Health Salon

Your Source for Cutting Edge Information in Alternative Health Care thats hard to find.

  • Subscribe

    • AddThis Feed Button


Dr Rath’s Letter to the New Yorker Regarding HIV/AIDS Letter 2

15th April 2007 by Arrow Durfee Posted in Uncategorized

Matthias Rath, M.D.

January 2, 2007

David Remnick, editor
The New Yorker

This is the second time within one week that I have to address you, as the editor in chief of “The New Yorker”. Due to the serious nature of the topic, the control of the AIDS epidemic, all correspondence should be a matter of public record. Consequently, I treat this letter as an Open Letter in the same way as my previous letter to you. It will be published – among others – on the web site of our foundation.

The purpose of an Open Letter is that its contents can be shared with and followed by any layperson interested in the issue. Thus it is helpful to present the contents in a specific – easy to understand – manner.

The Credibility of “The New Yorker” Is at Stake

“The New Yorker” is about to write journalistic history again. Unfortunately, this time it may not be to the benefit of its own credibility. To the contrary, what we are facing with Mr. Specter’s article may turn out as a journalistic scams.

The statements contained in the article prepared by Mr. Specter and sent to me on December 28, 2006, by his “fact checker”, leaves little doubt that this article will have false contents and a defamatory nature. Most importantly, when published, the obvious misinformation of this article may cause irreparable bodily harm among those readers of “The New Yorker” affected by AIDS.

AIDS is one of the greatest challenges of our time and the media carry a particular responsibility for objective reporting about the scientific facts. In this situation, “The New Yorker” has the opportunity to contribute to the control the AIDS epidemic by disseminating the life-saving knowledge of basic biology about the role of micronutrients in improving the immune system and fighting immune deficiencies. Michael Specter’s planned article might accomplish exactly the opposite.

Michael Specter’s Planned Article Would Misinform Your Readers

The statements sent to me by Michael Specter’s fact checker raise my suspicions that his article may be written to prolong the multi-billion dollar market with toxic antiretroviral (ARV) drugs on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

Michael Specter must know that this multibillion dollar market with toxic chemotherapy drugs catered to millions of unknowing AIDS patients will collapse the very moment science-based, effective and safe, alternatives become available to help control AIDS. Moreover, when checking any textbook of biology or biochemistry Michael Specter must have learned about the essential role of micronutrients in preventing or improving immune deficiencies, including AIDS.

If my concern is correct, Michael Specter’s article will serve primarily the interests of the pharmaceutical investment business. To avoid this, Michael Specter has to be very careful not to distort the facts, incorrectly inform his readers and even turn the facts upside down. For example, in his article he seems to portray me, Dr. Rath, as a “German entrepreneur” who “made millions” from selling “dangerous” vitamins. The facts are to the contrary: I am a scientist who is successfully applying the basic knowledge of biology – assembled by thousands of scientists including Nobel Prize winners over decades – to fight the challenge of the immune deficiency AIDS.

Fact is too, that – as opposed to the much criticized profit motives of the multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical investment business – all profits from our activities are used for non-profit purposes. 100% of the entities carrying my name are owned by a non-profit foundation. All these are publicly available facts documented with the chamber of commerce and on every page of our websites. Any other public representation or allegation constitutes a malicious distortion of the truth and the legal basis for libel.

As for the possible motives of Mr. Specter for writing such an article one can only speculate. Beside the obvious benefits of the publication of such an article for the pharmaceutical business directly, there may be another explanation. One of the last interview partners of Mr. Specter was Bill Gates, whose multi-billion foundation has placed “strategic investments” in the pharmaceutical industry. We have criticized Mr. Gates and his Foundation for hiding this fact when – at the same time – engaging in global campaigns to promote toxic ARVs under the pretext of serving the poor.

Reporter Michael Specter May Deceive Even His Own Editor

I have to tell you that the assurances made by Mr. Specter to you, his editor, about various efforts he allegedly made to contact me, are also incorrect.

On December 29, 2006 , Michael Specter wrote a letter to my attorney, Mr. Griffith, detailing a lengthy list of measures he had allegedly undertaken, including conversations with an “office manager” of our Foundation in Cape Town . You may have received a copy of this letter. None of Specter’s assurances are true.

It is my impression, that the representations made and the letter written by Michael Specter on December 29, 2006, were actually meant primarily for you, the editor in chief of “The New Yorker”, in order to address the concerns of the editorial board about possible violations of the principal policies of your journal for accurate and factual background research.

The Possible Scam Pulled by Michael Specter

During his research, Mr. Specter seemed to have taken a remarkably biased view in favour of toxic pharmaceutical ARV drugs as the only “solution” to the AIDS epidemic. Nowhere in the world are ARV drugs being registered as “cures” for AIDS.

In contrast, biological science has documented for decades that natural health approaches can help improve the immune system of patients suffering from immune deficiencies. Moreover, the only reason why this knowledge is not being used in medicine today is the fact that micronutrients are natural, non-patentable, compounds. This fact eliminates any interest by pharmaceutical investment business where the return on investment depends primarily on the profits from licensing fees of patented drugs. It is our effort to apply this basic knowledge of biology to help people affected by the AIDS. For several months, Michael Specter has undertaken no serious effort to contact me. Was he afraid of an open dialog with me or any other biologist who could testify to the obvious health benefits of micronutrients in the fight against AIDS?

Then, only ten days before the publication date of his article – and two days before the Christmas Holidays – Michael Specter sends a “fact checker” into the field in order to pretend towards his editors that he complied with fact checking policies of “The New Yorker”.

I consider this an obvious trick: Writing a defamatory article about the work of our Foundation in Africa , deliberately avoiding an open conversation, and an exchange of facts with me and then put pressure on me for a last minute effort that ridicules the term “fact checking.” I doubt that this is the policy of your highly respected journal.

When I received the first inquiry by Specter’s fact checker Michael Peed, I immediately recognized the situation. Instead of relying on an “informal” telephone conversation with a so-called “fact checker”, I did what I believe to be the only responsible reaction. I undertook the effort to write a 10-page extensive letter directly to you as the responsible editor, reflecting my position on the important topic of AIDS topic in great detail. You were kind enough to confirm receipt of this letter, dated December 28, 2006 .

The erratic reaction to my letter, both by Peed and Specter, confirmed my suspicion. On the same day, Specter’s “fact checker” Michael Peed sends a “list of statements” with the most defamatory contents I have seen in a long time. A detailed response to this list is attached as Appendix.

With few exceptions, all statements made in Specter’s article about me and the work of our Foundation are untrue. Some of Specter’s planned statements are even malicious. If published, these statements obviously will constitute the legal basis for libel.

I trust that you as the editor-in-chief and the editorial board of “The New Yorker” carefully review the arguments of this letter and the attached Appendix when making your decision about the publication of the article prepared by Michael Specter.

The Legal Implications for “The New Yorker” in Connection With the Planned Article:

I consider it my responsibility to also inform you as the editor as well as your legal department and the owners of “The New Yorker” about the legal implications of publishing the planned article by Michael Specter. The most important legal risks are as follows:

1. By publishing untrue, misleading and incomplete statements about the role of micronutrients in fighting immune deficiencies, such as AIDS, “The New Yorker” will undermine its credibility by defying 80 years of biological science about the key role of micronutrients in fighting immune deficiencies and recent research advances in this field. The first textbook of biology opened up in any US court room will nullify such an effort and the credibility of your journal will be severely damaged for even attempting to challenge these scientific facts.

2. If you publish such an article biased against the scientific facts, you will deceive millions of readers – among them thousands of patients affected by AIDS. These readers will hold “The New Yorker” responsible for the potential health damages and deaths the publication of such an article may cause. .

3. And there is the potential liability of defamation and libel in connection with any incorrect statement published with respect to my work as a scientist or the work of our foundation.

Facts About the History of the Pharmaceutical Business With AIDS

Let me emphasize a particularly ironic aspect of the article’s apparent theme of protecting the public from a “German entrepreneur” and doctor – Dr. Rath – who allegedly conducts “illegal experiments” – similar to those conducted in the concentration camps of World War II by “German doctors”. If this should be the case, it would turn the facts upside down on this most serious of all issues.

Fact is that the inhumane medical experiments conducted among thousands of concentration camp victims did not consist of the voluntary distribution of vitamins and nutritional supplements. The records of the 1948 Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal unequivocally show that these inhumane experiments were, inter alia, conducted with “patented” chemotherapeutic drugs on behalf of the IG Farben Trust, a trustformed by the pharmaceutical companies Bayer, Hoechst and BASF.

The IG Farben trust was on of the main corporate sponsors of the rise to power of the Nazi regime. They financed the construction of the Auschwitz concentration camp and were benefactors of the slave labour and “medical experiments” conducted there.

In the context of the questionable use of toxic chemotherapy agents in AIDS patients today, it is most remarkable that the drugs “tested” in the barracks of Auschwitz and Buchenwald included drugs for specific “viral research” and “chemotherapy.” In other words, the origins for today’s anti-viral chemotherapy drugs and ARVs lie in these death camps.


I hold it to the credit of the editors of “The New Yorker” that your journal has established an immaculate policy of fact checking. Moreover, I trust that the editorial board of the New Yorker will take the right decisions as to the publication of the article on AIDS and its treatment by ARVs.

As painful as the review of all the facts may be, and as many deficiencies as it may reveal at the level of your writers and fact checkers, I trust that the open dialogue I chose to communicate with the editorial board directly may prevented much larger damage to the readership of “The New Yorker“ and the credibility of your journal.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Matthias Rath

Related Posts:

Comments are closed.