Dear Editor:
This information is respectfully submitted to the presiding judges in our Missouri courts and to our state attorneys in hopes that
a current medical legal issue will be better understood.
In recent years, various municipal and state agencies in the U.S.A. have taken it upon themselves to use court orders to force
highly toxic antiviral treatments on HIV positive newborns and minor children often over the objections of parents. Resistance is
dealt with by threatening to take custody of the child and give it one or more of the nucleoside analogs or with a protease inhibitor.
These tactics do not work on an adult or a pregnant woman though the latter will probably be subjected to intense intimidation to
accept HIV treatment where mandatory HIV testing prevails.
These court ordered treatments of minors have led to the formation of a new legal group, the International Coalition for Medical
Justice, Inc. based in Culpeper, Virginia. In there first month I.C.M.J. accepted 42 cases nationally to defend and they are
averaging six frantic calls a week asking for legal help. They hope to have an attorney in every state in the near future.
Americans are slowly beginning to realize that HIV, in spite of its name, does not cause immune deficiency nor the 30 various
AIDS diseases. No scientific study has ever proven that it does. Recent surveys show that 97-100% of American AIDS occurs in
chronic street drug and narcotic users, the newborns of drug abusing mothers and patients on anti-HIV therapy. Many patients have
learned, some the hard way, that the antiviral drugs are highly toxic and often fatal while others have found that no treatment
whatsoever is necessary for healthy survival with HIV.
We have many experiments on HIV positive humans under the guise of treatments that solidly prove that antiviral drugs are
what are causing patient sickness and deaths. Toxic effects depend on a drug, its dosage and duration of exposure to it. Examples:
Kris Chmiel in Colorado was mandatorily tested because she was pregnant. She had been on AZT for ten months when 3TC was
added and she immediately became severely ill. Two months later she stopped all medications and expected to die of AIDS, but
her recovery began in the next few days. Kathleen Tyson, during a pregnancy, became sick immediately on AZT and a protease
inhibitor, four weeks later stopped all medications and recovered rapidly. Her infant son, Felix, is not on AZT under court order
against the wishes of the Tysons. Lindsey Nagel, now a healthy eight-year-old, was on AZT for 22 months as an infant, could not
gain weight normally and developed extreme leg cramps which had her screaming every night. Her steady recovery began two
days after the AZT was stopped. Valerie Emerson lost her four-year-old daughter, Tia, from AZT and had to go to court to keep
and older child from being forced to take it. Six year old Candice Simon, from the same Minnesota town as Lindsey Nagel, did not
survive her AZT "therapy" either.
AZT was quickly abandoned in 1965 when it produced severe side effect and laboratory animal deaths in pilot studies while
searching for a new cancer treatment. AZT patents were not sought until the FDA approved it in 1987 for treating HIV, and it
produces the same results in humans today that it did in the original studies. Videx (ddl) and Epivir (3TC) are noted for their ability
to produce acute pancreatitis and acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis has an approximate 50% human fatality rate.
All of the nucleoside analogs act the same way by blocking not only viral reproduction but also the reproduction of normal
dividing cells. Protease inhibitors block a wide variety of normal body enzymes and produce bizarre fat deposits, heart attacks,
organ ailures, extreme wasting of extremities, strokes and very high blood cholesterol levels. It is sincerely hoped that our judges
and attorneys will realize that these drugs are poisons not cures and that HIV requires no treatment for a patient's healthy survivial.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Murray, M.D. (ret.)
Climax Springs
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS by Peter H. Duesberg, professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, U. of CA, Berkley (Regnery
Press) Chapter 9 for the Nagel and Simon stories,
2. PROTEASES AND THEIR INHIBITORS by David Rasnick, 1600B Treat Ave., #2, San Francisco, CA, 94110.
3. P.D.R. (Physician's Desk Reference) see in the blue section under "antivirals" and "protease inhibitors" for precautions,
contraindications and listed side effects.
4. REAPPRAISING AIDS, 7514 Girard Ave., #1-331, La Jolla, CA 94110. (over 2,000 members internationally, many are
researchers, professionals and a few Nobel prize winners. Monthly bulletins on a variety of related topics.) These include the case
histories presented in this letter.
· July '98 Kris Chmiel story
· Oct. '98 Emerson v. State of Maine (District Court)
· Jan. '99 Emerson v. State of Main (State Supreme Court) (her appeal upheld by both courts)
· Mar. '99 Tyson v. State of Oregon (Lane County Juvenile Dept.) (infant left in parent's custody be required to take AZT).
5. TEXTBOOK OF MEDICINE by Cecil & Lobe (W.B. Saunders & Co.).
**********
Dear Editor:
At page 124 of the May-June issue, Journal of The Missouri Bar, Jennifer Gille Bacon leads off by saying, "Presidents' Pages
tend to be devoted to presenting lawyers and the law in a positive light. Most of us understand that the image of lawyers is one of our biggest problems, and we want that negativism to be countered, and rightfully so." She goes on to catalogue the "actual" problems attendant to practicing law, noting the high incidence of depression and substance abuse which she believes lends a
"kernel of truth to negative public perception."
Fast-forward to page 132, where we are treated to an ad extolling the virtues of marketing. There, California lawyer David Ward
tells us the secret to raking in big bucks has nothing to do with talent, education or hard work. Indeed he says, "The lawyers who
make the big money are not necessarily better lawyers." How refreshing.
Perhaps the place to start cleaning up our image is in our own back yard. No wonder the public perceives our primary motivation
as greed. The fact that such an ad appears in our Journal makes it all the more understandable that there is a kernel of truth to
negative public perceptin.
Sincerely,
Dale K. Irwin
Kansas City