage and its referring hospitals.
• In the course of my reporting, I had also been able to enter the ICC orphanage itself, undercover, with one of the families I was working with, and I reported on what I experienced in meeting the children held there.
The story was followed up by numerous news agencies, and spawned several independent investigations, as well as a BBC documentary (that was later attacked by pro-pharma/drug activists).
The New York Times caught up with the story by mid 2005; Times reporter, Janny Scott, interviewed me by phone and then in an email correspondence that lasted over a month. I supplied her with referenced material, and also with contact information, phone numbers and names for my inside sources (as well as my sources permission and agreement to be interviewed by the Times).
Ms. Scott (and her junior writing partner, Leslie Kaufman), also had access to all the materials already published on the ICC story by myself and independent news agencies [1, 2, 3].
She took my interview, sources and information, but suppressed all of it in her reporting. She did not cite me correctly relating to the publication of my article. She misquoted me from emails that I sent her, and she actively suppressed the sources I gave her, who had inside information about the ICC trials.
Her report did not list a single recorded negative drug side-effect, FDA drug warning, or any of the actual studies being done at the ICC; nor did it feature the testimony of any parent or guardian of a child who was being asked or forced to take these drugs.
Here is what Scott wrote about the trials for the New York Times [5]:
“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.”
Later in the article, Scott admits that the “permissions” for many of these children are “missing,” (or were never there).
She continued:
“[T]here is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success.“
As to the controversy, Scott summed up the piles of research on drugs and studies that I’d published, and that I sent her, as well as her interviews with me and my sources – mothers of children from the ICC – this way:
“Most of the [ethical] questions have arisen from a single account of abuse allegations – given by a single writer about people not identified by real names, backed up with no official documentation as supporting proof, and put out on the Internet in early 2004 after the author was unable to get the story published anywhere else.”

She concluded:
“Whatever the outcome, the controversy has already demonstrated the power of a single person armed only with
access to the Internet and an incendiary story to put major institutions on the defensive.”
At the time of publication, I, and others, wrote critical letters-to-the-editor to Ms. Scott and her employers, but neither she, nor her editors responded to them, and the Times never printed a single opposing view to their front-page story.
In 2008, I tried again, and wrote Janny Scott, again addressing my concerns to her. She responded, and in the course of this second correspondence, she admits that she had not, in fact, read or reviewed a single medical record of any of the children who were given the Black Box drugs, despite having claimed (on the front page of a national paper), that the trials weren’t “anything but a medical success.”
• She also admits that she took, but did not use, interviews with my major sources, mothers who had children in the ICC.
• She agrees that she did receive materials from me on the drugs in question, but likewise did not use (suppressed) the information.
• She also claims to have forgotten or lacks the ability to remember important pieces of information, including whether she did or did not interview the medical director of ICC, Dr. Katherine Painter [4].
The correspondence ends with a letter from myself to Janny Scott and her editor, Joe Sexton, containing twenty questions regarding the ethics, standards and practices employed by the New York Times in reporting contentious pharmaceutical issues, such as the use of orphaned children in Black-Box-Drug clinical trials.
Neither Janny Scott, nor her editor, have responded.
Media and legal inquiries are welcome. Please read the letters and see the open challenge at Rethinking Aids. References
1 The original 2004 expose’:
• The House That Aids Built (January, 2004)
2 Related and independent follow-up investigation/reporting:
• New York Post 1 | 2 | 3
• FoxNews
• UK Guardian
• Associated Press
• Guinea Pig Kids Documentary ACFTV/BBC/NDR Fernsehen (2004) ◦ FilmTranscript
◦ “Guinea Pig Kids” producer interview on Democracy Now
• Drugs, Disease, Denial New York Press (2005)
• Red Flags Weekly Red Flags Weekly (2005)
• Asking the Questions A&U Magazine (May 2004)
• Banana Ethics A&U Magazine (June 2005)
• What Were They Thinking? A&U Magazine (August 2005)
3 Liam Scheff’s ICC and Aids drug/Hiv test reporting prior to Times article:
• Orphans on Trial New York Press (2004)
• Still on Trial New York Press (March 2005)
• The ICC Investigation Continues (2004)
• Noble Doctors CruxMagazine (2004)
• The Truth About Nevirapine GNN (2004)
• Knowing is Beautiful and Sex Crimes GNN (January and March 2005)
• All the News That Fits GNN (April, 2005)
• The NIH Scandal and the Future of Aids Research (June, 2005)
Immediately following the Times article:
• Inside Incarnation NY Press July/August 2005
• Lizz Brown Show Interview
• Guinea Pig Kids (co-writing) Hustler, October2005

Since then:
• The Good Man at the NIH GNN (2006)
• Does the New York Times Want to Kill Gay Men? GNN (2006)
• ICC Webpage and Clinical Trials GNN (2007)
• The ICC Interviews ARAS/YBYL (2007)
• ICC Thalidomide Document ARAS/YBYL (2007)
• There Will Be No Heterosexual Aids Epidemic, Experts Admit GNN (2008)
4 Interviews with Dr. Katherine Painter, Medical Director of the ICC: “House that Aids Built,” “The ICC Investigation Continues,” “Orphans on Trial,” (see footnote 3). Extended interview with Audio: The ICC Interviews ARAS, 2007.

  1. Janny Scott’s 2005 New York Times article Belated Charge Ignites Furor Over AIDS Drug Trial Janny Scott, Leslie Kaufman, New York Times (July 17, 2005). Sunday National Edition, p.A-1, First Section, Front Page.
    6 Unpublished Letters to the NY Times:
    • NY Times to the Rescue GNN (2005)
    • Another Attack on Authentic Journalism From the Wilderness (2005)
    • Seven Unpublished letters to the New York Times AHRP (2005)
    Read the entire correspondence at RethinkingAids. Three letters from the correspondence:
    TWO – Monday, June 2, 2008. From: Janny Scott To: Liam Scheff. Cc: Leslie Kaufman (leslie @
    Dear Mr. Scheff,
    Thank you for your note. I will attempt to address your questions in the order you raised them.
    As you know from our conversations in 2005, the aim of the article the Times published was to explain the history and context of the controversy that resulted in 2004 and 2005 from your article; we did not presume to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of, for example, using AZT or micronutrient therapy or other approaches in children with HIV in the late 1980’s. We are newspaper reporters, not biomedical researchers.
    We never suggested, as you say, that the cases you cited in your article online were “made up stories.” We simply noted that the article that had triggered the controversy did not include the actual identities of the people involved in cases you cited. As you know, the use of anonymous sources and pseudonyms in journalism is noteworthy, in that in some people’s eyes it can influence the credibility of allegations being made.
    Yes, we interviewed many people whom we did not end up quoting in the article. That is common practice in heavily reported newspaper pieces. It is simply not possible to include comments from every person one interviews and to still produce an article of a length that a newspaper can run.
    What are the “many factual errors” you say were made in describing the article cited? And I don’t know what you mean about “ridiculing” the fact that you know some people who are alive 20 years after their diagnosis.
    There seems to me nothing ridiculous about that. It’s simply a fact that, it seemed to me, understandably influenced the way you viewed what was done at ICC.
    I am quite certain that I did not “mis-report” what you told me about the publication of the original story. You certainly did not tell me that it was “in line at Red Flags Weekly and Mothering magazine” and that you decided to pull it. You never said, “Nobody on the Left would touch it.” The quote I used was a direct quote and would not have been changed.
    Finally, you say you sent several notes after the piece ran “but never heard back.” The Times moved a year ago so I no longer have a lot of older files, but I do not recall receiving your notes and am quite certain I would have responded had I received them. Sincerely,
    Janny Scott
    SIX – Sunday, June 29, 2008, From: Janny Scott To: Liam Scheff.
    No, we did not review patients’ medical files. I would be surprised if that would not have been a breach of patient confidentiality if someone had shown them to us.
    An unexpected side effect would have been a side effect not previously seen in response to those drugs, presumably.
    Advanced testing methods were the methods available at the time for diagnosing HIV infection.
    I do not recall interviewing Dr. Painter but I may simply not remember. As you know, the Times moved to a new office a year ago. It was not possible to move all of our files. In my case, I threw away files that were more than 12 months old. As you know, the story you are asking about was done in 2005.
    I do not recall which studies we looked at. There were a lot of them — some more easily accessible than others, as you know.
    As for mentioning side-effects and FDA warnings, there are side-effects and FDA warnings on many if not most drugs. The side-effects of early AIDS drugs have been written about extensively. And, as I have said before, we were not presuming to judge whether or not experimental AIDS drugs should have been tried on children — a question that I suspect few journalists would be qualified to answer; we were attempting to put a public controversy in context.
    If you have further objections to the way the story was handled, I suggest you contact Joe Sexton, the editor of the metropolitan news section of the paper and the editor on that story.
    TEN – Saturday, July 5, 2008. From: Liam Scheff To: Janny Scott.
    Cc: Joe Sexton (NY Times editor), David Crowe ( Patricia Warren (A&U Magazine), Vera Sharav (
    Subject: Re: ICC story – Liam Scheff to NY Times reporter Janny Scott – reviewing your responses
    I’ve been reviewing your responses, and have discovered many serious inconsistencies in your answers. I was interviewed at length by you in 2005, and was misrepresented and misquoted by you in print. I have sent letters to the editor that have never received a response or been printed in your paper.
    Please address answers the following, to myself and to your editor.
    (Please find attached a record of our current email correspondence, the letters-to-the-editor sent to the Times in 2005, and three letters from our 2005 email correspondence).
  2. You said that the purpose of your story was not to render a verdict on the ethics of the drug trials at the ICC orphanage.
    You wrote: “We did not set out to render a verdict, a decade and a half later, on the rightness or wrongness of experimental drug therapies used in the late 1980’s on children with HIV.”
    But your story opens with the line: “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.”
    You later admit that the “permissions” for many of these children are “missing,” (or were never there) but that fact doesn’t affect your opening pitch. You don’t bother to entertain the question of ethics around inventing “permission” to use orphans in clinical trials. You support it, from your opening line.
    A few lines later, you add:
    “[T]here is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success.”
    You provide no data in any portion of your article on any study done on these children at the ICC. You provide no medical data or personal interview from any child from the orphanage. You provide no data on the effects of the drugs used on any individual who was enrolled in any of these trials. You describe no negative effect of the drugs. You credit them with saving lives, but you give no single example of a life that was saved, and you buried the stories of women whose children were made sick from the drugs.
    You rendered a verdict from the opening. Your claim to have done anything else plainly dishonest.
    Q1: What is the New York Times’ policy on reporting the details of drug trials?
    Q2: What is the New York Times’ policy on reporting “missing permissions” for orphans used in drug trials? Is it standard practice to defend organizations that claim to have “missing permissions,” that they can only claim to have ever had, in order to justify the use of orphans in drug trials?
  3. You say that “there is little evidence that the trials were anything but a medical success.” But you admit to not reviewing a single medical case history. You wrote: “No, we did not review patients’ medical files.”
    Q3: Did you interview any children from the ICC?
    Q4: Did you ask them about their health on and off the drugs, or about the effects of the drugs?
    You also revealed no study data, and no drug warnings or effects.
    Q5: On what grounds do you make a claim that these studies benefited any particular or specific child?
    Q6: Can you name and give a detailed history of any particular child who was benefited by any of the three dozen studies done at the ICC?
  4. You quote Dr. Stephen Nicholas, who set up the orphanage as an NIH clinical trial center, saying that “no child ever had an unexpected side effect” on the drugs at the ICC. The drugs in question are AZT and its analogs, Nevirapine, and protease inhibitors, including Ritonavir.
    You wrote me saying that “An unexpected side effect would have been a side effect not previously seen in response to those drugs, presumably.”
    You stated that you did not list a single FDA warning about the drugs used here because: “there are side-effects and FDA warnings on many if not most drugs. The side-effects of early AIDS drugs have been written about extensively.”
    Q7: Did you research any of the “expected side effects” of AZT and Nevirapine? Q8: Do you know why these drugs have an FDA Black-box warning?
    Q9: Why did you not report on any of the “known side effects,” in an article about the allegations that there were major side effects experienced by children at the ICC who were put on these drugs?
    Q10: If the FDA has recorded that a drug has caused permanent disability or death in adults who’ve taken it, at its normal, prescribed dose, what is the New York Times’ policy in reporting that?
  5. You stated that “We did not set out to render a verdict, a decade and a half later, on the rightness or wrongness of experimental drug therapies used in the late 1980’s on children with HIV.”
    Q11: Why are you referring to the “late 1980s?”
    The ICC trials began in 1992 and continued, in various forms, through 2004 or 2005. From ICC’s webpage (as of 2004, when they took this information down): “In 1992, an outpatient clinic for HIV-positive children was established; the same year, with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the clinic became a sub unit of the Columbia University Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Unit…”
    The page also gave a list of trials active at ICC in 1996. As for what happened in the late ’80s, I’ll refer you to their webpage once again:
    “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.”
    Imagine that? Better without AZT, says ICC, in the “late 1980’s.”
    When I interviewed Dr. Katherine Painter, ICC’s medical director, in 2003, she told me that children in ICC could participate in clinical trials by being enrolled in local hospitals. From my 2003 interview with Dr. Katherine Painter (Quoted in “House that Aids Built,” 2004; in the New York Press, “Orphans on Trial”, 2004,; and reprinted with audio at
    Dr. Painter in 2003:
    “[A]nd again, many clinics that refer to us are participating in clinical trials programs.
    So if a child is on a treatment protocol, they would undergo that monitoring, testing, protocol entry, supply of an experimental drug through um, their outpatient clinic – and we can maintain that treatment here.
    So If a child is on an experimental drug, the um, clinic site supplies the drug to the child, and their caregiver of course is the one who actually picks it up, either the nursing aid who accompanies them from a store or their parent or caregiver, and brings it back, picks it back to us if, if it’s not a drug that’s available through a pharmacy.
    Currently the children who’ve been recently here who’ve been on newer therapies have been on T20 or Fuzeon, and it’s now available through a progressive access program from a pharmacy, which is Hoffman La Roche – and previously until very recently was the children who were receiving it were in an expanded access clinical protocol.”
    [end citation]
    She’s describing enrollment of ICC wards in late 2003 into clinical trials and “expanded access clinical protocols” with “experimental drugs.” The kids stay at the orphanage, and are enrolled at neighboring hospitals.
    You radically misplaced and misstated your timeline. Who knows what you were writing about in your article.
  6. You say you’re not sure, or can’t remember if you interviewed ICC’s medical director. You wrote: “I do not recall interviewing Dr. Painter but I may simply not remember. As you know, the Times moved to a new office a year ago. It was not possible to move all of our files. In my case, I threw away files that were more than 12 months old.”
    Q12: Did you or did you not interview Dr. Katherine Painter?
    It’s not a difficult question. You claim to have memory of individual lines that you attribute to me, remembered from a telephone conversation from three years ago. You claim a perfect memory of these lines, despite the fact that I dispute your use of them as wildly de-contextualized misquotes. If you claim perfect memory on these, then you certainly can remember if you interviewed the medical director of the orphanage whose studies you were defending. If you can’t remember, then it should be understood that your entire memory is suspect.
  7. You interviewed Mona, the great aunt and adoptive mother of two children in the ICC, but, according to her, asked her only about my “beliefs about Aids and Aids drugs,” but not about her children, or their reaction to the drugs, or their time in the ICC.
    I put this to you, and you responded:
    “As for our interview with Mona, there is no way we would have interviewed her primarily about your beliefs; there was no need to since we knew your beliefs directly from you.”
    I didn’t ask you what you “would have” interviewed her about. I asked you what you did interview her about. Mona is one of three major witnesses/sources for my first story. She says that you asked her about my “beliefs about Aids and Aids drugs, and little else,” and she does so on tape, and on the record. Q13: What “did” you ask Mona about?
  8. You state that “the aim of the Times story was to explain the background, history and context of the increasingly public controversy that had arisen out of the allegations made in your article.”
    Q14: How did you plan to do that when you suppressed your interviews with all three of my major adult witnesses/sources for my first article:
    (1) Mona, the great-aunt and adoptive mother of two children who’ve been in and out of the ICC their whole lives; (2) Jackie Herger, former pediatric Aids nurse at the ICC and adoptive mother of two children from the orphanage; and (3) Dr. Katherine Painter, the medical director of ICC?
    You claim that you excised interviews from your article for reasons of space: to be able to “produce an article of a length that a newspaper can run.” But your piece ran on the front page of section one, in the Sunday edition, nation- wide. Space was not an issue.
    Q15: Why did you bury the interviews with Mona and Jackie Herger?
    Q16: Why didn’t you interview Dr. Katherine Painter? Or, if you did, why did you bury her interview?
    You cannot claim to have been looking into the allegations made in my article without interviewing or citing these three witnesses.
  9. In your article, you asserted that I told you that I could not get the first story published anywhere. This assertion is contradicted by the email record of our long exchange in 2005, prior to the publication of your article.
    You grossly misquoted, misrepresented and selectively reported my telephone dialog with you, and this total misrepresentation formed the crux of your article. I’ve been interviewed elsewhere, on film, in print and on radio, and I’ve never made any statements consistent with those you attributed to me. This is because you invented them, by wildly de-contextualizing tiny portions of our over-hour long conversation.
    You committed fraud in mis-representing and mis-reporting my statements, and I said so in my letters to you at the time. I’ve been vocal about it since, in interview with other journalists, and in my own published writing, but I’ve never had a response from the Times.
    In our telephone conversation I absolutely informed you about the Left (Village Voice, Democracy Now, NPR) and the bias against critical reporting on Aids (which you’ve proven in practice), and I would swear in court to that fact. It was in that context, and that context alone, that I said that I’d had trouble finding an outlet for the “House” article in 2003. By the time you interviewed me in 2005, however, I’d had at least seven articles published on the subject, in various print and web outlets. The idea that I couldn’t get my work published was and is ludicrous.
    I’d worked at a paper in Boston prior to publishing the “House” article at I’d had a great volume of work published in print and online. Your statement was intended to create an illusion that I was not a journalist or a serious investigator. It was a specious and dishonest claim on your part, and I can only assume, it’s the angle you intended from your pitch.
    I absolutely informed you that I had pulled “The House” article and research from a print magazine for the purpose of getting out faster to news agencies and the public. I have an email record stating as much.
    You asked me (June 30, 2005): “I can’t seem to find in my notes the month that you posted the Incarnation article on Was it January 2004?”
    I answered (also June 30, 2005): “I researched and wrote The House That AIDS Built from June through Nov. 2003, started emailing it out in Dec. 2003. Had a magazine interested in Nov, but they backed out. Had an offer to rewrite it and get it out by Aug 2004 in a print mag, but felt speed was more important.”
    (Find those emails attached).
    You claim to be missing emails, files, etc, to have thrown items away, to have perhaps, lost items in a move. The NY Times has a century or more of archived work publicly available. If your description of your disordered and disrupted files were true, I doubt that your newspaper could function.
    Q17: Do you have a complete email record of our 2005 pre-article correspondence? If not, would you like me to email you and your editor a copy?
    Q18: What is the New York Times policy for misrepresenting someone in print?
  10. You claim that you “do not recall receiving,” but may have lost in a move, or thrown out, my letter-to-the- editor from 2005.
    You wrote: “The Times moved a year ago so I no longer have a lot of older files, but I do not recall receiving your notes and am quite certain I would have responded had I received them.”
    I absolutely wrote the Times with a letter for print, immediately after the publication of your article in July, 2005. I have four sent versions in my email exchange because I sent the letter in duplicate to several NY Times email addresses, including yours, your co-writer Ms. Kaufman, and to the letters department.
    I then posted the letter publicly at GNN, (where much of my reporting has been done), as an open letter to the Times editorial and letters department, and listed the Times “letters” email, in case any reader was motivated to seek a response (”NY Times to the Rescue,” GNN, July 2005).
    My letter was then reposted at the website of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (, along with six additional letters from other journalists, researchers and doctors, who’d written the Times about inaccuracies and gross misreporting in your story (”Seven Unpublished letters to the New York Times Re: AIDS drug/vaccine experiments on babies/children in NYC foster care”, August, 2005).
    Vera Sharav’s letter was sent to Byron Calame, Public Editor New York Times, and was copied to Victor Navasky and Michael Hoyt, Columbia Journalism Review, and Ann Pincus, Center for Public Integrity: Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest. These letters have been online and publicly available for three years.
    In order for you not to have received or been made aware of these letters, you would have to have never used the internet, or have any friends who did, and also have no co-workers, or employers/editors, who receive email, use the internet, or receive feedback on their published work.
    Q19: What is the New York Times’ policy on printing letters-to-the-editor from interview subjects who make serious allegations of being mis-quoted and mis-represented in print by a Times’ reporter?
  11. You claimed, in your article, that the information I provided was done through un-named sources and un- documented research.
    You wrote:
    “Most of the [ethical] questions have arisen from a single account of abuse allegations – given by a single writer about people not identified by real names, backed up with no official documentation as supporting proof, and put out on the Internet in early 2004 after the author was unable to get the story published anywhere else.
    And you concluded:
    “Whatever the outcome, the controversy has already demonstrated the power of a single person armed only with access to the Internet and an incendiary story to put major institutions on the defensive.”
    None of what you wrote is in evidence. It’s a total fabrication.
    A. I didn’t have access “only to the internet.” I took interviews with children who’d been placed in the orphanage because their parents stopped or limited FDA-Black Boxed drugs. I had access to their medical records, and, of course, to their parent’s testimonies.
    B. People were, in fact, identified by real names, in my first report, and in subsequent reporting. Jackie Herger, (former nurse at ICC and adoptive mother of children from the orphanage), and Dr. Katherine Painter (medical director of ICC) were featured in my first, second and third reports on ICC (”House that Aids Built”, “The ICC Investigation Continues”, “Orphans On Trial”), and then in subsequent reporting as well (”The ICC Interviews – Dr. Katherine Painter”, “Inside Incarnation”).
    Mona, a great aunt (and adoptive parent) of two children in the ICC, was provided an alias, as were the children in the story, and I provided her real name, and contact information to you, which you used to interview her.
    To make a claim that a story is potentially false because of the use of a single alias, is not defensible. To raise suspicions about the nature of a witness using an alias, is only defensible if the reporter is unwilling to share the identity of that alias. I provided her name and contact information for you in 2005, and you used it, interviewed her, and suppressed that information.
    C. “No official documentation.” I listed, described and gave detailed analysis to many of the three dozen studies in the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial database (, and directed you to it, to do your work. I reviewed the Physician’s Desk Reference, and FDA database on the drugs used in the studies at ICC, and gave a detailed listing of the recorded side-effects of the drugs.
    D. I reviewed, listed, described and gave analysis to dozens of studies printed in the standard medical journals on the non-standardized tests and the drugs.
    E. I was able to enter the physical orphanage itself, record and report my observations of what I saw, and on several children I interacted with, whose stories I followed up with my sources.
    F. In late 2004, through 2005, I conducted face-to-face interviews with nurses and child-care workers who worked at the orphanage, and cared for the children, and reported on their daily drugging, and the vomiting and diarrhea, rashes and deformities, that occurred as the known and predictable result of the drugs; they also reported in great detail on the deaths that occurred – deaths that were very strongly tied to commencement of drugs or of certain drug regimens, or enforcement via stomach tube of new drugs, including Thalidomide.
    G. At the same time, I conducted further interviews with adolescents who’d been residents at the orphanage, and who had been held and drugged there against their will. Some of these children had developed serious illnesses, including cancer, after a childhoods spent on AZT, and its analogues, drugs which are known carcinogens.
    H. This was reported in the New York Press two weeks after your story was released (”Inside Incarnation,” NY Press, July/Aug 2005). You never did any follow-up, however, after it was revealed that your assertions couldn’t possibly have been true.
    Q20: What is the New York Times policy for committing libel against a source or journalist?
    I look forward to receiving your answers.
    Liam Scheff
    ————–attachments to this email————–
    Four emails from my 2005 email correspondence with Janny Scott, prior to the publication of her NY Times article.
    One and Two – Ms. Scott’s request and thanks for interview, Three – her follow-up question, and Four – my answer to why I put the “House” article on Indymedia and
    ONE – June 7, 2005, From: Janny Scott janscott, To:liamscheff; Subject: interview request
    Dear Mr. Scheff,
    I am a reporter at The New York Times and am working with Leslie Kaufman on a piece about the controversy over the testing of AIDS drugs on foster children. Would you have some time in the near future when we could speak?
    Thanks. I look forward to hearing from you.
    Janny Scott
    212 [XXX-XXXX]
    TWO – June 13, 2005 12:43:17 PM EDT. From Janny Scott janscott Date: To:liamscheff Subject: my email address
    Liam, Thanks again for your time on Thursday.
    Here is my email address. I look forward to receiving whatever you send. Janny
    THREE – June 30, 2005, From: Janny Scott janscott, To: liam scheff liamscheff Cc: leslie Subject: date of first article?
    Hi Liam,
    I can’t seem to find in my notes the month that you posted the Incarnation article on Was it January 2004?
    Please cc your answer to Leslie Kaufman as well as me,, as I may be out of the office. Thanks very much,
    FOUR – June 30, 2005. From: liam scheff liamscheff To: Janny Scott janscott Cc: leslie Subject: Re: date of first article?
    I researched and wrote The House That AIDS Built from June through Nov. 2003, started emailing it out in Dec. 2003. Had a magazine interested in Nov, but they backed out.
    Had an offer to rewrite it and get it out by Aug 2004 in a print mag, but felt speed was more important. Crossed my fingers and sent it out to 50, 60 people. Put it on indymedia in Dec. 2003, the guys at altheal [] put it up for good in January 2004 – I think it says so at the top of the page.
    The film company contacted me in late jan or early feb.
    Doug Montero from the Post contacted me in Jan or early Feb, I still have his emails.
    He interviewed me, then put out the story w/o credit. They put my name in a day later.
    The published something a week or so ago, and credited me properly.
    Janny, drop me a line, you had some questions for me that I’ve thought about and wanted to answer better. LS
    —————-end of attachments to this email——————-
    [There has been no reply.
    This email correspondence, and the published work and research listed in the references section above, provides substantial evidence that I was misrepresented, misquoted and libeled by Janny Scott and the New York Times. Neither Ms. Scott nor her editor, Joe Sexton, has responded to this accusation, or the evidence provided herein.
    Media and legal inquiries are welcome.]

Guinea Pig Kids Continuation B – from Orphan Research and Abuse

Award-winning BBC reporter Jamie Doran breaks the wall of silence after disclosure that New York City orphans have been used as test subjects in dubious medical experiments.
Children, too sick to move or speak, lie sprawled around a playroom. Some sit in wheelchairs amid younger kids tottering aimlessly, their coordination hindered by severe brain damage. Others are deformed, their limbs twisted. Many of the little ones have tubes surgically implanted to pump milky-white fluid through holes in their stomachs. These wards of a New York City orphanage are human guinea pigs. HIV-positive and some only a few months old, they have been enrolled in toxic experiments without the consent of guardians or relatives. Many of these children were taken forcibly from their homes by decree of a seemingly benevolent municipal agency, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).
Most of these drug trials were co-sponsored by giant pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Health (NIH). In conjunction with the ACS, hospital administrators, doctors and their subordinates helped to carry out the experiments, which apparently led to severe injury, deformation, brain damage and even death for some of the subjects.
In New York City more than 23,000 children are either in foster care or independent homes supervised by religious organizations on behalf of the local authorities. Most of these kids are black or Hispanic. Some are born addicted to crack; others are HIV-positive. For more than a decade, the ACS admits, 465 children have been forced to receive dubious experimental cocktails provided by such pharmaceutical firms as Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MicroGeneSys, Biocine, Glaxo Wellcome and Pfizer.
There have been allegations that these clinical trials have killed children. What is certain is that most of the experiments were cruel and unnecessary.
“They tested these very highly experimental drugs, Phase 1 and Phase 2,” says Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. “Why didn’t they provide the children with the current best treatment? That’s the question I have. Why did they expose them to risk and pain when they were helpless? Would they have done those experiments with their own children? I doubt it.”
In studies conducted under the auspices of the foster-care system, children were administered multiple concoctions simultaneously, at up to eight times the usual doses. No one seemed terribly concerned what effects AZT, Nevirapine and vaccines for herpes and chicken pox would have on the kids.
“We’re talking about serious, serious side effects,” says Dr. David Rasnick, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in AIDS research. “These children are going to be absolutely miserable… they’re going to have cramps and diarrhea, and their joints are going to swell up. They’re going to roll around the ground, and you can’t touch them.”
Rasnick describes some of the drugs administered in the experiments as “lethal.” For example, Nevirapine can cause severe liver toxicity. Another potential side effect is Steven Johnsons Syndrome, which is characterized by painful flaking of the skin.
Government documentation (available at lists some of the experiments carried out on children. One involved a herpes treatment; another gave subjects double doses of a measles vaccine. One trial involved

administering cocktails of drugs with side effects that included severe abdominal pain, muscle wastage and organ failure. How could this happen in America?
ince the 1980s, activists have been pressuring the government to rush new AIDS drugs onto the market. Since then, Liam Scheff maintains, the relationship between the NIH, FDA and drug companies has grown incestuous.
Scheff, the investigative reporter who originally broke this story and brought it to the BBC, claims that drug companies were motivated to co-sponsor orphan drug studies with the NIH “to keep old, failed drugs like AZT on the market.”
“When a profitable drug fails in one population,” Scheff explains, “its manufacturer will try to find a use for it in another. With AIDS drugs, they’ve dumped drugs that harmed and even killed adult males into pregnant women and their children.”
“A drug company only has to alter a drug slightly, or simply change its name,” he continues, “to be able to claim a new use. They run it through new clinical trials co-sponsored by the NIH, a taxpayer-funded government agency. As such, the NIH publishes lots of data and claims it’s fighting the war on AIDS, which justifies its growing budget. Conversely, drug companies get to run their old, failed drugs through new trials subsidized by taxpayers. It’s a win-win situation. The only losers are orphans.”
The NIH will partner with a hospital and a government-sponsored foster-care system. Suddenly, they have an endless supply of subjects on which to test-sick youngsters with no guardians.
“You would not expect too many parents to volunteer their children for such experiments,” says the Alliance for Human Research Protection’s Vera Sharav. “This means that if the researchers want to do the experiments on children, they are going to look for vulnerable children whom they can get. And when you have a city government agency accommodating them, that is the biggest betrayal of those children. They don’t have anyone but the city agency that is their guardian on paper.”
And how can anyone believe that drugs proven devastatingly toxic in adults might benefit infants or children?
“When asked by a reporter or a city councilperson, the doctors will say they’re offering the most advanced treatment to these kids,” Scheff says. “That’s not true. If you review the specific drugs used in the studies, it becomes obvious that that’s totally contradictory.” Scheff goes on to explain why the NIH and the FDA don’t restrain the drug companies: “The NIH and the FDA are the drug companies. It’s unclear anymore where one stops and another begins. It’s the same if I say that General Dynamics and Raytheon are the Department of Defense. The NIH is an organization that works as a liaison between the drug companies and the public they too often pretend to serve. The job of the NIH is to keep drug companies in business, and less and less to serve the public.”
eople do things for a reason, good or bad,” says 15-year-old Carlos (not his real name), who was reluctant to be interviewed. “We have to forgive them for what they do.” Soon after being born to an HIV-positive mother, Carlos was sent to the Incarnation Children’s Center-a New York City nursing facility for children and adolescents with HIV or AIDS-and has spent most of his life in foster-care facilities.
From a distance, Carlos looks like a typical urban teenager: reversed baseball cap, bomber jacket hanging off his shoulders and baggy jeans. On close examination, his frailty is starkly apparent. The youth stands 5-foot-10, but his arms and legs are so thin, they appear as if they’d snap at the slightest touch. His eyes are sallow, sunken and better fitted for a man 50 years older.
Today, Carlos lives in Harlem with his aunt, a teacher. She was frightened that if the ACS heard that he’d spoken to the press, the boy could be taken away from her and put back on the experiments once again.
It was around ten years ago that Carlos had been removed from his family after their refusal to continue administering drugs at home, because they were making him ill. Twice he’d ended up on life-support.
But the ACS knew best. Carlos was placed in a children’s home, which had become a virtual conveyor belt of sick kids on which doctors could test new drugs. He was perfect: Not only was the boy black, poor and HIV- positive, but also his family couldn’t afford a private attorney. Having taken him into its care, the ACS became his official guardian. Incarnation Children’s Center is under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of New York’s Catholic

Charities. The Center is housed in a refurbished convent in upper Manhattan. In 1992, Incarnation partnered with nearby New York-Presbyterian Hospital and became a testing ground for clinical drug trials.
Since the late 1990s, children have been used in experiments. If a child refused to take a given medication, he or she was force-fed through a tube surgically inserted into the stomach. Both Incarnation Children’s Center and its public-relations firm refused to comment about activities within the facility. acklyn Hoerger was a pediatric nurse at Incarnation for more than five years. She says doctors there insistent that any of the children’s pain or suffering had nothing to do with the experimental drugs. “At the time, it did not occur to me that anything was wrong,” Hoerger recalls. “If they were vomiting, if they lost their ability to walk, if they were having diarrhea, if they were dying, then all of this was because of their HIV infection.”
Hoerger changed her mind after she and her husband had adopted two little girls from the home. Despite receiving the utmost care and attention, their conditions continued to deteriorate.
“I gave them good-quality food,” Hoerger says, “and the best private schooling they could get, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy and tutoring, the best psychologist that I could find on all levels, and I just didn’t seem to be making any headway. The only thing that was left was the medication that I was giving them.” Hoerger took the children off the drug regime and, almost immediately, their health and happiness visibly improved. For the first time they were able to go swimming and cycling. Both the kids’ social worker and mental- health visitor were delighted. But when the ACS discovered that their mother had stopped administering the girls’ medications, there was a knock on the door.
“It was a Saturday morning,” Hoerger says, “and they had come a few times unannounced. So when I saw them at the door, I invited them in, and they said that this wasn’t a happy visit. And at that point they told me that they were taking the children away. I was in shock; I couldn’t believe it.”
For refusing to administer drugs, Jacklyn Hoerger lost the children and was also convicted of child abuse. Four years later she still has no idea what happened to the girls she’d grown to love. According to records, more than 50 children in 13 experiments from Incarnation were offered up for experiments. An unknown number of others came from foster homes and other children’s facilities under the supervision of the ACS, which was granted far- reaching powers in the 1990s by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. After a particularly horrific child-abuse case, literally thousands of children were effectively rounded up and placed in foster care.
“They’re essentially out of control,” says David Lansner, a family lawyer in New York. “I’ve had many ACS case workers tell me, ‘We’re ACS. We can do whatever we want.’ And they usually get away with it.”
Inexplicably in 2002, the trials at Incarnation suddenly stopped. But documentation shows that similar experiments continue at up to six other locations in New York City’s metropolitan area.
According to the New York Post, the state Health Department has launched an investigation. Also, the ACS itself has agreed to hire an independent research firm to look into the allegations. The agency reports it will form a panel of national health-care experts to review the findings.
“We do know that several [children] passed away during the course of these experiments, and we do know that some are still involved,” says Bill Perkins, the New York City Council’s deputy majority leader. “And there is somewhat of a secrecy about the whole thing, I must say. It has not been easy to get through the bureaucracy as to exactly what this is all about.”
Others believe that the damage is already obvious. “They were just experimenting, like you had a bunch of lab rats, an unending supply,” says AIDS researcher David Rasnick. “You had subjects, you had drugs, and you were just experimenting, throwing things around.”
Liam Scheff, who has written numerous articles on AIDS and related topics, contributed to this report.

Current research findings… in progross: The ICC Investigation – Deaths in Studies with NYC Orphans – AHRP on the VERA Institute Report January 29th, 2009

Article No. 1

This is the ICC Investigation – Deaths in Studies with NYC Orphans – AHRP on the VERA Institute Report

January 29th, 2009 — —

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability and

The final report of the VERA Institute investigation commissioned in 2005 by the NYC Administration of Child Services will hardly put to rest the controversy surrounding a 20-year period during which children in foster care were subjected to toxic Phase I and Phase II AIDS drug and vaccine experiments–mostly without parental consent and without the protection of an independent advocate–as mandated by federal regulations in force then and now.

The VERA Institute report findings:

532 children in NYC foster care were enrolled in the AIDS clinical trials or observational studies.

• 80 of the 532 children who participated in clinical trials or observational studies died while in foster care;

• 25 of them died while enrolled in a medication trial.

• 64 children participated in 30 medication trials that were NOT REVIEWED by a special medical advisory panel,

as the city’s policy required.

• And 21 children participated in trials that the panel had REVIEWED BUT had NOT RECOMMENDED.

(In both cases, 13 of the enrollments occurred before the children were placed in foster care.)

The authors of the report “concluded” that the deaths were “not a direct result of the medications.”

However the validity of that conclusion is highly questionable inasmuch as the VERA Institute reached that “conclusion” on the basis of (admittedly) incomplete, therefore unreliable records.

MOST IMPORTANT: The VERA Institute acknowledges that its staff never gained access to the children’s primary medical clinical trial records–which the hospitals conducting the trials kept sealed under a shield of confidentiality. “citing confidentiality laws, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) refused multiple requests from Children’s Services that it use its supervisory authority to allow Vera Institute of Justice staff from Vera or Children’s Services to review clinical trial research or medical records.

This limited Vera’s review in several ways, including the ability to fully document the frequency and severity of toxicity (side effects), the individual outcomes of trial participation for the children in the review, and the existence of valid, signed informed consent documents.” [Executive Summary] noappendix.pdf

Neither did the Vera Institute have access to minutes from medical center research review boards where the trials were conducted.

“Vera could not identify the trials in which an IRB approved a trial under 45 CFR 46.406 or .407. HRA/Children’s Services’ policy required that each institution produce proof of IRB approval, but the policy did not require that the institution identify the category under which the IRB approved the research”

DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE PRIMARY RECORDS EFFECTIVELY UNDERMINED THE VALIDITY OF THE VERA INSTITUTE INVESTIGATION which was charged with fact-finding about these highly controversial experiments.

The foster children in the experiments–94% children of color–were enrolled, mostly in violation of federal informed consent requirements.

The VERA Institute relied on secondary, child welfare files and Pediatric AIDS Unit (PAU) records both of which are

notoriously incomplete.

Although state regulations mandated that Children’s Services ensure the retention of most of the child welfare files that Vera was asked to review, for 30 percent of the children, some part of the child welfare file was lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.”

“the records of the Pediatric AIDS Unit (PAU) were incomplete, especially after 1995. Problems with the PAU’s record keeping after 1995, including defects in the unit’s electronic database, were noted in the unit’s quarterly reports to supervisors and state officials, including the AIDS Institute.”

Even those incomplete welfare files provide a hint of the adverse effects suffered by children who had been subjected to the experimental trials:

The child welfare files contained information indicating that some children experienced serious toxicities, or side effects, from trial medications, such as reduced liver function or severe anemia. These toxicities were consistent with toxicities described in published articles about the trials.”


In 2004, after ascertaining that there were legitimate issues of concern and the possibility of child abuse–some of which were enumerated in a report by Liam Scheff, The House that AIDS Built, the Alliance for Human Research Protection filed a complaint with the federal Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP). The AHRP complaint focused on the enrollment of particularly vulnerable foster children in AIDS drug / vaccine experiments and system wide institutional failure to protect the individual child’s best interest in accordance with Federal regulations mandating an independent advocate for each child.

The foster children enrolled in the AIDS trials were denied their human right: they were enrolled in the trial in accordance with New York City ACS guidelines which waive a foster child’s right to individual consent. ACS guidelines stated: “Separate consent need not be obtained for each child.”

This waiver, we believe, denies these children their basic human dignity and ascribes to them the status of guinea pigs.

The VERA Institute report confirms that the AHRP letter of complaint was the cornerstone for OHRP’s investigation of Columbia University Medical Center’s HIV-AIDS clinical trials, followed by a nationwide investigation:

OHRP issued determination letters to 19 institutions across the country for violations related to the enrollment of foster children in the HIV/AIDS clinical trials originally cited in the AHRP letter.366 The 19 institutions included the New York City medical centers Bronx-Lebanon and Bellevue Hospital Centers. 367 The SUNY Health Science Center at Stony Brook had also received a determination letter in February 2006 regarding two of the clinical trials cited.368

Each of these letters refers to an IRB’ss apparent failure to categorize the research as 404, 405, 406, or 407 studies and/ or to obtain sufficient information regarding the selection of foster children as participants in the trials. At each of the 19 other sites that received the June 2006 determination letters, OHRP approved corrective action plans aimed at preventing future violations.” Links to the 19 letters at:

The VERA Institute report makes some cogent critical observations about the shortcomings of the OHRP investigation:

“The OHRP investigations indicate that IRBs at many institutions across the country did not properly document their activities and did not take the special circumstances of children in foster care into consideration. As is its mandate, OHRP focused its activities on compliance with federal regulations. The investigation at CUMC, however, left many other questions unanswered.

OHRP did not seek to make determinations on how many children in foster care participated in clinical trials or whether the person who signed the consent form had the legal authority to do so, nor did it examine what adverse events or benefits occurred to the children, if any, due to trial participation. The investigation did not examine whether foster children made up a disproportionate number of children in HIV/AIDS clinical trials or specify the policy of New York City’s child welfare agency for enrolling and monitoring foster children in clinical trials.”

Evidence previously uncovered by the Associated Press, confirmed AHRP’s concerns: most of the foster children in the AIDS trials were denied the protection of an independent advocate charged with ensuring that a foster child’s best interest is served by participating in a research project–as mandated by federal regulations.

Because the facts do not refute our complaint about the failure to provide NYC foster children the protection of an independent advocate–who may have refused consent for the AIDS drug / vaccine trials in which 80 children are confirmed to have died, the VERA report attempts to whitewash the violations by claiming that:

“The role and requirements of the independent advocate described in federal research regulations were not well

understood by clinical trials researchers and, in some cases, child welfare staff….”

It boggles the imagination that institutional review boards at premier medical research centers could claim ignorance about a glaring conflict of interest:

“In at least six instances where Vera reviewers found that an independent advocate had been appointed, the person appointed had relationships to the institution conducting the trial or a child welfare agency that the federal regulations specifically bar.”

The ACS Press Release claimed: “evidence that child welfare officials followed then-current written policies to obtain parental consent for nearly 80 percent of children participating in the trials” when in fact, the child welfare agency changed its enrollment policy to speed up the enrollment process. The New York City ACS guidelines waived a foster child’s right to individual consent in direct violation of federal regulations: “Separate consent need not be obtained for each child.”

This waiver, we believe, denied foster children their basic human dignity and cast them to the status of guinea pigs.

Oddly, The New York Times did not consider 80 children’s deaths worthy of mention in its news report! See: AHRP complaint:

See:The Associated Press report, “Researchers Tested AIDS Drugs on Children” by John Solomon, May 5, 2004, whose investigation found that less than a third of the children in the AIDS trials [“got such monitors even though city policy required them.”]:

See: Testimony

(Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav verac…

The Covid-Plan / Rockefeller Lockstep 2010

They hypothesize a simulated global outbreak required steps, various phases, overall timelines, and expected outcomes. This was posited in the Rockefeller Lockstep 2010:

• Create a very contagious but super low mortality rate virus to fit the needed plan. Using SARS, HIV, Hybrid Research Strain created at Fort Dietrich Class 4 lab from 2008 to 2013 as part of a research project to find out why corona viruses spread like wildfire in bats but have an extremely hard time infecting humans. To counteract that, they added 4 HIV inserts into the virus. The missing key to infect the human is the Ace-2-Receptor.

• Create a weaponized version of the virus with a much higher mortality rate as a backup plan. Ready to be released in Phase 3, but only if needed. SARS, HIV, MERS, Weaponized Tribit Strain created at Fort Dietrich Class 4 lab in 2015.

• Transport the Research Strain to different Class 4 lab, the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg Canada, and have it “stolen and smuggled out by China”, Xi Jang Lee, on purpose and taken to China’s only Class 4 lab which is Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan China. For added plausible deniability and to help cement the wanted backup public script as something to fall back on if needed. The primary script being its natural. Backup script being that China created it and released it by accident.

• Fund all the talking heads: Fauci, Birx, Tedros and agencies, World Health Organization, NIAID, the CDC and also the UN, that would be involved with pandemic response prior to the planned release of the Research Strain to control the wanted script throughout the operation.

• Create and fund the vaccination development and roll out plan so it’s capable of being rolled out on a global scale. Gates: A Decade of Vaccines and the Global Action Vaccine action plan, 2010 to 2020.

• Create and fund the vaccination, verification and certification protocols, Digital ID, to enforce/confirm the vaccination program after the mandatory roll out is enacted. Gates: ID2020.

• Simulate the lockstep hypothesis just prior to the planned Research Strain release using a real-world exercise as a final war game to determine expected response, timelines, and outcomes, Event 201 in Oct 2019.

• Release the Research Strain at the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself and then blame its release on a natural scapegoat as the wanted primary script. Wuhan wet market, Nov 2019. Exactly the same as the simulation.

• Downplay the human-to-human transmission for as long as possible to allow the Research Strain to spread on a global scale before any country can lock down respond to avoid initial infection.

• Once a country has seen infection in place, lock down incoming/outgoing travel. Keep the transmission within the country spreading for as long as possible.

• Once enough people in a country/ region are infected, enact forced quarantines/isolation for that area and expand the lockdown regions slowly over time

• Overhype the mortality rate by tying the Research Strain to deaths that have little to nothing to do with the actual virus to keep the fear and compliance at a maximum. If anyone dies for any reason and is found to have Covid, consider it a Covid death. And if anyone is thought to of maybe had symptoms of Covid, assume they have Covid, and consider it as a Covid death.

• Keep the public quarantines for as long as possible to destroy the region’s economy, create civil unrest, break down the supply chain, and cause the start of mass food shortages. As well as cause people’s immune system to weaken due to a lack of interaction with other people’s bacteria, the outside world, aka the things that keep our immune systems alert and active.

• Downplay and attack any potential treatments and continue to echo that the only cure that is viable to fight this virus is the vaccine.

• Continue to drag out the quarantine over and over again in “two-week intervals” [There is that two weeks spell casting again. It is a CIA program.] causing more and more people to eventually stand up and protest. Defy them.

• [And here is the key part to now:] Eventually end Phase 1 quarantine once they get enough public push back, expected June 2020, and publicly state that they think it’s “too early to end the isolation, but I’m going to do it anyways.”

• Once the public go back to normal, wait a few weeks and continue to overhype the Research Strain mortality rate, Aug to Sept 2020, and combine it with the increase in deaths due to people dying from standard illnesses at a higher rate than normal due to having highly weakened immune systems from months of being in isolation [Which backs up what I said: you should social-distance people who wear masks regular. That’s what they’ve just told you. They have highly weakened immune systems.] to help further pad the mortality rate and also hype the up and coming Phase 2 lockdown.

• Eventually, enact Phase 2 quarantines, Oct through Nov 2020, on an even more extreme level and blame the protesters, mostly people who don’t trust their governments already, as the cause of the largest second wave whereby the media will say ‘we told you so. It was too early. It’s all your own fault because you needed a haircut. Your freedoms have consequences.’ [Should this all unfold in this manner, the US election will be cancelled delayed or suspended. My opinion. How can you vote with Phase 2 quarantines? You can’t.]

• Enforce the Phase 2 quarantines at a much more extreme level increasing the penalty for defiance. Replace fines with jail time. Deem all travel as non-essential. Increase checkpoints, including military assistance. Increase tracking/tracing after population via mandatory app. Take over control of food, gas, and create large scale shortages so that people can only get access to essential products or services if they are first given permission.

• Keep the Phase 2 lockdown in place for a much longer period of time than the Phase 1 lockdown, continuing to destroy the global economy. Further degrade the supply chain and further amplify the food shortages and the like. Quell any public outrage using extreme actions or force and make anyone who defies them appear as public enemy #1 to those who are willing to submit.

• After a rather long Phase 2 lockdown of 6 months plus, roll out the vaccination program and the vaccine certification and make it mandatory for everyone, giving priority access to those that submitted from the start and have those that are for it attack those that are against it, saying ‘they are a threat and the cause of all the problems’ by using words like “We can’t go back to normal until everyone takes the vaccine.” And people defying them are “hurting our way of life and therefore are the enemy.” [In other words they are going to turn the people against each other.]

• If the majority of people go along with the agenda, then let those people enter the new system, the new normal, while limiting the minority that defied the agenda’s ability to work, travel and live.

• If the majority of people go against the agenda, then release the Weaponized SARS/HIV/MERS Tribit Strain as a Phase 3 operation. A virus with a 30+% mortality rate as a final scare to punish the minority to quickly become the majority and give a final “We told you so” to those that didn’t listen.

• Enact the new economy model. Microsoft patent 060606 crypto currency system using body activity data which is based on human behavior and willingness to submit. It is a tweaked version of the black mirrors 15 million merits program using food, water, shelter, and other essentials as a weapon of enforcement of the new economic system. Basically, do what we want and get rewarded. Gain credits score and gain more access to things you need to survive. Or go against what we want and get penalized. Lose credits score and lose access to things you need to survive.

And that is your New World Order: technology on steroids where you have no option but to comply. And if anyone thinks that this isn’t true, then go and check out some parts of China because they’ve already started some of the crypto currencies system in place in certain areas.

So, this is the outline of their plan. And what we have to stop by outing it in as many places as possible. And also calling out Q and Trump and asking them: Are you going to stop this? Mass arrests are irrelevant. This is essential and this has to be blocked.


Excerpt from Thomas Williams THI Special Exposé Part 2:,

You’re Already Living in the Metaverse

– Courtesy of Antonio García Martínez – Common Sense with Bari Weiss

The term metaverse, like the term meritocracy, was coined in a scifi dystopia novel written as cautionary tale. Then techies took metaverse, and technocrats took meritocracy, and enthusiastically adopted what was meant to inspire horror.

Originally appearing by name in Neal Stephenson’s classic Snow Crash, the metaverse concept has been rehashed in other hits like Ready Player One or the film series The Matrix. In the Stephenson version, much as in Mark Zuckerberg’s uncanny Metaverse launch video, so-called “gargoyles” are otherwise normal humans who languish their entire lives inside a virtualized reality with headsets bolted to their faces.

If you’re wondering why someone like Zuckerberg with such immense resources (including an estate on paradisiacal Ku’uai) wants to blot out reality with a VR headset, then you need to understand the techie mindset. As more than one Valley character has un-ironically expressed to me in private: anything worth doing can be done better via screen. 

Many Silicon Valley investment portfolios and lifestyles reflect that view. In-person dinners are still convened, but those IRL events are now a luxury add-on (and reflection of) digital life rather than vice versa. VCs invest vast sums in founders they’ve never physically met, and those startup founders hire people whose hands they’ve never shaken. The resulting companies have workforces who spend all day looking at each other via endless Zoom calls, but who never or rarely meet (I know, I’ve worked in them). The techies prefer intermediating reality and people via pixels and algorithms, and they’ve created the conditions such that the world meets them on their terms.

Not that we were very hard to convince.

Whether or not Zuckerberg’s Metaverse plan works out, the little ‘m’ metaverse is already here and we’re already living inside of it. It’s the elective, virtualized reality composed of Twitter, Instagram, and even the very Substack you’re reading right now. The tech “backlash” that the media has been trying to engineer (speaking of pleasant illusions) has never really happened, and you’d be hard-pressed to find signs of one in Facebook’s, or any other tech company’s, usage and revenue graphs.

Waiting for the subway in Tokyo. (Nano Calvo/VW PICS/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

More anecdotally, those who assert that “Twitter isn’t real life”, as Dave Chapelle did in his most recent and controversial Netflix special, are either delusional or disingenuous. Chapelle’s own brain has clearly been eaten by Twitter, as in the rest of his special he touched on every Twitter-mediated woke flashpoint of the past several months, and the blowback (and consequences) to his show were adjudicated on the very platform he claimed didn’t matter.

I used to think that online life constituted the shadows in Plato’s allegory of the cave, and those craning their necks into phones all day were the poor souls chained down and forced to watch the meaningless digital flickers of reality. After having to explain again and again to normies how some new real-world scandal, be it the fight over CRT, the latest Trumpian sound bite, or the lab-leak hypothesis, all had their origins among obscure corners and figures of the Internet, I now realize it’s the reverse: real life is increasingly a reflection of what happens online.

In our society of spectacle, the only hard, non-optional realities left are war, the markets, and elections. War has been outsourced and forgotten: consider how much longer the Chapelle discourse lasted than the debate about the Afghanistan debacle, the humiliating end to our nation’s longest conflict. Markets impact most people indirectly, but are still real enough to eventually cause a glitch in the matrix about inflation being under control (narrator’s voice: it’s not). Elections, however, are real enough to instantly slap us in the face and make entire fantastical worldviews crumble within a day.

Take the recent election results in Virginia, where Democrats have won every statewide election since 2009. In a state that Biden won by 10 points, Republicans swept. As with every surprise election result these days, this sparked a pageant of motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance from a left-leaning mainstream media that tried to reconcile reality to their online-derived bubbles (rather than the reverse). In our increasingly Schrodinger-esque reality (he of the cat simultaneously alive and dead), the election was either not about CRT at all, or about CRT but only because nefarious forces had made it so.

Politics become strange when reality becomes optional.

Historically, the swirl of culture, media, and moral narratives that frame human life followed the contours of language, religion and tribe, which eventually coalesced into nation-states. That colored shape on the map, labeled ‘France’ or ‘Texas’ or whatever, defined your narrative world given the traffic in books and images still followed the paths of people and commerce. Only those living in the liminal intersection of two cultural worlds—say, someone like me raised in the Anglo/Latin entrepot of Miami—would be forced to constantly navigate entirely different worldviews.

At the Shwedagon pagoda in Myanmar. (Yvan Cohen/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The metaverse decoupled the movement of information from the movement of matter, bits from atoms, which is the real radical change in replacing reality with a virtual version. Now, everyone is a cultural in-betweener, living a somewhat dissociated life between the mental world they’ve constructed with the aid of screens and algorithms, and the physical world that both feeds them and imposes a legal framework. If you look closely, every major debate in the culture war is over which narrative to pluck from the virtual realm and use as a guide for the ‘real’ world that is now downstream of the digital version.

Techies will literally invent an entirely new plane of human existence rather than offering to fix the pressing problems of the ‘meatspace’ world. The problem, once again, is that we’re all willing to follow them there, and make the real world subordinate to the metaverse one. 

Take a friend I have who lives in Loudoun County, Virginia. He’s a perfectly reasonable political consultant type with a wife, two kids, a regular church, and a mortgage. He pulled his kids from the public schools, opting for homeschooling, instead of having to care about the school crack-up there that’s drawn so much attention. He was tired of reconciling his narrative (which was not on board with CRT) with that of a real-world collective, no matter the relative homogeneity of an affluent Northern Virginia suburb. If people of good faith can’t forge a shared reality, and therefore political comity, about the things they care about most with similar people who live down the street, what hope is there for California or the United States of America?

Our political factions are even more clueless about what’s going on than average citizens. In the car of society we’re all riding in, the liberals are trying to slam the brakes, the techies are flooring the gas, the conservatives are looking for a reverse gear that doesn’t exist. The most reasonable people inside that metaphorical car might just be the techies stomping on the gas. The only way through is through, and the thought we’re going to maintain physically-defined bubbles of political and moral consensus while also migrating even more into the metaverse is a delusional  belief. We might have to start thinking about a world where politics follows the disembodied digital bubbles we construct for ourselves, rather than thinking we’re going to ‘content moderate’ the digital into conforming with the politics of physical counties and states. The latter is the brake-stomping approach of the liberals and, well, how’s that going for them?

Not that the accelerationist approach to the metaverse is without its problems. Take that other scifi fantasy that probably also led to Metaverse ambitions: the ‘Holodeck’ in Star Trek: Next Generation. The Holodeck served as a sort of escapist rumpus room where characters could indulge fantasies impossible in the close confines of a starship. When the hologram featuring vast vistas or heart-pumping adventures was turned off, all that was left was an empty, featureless room. As with the Holodeck, reality in the metaverse is little more than a blank canvas on which to project the simulacrum. Silicon Valley working life under COVID was a taste of this: virtualized everything, in-person face-time with only a narrow set of family and friends, and the occasional tightly-choreographed company offsite trip. So long as the Amazon Prime delivery arrives and the DoorDash still shows up, the metaversians don’t care too much about what the Holodeck looks like when the simulacrum is shut off. Billionaires like Elon and Bezos may fantasize about one day escaping Earth, but for everyone else, the only thing they’ll be escaping into is that Zoom-and-Amazon Holodeck, leaving the physical world as someone else’s problem to deal with.

Until the nerd Rapture of the Singularity happens—the messianic thought that humans will be uploaded to a disembodied realm of pure computation, the Kingdom of God as human cloud server—we’re still stuck with the question of Loudoun County school curricula, or even graver threats like Chinese geopolitical ambitions. At times like these, it’s worth recalling Rudyard Kipling’s musings in his “The Gods of the Copybook Headings,” about the grim realities of life:

They never altered their pace,

Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

The lights have gone out in California numerous times in recent memory, just as wildfires turned the sky into an unbreathable Martian red. More minds of this generation are presently dragging themselves through San Francisco “destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” than when Alan Ginsburg wrote those words in “Howl” while prowling those same streets himself. China works on hypersonic missiles while our government, incapable of defeating a medieval religious insurgency in Afghanistan, launches a “National Gender Strategy.” Elites are the biggest fans of this new metaverse, where their cultural reveries and social experiments freely play out in a media Holodeck…until the next election that is. Clever technologists might just succeed in whisking us away to a carefree world of pixels and automation, but I fear the hard gods of reality are not done with us yet.

Antonio García Martínez last wrote for us about Cuba. Follow his work here.
— Read on

Parents Increasingly Worried About Forced Vaccination For Children As Biden Tightens Mandates

Courtesy of

Anybody who has been paying attention to the Biden Administration’s increasingly coercive and draconian vaccination mandates for workers at nearly every company (except perhaps the smallest businesses [those with fewer than 100 employees, although that, in time, may change, too], the FT reports that American adults are facing a dilemma: whether to get their children between the ages of five and 11 vaccinated.

When the FDA and CDC (going against the advice of advisors) decided to approve the drug for children 5 to 11 to earlier this month, most American parents got the message: pretty soon, they would need to make a decision. Either submit and vaccinate their child despite the fact that most healthy children have little justification for being vaccinated against COVID, or watch as the public education and other services guaranteed their child by the American laws and the Constitution (although judicial precedent has complicated things a bit) have systemically denied to their children, all because worried parents had concerns about the long-term impact of vaccination – particularly now that Israeli scientists have identified the SARS-CoV-2 proteins responsible for damaging difference aspects of the human anatomy.

In most cases – especially with the Moderna jab – vaccines for minors are being “reformulated” to include a lower dose of the active ingredient.

But as Pfizer releases its “miracle” COVID pill, the second COVID antiviral pill introduced by a pharma giant after Merck’s Molnupiravir, and the data showing Pfizer’s pill cuts hospitalizations in vulnerable patients down by 89% (compared with Molnupiravir’s 50%), the Biden Admin’s plan for quickly rolling out jabs to 28MM young children is meeting growing resistance from parents who are hesitant about the jab’s safety, believe it to be unnecessary, or have some other reason for resisting vaccines developed through a partnership between Pharma giants and the US government.

Even some parents who have been vaccinated themselves are opposed to inoculating their five to 11 year olds as they worry about side effects that could be more impactful in younger patients (which is why several Scandinavian governments have moved to restrict who receives doses of Moderna and other mRNA vaccines).

This includes health-care workers like Narika Davis, who has reservations about vaxxing her kids, per the FT.

Narika Davis, a speech therapist from Tennessee, has been vaccinated against Covid-19 along with her husband, because as frontline workers who could be exposed to the virus they wanted to protect their families. But they have decided, for now, not to have their children inoculated as part of what she describes as a nationwide “experiment”.

“This is a new vaccine that has come out and we just feel there isn’t a lot of data yet,” said Davis, who has a four-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter.

So does Mike McDermott, a father of two, who spoke at board meeting in October.

“I’m pro-vaccine, my wife is pro-vaccine, we’re both vaccinated, but I’m not in favour of forcing our kids and my neighbour’s kids to get a vaccine just so they can receive a public education,” Mike McDermott, a father of two, told the board meeting on October 20.

The US is the world’s first country to deliver an EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech jab for use in younger children, although a handful of other countries including China and Cuba have begun vaccinating minors below the age of 12 with domestically developed vaccines, per FT.

Some scientists claim that vaccinating children helps to “break the chain” of COVID transmission. However, others claim that COVID is now endemic in the world population, and that humanity will now need to worry about COVID going forward – something that vaccinating children won’t change.

“We need to get the kids vaccinated to break the transmission chain,” said Eric Topol, director of the California-based Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We can see from recent UK and US data that kids really drove the recent surge with the Delta variant.”

Still, other studies found that parents are concerned about vaccinating their children increased significantly between June and September, and that imposing an even broader COVID jab that could keep children out of school for long periods of time would be incredibly controversial and politically unpopular.

Of course, that has never stopped the Democrats in the past.

Read the full study below:

Covid19 Consortium Report 68 Kids 2021 by Joseph Adinolfi Jr. on Scribd

Original Article:

Read More:

Ghislaine Maxwell claims ‘creepy’ prison guards watch her in the shower and rat shares her cell…

Ghislaine Maxwell claims 'creepy' prison guards watch her in the shower and rat shares her cell

Ghislaine Maxwell has spoken out from her jail cell ahead of her trial – claiming “creepy” guards watch her as she uses the bathroom.

Maxwell, 59, is awaiting trial on charges of grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein.

We Just Witnessed The Start Of A Breakup ???? #Shorts

She is accused of helping arrange for the now-deceased disgraced financier to abuse underage girls as young as 14, which she denies.

Ahead of her trial, the socialite now claims that she is being watched by guards and her only company is the rats near to the open sewer drain in her cell, Mail On Sunday reports.

Credit: REUTERS / Alamy

She’s had her bail rejected for the sixth time, despite moaning that she is being treated like “Hannibal Lecter.”

In her first-ever interview from behind bars, she has claimed that she is being kept in “inhumane” solitary confinement the entire time.

Speaking to the Mail On Sunday she said: “I used to go to the loo with an open sewer drain and a friendly rat would regularly visit.

“I told the guards, but nothing was done until the rat popped out and charged a guard who screamed in terror. Finally, the sewer drain was covered.”

She added: “I used to take a shower every day but I’ve stopped because of the creepy guards who stand close and stare at me the whole time.”

Credit: MediaPunch Inc / Alamy

Her lawyers argue her jail conditions are fit only for fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter – the fictional cannibalistic serial killer from the movie Silence of the Lambs.

What’s more, her lawyers say her continued imprisonment is “untenable and unreasonable”.

According to the paper, Maxwell’s lawyer David Oscar Markus told the court earlier on in the year: “Though she is a model prisoner who poses no danger to society and has done literally nothing to prompt ‘special’ treatment, she is kept in isolation.”

Markus continued: “Conditions fitting for Hannibal Lecter but not a 59-year-old woman who poses no threat to anyone. She is subjected to multiple invasive searches every day. Her every movement is captured on multiple video cameras. She is deprived of any real sleep by having a flashlight pointed into her cell every 15 minutes.”

Credit: REUTERS / Alamy

In response to the claims of poor treatment, District Judge Alison Nathan has promised in a recent ruling that the 59-year-old would be taken from her jail cell to her trial “in a way that is humane, proper, and consistent with security protocols”.

It was previously reported by Reuters that the reason she has repeatedly been denied bail is due to concerns that she might flee and refuse to cooperate with authorities.

Epstein committed suicide by hanging in his jail cell in August 2019 as he awaited, also without the chance of bail, his trial on sex trafficking charges.

Maxwell’s trial is set to begin on November 29.

Featured image credit: WENN Rights Ltd / Alamy