The Mail
Drugs, Disease, Debate
Christian Fiala, MD, Vienna, Austria
South African Presidential Aids Advisory Panel
"Drugs, Disease, Denial" (6/22) once again illustrates the unfortunate fact that it requires the chutzpah of a New York Press to permit a public airing of this vitally important discussion. It also perfectly illustrates the tone of this now 20-year-old scientific disagreement.
On the one side, representing received authority, Jeanne Bergman gives us a farrago of invective and adulation, freighted hardly at all with history, facts, names, citations or argumentation, but wisely laced with caveats (side-effects can be fatal, ACS often abuses its power, American medicine has a history of racism, and the pharmaceuticals pursue profits single-mindedly).
On the other side of the debate, representing the "dissidents," Celia Farber offers an analysis of how language can rigidify into ideology, delineates a history of the AIDS medications, cites newspapers, journals, books and the experiences of individuals "in the trenches," and, in general, presents something resembling a reasoned argument.
Frank Lusardi, Manhattan
I guess you would now call me a "denialist" concerning HIV ("Drugs, Disease, Denial," 6/22). But back in 1999, when my pregnant wife tested positive on a routine test, we were initially shattered by the news. A strange sequence of events, however, provoked a suspicion that soon became a certainty.
Kathleen, my wife, and I had been at that time monogamously married for 14 years. A vigorous athlete, she would, before she became pregnant, train each year to run a 26-mile marathon. No noticeable health problems had ever been apparent.
After her HIV positivity had been thoroughly established I took the test. It came back negative. I took it again. Negative. She took it again. Positive.Ê
Before I continue I should assure the reader that Kathleen and I had had an active sex life. If HIV has even the remotest possibility of being transmitted sexually it would have been. However, this did not jibe with the propaganda promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control.
I became obsessed with a more scientific approach. Surely with the billions being spent on research some solid, useable science would have emerged. Here again I was disappointed. But don't take my word for it. See if you can find, after 21 years and $40 billion, a paper that describes conclusively the mechanism of pathogenicity for HIV. You won't. It doesn't exist. Proof that HIV has any deleterious effect on the human metabolism whatsoever does not exist. Ample evidence abounds, on the other hand, that AZT and the assorted protease inhibitors effectively poison.
David H. Tyson, Eugene, OR
Re: Celia Farber's article "Drugs, Disease, Denial" (6/22): I believe she's the one in denial.
David Maciorkowski, Fords, NJ
I would like to see a debate between Jeanne Bergman and Celia Farber ("Drugs, Disease, Denial," 6/22). It would be nice to see where Jeanne gets her facts regarding the claim that the dissidents' theories have been disproved. It would be my bet that Jeanne would not go near such a debate.
Kyle Shields, via email
Re: "Drugs, Disease, Denial" (6/22): I can't believe that Celia Farber quoted Paul King. What a huge disappointment in an otherwise excellent article. Paul King isn't even the man's real name. There are so many dissidents that are credible and whom have integrity and are in relatively good repute, why on earth would you quote a hack and a liar like Paul King?
Todd Phillips, San Francisco
Not Spellbound
Thank you, Armond White, for refusing to go along with all the other sheep-like critics with their unanimous praise of Nicole Kidman ("Hex Ed," 6/22). I could never figure out what she had done to deserve all the magazine covers and acting hosannas. In my opinion, every single one of Kidman's performances is cold and lacking inÊemotional depth. My friends can't stand her either. After years of reading gushing stories in the mainstream media, we were beginning to think we were alone.
Victoria Balfour, Manhattan
Re: "Hex Ed" (6/22): Geez, what vituperative ranting against Nicole Kidman. So, Nicole has acted in a few duds, but this is slash and burn, way too hostile.
Jeannie Williams, Los Angeles
Sasquatch Watch
Jim Knipfel has been misinformed ("Creetcher Feature," 6/22). Not one of the many claims of proof that the "infamous 'home movie' of Bigfoot" is a hoax has stood up to investigation. The movie itself has fared very well whenever it has been subjected to sophisticated study, and is slowly accumulating serious support in the scientific community.
John Green, Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia
Frog Fight
Re: "The EU is dead. Short live the EU" (6/22): As a French anarchist, I was puzzled by Thierry Marignac's "insights" on the French vote over the European constitution (which my own anarchist credo did not prevent me from voting against).
While I respect the ambitions of an individual as gifted as monsieur Marignac, it's no wonder someone with such a resumé doesn't care about cheap labor coming from the countries newly integrated in the EU. Those in favor of the constitution were those who thought it would directly benefit them.
Opponents have come to think of the EU as a "war machine," one bent on destroying jobs and stripping people of social protections.
It's true that French plumbers don't want to open a franchise in Poland, but it's not due to a lack of "guts"-it's due to a lack of incentive. What they would find there would be a less secure and affluent society, and unlike companies making money off of cheap labor, they would gain nothing by moving.
I beg Thierry Marignac to stop mourning a treaty he did not care to read, before he did not care to vote for it, and, to paraphrase him, to see if he has "the guts" to fight for the kind of EU he wants, instead of looking forward to a "ruthless globalized body" from which to get better wages.
Simon Bréan, Paris
Thar he Peddles
Howard Kaplan might like to know that Joseph Ades has found Chinatown to be a most profitable market ("Searching For J. Ades," 6/22). Tell him to keep eyes peeled on Canal St.
Wayne Huang, Manhattan
The mysterious (and Faginesque?) J. Ades ("Searching For J. Ades," 6/22), whom I have spotted in Midtown, on Wall Street and in Brooklyn, sells children's books as well as vegetable peelers. I often remember fondly the part of his spiel that goes, "Look at this one, it is small but cute..."
Seth Barron, Manhattan
A Slimmer Sprinkle
Our fat heroes are disappearing one pound at a time ("Sprinkles On Top," 6/22). In one 24-hour period this week, I learned that Jackie Guerra and Annie Sprinkle are both now thin. Ms. Guerra (Actress/Home Entertaining Show Girly) says she was happy being fat, but got weight loss surgery for her health. This from a woman with the worst chronic smoker's rattle I've heard outside of Appalachia.
Then Annie Sprinkle, poon-flashing sexologist to end all sexology, fills a New York Press interview with balls-out claims such as, "No cookies or ice cream for two-and-a-half years now!" Think of all the lusty revelations this woman could put in front of an exclamation mark, but instead she wants to talk diet and deprivation?
True, Sprinkle and Guerra never claimed to be heroes, but as a fat chick with a disdain for house frocks and cowering, I'm always jacked up to see plush plumpadonnas capture the public eye, especially if they know their way around a tube of eyeliner and can work the platform heels.
Kimberly M., Manhattan
Rahv, Roth, Rothenator?
I want to thank Matt Zoller Seitz for an elegantly and accurately edited version of our conversation ("The Outsider," 6/22). One caveat: it was not Philip Roth but Philip Rahv who wrote the review of Norman Mailers' An American Dream in the New York Review of Books that condemned the book for allowing Rojack, Mailer's protagonist, to emerge unpunished. (Oh, the innocent days in pre-OJ times.)
James Toback, Manhattan
Gearing Up
Re: Russ Smith's piece on the potential match up between Hillary and McCain in 2008 ("Root for Hillary or McCain?" 6/8):
Like in civilizations past, GOP battles for the presidential nomination largely depend on hierarchy, with a distinct line of succession and attractive candidates often passed over in favor of a mediocre crown prince or archduke. In the past 100 years, the GOP presidential nominee has all but a few times been a sitting president, sitting or former veep, sitting or former cabinet secretary, congressional leader, big-state governor, a candidate who's run for president previously, or a national hero. Of these categories, only Frist, McCain, Rudy, and Condi currently satisfy the royal requirements, and Condi has signaled that she won't run. The result is that we could very well see a Rudy/McCain race for the nomination, a theory that's reflected in most national polls of GOP primary voters.
You heard it here first, Mugger: Rudy v. Hillary. And Rudy wins.
Dave Guipe, via email