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 4

15th April 2007 by Arrow Durfee Posted in Uncategorized

Matthias Rath, M.D.

January 18, 2007

David Remnick, editor
The New Yorker

Dear Mr. Remnick,

I have noticed that you decided to delay publication of or not to publish the article by Michael Specter about the AIDS crisis in South Africa .

I appreciate this decision which apparently was taken in light of my previous open letters, in which I have explained the scientific facts about the control of AIDS and the nature of the work of our foundation in South Africa .

After my intervention and objections based on the inaccurate and misleading character of the “list of statements” that was forwarded to me in relation to the proposed article for “The New Yorker,” I see two scenarios:

Michael Specter

a) Either, the main focus of the planned article was the AIDS crisis in South Africa , in which case, you could have simply removed the statements objected to by dropping a few sentences and gone forward to publish the article. Your readership would then have had the benefit of objective information.

b) Or, Michael Specter’s planned article for “The New Yorker” was geared towards discrediting our research into the role of science-based micronutrients in the control of AIDS and towards attacking the South African government for making use of this effective, safe and affordable approach. In this case, my objections would have been directed against the defamatory core message of the article.

Your decision to delay publishing or not to publish Michael Specter’s article suggests that reality corresponds to the second scenario. If so, the fact that your journal apparently came so close in publishing a defamatory and iracurate account of my work leads me to question the journalistic credibility of the article’s author, Michael Specter, including the accuracy of his fact-finding and his alleged efforts to get in touch with me to verify the facts.

In any case, Mr. Specter’s planned article and your magazine’s inquiries to me underscore the importance and necessity of a public debate on these issues. The public debate is not about Dr. Rath or “The New Yorker”. The debate is about the health and lives of millions of people affected by AIDS in the USA , in Africa and worldwide. It is about the unscrupulous strategy of the pharmaceutical interests, who, rather than controlling the AIDS epidemic, are promoting it as an expanding market for their toxic anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs.

This public debate is about the scientific fact that micronutrients have, for decades, been available to effectively fight immune deficiencies.

This necessary public debate is about the fact that these life-saving micronutrients were ousted, banned, discredited and ultimately withheld from millions of patients affected by immune deficiency diseases for one reason only: they are not patentable and therefore their return on investment does not match that of patented ARV drugs.

This public debate is about the responsibility of the media – including your journal – for objectivity. As such, it is also about the media’s very credibility.

And this debate is about the need of the publishers of such journals to establish a policy of “zero-tolerance” towards journalists that do not match these criteria.

In this context and to the extent that you still intend to publish a revised version of Mr. Specter’s article, I suggest that the following points and questions be investigated:

* Who has an economic interest to discredit science-based natural health approaches to the AIDS epidemic?
* What impact has the fact that these natural, non-patentable health approaches threaten the multibillion dollar investment business of drug companies that only flourishes if the AIDS epidemic continues and expands?
* What facts, “sources,” or other information was the basis for the false “list of statements” that Mr. Specter was apparently prepared to publish prior to receiving my open letters to “The New Yorker?”
* Were those sources in some way connected to, or influenced by, the pharmaceutical industry?
* Was your article aimed at serving other parties, beyond the pharmaceutical “business with disease”?
* One of the business practices exposed on our web sites is the deceptive nature of the (Bill and Melinda) “Gates Foundation” – a non-profit foundation that promotes pharmaceutical drugs all over the planet, whilst simultaneously and heavily investing in precisely the same pharmaceutical companies that produce these drugs.
* The “Los Angeles Times” recently confirmed our own serious criticism about the “Gates Foundation” in its Sunday Edition of January 7, 2007. Will your magazine as an “investigative journal” conduct a responsible investigation of the facts set forth in that article in connection with the publication of any article on the AIDS topic?
* Michael Specter recently wrote an investigative research article himself about the “Gates Foundation” for “The New Yorker,” How deep did Mr. Specter’s research for this article go? In retrospect, were his sources at the “Gates Foundation” evasive or even dishonest in order to conceal these facts?
* Why did Mr. Specter not follow up his article and report about the “AIDS-Spectacle” in Toronto in August 2006, an event for which the “Gates Foundation” was a key sponsor and – most remarkably – Bill Gates a “key lecturer”?
* Would it not be of interest to your readers – and all the citizens of New York – that by that very “AIDS-spectacle,” in Toronto, Gates and his co-sponsors apparently tried to undo the decisions of a United Nation’s World Health Assembly, the UN/WHO’s supreme decision taking body on world health less than 3 months earlier?
* Wouldn’t it be important for your readers to know that this 2006 WHO Conference was attended by representatives from 192 UN member states, including the ministers of health from dozens of countries and that this authoritative world body made specific recommendations as to the integration of nutritional interventions and micronutrients in the global fight against AIDS?
* Similarly, would your readers be interested in knowing that his Royal Highness, Prince Charles, had been invited to give the key note lecture to this same WHO Conference, the most authoritative health assembly on our planet? And that in his key note address, on May 20, 2006 , Prince Charles told government officials and health representatives of the entire world about the advances in science-based natural health and urged them to incorporate the use of nutritional and natural health approaches in fighting today’s global diseases?
* Considering these facts, wouldn’t the readers of “The New Yorker” be highly interested in the fact that less than 3 months after the WHO Conference, the “Gates Foundation” co-financed the Toronto “AIDS spectacle” including paying the travel and accommodation expenses for 24,000 “participants” and ARV drug lobbyists? Although the “AIDS spectacle” was co-financed under the veil of a non-profit “Mother Theresa” organization, the “Gates Foundation” in fact holds billions of dollars in vested interests in pharmaceutical drug companies.
* In light of these facts, was the real purpose of the Toronto “AIDS-spectacle” in August 2006 – featuring Bill Gates in the role of a global health policy advisor – to promote toxic ARVs across the developing world and frontally attack all those governments that decided to cut the shackles of pharmaceutical colonialism?
* Would your readers not be interested to learn that the Gates-sponsored Toronto “AIDS spectacle” served as a platform for the most erratic attacks – launched in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry – on the government of South Africa for its unwavering position to integrate natural and nutritional health approaches into national health care policy?
* Is there a connection between Mr. Specter’s sources for the false and misleading “list of statements,” that were apparently to appear in Mr. Specter’s article and the “Toronto AIDS spectacle” or its sponsors?
* If so, has Mr. Gates or his foundation attempted to use Mr. Specter in order to mount an unjustified attack on Dr. Rath simply because Dr. Rath and the Dr. Rath Health Foundation were the first to expose on their website the questionable nature of the “Gates Foundation”?

This is just a short list of issues for further investigation. Indeed, your journal has an unequalled opportunity to investigate and publish the true facts about the role of micronutrients in treating diseases such as AIDS and the pharmaceutical industry’s deliberate campaign of disinformation about the efficacy of ARVs.

Independently from that, your journal should review the circumstances that led Mr. Specter to come so close to publishing an irresponsible and defamatory article. Publication of the article would have been an embarrassing episode for your journal and I trust that you, Mr. Remnick, as the editor of “The New Yorker” will take the necessary and appropriate steps.

Considering these events, it is now even more imperative to carefully scrutinize the facts in order to assure the accuracy of any publication regarding the AIDS epidemic. I am confident that “The New Yorker” will use its full resources to do so in its tradition as one of America ’s foremost investigative journals.

Towards this end, I therefore repeat my availability for “The New Yorker” as a scientific adviser or interview partner for any in-depth article about the scientific options for the control of the AIDS epidemic.


Dr. Matthias Rath

Related Posts:

One Response to “Dr Rath’s Letter to the New Yorker Regarding HIV/AIDS Letter 4”

  1. Arrow Durfee Says:

    First Reactions to the “New Yorker” Debate:

    Letter by Dee Nicholson,
    National Communications Director
    Freedom in Canadian Health Care
    To the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker

    Dear Mr. Remnick,

    It is with dismay that we read the information from Dr. Matthias Rath that the New Yorker would even consider an article mentioning him and the work of his foundation in Africa regarding the AIDS issue in any context other than the truth. Dr. Rath’s work in that particular field is absolutely irrefutable, and is backed by undeniable scientific principles, not to mention by literally millions of aware consumers worldwide. We would have thought that the prestigious New Yorker, and its writers (including Mr. Specter), would have more respect for the truth.

    Although one certainly can admire how Dr. Rath has been able to establish a global presence, the most cursory of investigations reveals that far from being a self-interested “entrepreneur”, drawing personal wealth from a rapt audience, Rath has accomplished all this entirely within a non-profit foundation. In addition, the mere suggestion that the vitamins he markets are “dangerous” is beyond ridiculous. Even the World Health Organization acknowledges that nutrition is the cornerstone of health, and that deficient diets produce deficient immune systems. Vitamins, minerals, and indeed all micronutrients, are essential building blocks of the body; this is absolutely irrefutable and has been universally accepted by scientists for many years. Is it surprising to anyone that these same elements might play a significant role in the restoration of health? It certainly does not take a medical degree to understand that any engine denied its proper fuel and other “nutrients” will not run properly, nor can it, until that fuel is restored, and any damage repaired.

    It is astounding that the New Yorker, against its own tradition, would fail to “check facts” properly, and manipulate the truth to its readership. In fact, if the New Yorker truly has the welfare of that readership in mind whilst sharing information with them, it will ensure that whatever hope Dr. Rath, or indeed any pioneer in AIDS research, can offer to them and their loved ones is vigorously pursued. Such is apparently, and sadly, not the case here.

    It is no surprise to see media kowtowing to the mighty pharmaceutical houses which contribute so much to their bottom line in the form of advertising. However, when it comes to the health and very lives of those who are exposed to articles such as the one in question by Mr. Specter, it is completely reprehensible to deny them such information as may positively impact their ability to live and be well, and instead give them direction that turns them away from that possibility. In your own Constitution, Americans are guaranteed the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Is good health not to be considered a right, and an irreplaceable component of life and happiness? Is one, in America , not allowed to pursue one’s own health? And does the New Yorker intend to stand in opposition of that pursuit?

    Those of us who are actively sharing and spreading the life-saving information so painstakingly compiled by Dr. Rath and others like him, who have taken on this work because we know the truth about what constitutes real health, praise, support, and promote Dr. Rath’s research. If the New Yorker, long recognized as a bastion of American journalism, were to fail in its mandate to print this truth in an unbiased manner, we would view it as a profound tragedy. We would all expect that the media, as individuals, are still able to look into the mirror and acknowledge that they, too, require this information to help them in their own lives, and not withhold it from those who depend on “the news” to keep them capable of making informed decisions that will affect their lives. To do less would be a crime of monstrous proportions, a crime against the very humanity the media is supposed to serve.

    In his letters to you, Dr. Rath mentions the legal implications deriving from this planned article. But we believe that the moral implications are far more grave than the mere money-spending and legal folderol that could result. If your article, by printing the truth, saves but one life, then this letter, and the ones written to you by Dr. Rath himself, will not have been in vain. The fact is, this information has the potential to save not one, but many lives, and vastly improve the quality of life of many, many more who are suffering.

    We look forward to reading the finalized version of this article, and trust that you will, in your capacity as editor, ensure that your readership is not betrayed by its contents.

    You can rest assured that we will have further and very public commentary to make about the article, regardless of its final form; the choice is yours as to whether that feedback is positive or negative. Our affiliations and our own membership span both our nation and the world, and we take very seriously our responsibility to share with all of them our honest opinion of what is being said in mainstream media. We would be delighted to be able to point to the New Yorker in the near future and tell our membership that they can indeed trust the information it supplies to the public. Again, that choice is up to you.


    Dee Nicholson,
    National Communications Director,
    Freedom in Canadian Health Care