I
have been immensely interested to observe the explosion of
anti-Harper's and anti-Celia Farber rhetoric in the wake of the article
published in Harper's March edition.
Since my HIV+
diagnosis nearly 4 years ago I have attempted to educate myself as
thoroughly as possible about all aspects of the "virus." Simultaneously
I have endeavoured to maintain good health and succeeded in boosting my
CD4 count considerably, all without recourse to AIDS medications.
I
have tried to remain unbiased and clinical in my approach. However, in
light of my research so far, my greatest fear is the prospect of my
excellent doctor telling me it is time to start taking AIDS meds.
Surely
there can be no question about the extreme toxiticity of AIDS
medications. Your magazine, like just about all papers, websites etc,
not to mention the actual pill bottles, dealing with the topic,
repeatedly alert their readers to the potentially horrendous side
effects which may result from taking the meds. Those of us who must
make a choice can be forgiven for hesitating.
Obviously
there is a huge disparity between the opposing beliefs about HIV/AIDS.
What I find so alarming is an apparent unwillingness to scientifically
disprove the arguments of the opposition, by those so ardently
spreading the good news on behalf of the big, mega buck pharmaceutical
companies. Instead of keep telling us the medical industry has it
right, why not prove it scientifically. Or is that perhaps too
difficult?
My suspicions, miniscule at the time of my
seroconversion, have simply increased to a hardened distrust, or at the
least a healthy scepticism of any claims now being churned out by the
medical industry. It seems hardly a month passes without yet another
disclosure of invalidated or even fraudulent medical research and
doctors/scientists being exposed as get rich crooks reaping vast
profits/prestige from their unchecked and often 'swept under the
carpet', antics. True, not all are specific to HIV/AIDS issues but it
is a sorry fact that we live in a world where monetary reward is all
too often the biggest motivator sweeping aside the ethical integrity
once assumed to be second nature to men of science.
In
conclusion, I am delighted Harper's chose to publish Celia Farber's
article and commend their courage. One hopes perhaps it will alert more
people to the dark side of medicine and encourage a proper agenda for
establishing the facts about AIDS/HIV rather than the fictions.
Currently I feel I am little more than a sacrificial lab rat in the
avaricious eyes of pharma business, whose raison d'etre, let us not
forget, is to make money for its shareholders. —Derek Chalcraft
