Janny Scott From The New York Times Caught Suppressing Information When Reporting On AIDS

The Sleazy 'AIDS" Reporting

Journalism Ethics 101 - Conversations with New York Times writer Janny Scott.
by Liam Scheff

The "AIDS" industry has one staunch ally in in this unholy war on humanity in the name of 'HIV/AIDS". That ally is the mainstream media, without whom, the 'big pharma" motored industry would not be able to do what it does and for such a long time now.

This is how they do it

Here is another example of how the mainstream media suppress, manipulate and lie, in order to always protect the interests of "big pharma" over those of the public who they supposedly have a duty to inform and be truthful with.

This hotshot NY Times reporter actually goes as far as to admit and illustrate how she doesn't bother to check any of the relevant records, then distorts and suppresses part of the information in a piece published in the NY Times.

This is another example that highlights the sleaze of 'AIDS" reporting in general and the bankruptcy and corruption of the mainstream media, who cannot be believed or trusted any more on any issue, especially those concerning health and very specifically on 'HIV/AIDS".

Read for yourself:

***********

Journalism Ethics 101 - My Conversations with New York Times Reporter Janny Scott

From the report by Liam Scheff.

In 2005, I was interviewed by New York Times reporter Janny Scott about the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) scandal. My investigation had revealed that orphaned children were being used in taxpayer and Pharma–funded drug studies in a Catholic orphanage in New York City.

The studies involved FDA Black-Box labeled drugs, in high doses and combinations. (The FDA Black Box label indicates that a drug has caused permanent damage or has killed patients taking the drug, at its normal, prescribed dose). Orphans were receiving a half dozen of these drugs at once.

No, we did not review patients’ medical files. I would be surprised if that would not have been a breach of patient confidentiality if someone had shown them to us.

An unexpected side effect would have been a side effect not previously seen in response to those drugs, presumably.

Advanced testing methods were the methods available at the time for diagnosing HIV infection.

I do not recall interviewing Dr. Painter but I may simply not remember. As you know, the Times moved to a new office a year ago. It was not possible to move all of our files. In my case, I threw away files that were more than 12 months old. As you know, the story you are asking about was done in 2005.

I do not recall which studies we looked at. There were a lot of them — some more easily accessible than others, as you know.

As for mentioning side-effects and FDA warnings, there are side-effects and FDA warnings on many if not most drugs. The side-effects of early AIDS drugs have been written about extensively. And, as I have said before, we were not presuming to judge whether or not experimental AIDS drugs should have been tried on children — a question that I suspect few journalists would be qualified to answer; we were attempting to put a public controversy in context.

Ms. Scott (and her junior writing partner, Leslie Kaufman), also had access to all the materials already published on the ICC story by myself and independent news agencies [1, 2, 3].

She took my interview, sources and information, but suppressed all of it in her reporting. She did not cite me correctly relating to the publication of my article. She misquoted me from emails that I sent her, and she actively suppressed the sources I gave her, who had inside information about the ICC trials.

Her report did not list a single recorded negative drug side-effect, FDA drug warning, or any of the actual studies being done at the ICC; nor did it feature the testimony of any parent or guardian of a child who was being asked or forced to take these drugs.

At the time of publication, I, and others, wrote critical letters-to-the-editor to Ms. Scott and her employers, but neither she, nor her editors responded to them, and the Times never printed a single opposing view to their front-page story.

In 2008, I tried again, and wrote Janny Scott, again addressing my concerns to her. She responded, and in the course of this second correspondence, she admits that she had not, in fact, read or reviewed a single medical record of any of the children who were given the Black Box drugs, despite having claimed (on the front page of a national paper), that the trials weren’t “anything but a medical success.”

Read full report here
More here