Debate About Natural Control of the AIDS Epidemic Triggers Global Interest

Michael Specter, the staff writer of the New Yorker, who authored the planned article that triggered this debate.

The possibility for the natural control of the AIDS epidemic triggered by the public debate between Dr. Rath and “The New Yorker” magazine has generated global interest. “ The New Yorker” had planned to publish an article by its staff writer Michael Specter that was – as we have reason to believe - trying to discredit: a) Micronutrients in the battle against AIDS; b) Basic knowledge of biological science about vitamins and immune function; c) The research conducted in this field by Dr. Rath and his team of scientists; d) Those governments who take advantage of nutritional health approaches for their national health care policies, namely South Africa .

Dr. Rath summarises this debate as follows:

“AIDS is a multi-billion dollar business, but only as long as this epidemic spreads and only as long as the pharmaceutical investment business is able to protect its ‘AIDS market monopoly’ based on patented toxic AIDS drugs.

Any challenge or break of this pharmaceutical monopoly of so-called antiretrovirals, or ARVs, will inevitably lead to the collapse of this multi-billion dollar market with patented AIDS drugs. Fact is, science-based micronutrients - established many decades ago in the textbooks of biology as key biological factors for improving immune deficiencies – are the greatest threat to the survival of the AIDS drug business.

Any media reports discrediting micronutrients serve neither the scientific truth nor the patients affected by AIDS. In fact, the sole benefactors of such an irresponsible attack are the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical investment business in the AIDS epidemic. ”

Over the past three weeks and in response to the planned article by “The New Yorker,” Dr. Rath entered into a public debate with David Remnick, the editor of that journal, reminding him of his responsibilities. His open letters to Mr. Remnick are part of the public record and documented on this website.

Even after Dr. Rath’s most recent open letter there is, as yet, no sign that “The New Yorker” is interested in an in-depth report about micronutrients and other science-based natural health options for the control of AIDS.

To the contrary, in response to Dr. Rath last open letter, Mr. Remnick has stated that his journal still intends to publish Specter’s article and that the delay in publishing this article for several weeks was not caused by Dr. Rath’s letters, but by “unrelated editorial considerations”.

Considering the fact that the article in “The New Yorker” was scheduled for print in early January 2007, its delay for several weeks is – to say the least – remarkable. In Dr. Rath’s opinion, this delay suggests that the article had to be substantially rewritten, thereby confirming his original suspicion about its defamatory nature and validating the arguments that he laid out in his series of open letters to editor Remnick.

In light of these facts, the explanation of Mr. Remnick – that the delay in publication as due to “unrelated editorial considerations” – clearly speaks for itself.

As such, Dr. Rath considers it his responsibility to publish this remarkable “excuse” so that not only the people of New York , but also the rest of the world, can make up their own minds as to its plausibility.

Dr. Rath himself is in no doubt as to what is at stake here:

”The editor of “The New Yorker” obviously has a problem. Mr. Specter’s original article may have taken a position that was scientifically untenable. The only advice I therefore have for editor Reminck is that - in the interest of millions of people affected by AIDS - he should not become part of the problem, but part of the solution.

Many people around the world are looking forward with great interest to any forthcoming article in “The New Yorker” on the topic of AIDS. Considering the key role of micronutrients to improve immune deficiencies – as documented in every textbook of biology – the world is clearly holding its collective breath. We may soon see how quickly ‘The New Yorker’ is prepared to rewrite a century of biological science and disqualify all of the Nobel Prizes awarded in connection with the role of vitamins in optimizing immune system function. Any doubts about these facts will have to be clarified in the following public discussion.

The role of micronutrients in the fight against immune deficiencies, including AIDS, is a matter of life and death for millions of people and can neither be left to some journalistic caprioles nor to global propaganda campaigns of pharmaceutical lobbyists.

I particularly call upon all AIDS patients to closely follow this global debate. They, more than any other group of people, depend on accurate reporting about the basic facts of biological science because they risk paying for any misinformation with their lives. It is therefore high time to stop any deliberate misinformation in connection with the AIDS epidemic and, in addition, to hold any participating media responsible for fair and accurate reporting.”

This public debate and Dr. Rath’s open letters inevitably raise other important issues, including the dubious role of the “Gates Foundation” in the global AIDS market. The “Gates Foundation” is heavily promoting toxic ARV “chemotherapy” to AIDS patients – while at the same time having placed hundreds of millions of dollars of strategic investments in the pharmaceutical industry manufacturing these patented drugs. These and other activities of “The Gates Foundation” have been detailed recently in an investigative report by the LA Times.

The most important aspect of all this that has for far too long escaped public attention in the context of the global debate on AIDS is the “birth” of toxic chemotherapy drugs for cancer and AIDS in the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Buchenwald and others during WWII. IG Farben – a cartel formed of the corporate giants Bayer, BASF and Hoechst – was the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. To cement their global dominance they became the main sponsors of the Nazi rise to power and seized essentially what was then the entire chemical industry in Nazi-occupied Europe .

“[IG] Farben was Hitler and Hitler was [IG] Farben” summarized US Senator Homer T. Bone his report to the Senate Committee on Military Affairs on June 4, 1943 . In the 1947 Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, twenty-four executives of Bayer and IG Farben were tried and many of them sentenced for crimes against humanity including mass murder (genocide) and slavery. Telford Taylor, the US-Chief Prosecutor in Nuremberg concluded: “Without IG Farben WWII would not have been possible!”

IG Auschwitz, a 100% subsidiary of the Bayer/BASF/Hoechst cartel, was the largest industrial plant in war-time Europe . The nearby Auschwitz concentration camp became the infamous death camp with the money from IG Farben and its house bank Deutsche Bank.

Tens of thousands of innocent inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp were systematically used by these companies as slave laborers in their plant and as “human guinea pigs” to test Bayer’s patented drugs.

The majority of these deadly experiments were performed with a new class of drugs called “chemotherapy” that was developed in Bayer’s laboratories and patented by Bayer scientists. Thousands of innocent inmates from dozens of nations were killed during this “medical genocide” for one purpose only – to cement the drug monopoly and boost the profits for IG Farben’s global pharmaceutical business.

“We must, at all costs, prevent the same interest groups – pharmaceutical multinationals – that benefited from this “pharmaceutical genocide” in the concentration camps – and who were sentenced in the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal – from committing today a similar genocide on an even bigger scale by promoting toxic AIDS drugs to the poorest of the poor in the townships of Africa and the entire developing world.”

“Under the deceptive veil of a ‘Mother Theresa’ mission, the pharmaceutical industry and its stakeholders are risking the death of innocent people in genocidal proportions around the world for one purpose only: to increase the return on investment of their patented drugs ,” says Dr. Rath.

“It is only when one understands the well-concealed origins and the unscrupulous motives behind a crime that one will be able to accept its mind-boggling dimension.”