This article from 2005 is additional evidence that the NIH has engaged in experiments with sometimes no oversight. While the treatment may have been beneficial, the fact that there was no oversight or accountability, a recurring theme when it comes to Publicly Funded Medical Research, is what people should be questioning… LOUDLY!
From the article:
Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.
The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren't yet available in the marketplace.
It’s hard to argue against wanting to treat children who were infected with HIV. So what’s the problem?
The practice ensured that foster children - mostly poor or minority - received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.
So, they gave them an alleged treatment that caused serious side effects in adults but was untested on children. It’s obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that these orphans were the “study” to figure out how it would affect children, not if it would terat them.
How old were the children?
The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records.
Infants? Well, obviously their immune systems were strong enough that there were no side effects, right?
Several studies that enlisted foster children reported patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells as they tested antiretroviral drugs to suppress AIDS or other medicines to treat secondary infections.
That’s not so bad though… right?
In one study, researchers reported a "disturbing" higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug. That study was unable to determine a safe and effective dosage.
A society that doesn’t do everything it can to protect its most vulnerable is a profoundly sick society. A society that goes out of its way to use the most vulnerable as guinea pigs should probably go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. Pillars of salt should riddle the land.
The article goes on to say that advocates for the children must be provided and that they…
… must be independent of the foster care and research agencies, have some understanding of medical issues and "act in the best interests of the child" for the entirety of the research, the law states.
… researchers and foster agencies told AP that foster children in AIDS drug trials often weren't given such advocates even though research institutions many times promised to do so to gain access to the children.
Illinois officials believe none of their nearly 200 foster children in AIDS studies got independent monitors even though researchers signed a document guaranteeing "the appointment of an advocate for each individual ward participating in the respective medical research."
Even if one were to ignore who the subjects were, the lack of accountability is infuriating.
Some foster children died during studies, but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.
Researchers typically secured permission to enroll foster children through city or state agencies. And they frequently exempted themselves from appointing advocates by concluding the research carried minimal risk and the child would directly benefit because the drugs had already been tried in adults.
"Our position is that advocates weren't needed," said Marilyn Castaldi, spokeswoman for Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.
“Minimal risk”? In a treatment that had “serious” side effects in adults? Words escape you when you try to take in the kind of person that says “advocates weren’t needed” when it comes to experimentation on infants. It’s madness.
Finally, who has been employed by the NIH to be their director of “basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika” since 1984? Yep, one Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director.
Fauci has been teflon for a long time. He’s the highest paid government employee in all of the land, and his role, when properly examined, is that of the “mad scientist” in the worst “B-movie” imaginable. But that sentence can deflect from the unspeakable things he’s done and I don’t want us to forget his actions. There is no telling the body count this guy carries with him. But, I guess if it’s done in the name of science that’s OK to a sizable amount of the population. Pillars of salt sound great right about now.