and Censorship in Coverage of the Epidemic
By John Lauritsen
The New York Native
12 Aug. 1991
first casualty when war comes is truth"
- Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917
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
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.
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)
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
dentist, the innocent virgin, and Jesse Helms
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 procedures.
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
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)
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 than "AIDS":
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.
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".
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 patients.
The most absurd
and despicable defamation of David Acer was published in The
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).
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?
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.
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."
preposterous conjectures were entertained, and then ruled out, by
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Ryan White story
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 of myth-making.
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 his illness.
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."
people befriended Ryan, including Michael Jackson, Elton John, Vice
president Dan Quayle, Senator Edward Kennedy, President George Bush,
and Donald Trump.
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.
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)
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:
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)
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
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:
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)
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.
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.
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."
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;
For Medical Workers," The Washington Post, 19 June 1991.
the Doctor Has AIDS" (editorial), The New York Times, 20 July
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) pp. 755-764.
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.
Gladwell, "Senate Vote Ordering AIDS Disclosure a Setback for
Activists," 20 July 1991.
Blame ...Every Single One of You'; Dying Florida Woman Faults Dentist,
Agency in Letter," Washington Post, 22 June 1991.
K. Altman, "An AIDS Puzzle: What Went Wrong In Dentist's Office?",
The New York Times, 30 July 1991.
Pearson, "AIDS Patient Ryan White Dies; Indiana Youth's Plight
Touched the Nation," The Washington Post, 9 April 1990.
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.
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.