Administration approval process owing to political pressures. She criticized this process because she felt it led to ignoring other possible treatments, and believed she had to "give voice" to the small minority of scientists at that time who felt AZT was dangerous. Her column was criticized by the scientist running trials on AZT, as "sensationalistic drivel of half-truths and noncritical journalism that sells tabloids" and could lead to people avoiding life-saving treatment with AZT. Farber rejected criticism that this column was essentially scaring people into avoiding AZT, saying that was not her intent. A Los Angeles Times column criticized the tone of her column as "fear-mongering" and "inexcusable," due to her giving Duesberg the last words in her column. Duesberg's words were called "hyperbolic blather", because Duesberg invoked Heinrich Himmler and compared people taking AZT to "people running into the gas chambers". "Out of Control" Farber published a 2006 Harper's article, "Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science," which criticized the ethics of the antiretroviral drug industry and examined the arguments by Duesberg that HIV does not cause AIDS. Farber's article was widely criticized for its promotion of AIDS denialism and its many inaccuracies. A New York Times op-ed written by scientists described Farber's article as promoting "deadly quackery" for denying the "established fact" that HIV causes AIDS, which could lead to resurgence of the disease if people began to believe HIV was harmless. The Columbia Journalism Review chided Harper’s for "giving...legitimacy" to "an illegitimate and discredited idea." Harper's editor Roger Hodge defended Farber from criticism, stating the article was thoroughly fact-checked and that Farber was "courageous" for covering a story that came at "great personal cost". Farber said that she did not endorse the Duesberg hypothesis and that she had approached the story as an objective journalist, stating: "People can't distinguish, it seems, between describing dissent and being dissent." An article in the New York Observer juxtaposed her stated position of not endorsing Duesberg's views with previous statements she made questioning the mainstream view of HIV, and questioned whether she had herself become a "dissenter". In response to Farber's column, leading AIDS researchers published a 37-page rebuttal to Duesberg's views, whose views these researchers believed were long disproved in the medical community, while others in the medical community criticized her column for being poorly fact checked and containing "glaring errors". Seth Kalichmann, HIV researcher, has stated