This story is disturbing, although I would pass over the Duesberg angle.
And it ought to be pointed out that the woman who was apparently killed by improperly safeguarded drug trials was probably black (her son's name was Jemal, do the math), and I would be willing to bet that she was probably poor and relatively uneducated, based on her status as single-mother and the fact that she did not think it would be unusual that she might have contracted HIV.
In any case, this statement:
But soon a chorus of condemnation was turned against those who were sensationalizing Hafford’s death and the growing HIVNET controversy to condemn nevirapine, which had been branded by the AIDS industry as a “life-saving” drug and a “very important tool” to combat HIV in the Third World.
So-called community AIDS activists were sprung like cuckoo birds from grandfather clocks at the appointed hour to affirm the unwavering AIDS cathechism: AIDS drugs save lives. To suggest otherwise is to endanger millions of African babies.
makes me wonder if the reason for this drug was to improve the quality of life for HIV-positive Americans or for HIV-positive Africans. Perhaps we should have done the tests on the Third-Worlders if they were the ones to get the most benefits.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Harvey Bialy on LewRockwell.com.
That is all.