Send your letters to the Free Press, PMB #178, 1463 E Republican ST, Seattle WA 98112, or email [email protected]. Keep them short. Longer letters will be edited down. Letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Free Press. Letters which respond to Free Press articles will be given precedence.
Out of Africa
Editor:
I respond to Dr. Ruhland's article, "Out of Africa," with mixed feelings.
First, I'm grateful to read an intelligent article about the current situation on the home continent. I appreciate the author's skepticism about official statistics, government, the IMF & World Bank and rich people in general. It's very difficult for anyone on this side of the planet to get a realistic view of Africa. My own vision is admittedly limited and I welcome the opportunity to share dialogue with Dr. Ruhland.
I agree that power has corrupted Robert Mugabe. The best thing he could do for Zimbabwe is to follow the leads of his contemporaries, Nyerere of Tanzania and Kaunda of Zambia. It's noteworthy that neither of these former leaders took the money and ran. There is hope for the multi-party vision.
It is true that aid money is too seldom effective in solving the problems toward which it is directed. It's also true that too little money is directed there in the first place. I believe most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa now pay more interest on past aid than they receive in new aid. Any call for aid to Africa should begin with debt forgiveness. On a realistic balance sheet, the North still owes the South.
This article was my first contact with Dr. Gesheckter's theory of false positive HIV tests. My only experience has been with people who tested negatively to get visas in Zambia and later proved positive. My impression was that health officials try to give you what you pay for. I have no doubt that AIDS is pandemic in Africa and little hope that the solution will come from the drug companies.
Malnutrition is a problem in Africa, especially in areas of war and drought and among the urban poor. The vast majority of Africans, however, know how to grow and/or gather their food. In peaceful villages, traditional subsistence agriculture works better than modern agribusiness ever has. Incredibly strong family (tribal) structures assure that everyone eats well most of the time.
At my home on Whidbey Island we eat sadza (We call it nshima; it's ugali in Swahili.) and find it a great staple. Africans I know eat a variety of vegetables (usually cooked) and fruit-- a broader variety than most Americans I know eat. If this diet causes disease, how has it sustained health in Africa for the last thousand years?
I strongly agree that poverty is at the root of Africa's problems and that meddling by the powers that be has exacerbated more problems than it has resolved. I suspect Dr. Ruhland and I would agree on more than we disagree about. We must avoid the promotion of distorted views of Africa in our quest for a better world.
Vernon Huffman
Superficial Attitude On Hepatitis C
Editor:
I appreciate very much the independent nature of your journalism. It is so important to learn that there is a lot more information available on which to form an opinion than is presented in mainstream media. I sense that you are sincere, dedicated, committed and there is a level of enjoyment in producing a meaningful journal.
Your credibility is paramount. John Ruhland's credibility is questionable. His acrimonious polemics against the medical profession are out of place in a column which purports to be about health concerns.
I was particularly struck by his superficial attitude on Hepatitis C. This disease is an extremely serious one. I am enclosing a copy of an article on Hepatitis C which has been published by the Medical Board of California, April 1999. I am asking YOU to read this one page article, then read John Ruhland's response to the question on HCV. Ask yourselves the relevance of his response, how useful information might have been provided and how appropriate it is to dismiss this disease by following "the money trail."
On another issue (question 3), there is a legal definition of quackery viz. practicing medicine without a license. A person accusing a physician of quackery makes that person subject to libel. A physician may be accused of malpractice but he can't be guilty of quackery.
Naturopathy is becoming an increasingly popular form of health care and it has certainly been an uphill battle. But it becomes quite a slippery slope when its practitioners do nothing but act in an accusatory and defamatory mode.
Thank you for your attention,
Garratt Richardson
Response from Dr. Ruhland
Dear Garratt Richardson,
Thank you for responding to my column. My intention in writing about controversial issues is to share information that will stimulate people to study these subjects themselves. My intent is to unlock a door. It took me years of research to come to my current understanding of viral diseases such as Hepatitis C virus (HCV). The contention that HCV is a serious disease is clearly lining many pockets with a great deal of money. I am familiar with the arguments made by promoters of the drug approach to treating HCV. I repeat that a number of top international virologists and other scientists and physicians argue that HCV does not exist and/or is not a disease-causing entity. This growing group includes Dr. Peter Duesberg, Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Eleni Eleopulos, Dr. David Rasnick, Dr. Charles Geshekter, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, among many others. Their perspective is supported by the fact that no virus has been isolated. The people with symptomatic Hep C "virus" in fact often have liver damage, but there is no proof that the damage was caused by HCV. It is hypothesized that the test may be merely detecting cellular breakdown products. That elegantly explains why liver damage may be the cause of a (+) HCV test.
Meanwhile, the test is earning a few people a financial fortune, which spurs its promotion. It is also giving new life to drug companies' antiviral regimens. It is ironic that the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test which was founded by Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize, is used to test for Hep C "virus." It is ironic because Kary Mullis argues that HCV does not exist. A growing number of scientists also argue that AIDS is caused primarily by drug use (both prescription and OTC). For more information on Hepatitis C and on AIDS, see Dr. Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus". Also read Joan Shenton's "Positively False" (St. Martin's, 1998) and Linda Marsa's "Prescription for Profits: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bankrolled the Unholy Marriage Between Science and Business" (Scribner, 1997).
Arguments are essential in a field such as medicine where there are such divergent opinions. I do not speak for other Naturopaths, just as individual scientists do not speak for all scientists. As far as I know, there are no other Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine who are arguing publicly the way I am. Perhaps most believe more like you do. You stated my "polemics against the medical profession are out of place in a column which purports to be about health concerns." On this I must argue that you are wrong. There is a rich heritage of debates in the medical profession going back to Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. It is only in the age of monopolistic drug companies and their co-optation of the regulating agencies that people who speak out against barbaric practices such as chemotherapy are censored. Did you know that Medical Doctors in California lose their license if someone entraps them or "tells on them" that they recommended healthy alternatives to the immune-suppressing trio of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery for their patients with cancer? Imagine giving immune-suppressing treatments for conditions such as cancer or AIDS, where the immune system is already suppressed. (For more information on orthodox medical treatments, read: "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients." JAMA, April 15 1998, Volume 279 Number 15, pages 1200-1216.)
If 1,000 people recommend taking a drug, and one person speaks out and says the drug is killing people, is that one person giving out dangerous information? Is it not preferable to have both sides of the issue brought up, especially after 200,000 people in the U.S. alone have died from the treatment in question? In Tiannaman Square, was the citizen who stood his ground and blocked the column of tanks not helping the cause of democratic debate by bringing attention to the oppression in their country? Freedom of speech is not dangerous. People are bright enough to make informed decisions if GIVEN THE CORRECT INFORMATION.
Dr. John Ruhland
Great issue!
Dear WFP,
I'm just writing to let you know how much I enjoyed your latest issue. Your newspaper gets better with every issue. The two articles on microbroadcasting were great and gave a brief (though limited) description of the movement. Also, the Shell vs Nigeria article was very surprising, not because you ran it, but because I just have noticed that this story has been very difficult to find anywhere. Congratulations on releasing it. I pick your paper up at my school (Art Institute) and it is a great way to show some of the sheltered corporate ass kissers there what happens outside of their dorms.
Thanks again,
Nathan Iverson