The article in the Harvard Crimson is interesting on several counts.

First, it is true that they quote the lead researcher who feels that 
Dr. Rath is misusing the results of the study. Rath has come to a 
different policy-related conclusion, he is not challenging the study 
itself. If one wants to argue that those who perform a study should 
then be seen as experts as to the political/policy implications of 
that study, this could get very interesting as Nobel prizewinner Kary 
Mullis has some very pointed comments about the way his own research 
has been misused by the pharmaceutical industry. I usually do not 
agree with what Mullis says about what he calls the faulty scientific 
use of PCR, on the grounds that just because he invented a major 
tool, that does not make him expert in the many ways it might be 
utilized; but I would extend that same argument to the researchers on 
the Tanzania study we're talking about.

Secondly, Don Karn, the CEO of Dr. Rath Education Services USA, said 
that "while the Rath Foundation's approach focuses on vitamins, it 
encourages HIV patients on ARV to work with their doctors to include 
a multivitamin regimen.

"He also said that the line in the advertisement that said the 
six-year study showed vitamins slowed the onset of AIDS by 50% "was a 
direct quote from the study itself as it was published in the New 
England Journal of Medicine."  This does not sound reckless, to me, 
but will help save many lives.

and, Third, the Crimson writes that the New York Times "apologized 
for the inaccurate statement that should not have been printed in Dr. 
Rath's advertisement."  WOW. So now, is it acceptable by Science for 
the People that the bourgeois press censors alternative health 
proposals, even when those ads are paid for?

Quite the stranglehold on information, eh?

Mitchel Cohen

At 03:04 AM 2/16/2007, you wrote:
>btw I forgot to link to evidence that Rath was using the NEJM study 
>as support for his vitamin sales campaign in South Africa. Here is 
>an article from the Harvard Crimson that discusses this and how the 
>study's authors have reacted to interpretations of the study similar 
>to those in the article Mitchel linked to.
>This kind of thing is not just harmless lefty hand waving, the end 
>result is pernicious.
>On 2/16/07, Mitchel Cohen 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>A Natural Answer to AIDS?
>On 1 July 2004, a landmark study by Harvard University
>was published in one of the world's leading medical journals,
>the New England Journal of Medicine, summed up
>the same day by the world's most influential and respected
>newspaper, the New York Times: 'The study found that
>daily doses of multivitamins slow down the disease and cut
>the risk of developing AIDS in half.'
>The question is why the people of South Africa have not been told about
>this. For actively promoting natural health approaches to AIDS, the
>South African government has continually been attacked by
>pharmaceutical interest groups and received no support at all from
>the medical establishment. The reason for this lack of support is
>obvious. Non-patentable natural therapies have very low profit
>margins, whereas patented synthetic pharmaceutical AIDS drugs are a
>multi-billion dollar business.
>It is high time that everyone in South Africa, whether affected by
>AIDS or not, knows the facts.
>1. The Harvard study, conducted in Tanzania over a period of eight
>years, involved more than a thousand HIV-positive pregnant women.
>It was a placebo controlled and double blind trial conforming to the
>highest standards. The study showed that inexpensive multivitamin
>treatment is more effective in staving off disease among HIV-positive
>women than any toxic AIDS drug. (NEMJ 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32)
>2. More than a decade ago, a study co-authored by two-time Nobel
>Prize winner Linus Pauling, published in another leading scientific
>journal, found that an optimal dose of vitamin C alone can block the
>replication of HIV by 99%. (Proceedings of the National Academy of
>Sciences of the United States of America 1990 Sep;87(18):7245-9)
>3. Every textbook of biochemistry recognises that vitamins and
>other micronutrients are the most decisive factor determining the
>optimum function of the immune system.
>4. Hundreds of studies have found that AZT is profoundly toxic to
>all cells of the human body, and particularly to the blood cells of our
>immune system.
>5. Numerous studies have found that children exposed to AZT in the
>womb suffer brain damage, neurological disorders, paralysis, spasticity,
>mental retardation, epilepsy, other serious diseases and early
>6. Incredibly, two weeks after the publication of the Harvard study,
>the Medicines Control Council proposed new regulations that will
>effectively prevent free access to life-saving vitamin therapy and
>information about it, and recommended that HIV-positive women
>take AZT during their pregnancies.
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]