The Dangers of Pharma Conspiracies?

Woman Infected Baby with HIV

A WOMAN has walked free from court after deliberately infecting her baby with HIV because she thought it was HARMLESS.
The mum believed the dangers of the virus were a myth made up by pharmaceutical firms.

Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...

I, like many other ATS members have questioned the validity of some of the claims made by the medical profession and the pharma corporations. But when does sensible concern for your own wellbeing and that of your family from the miriad chemichals and drugs being foisted upon us by the Pharma Corp. simply for profit, become paranoia and ignorance to the real dangers surrounding us?

At what point should we believe what we are being told by medical "professionals" and where do we draw the line?

Whether you believe HIV to be natural or man made, most of us accept that it is a real desease. Hundreds of thousands of people die from AIDS, caused by HIV every year, so was this mother being completely neglectful by not following medical advice to protect her child from contracting HIV?

My personal veiw is, yes she was.

I would like to know your views.

(Due to The Sun's reputation, I have included some other sources below)

Source

Source

Stupidity exists on all levels.

I do not agree with the verdict though, she was given medical advice and ignored it.

Typical Sun drama headline and misinforming garbage.
This woman did not deliberately infect her baby with HIV. She refused a C-Section and presumably chose a natural childbirth, as is her right IMO.
I have no idea what 'staunched' means in terms of childbirth, but presumably it's something to do with blood flow and the umbilical cord?

reply to post by nik1halo


I think this is an interesting story.

I'm usually about as much of a mainstream-medicine apologist as we get around here, but in this case I'm not sure I think the woman should be punished.

What's not made clear in the headlines is how she "infected" the baby -- she refused to have a C-section and insisted on breastfeeding even though she was HIV+.

I don't know enough about HIV and immunology to know whether there's even a way to know for sure what the means of transmission was -- is it impossible that the baby acquired the virus during gestation?

And there are risks associated with C-section; it's major surgery. It's incredible surgery that has no doubt saved millions of lives, but I happen to think that we're a little too blase about it. It seems like a fairly subjective call to me.

Similarly, breast-feeding has definite advantages over formula feeding. And again, I don't know what the exact risk of HIV transmission is through breast milk.

The woman in question has been living with the HIV virus for 20 years with no full-blown AIDS development. Whether that's thanks to good genetics or good lifestyle I have no way of knowing, but I think it was reasonable information for her to take into account in weighing the risks of C-section and formula vs natural childbirth and breastfeeding.

By the way, she didn't make the decision I would have made. But I think that sometimes medical decisions like that come down to subjective values and I don't necessarily believe that in this case the mainstream medical opinion should have been forced on her (or that she should be punished for rejecting it).

reply to post by americandingbat


As far as I know, there is less chance of transfer of HIV during gestation than through breast feeding. There is no actual blood transfer through the unbilical cord, which is why mother's can have different blood types to their children. There is also a filter mechanism in place to avoid such cross contamination, although I have to admit that I am in realms I'm not exactly expert on here.

To be honest, it's the ignorance of the mother that astonished me here and the fact that she would even take the risk of putting her child in any form of increased danger. I personally would have taken any precaution to minimise the risks of passing HIV onto my kids.

Originally posted by RogerT
Typical Sun drama headline and misinforming garbage.
This woman did not deliberately infect her baby with HIV. She refused a C-Section and presumably chose a natural childbirth, as is her right IMO.
I have no idea what 'staunched' means in terms of childbirth, but presumably it's something to do with blood flow and the umbilical cord?

I agree that the Sun headline is a little dramatic and usually pay no attention to it, which is why I added other sources, so that there was a more balanced view of the situation.

Although I agree that the mother didn't infect her baby deliberately, the fact remains that she did and through ignorance stemming from misinformation from conspiracies against the medical profession and pharma.

I agree that it is her right to a natural birth, but if by enforcing that right, she endangers an innocent child, should that right be allowed? Are the woman's civil liberties more important than the wellbeing of an infant?

ETA: I have no idea what staunched means in this capacity either.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by nik1halo]

I tend to think we are overmedicated and most of the iatrogenesis occurs from those that take the medicines at prescribed doses, yet people drop dead anyways. The loads appear to accumulate, the body can take only so many assaults, it seems amazing how much it can withstand.



I just want to say I don't totally endorse his positions on Universal Healthcare, etc. IN fact I am against it but his points about the garbage that gets through the scientific testing process does need some focus, I'm all for quality, it seems the more likely ignored equation and Obamacare will drag us further down, cause quality will erode as government panels will drag us further into the mud.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by bubbabuddha]

I'm on the fence as far as my feelings on modern medicine and big pharma. I am alive today due to both. I am also disabled due to both. I believe quality of life outweighs quantity of life. Where does one draw the line?

Originally posted by darkelf
I'm on the fence as far as my feelings on modern medicine and big pharma. I am alive today due to both. I am also disabled due to both. I believe quality of life outweighs quantity of life. Where does one draw the line?

Exactly the question I asked. That was my point.

I too am alive today due to modern medicine, hell, I wouldn't have survived a month after birth without it and without the years of operations and medication, I wouldn't lead the normal life I do today.

Having said that, I agree that people are over medicated, especially in the US. I was amazed and horrified when I was over there at the blasé attitude many people had towards drugs, seeing people popping aspirine like candy! Knowing that my own mother died from taking simple paracetamol at the prescribed dosage, I am well aware of the dangers of drugs.

The question is, at what point do you follow medical advice and at what point do you allow your paranoid gland to kick in? When is enough too much?

For example. I know that without the pill I pop every day, I would be doubled up in agony by midday, believe me I know it if I forget to take one! But, I would instantly refuse to take a flu shot.

Where is the line drawn?