Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Responsibility for a healthy world Dr. Rath Research Institute 100+ Studies Published In PubMed

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