Inventing the AIDS Virus

General healthcare discussion, and Obamacare news.
Please note that specific help and support for Gregory Allan's book "How to Survive Hospital Costs Without Insurance" must be directed to the private Forum used for that purpose.
User avatar
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Head CDC Robert Redfield – scientific fraudster

Post by Firestarter »

If you want to know who really are the “deep state” you don’t have to look any further than the “swamp creatures” appointed by President Donald.

In March 2018, President Trump appointed Robert Redfield to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2002, President George Bush Jr. had rejected Redfield for the same position because his scientific fraud on AIDS vaccines was still too fresh.

On 7 June 1994, two doctors from Public Citizen, Peter Lurie and the Sidney M. Wolfe, wrote a letter to chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Congressman Henry Waxman to complain about the fraudster Lt. Col. Robert Redfield, who had blatantly manipulated data in support of the GP160 AIDS vaccine…
Some gullible fools have noted that the scientific fraud committed by Redfield should have destroyed his career, but of course in our Brave New World this is all the more reason to have a long and successful career (although in general it isn’t advisable to do it in such an obvious manner as Robert Redfield did)

See 2 excerpts from the letter...
We are writing to request that your Subcommittee hold a hearing, as soon as possible, to investigate charges of grave impropriety committed by U.S. Department of Defense’ AIDS researchers. We have obtained Internal memoranda, not previously made public, from the Department of Defense that allege a systematic pattern of data manipulation, inappropriate statistical analyses and misleading data presentation by Army researchers in an apparent attempt to promote the usefulness of the GP160 AIDS vaccine.

The Phase I and Phase II studies in which this alleged misconduct occurred were conducted by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), led by Lt. Col. Robert Redfield, M.D., Chief of the Department of Retroviral Research, and misleading results from these trials were reported in…the New England Journal of Medicine in June 1991, the Journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses in June 1992 and the annual International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam on 21 July 1992. In addition, overstated conclusions have been presented on two occasions at hearings before your Subcommittee. ... waxman.pdf
( ... waxman.pdf)

The following was written by Peter Lurie after CNN had done some weak reporting on Robert Redfield.
Redfield and his colleagues misrepresented the results to ultimately secure $20 million for a Phase III study of GP160 by the military.

The following explains the scientific fraud.
Redfield presented the following “smoothed out” figure to show the efficacy of the AIDS vaccine.

The previous graph looks like impressive evidence that the “responders” to the vaccine had much higher CD4 counts than other AIDS-victims.
In reality the “smoothing” had manipulated the data beyond all recognition. See the raw data. Image

Researchers from his own group questioned Redfield on why he had reported on only 15 of the vaccinated while the group had consisted of 26 AIDS-victims.
Military statisticians tried all the possible combinations of 15 subjects, of the 26, but none reproduced Redfield’s results.

Challenged directly, Redfield admitted internally several times that his presentation in 1992 in Amsterdam had been misleading.
But then made another public presentation with similar misleading claims.

Redfield also reported that, whereas only 16% of the “natural history” group had an about 66% decrease in their viral DNA, a full 60% of the vaccinated did.
These findings were reported to be statistically significant (but of course there was no such significant effect).

In February 1993, Col. Dangerfield completed his “informal investigation” of Redfield’s fraud, concluding that the "evidence does not support the allegations of scientific misconduct".
In July 1994, Peter Lurie and the Public Citizen Health Research Group requested disclosure of the records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In 1997, Lurie had won his lawsuit against the military to get most of the (uncensored) report he had requested. But at this time nobody seemed interested in this anymore.

In 1996, Redfield had left the military and joined the Institute for Human Virology at the University of Maryland with another fraudster in AIDS research: Robert Gallo.
Gallo had become so controversial because of several scientific frauds that the Nobel Prize for the invention of the AIDS virus was awarded to Luc Montagnier (who has since admitted that HIV is quite harmless for people with a good functioning immune system): ... t-redfield
For some reason internet “search” engines block my posts: ... orld/page2

The Order of the Garter rules the world: viewtopic.php?p=5549#p5549
User avatar
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Inventing the AIDS Virus

Post by Firestarter »

Jonathan Fishbein, was a scientist who was fired by the National Institute of Health's AIDS division after he exposed the cover-up of the AIDS drug Nevirapine in a trial in Uganda. The NIH later had to admit him to work again...

Since the early 1990s, the AIDS drug Nevirapine has been used to poison AIDS victims despite its known high toxicity. By 1998, the FDA’s black-box label announced its known toxicity that could cause organ failure and bloody skin loss – resulting in death.
In 1998 in Kampala, Uganda, the Nevirapine study to prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child was underway. The study put 645 expectant mothers on the drug. The problems started immediately. First, the study was carried on without a control group – everyone received one drug or another – AZT or Nevirapine.
A 20 percent rate of “serious adverse events” was reported in newborns in both the Nevirapine and AZT groups, including blood and tissue infection, pneumonia and severe rash. Eighty percent of mothers exhibited laboratory and clinical abnormalities. Twenty-two babies had grade 3 anemia.
Of the 645 babies born (I presume), 38 died - 16 on Nevirapine, 22 on AZT.
So Nevirapine was approved as it was even less deadly than AZT. It continued to be used in the never developing world to poison HIV-positive pregnant women.

Jonathan Fishbein tried to expose that the Ugandan HIVNET 012 study had simply covered up “serious adverse events” in the trial by assuming that "the adverse events were due to local endemic conditions. The people recording data were poorly trained to assess these local conditions. They looked at the patients and said, ‘whatever’s going on is probably malaria, so I’m not going to write it down’”.
Does this sound familiar?!?

Fishbein thought that the AIDS drug Nevirapine was too dangerous to be used, but it continued to be used. When Fishbein started at the NIH, the cover-up of the Nevirapine trial was an open secret. Fishbein said "the flaws were common knowledge", so why hadn’t this been corrected before I arrived?
Although he had been praised for his work, on 20 February 2004, 2 weeks after his written complaint on Nevirapine, Fishbein was demoted and 5 days later he was fired.

In 2003, Dr. Betsy Smith had reached the same conclusion when she reviewed the trial.
Smith’s safety report was rewritten by AIDS Division director Edmund Tramont and then buried.

In 2003, another reporter had independently found out that since the early 1990s the NIH conducted AIDS drugs trials at the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) orphanage in Washington Heights, just north of Harlem.
Dangerous and toxic drugs like Nevirapine and AZT were tested on these mostly abandoned children: ... nsafe.html
For some reason internet “search” engines block my posts: ... orld/page2

The Order of the Garter rules the world: viewtopic.php?p=5549#p5549
Post Reply