Ukraine-Russia Special US envoy on his way

In order to bring peace to the region, ChinaJoebama is sending his special envoy to negotiate a peace deal that may include Russia taking a small section of Ukraine adjacent to Crimea that is predominately the Russian speaking section of Ukraine and who would not object to coming under the control of Russia.  This special envoy has extensive experience in negotiating deals and this deal would be just another feather in his cap.  As a result, this envoy known as Hunter Biden will make sure the financial return would include a 3^rd house for ChinaJoebama as well as an unlimited supply of certain so-called meds to meet Hunter’s biological needs.  

 

COVID, Fauci and Bill Gates

In reading the book by Robert Kennedy Jr. titled “The Real Anthony Fauci” with a subtitle of Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.  I thought this section in Chapter 9 was interesting. 

While an unusual number of Black celebrities were dying, Cicely Tyson, Marvin Hagler, rapper Earl Simmons, and Henry Aaron, due to post vaccination in America, an eyebrow-raising number of anti-vax political leaders were simultaneously expiring in Africa.  These were heads of state, government ministers and physicians who opposed Bill Gates/COVAX policies.  There was the murder of President Jovenel Moise of Haiti by a team of elite, well trained Colombian mercenaries with links to U.S. intelligence agencies.  Moise was a vocal opponent of the WHO vaccine program pushed by Gates.  The African leaders who died suddenly after criticizing WHO vaccination included President John Magufuli of Tanxania (March 17, 2021), Prime Minister Hamed Bakayoko of Ivory Coast (March 10, 2021), President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi (January 8, 2020), and Madagascar’s popular influential, and anti-vax ex-President Didier Ignace Ratsiraka) (March 8, 2021).  Kenya beloved physician Stephen Karanja, the chairman of the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association who exposed the WHO sterilization program in 2014 and criticized the agency’s COVID rollout in 2020, also reportedly died of COVID. (April 29, 2021).  Now I am not inferring that these individuals were victims of a homicide, but it is strange they all objected to the experimental drugs being used on their people as guinea pigs.  Sometimes things just happen that appear to be coincidences.     

A British Medical Journal article questioned “Why have so many leaders died of COVID”, list 17 heads of state and leading government health ministers who passed in the 12 months between February 2020 and February 2021.  All these deaths resulted in dramatic shifts in national health policies from skepticism toward strong support for vaccination in their respective countries.  This article pointed out that the overall death rate (1:33) among African elected leaders from COVID are 7 times the rate for their sex and age and demographics of the general population during that time period. 

Now we know the CIA and other western intelligence agencies would never be involved in such action to alter the resistance to supply these African countries with experimental drugs that would kill many. Of course, we know that Congo’s Liberator Patrice Lumumba commonly known as the “George Washington of the Congo” was assassinated.  Now US and European mining companies had their eyes on the Congo’s vast mineral wealth Lumumba wanted to benefit the Congolese people. But, surprise, the CIA and Belgian intelligence agencies collaborated in Lumumba’s murder.  In 2002, Belgium formally apologized for its role in the assassination.  I have not read where the CIA admitted involvement.  We know the CIA would never be involved in anything of this nature except for maybe the overthrow of governments in Ghana in 1966 and Chad in 1982.  As for spying on the American people, we know we have a constitution that would prohibit this.  Oh wait, it has been reported in the news media that the CIA has been doing that.  Imagine a government agency doing that.  If memory serves me correctly, I think under the Obama/Biden administration we had the IRS spying on conservative groups and we had the FBI apparently, in concert with the Hillary campaign to use false information against Trump and his campaign.  But, that is just a separate incident.  The fact that the FBI had informants working to create havoc on January 6^th; is just a figment of one’s imagination.  Don’t worry, be happy.  Our constitution will protect you.   

We know that money put in the correct hands like news media, reporters etc. could influence where the truth could be altered to reflect a more favorable story towards certain government personnel or private enterprising individuals. But, we know the news media in our country is honest as the day is long and would only tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  I will not add “So Help Me God”, since that may be a deceptive statement. 

Wonder if I am being spied on or will be spied on?  Never happen as I believe in our constitution as written.  But, as I move on to Chapter 10, things get more interesting.  One must read this book to understand how corrupt our government is.  I still wonder how a person who campaigned from his basement received 81 million votes.  I guess I am just letting my imagination run away with all kinds of theories.  Like did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone and Jack Ruby who was diagnosed with cancer and would die in a few months was just in the right place at the right time.  Who knows?  Coincidences happen all the time, like the 17 heads of state that died within a year of each other.   

 

Russia, Russia, Russia

 That is all we heard against Trump since 2015 when he came down the escalator.  The democrats led by Hillary did their best to paint Trump as a Russian collaborator for nearly 4 years.  When that did not work, they tried the January 6^th demonstration trying to claim Trump was pushing an insurrection to overthrow the elected government.  If anyone really believes taken over the U. S. Capitol would overthrow the government needs to stop drinking.  One would have to overthrow the governments in each state and not sure that would be successful. 

Anyway, the real Russia, Russia, Russia connection is China Joebama and Hunter Biden, the great deal maker and sex addict, that received money from Russian Oligarch, and the CCP in China.  China Joebama has been compromised and cannot address either Russia or China on any military actions they take.  The leaders of both countries know this, and it is only a matter of time before they act against Ukraine and Taiwan. 

China Joebama did Russia a great payback for their dealing with Hunter by removing the sanctions Trump had imposed on the Northstream2 pipeline.  Russia is now in control of energy delivered to Germany and other European countries and can easily cut it off. 

As for China, we can thank Hunter for the China Joebama administration not sanctioning China for the Wuhan virus that Lord Fauci invested taxpayers’ money in as well as the $30 plus million Hunter made for the Biden family. 

So, it was not Trump that was compromised with Russia, Russia, Russia, but the democrats and the China Joebama family.  Of course, non-dare call it TREASON.

  

Josef Mengele and Dr. Anthony Facui

 

We know the Nazi's had Josef Mengele also known as the Angel of Death, but not to be outdone, we have the real Angel of Death, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has followed in the footsteps of Mengele.  Killing babies.  And we thought what the Nazis did would never be seen again.  I think he should be injected with all the drugs he gave these children.  But that punishment would not come up to the level he pushed upon people in his 40 plus years in government. 

President Eisenhower warned us

Unelected bureaucrats have taken control of sections of our government and are dictating what we can and cannot do.  Lord Fauci and other heads of agencies aside from NIAID, CDC, HHS, FDA.  Fauci is in control of funding for these agencies as well as what Big Pharma “donates” for research where they expect their medicines will be approved.

President Eisenhower’s farewell address warned about science as an appeal to authority

The COVID-19 pandemic and debates about energy policy and climate change highlight a troubling trend among many liberals to use science as an appeal to authority to stifle important debates about public policy, rather than a system of obtaining knowledge through trial and error.

Liberal policymakers often claim they are “following the science” to justify unpopular and costly public policies and to label anyone who disagrees with them as a “denier.”

President Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, which is often referred to as his “Military Industrial Complex” speech, issued a stark warning about the influence of federal funding of scientific research, and how this could unjustly influence public policy.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Science is our greatest tool for furthering the human condition, but it is not immune to corruption and influence peddling. Eisenhower astutely warned against these dangers. You can watch the speech for yourself below. 

Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhowers Farewell Address (1961)

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII

So-in this my last good night to you as your President-I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I-my fellow citizens-need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

 

 

The Incarnation Children's Center Investigation

 

The Incarnation Children's Center Investigation

Orphans Used in Clinical Trials, reporting by Liam Scheff 2003-2009

 

The Incarnation Children's Center Investigation | Orphans Used in Clinical Trials, reporting by Liam Scheff 2003-2009 (wordpress.com)

Warning, may bring tears to your eyes.

 Inside Incarnation

April 28, 2007The AIDS Investigation

By Liam Scheff

New York Press, July 27 – August 2

The Great Lord Fauci sacrifices he demanded from his venturesome “volunteer” babies for “the greater good”.  He thought doing this he could cure Aids.  Sacrificing babies using them as human subjects.  So, they die, who cares. 

Mimi Pascual gave the children drugs every day and every night, on schedule, as the doctors ordered. She shook the children awake and popped the pills into their mouths, or squirted a syringe full of ground pill and water to the back of their throats.

She and the other child-care workers made the rounds: midnight, 3 a.m., 5 a.m. Some kids took the pills by mouth, some through nasal tubes, and some through tubes jutting out of their stomachs.

The children didn’t like the drugs. They’d wake up vomiting or with bad diarrhea. But Mimi and the workers at Incarnation Children’s Center had to follow the regimen, or they’d be fired. “The drugs had side effects, everybody knew that,” said Mimi. But the workers were told the drugs were saving the children’s lives.

After a young girl who had just gone on the drugs had a stroke and then quickly died, and another young boy who was put on thalidomide wasted away on a respirator, Mimi stopped believing that the drugs were just saving lives. She believed they were killing the children too.

Mimi Pascual worked at Incarnation Children’s Center for eight years over a nearly 10-year period, taking care of the abandoned HIV-positive children of drug-addicted mothers in New York City’s Washington Heights neighborhood. She started at ICC in 1995, when she was just 17. Mimi was one of two dozen neighborhood women from Washington Heights, Harlem and Inwood Heights who were hired by the Catholic nuns who ran the orphanage for abandoned babies.

Like Mimi, the vast majority were originally from the Dominican Republic, and had no medical background. Some spoke only negligible English. But they were all mothers, aunts, big sisters and grandmothers themselves, used to taking care of large families on a shoestring, to keeping life together under great stress, and, as Mimi tells me, used to “cleaning ass,” a skill that was useful at ICC.

Hired as a child-care worker, she soon found herself a surrogate mother to the children, changing them, feeding them, holding and hugging them—and drugging them.

“At first they were little babies,” Mimi told me. “We changed their diapers and cleaned them up, and played with them. We were told they were ‘special‘—because of the HIV. There was a lot of shit and a lot of throwing up.”

“They needed a lot of love,” said Mimi, “and that’s what we gave them.”

Mimi can describe dozens of children in loving detail—the criers, the sweet ones, the hyperactive kids, the clowns and the quiet ones. “We were like their mothers. Some of the child-care workers even adopted children from ICC,” she said. “I wanted to, but I was living at home, and my mother and father didn’t want to take care of another little baby at the time.”

Besides feeding, changing and bathing duties, the child-care workers were also responsible for administering drugs to the infants.

“The nurses would lay out the drugs on the counter. Lots of pills, powders and oral syringes, all labeled for each particular child. We’d pick up the syringe and put it right into the mouth or into the tube if they had one.

“We didn’t like it, but that was our job,” said Mimi. “We were told that they would die without the drugs—and since we were with the kids the most, it was up to us.”

“But over time,” Mimi said, “we began to feel betrayed.”

“In the beginning we were taking care of little abandoned crack babies who had no one, but then it changed. More and more of the kids were there for compliance. They didn’t want to take drugs, or their parents didn’t want to give them, so they got put in ICC.

“None of us ever blamed the kids for refusing. We all saw them throw up like clockwork after taking the pills, and then the diarrhea that followed.

When the kids were all younger—babies—they couldn’t tell us the drugs made them sick. But when they got older they started to tell us, ‘I don’t want to take this ‘cause I can’t go to school, I feel worse when I take it.’”

“We all had doubts about what we were doing,” Mimi said. “But honestly, we did what we were told.”

One of the things Mimi and the other childcare workers noticed was the constantly shifting medicine regime. “Some children got AZT, some didn’t. Then it would switch. Then it was a new drug, then it was a drug that we never heard of.

“We figured it out,” she said. “These were experimental treatments.” Marta, another child-care worker, put it more bluntly, “This is the guinea-pig business,” she said.

ICC is administered by Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and the Catholic Home Bureau. It was under ICC’s first medical director, Dr. Stephen Nicholas, that the orphanage began to receive funds from the National Institutes of Health to use its wards in pharmaceutical clinical trials.

ICC claims to have stopped the trials in 2002, but children from ICC are still seen at major New York hospitals, including Columbia Presbyterian, which all continue to do trials with HIV-positive children.

In 2005, following a year of media coverage on ICC, the New York City Council held a City Hall meeting to determine what exactly had happened there. Mimi attended.

“What a joke,” she said. “They were trying to find out if ICC was doing trials… We were giving kids experimental drugs since the beginning. It was no secret. If you asked the nurses about it, you were told it was normal, and not to ask questions. If you asked the doctors why some kids got AZT and some didn’t, you didn’t get an answer.”

“But we knew drug trials were going on,” said Mimi. “The child-care workers, the nurses, the doctors, administration—everybody knew.”

I asked how the children handled the complex regimen.

“The nurses said these children were lucky because they were getting the new drugs, but at the same time, when the kids vomited, or had diarrhea, or a bad rash,” Mimi said, “we knew it was the meds. Even the nurses told us it was the meds. You couldn’t hide it. It happened too regularly, it was predictable.

“Give the drugs, get ready for the vomiting and the shit.”

“But we had to give them. We were always told that without the meds they would die,” said Mimi.

“Is that what happened?” I asked.

“No,” said Mimi. “It wasn’t that predictable. Some kids lived and some kids died. But the ones who were drugged the most did worse.” She added, “The ones with the tubes always did worse.”

When Mimi started at ICC, the tubes were used infrequently. “But when the kids got older, a lot of them started to refuse the medication,” she recalled. “Then they started coming in with the tubes more and more.”

“Kids who refused too much, or threw up too much, they’d get a tube. First it was through the nose.

“But then it was more and more through the stomach. You’d see a certain child refusing over and over, and one day they’d come back from the hospital from surgery, and they had a tube coming right out of their stomach.D

“If you asked why, the doctors said it was for ‘compliance‘—the regimen. Got to keep up the regimen,” said Mimi. “Those were the rules.”

“We weren’t happy about it, because it wasn’t just the drugs—it was everything that was getting pumped through the tube. Children would be pumped all night long with the milk—the PediaSure. It would pump so hard that the milk would leak out around the hole.

“Sometimes we’d turn off the pump for the kids, because it hurt their stomachs, but then the nurses would turn it back on. Some of the kids would do it themselves—they’d get out of bed in the middle of the night and turn off the machine. But in 20 minutes, it would start beeping, and the nurse would go back and turn it on.”

“The children who were pumped all the time wouldn’t have any appetite left, so they wouldn’t eat. And then with the drugs on top of that, with the diarrhea, they wouldn’t do well.”

“But that was the rule,” said Mimi. “Keeping to the regimen. Adherence. Give the drugs on time, on schedule, no matter what,” Mimi repeated. “Or you’re fired.”

“Adherence” was the word of the day in late 2003, when I interviewed Dr. Catherine Painter, ICC’s current medical director, about the relentless drug schedule. Painter explained, “What we’re asking of our families and patients in terms of adherence is something beyond 100 percent—all of their medicines all the time, whether they have them on-hand or not, whether the medication makes them sick or not, or whether they’re sick with a concurrent illness.”

Michelle, a 17-year-old former resident at ICC, was there for just this reason. “I’ve expressed that I don’t want to take the drugs, but they don’t listen.”

Michelle said that the drugs are given continuously throughout the day and night.

“I don’t have to be up until 8:30, but they’d wake me up at 6 a.m. and give me meds. So I’d take the meds and go back to sleep. Then I’d wake up—and throw up. Because it was sitting in my chest and not in my stomach—and either way it doesn’t feel good.”

I asked Mimi why the children were drugged at night.

REPORT THIS AD

“The doctors and nurses gave us the drug schedule, and we had to follow it. Nine p.m., 12 a.m., 3 a.m., 5 a.m.—it didn’t matter. We had cups full of pills and powders and oral syringes. It was up to us to figure out how to do it.”

“So we learned to wake the children up, halfway, and pop it or squirt in their mouths and get them to swallow with a glass of water, and they’d fall back to sleep.”

“How did the children react?” I asked.

“About half the time or more they’d wake up puking. We felt bad for them,” said Mimi.

“At the time I thought it was better to get them to take the medication when they were half asleep and couldn’t refuse, than to see them get a tube put in because they were refusing.”

“But we all had our doubts,” she added.

“One girl, a six-year-old, Shyanne—she came in for adherence. She was the most delicate little flower—beautiful, polite, full of life. Her family never gave her meds. So Administration for Children’s Services brought her into ICC.”

“So, she came in, and started the meds. And it was three months, maybe three months. And she had a stroke. She couldn’t see. She was this normal girl, singing, jumping, playing. Then, poof, stroked out. Blind. We were freaked out. Then, in a few months, she was gone—dead.”

Michelle, the 17-year-old, knew Shyanne. So did Deanna, a 16-year-old who was Shyanne’s roommate.

“That poor girl is traumatized,” said Mimi. “Can you imagine, you go to sleep and you wake up and they’re taking away your roommate?”

The drug Mimi remembers giving most often at ICC is the nucleoside analog AZT. In addition to the drug’s long list of severe and even life-threatening toxicities, AZT also been linked to lymphoma and other cancers.

Andre, a 19-year-old who spent years at ICC as a child and adolescent, told me that he never wanted to take the pills because he didn’t like them. So he’d hold them in his mouth and spit them out later.

“What about when they’d drug you at night,” I asked.

“Oh yeah,” he said, remembering—his eyes widening slightly. “I remember that. I guess I did take them.”

Last year, Andre was treated for lymphoma. He wonders if it was related to the AZT he was regularly fed as a young boy.

Mimi has encouraged him to get his complete medical records from the state, but he is having little luck getting through the system.

Andre’s memories of ICC are mixed. He tells me that he loved the child-care workers, like Mimi, who looked after him. He just didn’t like the drugs, so he didn’t take them, when he had a choice.

Shawn, a 14-year-old boy who is still in state custody, has practically grown up at ICC. When I asked him what he thinks about ICC, he said, “I like ICC because my friends are there.” He paused then added in a quiet voice, “But I don’t like when people run away from shots or vaccinations, or have to get held down so they can give you a shot.”

Shawn is also in ICC because he doesn’t like to take the drugs, and Mona, his aunt and legal guardian, doesn’t like to give him drugs that she claims make him weak and sick.

Shawn acts out—he runs away whenever he can to get away from the constant, monitored drugging. When he is returned to ICC, Shawn tells me, it’s “needle time“—time for Thorazine shots, then off to a local psych ward.

“They’re destroying him,” his aunt Mona tells me. “He just wants to come home, it’s so obvious. That’s why he runs away.”

“The regime has changed,” said Mimi, “and so has the place. It’s AIDS drugs plus—plus psych meds, anti-psychotics, antidepressants. We came to work here with kids we were told were dying—crack babies—to try to care for them. Today it’s a psych ward.”

In 1999, Mimi left ICC for nearly two years to have a baby. When she came back, ICC was under new management. The nuns who used to administer ICC had been replaced by a nursing-home bureaucracy, headed by Executive Director Carolyn Castro.

ICC’s founding physician, Dr. Steven Nicholas, moved on to head Harlem Hospital’s Pediatric division in 2001. Nicholas is also project leader and principal investigator for two ongoing HIV/AIDS projects in La Romana, Dominican Republic. Like ICC, these projects are funded and overseen by Columbia University in conjunction with the local church and state authorities.

Another important change at ICC was that the child-care workers now belonged to a union, and were no longer responsible for administering drugs.

“That was a relief,” Mimi said. “After I became a mother, I didn’t think the same way about things, about the drugs.”

Rhonda, a former nurse from ICC, relates the story of how Marylin Santiago, one of ICC’s supervising nurses, suffered a needle-prick injury, and went on AZT, according to the current recommendation for healthcare workers.

“She was not well at all,” said Rhonda, “Malaise, diarrhea, she was tired out, like she was going to die.”

Mimi added, “She had it bad. She got a dose of her own medicine.”

Rhonda pointed out that when Santiago got off the AZT, her system returned to normal.

AZT, the drug that is used in case of needle-stick injuries, is the same drug given to pregnant women and young children who test HIV positive worldwide. It was also used the ICC trials. AZT is often referred to in the mainstream press as a “life-saving” drug, despite the fact that it warns of the possibility of fatal anemia and organ failure on its label. A 1999 study in the journal AIDS reported that children born to mothers who are given AZT are sicker and die faster than those not given the drug. It is one of several recent studies reporting that AZT increases the rate of illness, major malformation and death in children whose mothers are fed the drug.

Mimi left ICC in December 2004. “I was fired,” she said. “I let it happen. I couldn’t stand it anymore—I watched them drugging this little boy to death—there’s no way it was anything but the drugs.”

Mimi described a boy named Seon, who died in spring of 2004.

“He had all these soft, fatty lumps. We even called him “lumpy.” She said. They sent him to get the lumps on his neck removed in surgery, and they would just grow back. They told us it was cancer, but he was on all those drugs. He had a tube, and they were always pumping him. When we changed his diapers, it would come out like the drug mixture—rough and sandy like the ground-up pills.”

Mimi said that after he died, she read about the phenomenon of “buffalo humps,” large fatty lumps on the back and neck that result from the newer AIDS drugs called protease inhibitors.

Rhonda, the former ICC nurse, and Mimi both remember another boy at ICC who developed a breast while on the drugs. “He had a mastectomy, and then the other one started to grow. They couldn’t hide that it was because of the drugs, but with Seon, they told us it was cancer,” said Mimi.

Mimi has a paper from ICC, that she saved from Seon’s treatment. “One day I got a sheet from the nurses about a drug they were going to give Seon—it said any woman who was pregnant or who was of child-bearing age should not touch the drug, even with gloves on.”

“I couldn’t pronounce the name, so I kept the sheet. Thalidomide. That’s what they gave him.”

Thalidomide was originally marketed as a safe, over-the-counter sedative and analgesic in the 1950s and 1960s throughout Europe. It caused a wave of severe deformities in children of pregnant women who took the drug and was taken off the market. In 1998, the drug company Celgene resurrected Thalidomide, with FDA approval, officially as a leprosy drug, but with intended off-label use for AIDS and cancer patients.

“They pumped Seon with it; he deteriorated fast,” Mimi said. “Once day we came in and he was bleeding from every hole in his body—his rectum, his nose, his mouth. He was in such pain. He would scream when he had to go to the bathroom. They put him on a respirator. They induced a coma with drugs so they could put him on a respirator. They told us they did it so he could breathe better.” Mimi said, her voice getting a little rough. “I sat with him; he couldn’t talk, but he was crying-tearing from his eyes. “He got all dry and scaly; he shriveled up like a snail-and he died.”

“After he died, I just didn’t care anymore. I didn’t want to be there. I didn’t want to quit, because I’m close with the kids—it was confusing,” Said Mimi. “I’d been there for almost 10 years. But I couldn’t stand it after that. So I stopped listening, and argued, and was insubordinate. They said I fell asleep in one of the rocking chairs for five minutes during an overnight shift. I said I didn’t. They asked me to come in and talk about it, but I said fuck it. It didn’t even matter. So they fired me. It was a relief.”

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

After Mimi left, she was contacted by a half-dozen former ICC residents—children she’d helped to raise and take care of.

“We talk,” said Mimi. “We talk about what’s happened, and how they can live their lives now.”

Michelle, the 17-year-old, is one of Mimi’s post-ICC kids, who spent six months at ICC in 2004. She is now out of ICC and back in high school. Michelle admits that whenever she can, she weans herself off the drugs.

“When I was on the medication, it was hard. It doesn’t make me feel good, and I have to deal with feeling sick and then trying to make it through my eight-hour day.”

What happens when you quit?

“The withdrawl period is hard,” she said. “I’m tired and I want to sleep all the time.”

Michelle has been off the drugs for a few months, and says she feels better and stronger. “It’s easier, I don’t feel like I used to—12 o’clock comes and I feel hungry, but I don’t get sick if I don’t eat right away.”

Michelle is out of ICC, but she’s not free of New York’s Drug Adherence program. She is required to attend weekly doctor appointments where her blood is drawn and tested for med levels.

What happens if the doctors decide you’re not taking the drugs?

“They put you back in the hospital or in ICC—like that,” she said, snapping her fingers. “They always say it’s just going to be a short period of time, but it’s always a few months—and that’s out of my school time.”

Michelle explained, “School is everything to me—I just want it out of my way so I can keep moving through life. I want to go to college—and high school is standing in my way”

“So it’s comply versus school. Don’t comply, and miss out on school. Then it’s an extra year you have to do. So, smile and nod and take the pills, and slowly stop, or it’s back to square one.

REPORT THIS AD

“I’m 17, not 18, and until I’m 18—I can say the sky is blue—and they’ll say it’s not—and I say ‘Yes it is‘—but it doesn’t make a difference. Three more months,” she said, her throat tightening.

“I’m telling you, I can’t wait…I can’t wait.”

Fauci’s NIH funded experiments on AIDS orphans in New York City

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved drug trial experiments on hundreds of AIDS orphans in New York City. Over 200 of the orphans died during or after the experiments, according to Liam Scheff, the investigative reporter who broke the story.

The Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) “began testing drugs on its orphan population in 1992, the same year they became a subsidiary of Columbia University’s Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trial Unit, under Dr. Anne Gershon,” Scheff noted. “In 2003, I went undercover inside the facility and saw the effects of the drugs on the children myself.” ‘These children were, because of their HIV status, written off as a loss by the medical authority, before they even got a chance to live.’

Scheff broke the story in an article entitled The House that AIDS Built that first ran on Indymedia.org.

Scheff said his investigation found that the NIH and Columbia Presbyterian Hospital acted unethically.

The Associated Press reported in June 2005: “The government has concluded at least some AIDS drug experiments involving foster children violated federal rules designed to ensure vulnerable youths were protected from the risks of medical research.”

Fauci was the NIH AIDS Coordinator before being appointed as the first Director of the Office of AIDS research when the office was established in 1988. He served in that capacity until 1994. Fauci became director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984 and still holds that position.

Scheff reported several deaths in children at the ICC during the drug trials, adding that “although the mainstream denied that any deaths were due to drug toxicity, they admit that over 200 children died.”

In 2005, the City of New York hired the VERA Institute to produce a final report on the drug trials. VERA was given no access to medical records for any of the children used in trials. Their report was published in 2008.

VERA reported that 25 children died during the drug studies, that an additional 55 children died following the studies (in foster care), and, according to Tim Ross, Director of the Child Welfare program at VERA (as of 2009), 29 percent of the remaining 417 children who were used in drug studies had died (out of a total 532 children that are admitted to have been used).

No payment or compensation was ever paid to any of the children used in the trials, or to their families, Scheff noted.

Many of the drugs (like AZT and its analogues) that were used in the experiments on the AIDS orphans in New York City had previously been approved for use in adults and “evidenced life-threatening and fatal toxicities,” Scheff reported. “So why put a drug with severe recorded toxicities into a population of black and Hispanic orphans?”

Scheff noted: “Incarnation’s orphans live at the bottom of the American class system. Often the children of drug users, they were born into ill health and poverty. Additionally (and like all AIDS patients), these children were, because of their HIV status, written off as a loss by the medical authority, before they even got a chance to live.”

Why wasn’t Fauci’s NIH interested in competitive AIDS research?

“That’s the billion-dollar question,” Scheff noted. “That is, if inexpensive micronutrients and competitive disease and treatment models prove more successful than the current research, it will represent a loss of billions for the AIDS drug and research industry.”