Posted on 12/22/2009 8:20:56 AM PST by DogBarkTree
A city hospital nearly destroyed a New Jersey woman's life and wrecked her marriage after misdiagnosing her with terminal HIV, hepatitis and herpes, according to a bombshell lawsuit.
Maria Osorio, 54, of Passaic, said she saw an ad on TV offering a $15 mammogram at Harlem Hospital over Valentine's Day last February and decided to take advantage of the screening.
When a nurse offered her a free instant cheek swab and blood test, too, she accepted. That's when she was told she had HIV.
"It was horrible. I wanted to throw myself on the subway tracks," she said.
The shocked Osorio immediately turned on her husband of 37 years, Gabriel Lezcano, 60, who works as a janitor in New Jersey.
"I started screaming violently at him. I pushed him. I pulled his hair. 'Who were you with?' I asked him. He kept denying that he was with anyone, but I kept raising my voice and pushing him. 'You must have been with someone. You must have had too many beers and maybe now you just don't remember,' " she recalled.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
That is so sad.
I was really really pissed because they didn't even have the damn sense to make sure that she didn't get it on the weekend. Needless to say, that weekend was hell. It turned out there was nothing there. Yet, I had to pay for 'another' more expensive visit to make sure. BASTARDS!
You go to another hospital, or the health department and get retested.
Now just spread that level of testing, treatment and concern for the patient nationally and you have ObamaCare. Toss in a national medical database with no appeal procedure and one mistaken test or coding error in your youth might be essentially a death sentence: “Sorry, Mr. Smith, the computer says you had an ectopic pregnancy when you were five so you can’t have your gall bladder operated on.”
Why would you divorce the wife of 30+ years as a first step? Do you not agree that she had a right to be suspicious? Hysterical? Angry?
I agree that the two of them should sue the hospital for damages. I cannot imagine the suffering that they went through. Thank God that they have it straightened out before she killed herself. Now, let’s just pray that they can get the rest of their lives back together.
I think that they are going to need months of therapy to heal.
Bottom Line........
Stay away from the Medical Profession including Pharmacy and anything related to so called Health Care.
There is no Health Care.......it’s a total JOKE!
All they want is Dollars ........End of Story.
Seriously. ABout 8 years ago, I'd just adopted a 1 year old cat from a shelter and he promptly came down with a bad fever requiring hospitalization. First test for FIV came back positive, and the vet called me with the bad news, and explained that sometimes uninfected kittens can carry the antibody that triggers a positive test because their mothers had it, but at age one this effect wasn't possible. BUT they did a second, different type of test as a routine follow-up to a positive first test, and this one came back negative. The vet had never seen this happen beofre, and consulted with experts online before calling to tell me that this actually meant for sure that the cat didn't have FIV. Even though this vet hospital had never seen a follow-up test come back negative, they still did it as a matter of routine procedure.
Bottom line, the human medical care system in this country, built around government and government-regulated "private" third party payers, has devolved into a dysfunctional mess. Meanwhile, the veterinary medical system, built around direct payment from the parties wanting the diagnosis/treatment, is far superior and at much lower total cost.
If she made no effort to be retested, if this goes to court it should be thrown out.
Tests are not perfect for almost all medical conditions, and common sense tells you to retest.
These kind of lawsuits are drivers of high medical costs. Poor substitute for personal responsibility.
A similar thing happened once to my mother. She went to her old quack doctor and he diagnosed her with genital herpes. Needless to say, she was shocked. The doctor wanted to set up an appointment so that they could tell my Dad in the privacy of the Dr.’s office. Mom was almost hysterical when she called me. I told her to get another opinion immediately, and don’t tell Dad squat until she saw another doctor. She said “but I’ve gone to Dr. So & So for 30 years”. I told her I didn’t care; get another opinion with a younger doctor. She did and it was determined that she had an allergic reaction to Tide. She got a prescription for the rash and changed detergent all without Dad ever knowing.
Maybe a little kum by ya will help. If she couldnt take his word or have the sense to get a 2nd opinion or wait for him to get tested then then old bag is not worth keeping.
Sounds like there were some problems in the marriage before this. She was awfully quick to be SURE her husband had been sleeping with other women (unprotected!) and given her HIV. A single phone call to any public health agency or public hospital would have told her that mistakes are possible, most often through different patients’ samples getting mixed up. She’d have been advised to get retested, she’d have tested negative, and everything would have been fine.
This is why I don’t give the medical industry a chance to kill me any more often than is absolutely neccessary. When I was young we used to think my grandfather was silly for not trusting doctors. As life goes on... I found out he was right. In the over-all scheme of things these two have nothing to complain about. I have known several people who are no longer with us because of medical mistakes.
I agree on the point about raising the costs of medical care. But she did go back (I think to the same place) and they told her she was terminal. They scared the poor woman half to death and she started planning her own suicide.
Keep in mind, she is a Columbian native, and English is her send language. She probably doesn’t have much money — she and her husband both work at low paying jobs and likely don’t have insurance. She also may not know how to “work the system” to get what she needed (a 2nd opinion) and was frightened. After all, she went to this place to get the mamogram because it was advertised as “cheap”.
The 'supposed HIV blood test' does NOT (I repeat) NOT detect the presence of active virus (antigens) in your blood. It merely detects antibody, indicating that at sometime in the past you came in contact with a harmless, ubiquitous 9 kilo-base retrovirus. You wouldn't have even known you had anything wrong outside of a sniffle or two.
Since they lied top you you're fine. But even if they had detected antibodies, you still would be fine, unless you were an IV drug-user, or taking massive doses of anti-virals, antibiotics, and anti-fungals to combat overwhelming sexually transmitted diseases,...which obviously, you are not.
HIV does not cause acquired immune deficiency. Using long-term massive doses of heroin, meth, coke, will however as will the above mentioned treatments. Of course the morons who lied to you also dispense HIV drugs which can kill you, such as the DNA chain-terminator, AZT. Actually, Maria, you're very lucky these idiots didn't treat you. They most likely would have killed you.
1983 AIDS had become big enough in the American and European press to pique the interest of the influential infectious disease establishment, particularly the cancer virus hunters.
At that time the virus hunters had been engaged for over a decade in president NixonÂ’s War on Cancer with unsuccessful attempts to find a human cancer virus (Duesberg 1996b; Fujimura 1996; de Harven 1999).
Now they were looking for new diseases that could be attributed to viruses (Duesberg 1987). Perhaps AIDS could at last yield clinically relevant lymphoma-, Kaposi’s sar- coma- or immunodeficiency-viruses (Duesberg 1996b). Indeed, virus hunters from the CDC were the first to alert the public that AIDS may be “transmissible” (Francis et al 1983).
A similar alert came from a French virus team, which had discovered a retrovirus in a homosexual man at risk for AIDS, which a year later became the accepted cause of AIDS (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983).
News, that the cause of AIDS may be a virus, and thus transmissible to the general population, immediately set off a national panic that opened the doors for new surveillance programs by the CDC and predictably set off a race among virus hunters for the AIDS virus (Shilts 1987).
According to an international press conference called by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington DC on 23 April 1984, that race was won by government researchers from the NIH who had found in some AIDS patients antibodies against a new retrovirus closely related to a hypothetical human leukemia virus (Altman 1984).
The virus was introduced as fortunate fallout of the failed War on Cancer. The next day the new virus was already termed, the “AIDS virus”, by the New York Times (Altman 1984). Overnight nearly all AIDS researchers dropped the lifestyle-AIDS hypothesis to work on the new “AIDS virus”, which was already endorsed by the US government.
The CDC’s director of the Task retrovirologists officially sealed the seemingly tight package of a new “AIDS virus” and the CDC’s assumption that immunodeficiency was the common denominator of the 26 AIDS-defining diseases (table 1) by naming it, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (Coffin et al 1986).
Even before the AIDS virus became the officially accep- ted cause of AIDS, the CDC had already made antibodies against the virus the only definitive criterion to diagnose any of the heterogeneous diseases as AIDS in 1985 (Cen- ters for Disease Control 1985, 1987, 1992).
Their unortho- dox decision to use antibodies against the virus (normally functioning as a vaccine), instead of the virus, for the diagnosis of AIDS was based on the flawed analogy with some bacterial pathogens. For example, syphilis bacteria can be pathogenic despite the presence of antibodies, e.g. the Wassermann test for syphilis (Brandt 1988).
But viruses are typically unable to enter cells in the presence of anti-viral antibodies – the basis for the effectiveness of Jennerian vaccines. Because of the CDC’s decision, AIDS is diagnosed worldwide if antibody against (!) HIV, rather than HIV, is detectable in a patient along with any of the CDC’s 26 diseases.
Since 1992 even low T-cell counts are diagnosed as a condition, termed “HIV/AIDS”, which is treatable with anti-HIV drugs provided it occurs in the presence of antibodies against HIV (Centers for Disease Control 1992), (see table 1, and § 4.2). 3.1 Discrepancies between the predictions of the virus-AIDS hypothesis and the facts.
Despite its spectacular birthday the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has remained entirely unproductive to this date: There is as yet no anti-HIV-AIDS vaccine, no effective prevention and not a single AIDS patient has ever been cured – the hallmarks of a flawed hypothesis. Indeed the hypothesis was born with several serious birth defects and has developed further defects since; most of these should have given pause to HIV-AIDS researchers to rethink and reconsider.
However, in the race to claim a share of the new viral cause for AIDS and of virus-based AIDS treat- ments, “The Trojan horse of emergency” (Szasz 2001) was saddled so quickly that there was little time and no interest to address these defects, not even the most fundamental ones (Weiss and Jaffe 1990; Cohen 1994; O’Brien 1997).
An analysis of the defects of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis based on its failure to predict AIDS facts is shown in table 4. Our analysis is based on the most recent and most authoritative case made for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis since 1984, namely the Durban Declaration that was published in Nature in 2000 and has been signed by “over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners” (The Durban Declaration 2000). It can be seen in table 4 that the HIV-hypothesis fails to predict 17 specific facts of AIDS.
The most fundamental discrepancy between the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and the facts is the paradox, that a latent, non-cytopathic and immunologically neutralized retrovirus [a virus that is inherently not cytopathic (Duesberg 1987)], that is only present in less than 1 out of 500 susceptible T-cells and rarely expressed in a few of those, would cause a plethora of fatal diseases in sexually active, young men and women.
And, that the plethora of the diseases attributed to this virus would not show up for 5–10 years after infection (table 4). As a result of the many discrepancies between the HIV hypothesis and the facts, we conclude that HIV is not sufficient for AIDS, and is most compatible with being a passenger virus. Surprisingly our conclusion is supported by a survey of AIDS researchers conducted by the New York Times, shortly after the publication of the Durban Declaration.
At the 20th anniversary of AIDS, on 30 January 2001, the New York Times interviewed a dozen leading AIDS researchers for an article that turned into a list of questions, “The AIDS questions that linger” (Altman 2001a), similar to those asked by us in table 4: “In the 20 years since the first cases of AIDS were detected, scientists say they have learned more about this viral disease than any other, and few have dispu- ted the claim. … Despite the gains … experts say reviewing unanswered questions could prove useful as a measure of progress for AIDS and other diseases.
Such a list could fill a newspaper, and even then would create debate. (E.g.): How does H.I.V. subvert the immune system? . . . Why does AIDS predispose infec- ted persons to certain types of cancer and infections and not others? . . . Dr Anthony S Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, ‘It is the rare person who gets up and strips himself of his personal agenda and articulates what we really do not know because by saying that they would diminish the impact of their own work, which is their agenda’.
(Regarding anti-HIV medications:) . . . the new drugs do not completely eliminate H.I.V. from the body, so the medicines, which can have dangerous side effects, will have to be taken for a lifetime and perhaps changed to combat resistance.
The treatments are now so complicated that it is difficult, expensive and time-consuming to answer basic and practical questions. What combinations of drugs should be started first and when? Why do side effects like unusual accumulations of fat in the abdomen and neck develop? . . . Anti-H.I.V. drugs suppress replication of the virus, which should give the functioning parts of the immune system a chance to eliminate re- maining virus.
That does not happen. ‘So something is bizarre about that, that we don’t understand’, Dr Fauci said. Is a vaccine possible? . . . many unanswered questions exist about whether and when one can be developed.” Thus HIV-AIDS researchers have not solved the discrepancies and paradoxes of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, but still do not follow the scientific method of searching for alternative explanations (Costello 1995).
Since 19 years of HIV-AIDS research have failed to produce tangible benefits for AIDS patients and risk groups, and since there are no paradoxes in nature only flawed hypotheses, the scientific method calls for an alternative, testable hypothesis. Here we offer one such hypothesis.
Our hypothesis extends the early, and now abandoned “lifestyle” hypothesis (§ 2) and subsequent drug-AIDS hypotheses from us and others (Duesberg 1992; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). “Historically, the first step in determining the cause of any disease has always been to find out if there is anything, apart from the disease itself, that sufferers have in common” (Cairns 1978).
However, the traditional search for the cause is only completed, if something that suf- ferers have in common can also be shown to cause the disease; in other words if Koch’s postulates can be ful- filled (Merriam-Webster 1965). This is true for viruses just as much as for drugs. Following this tradition, we try here to provide proof of principle for our drug and malnutrition hypothesis of AIDS – alias chemical AIDS. 4.1
The chemical-AIDS hypothesis and its predictions The chemical-AIDS hypothesis proposes that the AIDS epidemics of the US and Europe are caused by recreational drugs, alias lifestyle, and anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg.
1. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, it must be abundant in AIDS patients based on “exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases.” But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most patients (1–7)**. Therefore, “HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation.”
But, HIV can only be “isolated” from rare, la- tently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro – away from the antibodies of the human host (8). Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
2. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, there is no AIDS in HIV-free people.
But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIV- free AIDS cases according to one survey – irrespective of, or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for HIV-free AIDS cases (55).
3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells (1–3).
But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA (4, 25). Thus, T-cells infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diag- nosis of AIDS are immortal (9–15)!
4. Following “exactly the same criteria as for other viral disea- ses”, HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace. Thus T-cells or “CD4 lymphocytes . . . become depleted in people with AIDS”. But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells “that become depleted” are ever infected by HIV (16–20, 54). This rate of infection is the hallmark of a latent passenger virus (21). 5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if it is a passenger (22).
But, HIV is said to be “the sole cause of AIDS”, or of 26 different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2). Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the definition of a passenger virus!
6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity. Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.
But, AIDS is observed – by definition – only after anti- HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test (23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by “the same criteria” as conventional viruses.
7. HIV needs “5–10 years” from establishing antiviral immu- nity to cause AIDS.
But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs per cell (24, 25). Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically most active, within weeks after infection (26, 27). Thus, based on conventional criteria “for other viral disea- ses”, HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks – if it could.
8. “Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years” – the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with the DNA chain terminator AZT (§ 4).
But, of “34⋅3 million . . . with HIV worldwide” only 1⋅4% [= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHO’s cumulative total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000, and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years (28). Likewise, in 1985, only 1⋅2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence of 1⋅2–1⋅4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life expectancy of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.
9. A vaccine against HIV should (“is hoped” to) prevent AIDS – the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an AIDS vaccine since 1984 (31).
But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to this day (31). Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV (§ 3), and since natural antibodies are so effective that no HIV is detectable in AIDS patients (see No. 1), even the hopes for a vaccine are irrational.
10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host to host, which is said to be mediated “through sexual con- tact”.
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV (32–34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infec- ted (29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic!
11. “AIDS spreads by infection” of HIV.
But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread” of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30), (see also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has decli- ned ever since (figure 1a).
12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood trans- fusions in the US for life-threatening diseases (51), should have developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.
But there was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era (52), and no AIDS-defining KaposiÂ’s sarcoma has ever been observed in millions of transfusion recipients (53).
13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients – particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.
But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years (30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has con- tracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35). And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36–38). Thus AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).
14. Viral AIDS – like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past (41–43) – should spread randomly in a population.
But, in the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981 to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male homosexual drug users (§ 1 and 4).
15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve (41–43), rising exponentially via virus spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity, within months (see figure 3a).
But, AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12 years and is now declining since 1993 (figure 1a), just like a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from smoking (figure 3b).
16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is transmitted “from mother to infant” at rates of 25–50% (44– 49), and because “34⋅3 million people worldwide” were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal trans- mission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (§ 4).
But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric (30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in new- borns.
17. “HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders” – just like all other viruses.
But, the presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and epidemiologically (§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.
I’m sorry, but I hate stupid! Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met are immigrants, and against all odds do great!
And you know what, coming from some of those backwater countries, they are usually sharper at spotting a scam than us US softies.
Life is full of scary stuff. What do most of us do with the scary stuff? We act like adults and work through it.
Hitting the courts to score that pot of gold is 95% of our current medical care problems.
“Stay away from the Medical Profession including Pharmacy and anything related to so called Health Care.There is no Health Care.......it’s a total JOKE!”
Really? Tell that to my clients whose children have been kept alive by me,and, countless other caring health professionals. Pretty broad brush, huh?
They prolly got that contingency covered in the legal release that almost nobody actually reads. It’s a pre-screen which errs towards false positives at best.
As for the original case, it seems like no good deed goes unpunished. They ought to tell anybody who comes up with a positive HIV test to check it a second time before making any personal plans based on the result.
Pay your money, take your choice.
The driving factor for these operations is REVENUE, REVENUE, REVENUE......you won’t see them taking in ‘county hospital patients’ off the street....they’re looking for blue-blood insured here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.