THE AIDS WAR
Lies and Censorship in Coverage of the Epidemic
By John Lauritsen
The New York Native 12 Aug. 1991
"The first casualty when war comes is truth"
- Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917
Analogies to war are frequently used in the discourse on AIDS, and a
cogent case has been made that, on the level of group psychology, AIDS
is the equivalent of war.(1) It is arguable just how far the analogy can
be taken. For example, if AIDS is war, what are the opposing forces? One
can easily identify the victims of aggression as being gay men and drug
users, the two main "risk groups," but it is more difficult to
define the aggressors. Casper Schmidt, in his brilliantly original essay,
"The Group- Fantasy Origins of AIDS," hypothesizes a "sacrificial
witch hunt, in which the participants are the Moral Majority and an assortment
of other conservative groups (as hunters) and the nation's drug addicts
and homosexuals (as hunted)."(2) In support of his thesis Schmidt
cites such activities of the New Right moralists as Anita Bryant's phenomenally
successful campaign, "Save Our Children [From Homosexuals], Inc.,"
the literal "Declaration of War" by Jerry Falwell's Old Time
Gospel Hour, and the proliferation of bumper stickers urging: "KILL
A QUEER FOR CHRIST."
On one level, perhaps even on the core level, I think there is validity
to Schmidt's paradigm. However, certain features of the AIDS epidemic are
hard to assimilate to a war model. One has to consider, for example, the
immense profits being made by the Medical Industrial Complex, the precarious
prestige of the United States Public Health Service, and the vested interests
of the various research syndicates. There is also the fact that many of
those playing leading roles in the extermination of gay men are themselves
gay men, and many of these "traitors" have already died of AIDS.
This would seem to be unusual behavior for a war, though perhaps not for
a sacrificial ritual.
The war analogy seems stronger on the issue of genocide.
Well over 100,000 gay men are being poisoned right now with the nucleoside
analogues AZT and DDI. They will not recover, even though several tens
of thousands of them are objectively healthy, suffering only from harmless
antibodies, coupled with the lethal diagnosis of being "infected with
HIV." The decision- makers at Wellcome and Squibb, makers respectively
of AZT and DDI, might well wish that their products were less toxic and
more beneficial. But their indifference to human life, their lack of scientific
scruples in promoting their deadly nostrums, indict them of crimes against
humanity. While profits may be the main motive, the pharmaceutical companies
are in practice waging war against gay men.
Most of all the war analogy helps to explain the consistently wretched
performance of the media. Time and again those of us who are "AIDS
dissidents" have been dismayed and disgusted by the falsehoods, distortions,
and omissions in AIDS coverage. In the United States, a degree of censorship
has obtained which would normally be found in a totalitarian country in
the midst of a war. And this is the point. If AIDS is equivalent to war,
it would be naive to expect truthful reporting.
Phillip Knightley's book, The First Casualty-From the Crimea to Vietnam:
The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker,(3) demonstrates
that war correspondents have seldom been concerned with the facts. Even
the very few who were intelligent enough to understand what was happening,
and who cared about truth, more often than not found themselves gagged
by their editors or by the censors. Not only have war correspondents traditionally
been contemptuous of reality, but they have been zealous collaborators
in the manufacture of lies, sometimes known as "black propaganda":
Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported
in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports
which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship
which is implied in an ordinary lie. (George Orwell in "Looking
Back on the Spanish War"-quoted in Knightley)
I maintain, then, that AIDS reporters should be regarded as war correspondents,
in which case their performances, however appalling, are par for the course.
I maintain further that the salient characteristics of war coverage are
also those of AIDS coverage, namely: censorship (self-imposed, official,
and in-between), hysteria, the use of black propaganda, the fabrication
of "atrocity stories," and garden variety incompetence. In this
article I will examine recent examples of AIDS coverage characterized by
censorship, lies, and irrationality.
The gay dentist, the innocent virgin, and Jesse Helms
David Acer, a gay dentist in a small town in Florida, died of "AIDS"
in September 1990. Before his death he sent a letter to all of his patients,
informing them of his health status and urging them to take the HIV test.
Acer reassured them that he had always followed standard infection-control
Three-quarters of a year later, in June 1991, one of Acer's patients
became front-page news. A young woman, Kimberly Bergalis, wrote an angry
letter to a health care worker, which was obtained and published by the
Miami Herald. Bergalis described herself as suffering from AIDS
and near death, and delivered a diatribe against Acer and the health officials:
I blame Dr. Acer and every single one of you bastards. Anyone who knew
Dr. Acer was infected and had full-blown AIDS and stood by not doing a
damn thing about it. You are all just as guilty as he was. You've ruined
my life and my family's.(4)
Bergalis, 23 years old, described herself as a virgin who had never
used intravenous drugs, and who was in no way responsible for her illness:
Whom do I blame? Do I blame myself? I sure don't. I never used IV drugs,
never slept with anyone, and never had a blood transfusion.
None of the news stories disclosed when or on what basis Bergalis received
an "AIDS" diagnosis. Presumably it was after Acer's death. Bergalis'
letter indicated that she may actually be dying of AZT poisoning rather
I have lived through the torturous acne that infested my face and neck,
brought on by AZT. I have endured trips twice a week to Miami for three
months only to receive painful IV injections. I've had blood transfusions.
I've had a bone marrow biopsy. I cried my heart out from the pain.
The main point of Bergalis' letter, the pitch, comes at the very
end: "P. S. If laws are not formed to provide protection, then my
suffering and death was in vain. I'm dying guys. Goodbye." This somewhat
too obvious pitch, along with major contradictions in the news reports,
suggests a fabricated atrocity story. I'll come back to the contradictions
later, after describing the use that was made of the Kimberly Bergalis
story by Jesse Helms, the worst antigay bigot in Congress.
On Tuesday June 18 the Senate voted overwhelmingly to impose criminal
penalties on health care workers who failed to inform their patients that
they were HIV-positive. The amendment, offered by Senator Jesse Helms (Republican
from North Carolina), mandates $10,000 fines and a minimum prison sentence
of ten years for those who fail to disclose their HIV status before beginning
any "invasive procedure".
Helms made effective use of the Kimberly Bergalis story, conveying not
only the pathos of the "innocent" victim, but also the turpitude
of the "not"-innocent people with AIDS:
"She [Bergalis] doesn't have a chance, so I don't think 10 years'
time is severe when you consider what these people are willing to do to
innocent patients," Helms said. "Don't tell me this is too severe.
I'm so old-fashioned I believe in horse-whipping."(5)
In light of his other activities, it requires little imagination to
realize that by "these people" Helms means gay men. This is a
guilt-trip that we do not deserve to have imposed on us. I'm old-fashioned
too, and believe that from an ethical standpoint we have every bit as much
right to horse-whip Jesse Helms as he would one of us.
Coverage of the proposed legislation in The New York Times amounted
to deliberate obscurantism. The headline of the 19 July 1991 story reads:
"Senate Adopts Tough Measures On Health Workers With AIDS-Backs Prison
and Fine for Failure to Tell Patients." Even reading the story closely
it is impossible to determine whether the Helms Amendment applies to health
care workers with full-blown AIDS, or merely to those with HIV antibodies.
If the Times had been concerned with accuracy it could have quoted
the text of the Helms Amendment. But instead, the Times set out
to conflate two totally different things: having antibodies to a harmless
retrovirus with having an illness generally (and erroneously) considered
to be "invariably fatal". The AIDS Establishment has been practising
this bit of deception for some time, in its efforts to redefine "AIDS"
as "HIV disease". The full equation being foisted on us, subliminally
as well as consciously, goes something like this: Gay man = HIV-positive
= AIDS = DEATH. It is a form of psychological warfare.
The next day (20 July 1991) The New York Times had an editorial,
"When the Doctor Has AIDS. " (More obscurantism: not "Is
HIV-Positive" but "Has AIDS") In it the Times hypocritically
rued that the Helms Amendment had gone too far, and commented revealingly
on the David Acer case:
Thus far only one infected health practitioner-a Florida dentist-has
been found to pass the AIDS virus [sic] to his patients through medical
procedures, and even that case is less than certain. [Emphasis added.]
In all the other highly publicized cases of infected practitioners, not
a single patient has yet been found harmed.(6)
To refer to the David Acer case as "less than certain" is
extreme understatement. That Acer managed to infect five of his patients
with HIV is not just "less than certain," it is impossible. Let's
examine some of the contradictions in the David Acer-Kimberly Bergalis
Unlike many war atrocity stories which are made up of whole cloth,(7)
some elements in the Kimberly Bergalis story appear to be true. Let's assume,
for the sake of argument, that Kimberly Bergalis exists, that she is dying,
and that she is HIV-positive. Let's also assume that David Acer died of
"AIDS," and that five of his patients (including Bergalis) tested
positive for HIV antibodies. All of this is possible.
However, it is not possible that Bergalis is dying from HIV infection,
for all of the reasons that molecular biologist Peter Duesberg has mustered
in his refutation of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.(8) Readers of the Native
are by now familiar with these arguments: the biochemical inactivity of
HIV, the epidemiological contradictions, the absurdities of the postulated
latency period, and so on. HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
Above all, it is not possible that David Acer infected five of his patients
with HIV. All of the news accounts agree that Acer's case is the first-and
only-known case of HIV transmission from a health care worker to a patient.
There are probably tens of thousands of HIV-positive health care workers,
and hundreds of thousands of patients treated by them, and yet not one
other health-care-worker-to-patient infection has ever been reported. It
is therefore beyond probability that a single dentist in Stuart, Florida
(population 9,467) could have infected, not just one, but five patients.
HIV is very hard to transmit. Out of several thousand carefully monitored
needle-stick cases (health-care workers who accidentally inoculated themselves
with the blood of AIDS patients), there have been only about two dozen
sero-conversions, and not a single confirmed case of AIDS. Many sexual
partners of people with AIDS, exposed hundreds of times to HIV-infected
sperm, remain HIV- negative themselves.
When something is impossible, and yet you hear a report that it happened,
how do you respond? I submit that the intellectually mature response is
to assume that the report is false. Pigs can't fly. If there's a report
that a pig was seen flying, then something's wrong, and it's the report
-- because pigs can't fly.
Michael Kinsley, writing in The Washington Post, fell into the
trap of trying to explain the impossible, rather than denying it:
There is only one known case of a health care worker transmitting AIDS
to his patients. [sic-"AIDS" not "HIV"] That
is the notorious [emphasis added] Dr. Acer in Florida, who seems
to have infected five patients. How one dentist could infect five people
with this hard-to-transmit virus has been a puzzle. The odds against it
happening in the normal course of a practice are stratospheric. And evidence
is emerging that Dr. Acer was criminally irresponsible about sanitary
precautions. [emphasis added.](9)
It is defamatory to refer to Acer as "notorious" and accuse
him of having been "criminally irresponsible about sanitary precautions".
When Acer was alive and able to defend himself, he said he had followed
standard infection-control procedures in keeping with American Dental Association
guidelines. There is no reason not to believe his statement.
Another writer accused Acer of sloppiness, as though sloppiness could
somehow suffice to transmit the virus from dentist to patient:
The exact means of transmission remains a mystery. But published reports,
based on interviews with his staff and social workers, said Acer ran a
A moment's reflection should have persuaded the AIDS correspondents
that the accusations against Acer could not be true. But none allowed themselves
a moment's reflection; they kept on listening to, parroting, and embellishing
the lies. Malcolm Gladwell in The Washington Post gave credence
to ridiculous speculations of unnamed "health officials":
Health officials now have evidence [unspecified] that the dentist failed
to sterilize his equipment properly and may have allowed tainted blood
drawn during one procedure to get into crevices in dental tools that would
be used again in another patient.(11)
The above is a good example of suspending the critical faculties in
the presence of an atrocity story. If that's what happene-if tainted blood
from an HIV-infected patient was somehow transferred to uninfected patients-then
the HIV status of David Acer himself was completely irrelevant. A robot
could just as well have transferred the blood from infected to uninfected
The most absurd and despicable defamation of David Acer was published
in The Washington Post:
Public-health experts [unnamed] say they cannot explain how so many
patients of one dentist could have contracted AIDS ["AIDS-not "HIV"].
Although thousands of doctors, dentists and other health-care workers with
AIDS have treated patients, no other instance of transmission is known.
This has led to speculation that another factor, perhaps even deliberate
transmission, [emphasis added] might be to blame(12).
Acer appears to have been a conscientious man who cared enough about
his patients to inform them that he had AIDS. It is monstrous calumny to
insinuate that he would deliberately have tried to infect his patients.
What fantasies are running through the heads of these unnamed "public-health
experts"? Do they envisage the dentist drawing samples of his own
tainted blood and then fiendishly injecting it into his patients? Or did
The Washington Post just make it all up?
David Acer, being dead, cannot defend himself. Kimberly Bergalis settled
her case with the Acer estate for $1 million, an incentive for her to stop
taking AZT and recover. The atrocity story served its purpose very well,
and a witch-hunt is now in progress against HIV-positive health-care workers.
Hysteria grows. People have stopped thinking. The AIDS correspondents keep
on churning out lies.
Postscript: the day after the above was written a half-page article
by Lawrence K. Altman, formerly of the CDC, appeared in the New York
Times, "An AIDS Puzzle: What Went Wrong In Dentist's Office?"(13)
The upshot of the piece is that Florida State health officials, the CDC,
and Altman himself are completely baffled as to how Acer could (allegedly)
have infected five of his patients. CDC officials have been studying the
case for over a year now, and they are more in the dark then ever. None
of their speculations have panned out. There is no more talk of Acer's
having been "sloppy" or "criminally irresponsible about
sanitary conditions". Such charges were rumors with no basis in fact.
Almost grudgingly Altman admits that "the dentist and his staff followed
standard infection control measures."
Some truly preposterous conjectures were entertained, and then ruled
out, by the CDC:
The most talked about explanation-that Acer transmitted the virus while
having sex with patients under anesthesia-has been ruled out. No infected
patient had general anesthesia and all denied having sex with the dentist.
According to Altman, "Acer was reported to be bisexual, but epidemiologists
have not found any of his sex partners." Acer's discretion in sexual
matters dampened speculation along these lines, though someone at the CDC
was able to imagine a scenario in which Acer might have treated a sex partner
carrying the same HIV strain as himself, and then immediately afterward
treated one of the patients who became infected. It's bizarre to imagine
this scenario once, but to imagine it happening five times is utter madness.
The people in the CDC seem to have active, if not very disciplined imaginations.
They have speculated that perhaps Acer, with cut hands, had bled through
torn gloves into the mouths of his patients. If, on top of this, Acer had
had a super-high concentration of HIV in his blood, then perhaps this would
have sufficed to infect the patients.
Normally one would expect to hear speculations of this caliber from
those under the influence of LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs. I hate
to be a spoil-sport by bringing in the reality principle all the time,
but please! -- wouldn't you remember it if you'd been operated on by a
dentist with wounded hands who dripped blood in your face?
John Hardie of the Canadian Dental Association suggested the possibility
that Acer had deliberately infected his patients by adding his own blood
to injections of a local anesthetic. This theory was too silly for even
the CDC to take seriously. Everyone who knew Acer described him as a nice
man, and said there was nothing unusual about his behavior.
The CDC thinkers are also mulling over the possibility that there was
"something different about the dentist's strain that allowed it to
survive longer in the environment, thus allowing contamination of instruments."
An Andromeda strain of HIV. Just what we need.
Altman's article concludes on a note of despair. "We have been
over the data again and again, and still we don't have an answer,"
Dr. Witte said, "But I am not ready to quit."
A missing piece in the puzzle would be knowledge of just how widespread
HIV is in the general population. We don't know. To find out would mean
doing a true, random probability sero-prevalence survey of the population
of the United States. At one time the CDC discussed doing such a survey,
but apparently it has not been done.
The real Ryan White story
Ryan White, who died last year at the age of 18, put an appealing face
on AIDS. His struggle against illness and discrimination won the hearts
of Americans, including the famous and powerful, and helped in fostering
tolerance for those with the dread disease. His story is inspiring in part
because of media manipulation; it is an example of censorship in the service
In 1984 Ryan White, then 13, was diagnosed as having "AIDS".
He had been infected with HIV through Factor VIII, a blood-clotting agent
used to treat his hemophilia. It was assumed that HIV was the cause of
In July of 1985 Ryan was barred from attending school in his home town,
Kokomo, Indiana. The school authorities felt that the health risk for the
other children would be too great. Over a year of legal battles ensued.
Ryan finally established his right to attend school, but he was treated
very badly by the other children, and his family encountered great hostility
from the community.
In the summer of 1987 Mrs. White moved her family to the small farming
community of Cicero, Indiana, where they were welcomed by the residents
and the school system. In August 1987 Ryan began taking AZT. On 3 March
1988 Ryan White testified before the White House AIDS Commission. "I
came face to face with death at 13 years old," but he decided "to
live a normal life."
Many famous people befriended Ryan, including Michael Jackson, Elton
John, Vice president Dan Quayle, Senator Edward Kennedy, President George
Bush, and Donald Trump.
A necessary part of Ryan's appeal was that he, like Kimberly Bergalis,
was perceived as an "innocent victim". Unlike other people with
AIDS, he had not broken the moral code with regard to drugs or sex, and
the media affirmed his normality.
For example, Richard Pearson wrote in The Washington Post: "White
also tried to live something of a normal life.... After moving to Cicero,
he got a job at a skateboard store, earned a driver's license, and had
a girl friend." [Emphasis added](14)
Ryan White died on 8 April 1990. The causes of his death and the nature
of his illness were the targets of censorship.
Let me describe the sequence of events which led to the discovery that
Ryan did not die of "AIDS" but rather of hemophilia aggravated
by Factor VIII concentrate and AZT poisoning. Craig Schoonmaker, founder
of Homosexuals Intransigent, told me he had heard over the radio and on
television that Ryan White had been admitted to the hospital with uncontrolled
internal bleeding. We followed the print media closely for several days,
but could not find a single mention of bleeding. Then Ryan died, and not
a single reference to bleeding could be found in the Associated Press,
New York Times, or Washington Post obituaries. However, the
Times story contained this curious passage:
Ryan, a hemophiliac who contracted the virus through a blood transfusion,
died of complications of AIDS in Riley Hospital for Children, said Dr.
Martin Kleiman, the youth's physician. He would not elaborate. [Emphasis
What this indicates is that censors intervened to prevent the print
media and Ryan's doctor from mentioning bleeding. I related these things
to Peter Duesberg, who was most interested. Duesberg in turn told molecular
biology graduate student Bryan Ellison, who took the bull by the horns
and contacted the Hemophilia Foundation of Indiana. The people there knew
Ryan White very well, and confirmed that hemophilia itself was his major
health problem and the cause of his death. In a jointly-written article
Duesberg and Ellison give the following account:
Hemophilia has always been a fatal condition. This has only been partly
alleviated by recent medical advances. Not only are blood transfusions
still frequently needed, but blood clotting factors used by hemophiliacs
today are somewhat immunosuppressive themselves. Interestingly, the controlled
epidemiological study of hemophiliacs, cited above, found evidence to support
the idea that hemophilia may be an inherently immune-deficient condition
on its own. In the case of Ryan White, now often cited as an example of
an AIDS death, the Hemophilia Foundation of Indiana has confirmed that
his death was due to such complications as liver failure and internal bleeding,
conditions that typically result from hemophilia itself. Indeed, White
already had a severe case of hemophilia, ultimately requiring clotting
factor therapy every day. He also underwent daily AZT therapy, the dangers
of which are reviewed below.(16)
In wartime this kind of censorship is not uncommon. For example, in
1917 Philips Price, the Russian correspondent of the Manchester Guardian,
cabled the immensely important story of the March Revolution and the fall
of the Romanov dynasty. The Guardian ran his story for one edition
only, at which point the censor intervened, and there was a total blackout
on these events in the United Kingdom.(17) It is understandable, if regrettable,
that censorship would be applied to coverage of a revolution, but it is
disconcerting to find such censorship applied to public health issues.
What public interest is served by covering up the fact that a hemophiliac
died of hemophilia?
On 19 July a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommended
that dideoxyinosine (DDI) be approved for marketing. So-called "AIDS
activists" hailed this as a "historic decision" and a "new
era" for drug approval. In a way it was. Approving DDI on the basis
of flimsy and even fraudulent data would mean the end to any pretense of
drug regulation in the United States, and a return to 19th century
anarchy, in which poisonous patent remedies, cosmetics, and food adulterants
were freely sold to uninformed and unprotected consumers.
I did not attend the meeting in Washington, DC, so my information is
based on news reports from The New York Times, The Washington
Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press, as well as
a "DDI Update" prepared by Mark Harrington for Act Up New York.
By far the best of the four media reports was Marilyn Chase's Wall
Street Journal article, "DDI Decision Heralds a New FDA Activism."
She at least reported the views of two members who opposed DDI approval:
"This is a rush to judgment," said Deborah Cotton of Harvard
University Medical School. And statistician Paul Meier of the University
of Chicago abstained from the vote because he was "greatly troubled"
by what he called an abandonment of scientific standards.(18)
From Chase's article and from information that Mark Harrington supplied
at last Monday's Act Up meeting, it is possible to piece together what
happened at the meeting. DDI's manufacturer, Squibb, presented data allegedly
demonstrating the benefits of DDI therapy. Having no data from a controlled
study, they fell back upon comparisons to "historical controls,"
a statistically unacceptable procedure. Among the "historical controls"
was the placebo arm of the fraudulent Phase II AZT trials, which were conducted
in 1986.(19) In addition to this garbage Squibb presented data based on
the discredited P-24 antigen test. This was a mistake, for an FDA woman
then got up to say that results from the P-24 antigen test are meaningless
in terms of clinical outcomes or survival.
At this point DDI would not have been approved, but the FDA came to
Squibb's rescue. They requested permission from the National Institute
for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to have "a peak"
at data from an uncompleted study being conducted by James Kahn of the
University of California at San Francisco. The committee looked at a slide
which seemed to show that DDI was just as good as AZT, which was approved
four years ago. CD4 cells went up and down. The new head of the FDA, David
Kessler, told the committee members to "be creative". They took
the hint and voted to approve DDI, but only conditionally - for adults
and children who had failed or were intolerant of AZT.
Like AZT, DDI is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, the very life
process itself. Apparently no data on DDI's carcinogenicity was presented
at the meeting. The results of such in vitro tests as the Cell Transformation
Assay are unknown. Presumably a rodent carcinogenicity test is in progress.
By the very nature of the drug, we should expect cancer to be among the
chronic (long-term) toxicities of DDI. When a nucleoside analogue, like
DDI or AZT, is incorporated into a cell, there are only two possible outcomes:
either the cell dies, or if it is lucky it mutates into cancer.
The acute (short-term) toxicities of DDI are also severe. It damages
the pancreas and the nerves. Pancreatitis is an extremely serious condition;
unless treated within a day the outcome is death.
Mark Harrington was quoted in The Wall Street Journal as saying,
"It's the beginning of the era of choice.... People with HIV need
choice." In my opinion it's a pernicious Hobson's choice when someone
has to choose between AZT and DDI, or between arsenic and strychnine. People
who merely have HIV antibodies already do have a choice: Take care of yourself
and you won't get sick. People with "AIDS" also have a choice:
Get appropriate therapy for treatable infections, follow good health practices,
keep poisons out of your body, and you have a good chance to recover.
Phillip Knightley in The First Casualty describes how some of
the most important events in modern history happened under the noses of
war correspondents who were too dumb to understand what was happening.
It's the same with AIDS correspondents. *
1. Casper Schmidt, "The Group-Fantasy Origins of
AIDS," The Journal of Psychohistory, Summer 1984: "Hypothesis:...(k)
that the epidemic represents, in the group's unconscious fantasies, an
"equivalent of war" during which the group keeps careful count
of the sacrifices."
2. Schmidt, work cited.
3. Phillip Knightley; The First Casualty - From the Crimea
to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker;
San Diego, New York, and London; 1975.
4. This and following quotes from AP report, 21 June 1991.
5. Eric Pianin, "Senate Votes To Order AIDS Disclosure;
Penalties Imposed For Medical Workers," The Washington
Post, 19 June 1991.
6. "When the Doctor Has AIDS" (editorial), The
New York Times, 20 July 1991.
7. See Knightley, work cited. Also, Arthur Ponsonby's
Falsehood in Wartime, London 1928 -- an elegantly concise account, written
by a member of the House of Lords, of World War I propaganda. After the
war was over, the British War Office admitted to having fabricated some
of the most widely believed atrocity stories of the war.
8. Peter H. Duesberg, "Human Immunodeficiency Virus
And Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation But Not Causation,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 86 (February 1989)
9. Michael Kinsley, "Doctors, AIDS and A Costly Long
Shot," The Washington Post, 25 July 1991.
10. Paul Geitner, "AIDS-Medical Workers," Associated
Press, 26 July 1991.
11. Malcolm Gladwell, "Senate Vote Ordering AIDS
Disclosure a Setback for Activists," 20 July 1991.
12. "'I Blame ...Every Single One of You'; Dying
Florida Woman Faults Dentist, Agency in Letter," Washington Post,
22 June 1991.
13. Lawrence K. Altman, "An AIDS Puzzle: What Went
Wrong In Dentist's Office?", The New York Times, 30 July 1991.
14. Richard Pearson, "AIDS Patient Ryan White Dies;
Indiana Youth's Plight Touched the Nation," The Washington Post, 9
15. Dirk Johnson, "Ryan White Dies of AIDS at 18;
His Struggle Helped Pierce Myths," The New York Times, 9 April 1990.
16. Peter H. Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison, "Is the
AIDS Virus a Science Fiction?", Policy Review, Summer 1990.
17. Knightley, work cited.
18. Marilyn Chase, "DDI Decision Heralds a New FDA
Activism," The Wall Street Journal, 22 July 1991.
19. John Lauritsen, Chapter II: "AZT on Trial"
in Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story, New York 1990.