|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Submitted as Feature" |
|
Interview :: Health Care |
|
Kim Bannon Interview on HIV test court case |
Current rating: 14 |
by Cal Crilly
Email: escapevirus (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
31 Jul 2005
Modified: 10:40:42 PM |
|
An interview with Kim Marie Bannon from Kansas who is taking the HIV test manufacturer's to court in a consumer protection case. |
 kim bannon3.mp3 (8192 k) |
Kim Marie Bannon, positive in the HIV test for 13 years and taking the HIV test manufacturer’s to court in Kansas.
Using the 4ZZZ radio interview booth on Friday 22nd July , 2005. Brisbane, Australia.
Cal Crilly- I’m speaking to Kim Marie Bannon from Wichita in Kansas who started a court case against the HIV test back in April of 2004, is that right?
Kim Marie Bannon- That’s right.
CC- And how’s it been going?
KB- Well, nothing’s really happened on the case in all this time. The attorneys that I’ve hired just have not progressed.
CC- You basically had attorneys that have pulled out each time when you wanted to bring it through to court, is that right?
KB- That’s basically what’s happened. The case is under an Act, which is called the ‘Kansas Consumer Protection Act’ and it’s basically a fraud case.
It concerns false advertising of a product, an HIV test, which is supposed to be able to tell you if you are infected with a Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But when you get the package inserts that come with the test, that is actually never seen by the consumer, the package that the tests are in are opened at a lab somewhere by a technician where they send your blood off to, and the package insert that’s inside this test has various disclaimers depending on which test your speaking of, that say things like this test can’t really tell you whether you have HIV or not.
CC- And you’ve tested HIV positive for how long now?
KB- Over 13 years, It was May 1 of 1992.
CC- And no symptoms at all?
KB- Very healthy all this time, no drugs, even not so much as an aspirin since 1995.
CC- So, is this why you’re a bit angry?
KB- Actually, I filed the lawsuit not as an act of vengeance or justice on my own behalf because at that time no one knew, when I found out about this fraud, it was 10 years later. So it was in 2002, almost 10 years to the date, and it was April 18 of 2002, and when I found out about these disclaimers in the test kits, and I also found out about a whole bunch of holes in HIV and AIDS science that started making more sense to me than what I’d been told all along about AIDS and HIV. And I researched this and eventually got a hold of some of these package inserts and satisfied myself it was true, and that research was undertaken at first by me just for my own health because even though I had been well for 10 years I still thought I was just a lucky one.
That it was still going to be pharmies and AIDS symptoms and I would get sick and die from AIDS at a young age.
CC- Who have you got to testify in the court case?
KB- Well, Rodney Richards is the lead expert in the case and myself, although since it’s a Consumer Protection Act case I don’t really know that we need an expert.
You know people, if this is the first time they’re hearing this, if they woke up this morning thinking HIV caused AIDS, that’s because of what they see in the media, that’s because AIDS tests, HIV tests are constantly pushed on people.
“Knowing is beautiful”, that’s what the advertisements say, and we’re led to believe that we can be told with certainty whether we have HIV or not with a blood test or a urine test, now there are saliva tests and we are told that these tests are certain.
And that you can’t tell by looking at anyone whether they have HIV or not, that you have to have this test in order to know. But you get the package insert and you find out that some of them blatantly say this test is not to be used for the diagnosis or the confirmation of the diagnosis of HIV, I mean it’s that blatant. Some of them say that if you test negative it doesn’t mean you don’t have HIV, some of them say if you test positive it doesn’t mean you do have HIV and you should confirm this test, but there’s no test that says it can be used to confirm.
So, I can’t remember what you asked me, if I’m going off track.
CC- Who, is it Rodney Richards, did you say?
KB- Yes, Rodney Richards, who was one of the founders of Amgen laboratories and has since finding out about this fraud, left Amgen and he spends his time trying to educate people about the hazards of HIV testing.
CC- That’s a brave thing to do.
KB- Yes.
CC- And have you got any other support from people for doing this?
KB- I’ve gotten lots of support, in fact as time has gone on, I’ve lost an attorney or gotten another one, I’ve even been encouraged to just take the case to court without an attorney and do it all on my own. I’ve contacted at least 50 attorneys.
I should give you a little bit of my background, I’ve worked in the court system my entire life and I’m a very respected member of the local legal community in Wichita, Kansas where I live. So these 50 attorneys that I’ve contacted, most of them are my friends and I’ve gotten lots of free legal advice and they say “wow, Kim, you’re really taking on people who’ve got a lot of money and this is scary and you’re sure you want to do that” and they’re scared.
I mean, they say, “yeah, it’s probably a good case but I don’t want to touch that”.
The lawyers just don’t, I don’t want to say that they don’t have a conscience but they have families and they have reputations and they have niches where they normally work and certain kinds of cases, and they get into a rhythm of their practice and a case like this just doesn’t fall into what they normally do and how they make their living and although they’re my friends and they wish me well, they’re just not interested in..
You know, we’re used to seeing Hollywood depictions of attorneys and these big cases and all lawyers are after the limelight, I mean that’s just not it at all, that’s not the real world. I mean most lawyers are making a decent living doing their run of the mill cases and they’re happy with that.
So, it’s not so surprising that no one wants to take on a case like this.
CC- Is there any chance of it becoming a class action case?
KB- Well, that’s what I was starting to say a minute ago was this wasn’t for myself that I brought this case, I do hope it can become a class action because this isn’t about Kim Bannon and a false positive test result or wrongful test result or an erroneous test result. This is about the whole world and the things that are shaping our thoughts and people are suffering from this. Even if you don’t think you know anyone that has HIV or AIDS or you have no risk yourself or people that you know aren’t at risk, what you need to think about is how much money or spending on this, 160 billion dollars in US funds have been spent and we have no cure, we haven’t saved one life and this is the result of a flawed hypothesis. I mean how can ever expect to solve what’s causing AIDS if you start with a flawed hypothesis and that’s what’s going on and we’re spending all of this money and other countries are spending a lot of money and people are terrorised. Maybe you’re happy yourself, maybe you’ve been in a monogamous relationship or you’re just not worried, that maybe you have children or fears, or maybe you’re staying in a monogamous relationship that you’d rather get out of but you’re thinking HIV is out there, I’d better just stay with the person I’m with because we haven’t given each other anything yet.
I challenge anyone listening to me right now, to say that a thought about AIDS being out there hasn’t influenced some decision that you’ve made in your life in some way.
And if you’re diagnosed with HIV and you have a positive HIV test result it affects every decision that you make for the rest of your life.
So, the lawsuit is mostly for the people who have gotten an HIV positive test but it’s really for everyone.
CC- What’s the next plan in the court case?
KB- Well, on August 3, which is a little over a week away, I’m going to the judge to ask him for more time to look for another attorney and to postpone some of the deadlines in what’s called the scheduling order, it’s a motion to modify the scheduling order where I will be representing myself and speaking with the judge to ask for more time to find another attorney.
CC- Alright, well, I might give you a call later on when something happens. |
This work is in the public domain |
