EMERGING VIRUSES: AIDS &

EBOLA

Nature, Accident or Intentional?

Tetrahedron, Inc. 1996.


Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.


Foreward by W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D.


"To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's

doing is good . . .


Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long-sought

justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steatfastness

and determination. That is the social theory Which helps to make

his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so

that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise

and honors."

-Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn

DEDICATED TO THE SEEKERS OF TRUTH

and to those who, regardless of risk, labor tirelessly to tell it.


To the Reader

THIS BOOK is painfully nonfiction - the story is true, the

characters, scientific and political, are real. Secondary references

have been checked and authenticated.


Since the importance of this information was clear, I labored to

write for both critical health scientists and intelligent lay readers

without losing either. Technical words are explained in lay terms

for all to better understand.


Though many people - black, white, gay, straight, Jew and

gentile - may wish to deny the implications of this work, the truth

is the truth. As British statesman Edmund Burke said in the wake

of the American revolution, "People never give up their liberties

but under some delusion." Perhaps now, as AIDS consumes the

lives, liberties, and pursuits of an estimated 30 million HIV-

positive people worldwide, the time has come to vanquish our

delusions about it and its origin.


Despite its social and scientific importance, the origin of HIV has

been clouded in mystery. Based on the mass of circumstantial

and scientific evidence presented herein, the theory that

"emerging viruses" like HIV and Ebola spontaneously evolved

and naturally jumped species from monkey to man must be

seriously questioned.


There is an old saying in medicine, that diagnosis is required

before treatment. The facts presented here, easily verified, may

help diagnose the man-made origin of the world's most feared

and deadly viruses. It is hoped this work will, therefore, help

redirect AIDS science in search of a cure, free AIDS victims

from the guilt and stigma attached to the disease, as well as

prevent such "emerging viruses" from reemerging.


I offer this investigation into the orgin of AIDS and Ebola for

critical review in the hope that it may also contribute to greater

honesty in science, to political, military, and intelligence

community reforms that are truly peace loving, and to self and

social reflection as a preventative against inhumanity.


-LEONARD G. HOROWITZ

Foreword

All at once, it seems, new viruses and virus-related diseases have

threatened the health of humans and many animal species. How

did this situation arise? Could it be that scientific studies and the

emergence of new pathogens are not totally unrelated events? In

writing this text, Dr. Horowitz has bravely questioned the extent

to which scientific research and lax government oversight may

have contributed to the present and coming plagues.


Open debate on this issue has been soundly discouraged.


Opponents to open dialogue on the apparent relationship between

early viral research and the latest germ discoveries argue that

little good, and considerable harm, would come from a full

disclosure of the facts. Exposing the truth, many believed, would

likely: I) tarnish the reputations of certain scientists, 2) make it

more difficult to maintain science funding, 3) promote

antigovernment sentiment, and 4) likely leave many issues

unresolved. Others argued that it was simply too late to undo past

mistakes. The fact that a better understanding of the new viruses'

origins could lead to new treatment approaches, and, more

importantly, to ways of preventing future outbreaks, was

disregarded.


In considering the recent genesis of HIV and the Ebola viruses,

Dr. Horowitz's book has explored three areas of great general and

scientific interest: 1) the history of intensive research into the

viral causes of cancer wherein readers can become familiar with

the many, now questionable, virus transmission experiments, 2)

the CIA and Department of Defense efforts to develop and

defend against biological weapons of germ warfare. Here Dr.


Horowitz should be especially congratulated for presenting well-

researched little known facts that, though highly disturbing, are

an important piece of history that may also bear heavily on the

emergence of new viruses, and 3) vaccine production. Clearly, as

anyone who reads this book will conclude, there is a great need

for more open dialogue concerning the past and present risks

inherent in the production of live viral vaccines. It is this topic

that I am pleased to address here.


In 1798, Edward Jenner, an English physician advanced the use

of cowpox (vaccinia) virus for immunizing humans against

smallpox. He recognized that pathogens can behave differently

while infecting different species. Indeed, he theorized that the

vaccinia infection, which caused mild problems for cows, caused

more severe ailments in horses. Only after adapting to cows, did

vaccinia acquire limited infectivity for humans. The open sores

that humans developed were far less severe than those induced by

smallpox (variola) virus and essentially remained localized to the

site of inoculation. Moreover, contact with vaccinia virus caused

individuals to become virtually immune to the widespread

disease caused by the small-pox virus. The success of vaccination

is reflected in today's total elimination of smallpox as a disease.


Jenner's vaccination approach was followed in the twentieth

century by Pasteur's use of rabies virus grown in rabbit's brain,

and by Theiler's finding that he could reduce the effect of yellow

fever virus by growing it in chicken embryos.


These successes set the precedent for other scientists to attempt

to reduce the pathogenicity of other human and animal viruses by

inoculating them into foreign species. Although we now look

back with some disdain at the crudeness of early immunization

experiments - such as the 1938 injections of polio virus, grown in

mouse brains, into humans, most people, including scientists, are

unaware that we still use primary monkey kidney cells to produce

live polio virus vaccine. Likewise, dog and duck kidney cells

were used to make licensed rubella vaccines. Experimental

vaccines, grown in animal tissues and intended for human use,

were commonly tested in African monkeys, and it is likely that

many of these monkeys were released back into the wild. This

practice may have led to the emergence of primate diseases, some

of which could have been transmitted back to humans.


Large numbers of rural Africans were also chosen as test

recipients of experimental human vaccines.


In veterinary medicine, live viral vaccines have been widely used

in domestic pets and in animals destined to become part of the

food-chain. Undoubtedly, many cross-species transfer of viruses

have occurred in the process. Even today, more than ten foreign

species are used to produce currently licensed vaccines for cats

and dogs.


The general acceptance of the safety of cross-species produced

vaccines was supported in part by the generalization that there

are inherent restrictions to the interspecies spread of disease.


Thus, like vaccinia, most viruses are less hanmful, but others can

be far more dangerous after invading a foreign host. One

dramatic example is that of the human infection caused by the

herpes-type monkey B virus. This germ remains a rather

harmless invader of monkeys, but place it in humans, and

striking, severe, acute illness results which commonly ends in

death. Likewise, a modified horse-measles-virus (morbillivirus)

can be lethal to man. Other examples include the relatively mild

dog distemper morbillivirus that was blamed for the death of

some 3,000 lions in the Serengeti; the cat-adapted parvovirus that

caused worldwide infection in dogs; and the mouse-derived

lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus that caused severe hepatitis

in monkeys.


It is the slow onset of disease that can be particularly baffling,

especially when considering potential viral diseases transmitted

through vaccines. Most acute diseases are relatively easy to

recognize and amenable to further prevention. The delayed onset

of chronic debilitating diseases that could be associated with

animal viruses finding their way into a new species, e.g., man,

are much more challenging. Here, the association between the

germ and the symptoms it causes is obscured. Such an

association would be especially hard to establish if the clinical

features presented during the illness are poorly defned and mimic

those of other known ailments. One example is the 1996 concern

over the food-borne transmission of the prion disease scrapie.


Initially carried by infected sheep, this protein caused bovine

spongiform encepalopathy in "mad" cows. Then it was

apparently passed on to humans resulting in juvenile Crutzfeldt-

Jakob disease.


While in some cases disease transmission has been traced to

certain vaccine lots, other times, even widely distributed licensed

vaccines have been found to be contaminated. Yellow fever

vaccine was known to contain avian leukosis virus.(* Editor's

note: This is the retrovirus that causes leukemia in chickens.)

During World War II, batches of yellow fever vaccines were

inadvertently also contaminated with hepatitis B virus. Current

measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccines contain low levels of

reverse transcriptase, an enzyme associated with retroviruses.


Both Salk and Sabin polio vaccines made from rhesus monkeys

contained live monkey viruses called SV40, short for the fortieth

monkey virus discovered. As Dr. Horowitz documents, polio

vaccines may also have contained numerous other monkey

viruses, some of which may have provided some building blocks

for the emergence of HIV-l and human AIDS.


The finding of SV40 in rhesus monkey kidney cells, during the

early 1960s, led to a rapid switch to Mrican green monkeys for

polio vaccine production. Kidney cells from African green

monkeys, still being used to produce live polio vaccines today,

may have been infected with monkey viruses that were not easily

detectable. The monkeys used before 1980, for example, were

likely to have been infected with simian immunodeficiency virus

(SIV)-a virus genetically related to HIV-l. The origin of this virus

and whether it contaminated any experimental vaccines are issues

that need addressing.


What makes vaccines so troublesome is that their production and

administration allows viral contamination to breach the two

natural barriers that often restrict cross-species infections:

First is the skin. Direct inoculation of vaccines breaches this

natural barrier and has been shown to produce increased

infections in animals and humans. Such was the case when SV 40

was injected intramuscularly in contaminated Salk polio vaccine.


Later it was learned that Sabin's orally administered polio

vaccines were safer since the live simian viruses were digested in

the stomach and thereby inactivated. Additionally risky, when it

comes to breaking the skin barrier, is the chance of transmitting

viruses from one person to another through the use of unsterilized

needles.


Second is the unique and natural viral surface characteristics that

reduce the chance that viruses might jump species. The mixing of

vaccine viruses with others found in the cells and tissues used to

develop the vaccine can potentially lead to the development of

new recombinant mutants that are more adaptive and have wider

host range than either of the original viruses. This can especially

happen when a live viral vaccine produced in cells from one

species is then given to another species.


Also of concern is the transmission of new genetic information

along with the vaccine virus. For instance, early adenoviral

vaccines, produced in rhesus monkeys' kidney cells, developed to

protect people against respiratory infections, incorporated parts

of the SV40 virus that remained as a vaccine contaminant even

after production of the vaccine virus was switched to human

cells. Numerous other vaccines, especially those that were used

in early field trials in Africa, should be analyzed for those genetic

components which characterize today's monkey and human

pathogens.


Unfortunately, this new awareness of potential problems with

live viral vaccines has had little impact on the viral vaccine

approval process. Seemingly, U.S. government agencies,

principally the FDA, have been reluctant to impose additional

testing requirements on vaccines once they are approved for use.


In effect, government officials are given a single opportunity to

decide on a new vaccine's safety. Even then, government

regulators themselves may be denied certain critical information

belonging to the vaccine industry. Specifically, FDA regulations

are written so as not to compel industry to reveal testing

information not directly pertaining to the lots submitted for

clinical use. The FDA is reluctant to admit its lack of knowledge

about vaccines to the medical/scientific community. Yet,

practicing physicians are expected to unquestionably endorse the

safety of vaccines under all circumstances and to all individuals.


Aside from these bureaucratic barriers to viral vaccine safety

assurance, there are additional major concerns. Since vaccine

development information is considered proprietary - protected by

nondisclosure policies - government officials and researchers

must shield potential safety issues from public scrutiny. This

censorship is rationalized by the all too persuasive argument that

vaccines cannot be criticized lest the public become non-

compliant in taking them. Finally, this silence is buttressed by the

small number of people capable of critically evaluating vaccine

manufacturing and safety testing procedures. In essence, health

care professionals and the general public know little about the

possible dangers of live viral vaccines.


As an illustration, the issue of possible simian cytomegalovirus

(SCMV) contamination of live polio virus vaccines has been

suppressed since 1972. On the eve of Nixon's war on cancer, a

joint Lederle Corporation/FDA Bureau of Biologics study

showed that eleven test monkeys, imported for polio vaccine

production, tested positively for SCMV. The reluctance of the

FDA to act on this matter was revealed in a corporate memo

delivered the following year. Even in 1995, following a report to

FDA officials concerning a patient infected with a SCMV-

derived virus, no new in-house testing of polio vaccines for

SCMV has occurred. Moreover, this author's specific requests for

vaccine material to undertake specific testing, were denied on the

basis of protecting "proprietary" interests.


This basic flaw in the regulatory process must be addressed - the

FDA must be responsive to the medical-scientific community's

need for accurate information regarding the potential hazards of

products released for use in society. In the event that public

health and safety concerns arise, industry should wave its right to

maintain proprietary intelligence. This would enable the FDA to

disclose more information concerning the safety of FDA

regulated products to the medical-scientific community. Such a

proposal should be included in the all pending and future FDA

reforms.


It is against this background of possible risks of past viral vaccine

studies, uncertain biological recombinants, bureaucratic

censorship, a rising tide of medical consumerism in the

information age, and an urgent need for legislative FDA reform,

that Dr. Horowitz's work contributes. At mini-

mum, what you are about to read exposes many important facts

which, unfortunately, few people realize and all would be better

off knowing. At best, this important text raises far greater hope

that by knowing their origin, cures for the many complex

emerging viruses, including AIDS, may be forthcoming.


-W. JOHN MARnN, M.D., Ph.D.*

* Dr. W. John Martin, a Professor of Pathology at the University

of Southern California, is also the Director of the Center for

Complex Infectious Diseases in Rosemead, California. Between

1976 and 1980, Dr. Martin served as the director of the Viral

Oncology Branch of the FDA's Bureau of Biologics (now the

Center for Biologics, Evaluation and Research), the government's

principal agency in charge of human vaccines.


Prologue

"DAVID was an alcoholic, an active alcoholic," recalled Edward

Parsons. "I say that -I have nothing to hide. I'm also a recovering

alcoholic. When I met David, I spoke to him about sobriety and

the possibility of becoming involved with AA, and I don't think

that was at the time really an option for him." [1]


Robert Montgomery, the attorney for four of the six Florida

dental AIDS victims, listened intently as the auburn-haired nurse

and once closest homosexual friend of the infamous Dr. David

Acer spoke under oath for the record.


"He would drink - start to drink and not be able to stop and

become inebriated, sloppy, more aggressive, more assertive. He

would come on to people a lot more easily."

"And you believe he may have intentionally infected his [dental]


patients?" Montgomery questioned.


"Yes. What happened was David was angry. He was very angry.


I guess he had a right to be. Kimberly Bergalis was very angry,

so was the family. That's a natural reaction to a diagnosis like

that [AIDS]. But I had a conversation with David that bothered

me. It has bothered me for quite a while. Now, when ultimately

these five patients came forward I was certainly surprised at that

disclosure, and then heard that they were testing positive for the

same strain of virus that David had apparently possessed. This is

all based on media. This was not based on any conversation I had

with him. But I was able to recall a conversation I had with him

that bothered me."

Parsons paused to take a drink.


"Go on," prodded the counselor.


"He had been drinking," Parsons continued. "He - we discussed

AIDS again. I think I mentioned a friend of mine had been

diagnosed and he discussed with me - he verbalized some

opinions and some feelings, and he said something to the effect

that, well, our society does not want to address the issue because

they perceive it to be a homosexual problem, and when it begins

to affect younger people and grandparents, I think is the words he

used, he said that maybe society will do something. I kind of just

blew it away. I didn't think much of it.


"I asked him how his practice was going. He said fine, and that

was the end of that conversation. I met with him again up at his

home. . . , and we discussed it again. There was sort of an anger

there about HIV and what our government was. We got into

many, many political discussions where HIV came from, the

World Health Organization theory and all of these various

conversations about it. . . . The perception within the gay

community was that our government avoided the issue; neglected

the issue. We discussed everything from the controversy

surrounding Robert Gallo and the French researcher Luc

Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute; Ronald Reagan. Just

numerous conversations pertaining to AIDS."

"And this began in 1985?" Montgomery questioned.


"1985, that's correct."

"What did he say about Montagnier and Gallo?"

Parsons replied, "David believed that HIV was probably, if not

created in a lab, he believed that HIV was introduced into the

human population and various governments knowingly sat on

this information for a period of years before they actually

acknowledged [it]. . . ."

Montgomery looked puzzled. "Are you saying that you

interpreted that . . . to mean that you felt Dr. Acer was potentially

deliberately infecting his patients?"

"I think so," Parsons replied. "We had - as I said, we had

numerous conversations about AIDS and politics and

transmission. . . . He believed that there were solutions out there;

that there were drugs and chemicals out there that could kill the

virus and that there was a conspiracy. . . . Some sort of a

conspiracy. . . .


"What he said was when HIV begins to affect mainstream - I

think the word he used was mainstream America, when we start

seeing people who are - I think the word he used was adolescents

and grandparents, then maybe something will be done. . . ." [1]


The preceding legal testimony provided by Edward Parsons was

passed on to authorities from the United States Centers of

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Florida

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS).


Investigators for these agencies then also interviewed Parsons.


According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, HRS officials

then delivered the incriminating testimony to the Florida attorney

general's office. Both offices then failed to pursue a criminal

investigation into the case "noting the absence of supporting

evidence." [2]


Officially thwarted in his effort to relay his circumstantial

evidence to the world, on October 1, 1993, Parsons's broadcast

his claims with the help of Barbara Walters on ABC television's

"20/20." [3] The authorities thereafter announced that Parsons's

testimony was unreliable.


Dr. Robert Runnells, an expert witness hired by attorney

Montgomery to argue Acer's negligence in infection control in

the now famous Kimberly Bergalis case, openly discredited

Edward Parsons in his book 'AIDS in the Dental Office.' [1]


Runnells wrote that Acer's close friend:

"consciously or subconsciously, may have begun championing

the theory of Acer murdering his patients to keep the case before

the public - to continue to emphasize to mainstream America that

anyone can get AIDS - whether or not they are gay. In fact, it was [Parsons] who wanted desperately to carry the anti-homophobia

message. Because Acer and Kimberly were constantly in the

headlines, [Parsons] may have decided that the media would

continue to carry a story that Acer may have intentionally

injected his patients." [1]


Contrary to Dr. Runnells's and attorney Montgomery's claims, the

mass of circumstantial and scientific evidence presented in my

earlier book 'Deadly Innocence: Solving the Greatest Murder

Mystery in the History of American Medicine' [4] showed the

most plausible way Dr. David Acer could have infected six

patients with the AIDS virus between December, 1987 and July,

1989 was by intent, just as Edward Parsons alleged.


'Deadly Innocence,' along with three investigation reports I

subsequently published in the scientific/health professional

journals 'AIDS Patient Care,' [6] 'Clinical Pediatric Dentistry,' [7]


and the 'British Dental Journal,' [8] provided evidence that Dr.


Acer was developmentally and behaviorally predisposed to

become an organized serial killer. By reviewing Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI) methods and materials, I learned that all

serial killers kill for the sake of power, control, and revenge. The

most important question in the Deadly Innocence investigation

then became, "Against

whom did Acer hold a vendetta?"

In light of Parsons's legal testimony and other evidence, it

became evident that the dentist's primary vendetta was against

the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and the CDC

whom he believed developed and intentionally deployed the

AIDS virus. Indeed, he held the authorities accountable for his

infection and the deaths of scores of others.


During a personal conversation with Parsons, he admitted to me

that Acer was outraged by the notion that the American

homosexual community had been specifically targeted to receive

HIV-tainted hepatitis B vaccinations during the 1970s.


Though this theory, I later learned, was embraced by at least a

half dozen health scientists and scholars throughout the world, in

the United States, the "World Health Organization theory," as it

is called, was principally advanced by Dr. Robert Strecker, a

practicing internist and gastroenterologist with an additional

doctorate in pharmacology. As a trained pathologist and

insurance industry consultant, Dr. Strecker initially investigated

the AIDS epidemic and virus under contract with a large

insurance

company. Following years of research, Strecker published a

highly controversial videotape entitled 'The Strecker

Memorandum.' [9]


According to Edward Parsons, "David and I viewed The Strecker

Memorandum at length and spent hours in heated discussion over

its disturbing contents." [10] In The Memorandum, Strecker

alleged that the AIDS virus was "requested," "created," and

"deployed" and its effects were predicted long before the

epidemic began. In short, Acer believed that he was one of

millions of innocent victims of genocide.


The speculation that Dr. Acer was angry with "mainstream"

America for not recognizing AIDS as everyone's problem was

only part of the story that the authorities and media promoted.


The fact is many people are similarly angry, yet they do not go

around killing people. The explanation fell short of a plausible

murder motive.


Acknowledging the possibility that Acer, a closet homosexual

who never came to terms with being gay, may have held a

vendetta against mainstream homophobes, I realized Acer's

second plausible motive. As an intelligent, scientifically trained,

solo practitioner, the terminally ill dentist would have realized he

could never spread his virus throughout the entire U.S.


population. What he could do, however, and what the evidence

showed he intentionally accomplished, was to spread the fear of

AIDS in health care throughout mainstream America.


In fact, the open letter Dr. Acer published, shortly before his

death, spelled out his two principal vendettas against American

public health authorities and mainstream homophobic society.


Within eight brief paragraphs, published in Florida newspapers

on September 6 and 7, 1990, Acer condemned the CDC six times

for their alleged involvement in the viral transmissions and

articulated his grave distrust of them. He ended by subtly

expressing his fascination with the probability of initiating mass

hysteria throughout the United States:

"It is important to be infonned of this disease, so you are aware of

the dangers and how it can and cannot be transmitted. As fear of

the unknown is hard to deal with, but knowledge of what you fear

can at least help you know what action to take, if any. . . ." [5]


Following months of intensive investigation, HRS and CDC

researchers failed to report Parsons's testimony, or give serious

consideration to the murder theory. Rather, they speculated that

this first and only documented cluster of doctor-to-patient HIV

transmission cases was most likely "an accident." They published

that injuries sustained by a fatigued and shaky Dr. Acer, who

performed "invasive" procedures on his patients, were the most

likely cause of the infections and not negligence (that is, the use

of un-sterilized instruments and equipment). In addition, after

having the Florida Attorney General's Office review the facts,

they rejected the "murder theory."

Later, following years of denial, the Barbara Walters interview of

Edward Parsons, and the identification of Acer's sixth victim,

Sherry Johnson, who received no invasive procedures aside from

local anesthetic injections, the CDC exhumed the murder theory

for plausible consideration. Dr. Harold Jaffe, Deputy Director for

HIV/AIDS Science at the CDC, quickly concluded the case

would likely remain "an unsolvable mystery." [11]


Adding to the confusion, in early June 1994, a CBS "60-

MINUTES" report proposed that the victims themselves were to

blame. The program accused Kimberly Bergalis, the elderly

Barbara Webb, and the others of concealing sexual practices and

other lifestyle risks, and said their infections came from random

community exposures. Though this disinformation was quickly

and easily debunked by official as well as independent

investigators, for a grossly uninformed public, the cruel CBS

hoax had left its mark. [12]


The Florida dental AIDS tragedy generated intense controversy,

mass hysteria, needless concerns, political legislation, billions in

financial costs, and even increased death and disease among

those frightened away from health care. In light of the importance

of the case, its toll on society, and the many questions it raised, I

believed, prior to writing this book, that a final chapter in the

case needed to be written. In a strange and unsettling way, this

book at least shows that Acer's anger, though obviously not his

actions, was justified. The mystery of his case, for many now,

may be solved. More-over, Acer may have fulfilled a remarkable

destiny - creating one mystery to help solve a larger one - the

origin of AIDS, Ebola and other "emerging viruses."

Abbreviations

ABC-Atomic Energy Commission

ABIPP-American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

AIBS-American Institute of Biological Sciences

AIDS-Acquired immune deficiency syndrome

AIFLD-American Institute for Free Labor Development

AMI-Allan Memorial Institute

AMV -avian myeloblastosis virus

ARC-AIDS related complex

ARV -AIDS associated retrovirus

ASCC-American Society for the Control of Cancer

BSL-biological safety level (1-4)

BW-biological weapons

BPL-Boston Pubic Library

BPP-Black Panther Party

BLV-bovine leukemia virus

BL-Burkitt's lymphoma

BVV-bovine visna virus

CAfB-Covert Action Information Bulletin

CBW-chemical and biological warfare

CDC-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFR-Council on Foreign Relations

CHINA-chronic infectious neuropathic agents

CIA-Central Intelligence Agency

CIC-Counter-Intelligence Corps

CNSS-Center for National Security Studies

COINTELPRO-Communist (Counter) Intelligence Program

CPUSA-Communist Party U.S.A.


CSH-Cold Spring Harbor

DCI-Director of Central Intelligence

DREW-Department of Health, Education and Welfare

DNA-Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DOD-Department of Defense

DT-diptheria, tetanus

EBV-Epstein Barr Virus

ECT-electro-convulsive (shock) therapy

ELISA (test)--enzyme-linked immuosorbent assay

ERTS-Earth Resources Technology Satellite

FBI-Federal Bureau of Investigation

FELV-feline (cat) leukemia virus

FCRC-Frederick Cancer Research Center

FDA-Food and Drug Administration

FNLA-N ational Front for the Liberation of Angola

FOIA-Freedom of Information Act

FSA-Federal Security Agency

GAO-U.S. General Accounting Office

GRID-Gay related immune deficiency

HAV-human AIDS-related virus

HBsAg-hepatitis B surface antigen

HBV-hepatitis B virus

HELA-Henrietta Lack (cell line)

HIV-human immunodeficiency virus

HRS-Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

HSPH-Harvard School of Public Health

HTLV-human T-lymphocyte leukemia virus

IADB-Inter-American Defense Board

IARC-International Agency for Research on Cancer

IDA-International Development Association

ILC-idiopathic lymphocyteopaenia

INTELSAT ~intelligence satellite

IPP-Institute Pasteur Production

JIC-Joint Intelligence Committee

JIOA-Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency

LAV-lymphadenopathy-associated virus

LBI-Litton Bionetics, Inc.


LSAF-Louisiana State Agriculture Farm

MIT-Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MKNAOMI-CIA code for secret biological weapons program

MKULTRA-CIA code for secret mind control program

MLV-mouse.leukemia viruses

MMIC-military-medical-industrial complex

MMMV-maximally monstrous malignant virus

MPLA-Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola

MSD-Merck, Sharp & Dohme

NAACP-National Assoc. for the Advancement of Colored People

NAS-National Academy of Sciences

NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATO-North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NBC-New Bolton Center

NBRL-Navy's Biomedical Research Laboratory

NCAC-National Cancer Advisory Council

NCDC-National Communicable Disease Center

NCI-National Cancer Institute

NFF-Nicaraguan Freedom Fund

NGO-Nongovernrnental Organization

NIAID-National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases

NIH-National Institutes of Health

NRC-National Research Council

NSC-National Security Council

NSF-National Science Foundation

NYCBB-New York City Blood Bank

NYCBC-New York City Blood Center

NYUMC-New York University Medical Center

OPC-Office of Policy Coordination

OSRD-Office of Scientific Research and Development

OSS-Office of Strategic Services

OTRAG-Orbital Transport and Missiles, Ltd.


PAHO-Pan American Health Organization

PUSH-People to Save Humanity

RAPID-Resources for the Awareness of Population and

International Development

RNA-Ribonucleic Acid

SCF-Save the Children Fund

SCMV-simian cytomegalovirus

SFV-simian foamy virus .


SMOM-Sovereign Military Order of Malta

SOD-Special Operations Division of the Army

SVCP-Special Virus Cancer Program

SVLP-Special Virus Leukemia Program

SV(40)-simian virus (40)

TEREC-Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance

UNDP-U.N. Development Program

UNFAO-U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

UNFPA-U.N. Fund for Population Activities

UNICEF-U.N. Children's Fund

UNIT A-National Union for the Complete Independence of

Angola

USAID-U .S. Agency for International Development

USIA-U.S. Information Agency

USPHS-U .S. Public Health Service

USDHEW-U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare

VEE-Venezuelan equine encephalitis

VVE-Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis

VFHP-Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion

WRS-War Research Service

WBC-white blood cells

WHO-World Health Organization

WPPA-World Population Plan of Action

‐NOTES‐

[1] Runnells RR. AIDS in the Dental Office. The Story of

Kimberly Bergalis and David Acer. Fruit Heights, Utah: IC

Publications, Inc., 1993, pp. 293-298; Johnson vs. Acer (Legal

suit brought against dentist David Acer by Sherry Johnson).


Deposition of Edward Parsons for Robert Montgomery,

December 9, 1993. Visual Evidence, Inc., (407-655-2855). [2] United States General Accounting Office. AillS-CDC's

investigation of HIV transmission by a dentist. GAO/PEMD-92-

31 , Washington, D.C. September 29,1992. [3] American Broadcasting Company. 20120. Interview with

Edward Parson on the Florida dental AillS tragedy. October

1,1993. [4] Horowitz LG. Deadly Innocence: Solving the greatest murder

mystery in the history of American medicine. Rockport, MA:

Tetrahedron, Inc., 1994. [5] McLoed D. Did Dr. Acer intentionally kill patients? Academy

of General Dentistry Impact. 1995;23,10:19. [6] Horowitz LG. Correlates and predictors of sexual homicide

with HIV in the Florida dental AIDS tragedy. AIDS Patient Care.


1994;8;4:220-228. [7] Horowitz LG. Sexual homicide with HIV in a Florida dental

office? Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 1994;19;1:61-64. [8] Horowitz LG. Murder and cover-up may explain the Florida

dental AIDS mystery. British Dental Journal. 1995;10;24:423-

427. [9] Strecker R. The Strecker Memorandum. The Strecker Group,

1501 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90041, 1988. [10] Edward Parsons personal communication. [11] Breo DL. The dental AIDS cases-Murder or an unsolvable

mysery? JAMA 270:2732-2734, 1993. [12] CBS News-a 6O-MINUTES report. Kimberly's story.


Produced by Josh Howard. June 19, 1994.


Part I

Introduction and Scientific Background

Chapter 1

The ʺWorld Health Organization

Theory of AIDSʺ

The World Health Organization (WHO) theory [1] festered in my

mind like a disease. That the AIDS virus was cultured as a

biological weapon and then deliberately deployed was

unfathomable. How could WHO scientists and others in the

United States Public Health Service (USPHS) consciously or

even unwittingly create such a hideous germ? More

inconceivable was the alleged targeting of American

homosexuals and black Africans for genocide. The entire subject

was beyond my wildest nightmares.


Frightened by the ramifications of such alleged atrocities, I spent

months living in denial. As a behavioral scientist, I was no

stranger to the subject of man's inhumanity toward man. I just

feared what further research might reveal.


Eventually, curiosity wore down my defenses, and I attempted,

on several occasions, to contact Dr. Robert Strecker for an

explanation. For months, then, the telephone number I had for

him rang continuously unanswered. Secretly, I was thankful. The

secondary sources of information I had about 'The Strecker

Memorandum' were adequate for my needs, I rationalized.


The few documents I had on the WHO theory of AIDS came

from a wholistic physician I met at a National Wellness

Association conference. For years, the doctor documented, the

word on the street in the gay community and among the black

intelligentsia was that HIV was created as a bioweapon - a man-

made virus bearing stark similarities to the bovine lymphotrophic

virus (BLV) cultured in cows. [2] Although American authorities

quickly moved to dispel the assertion, claiming African monkeys

were the source of the scourge, Dr. Strecker insisted the germ

came from cow and sheep sources.


Research showed a similarity between HIV and BLV. One report

appeared in 'Nature' in 1987. [2] Strecker heralded this and

argued it was virologically absurd to believe HIV came from the

monkey. Especially "since there are no genetic markers in the

AIDS virus typical of the primate, and the AIDS virus cannot

thrive in the monkey." [3] Still, the majority subscribed to the

African green monkey theory.


According to Strecker, whose work was reviewed by medical

physician Jonathan Collin in a 1988 issue of 'Townsend Letter for

Doctors,' the AIDS virus:

". . . can and apparently does thrive in the cow, having essentially

identical characteristics with the bovine virus and this, further,

gives a hint of the role vaccinations have played in either

accidentally or purposefully inducing the AIDS epidemic." [3]


Collin reported that Strecker's research made sense, particularly

considering the virology and evolution of the AIDS epidemic.


Strecker's first point was that AIDS was nonexistent in Africa

prior to 1975, and had it been the result of monkey bites

occurring in the 1940s, as some alleged, the epidemic should

have occurred in the 1960s and not late 1970s owing to the

twenty-year timetable for case incidence doubling. [3]


More telling, Strecker obtained documents through the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA) that showed that the United States

Department of Defense (DaD) secured funding from Congress in

1969 to perform studies on immune-system-destroying agents for

germ warfare. [4] Strecker alleged that soon thereafter, the WHO,

funded by the DOD, began experimenting with a lymphotrophic

virus that was produced in cows, but could also infect humans.


The WHO, Strecker noted, also launched a major African

campaign against smallpox in 1977, which involved the urban

population, not the rural Pygmies. Had the "green monkey" been

responsible for AIDS, Strecker professed, the Pygmies of rural

Africa would have had a higher incidence of AIDS than the

country's urban populations. The opposite is

true. [3]


Strecker reportedly examined WHO research that revealed their

scientists, in the early 1970s, had studied viruses that were

capable of altering the immunologic response capacity of T-

lymphocytes. He noted that such viruses were found in 1970, but

only in some animals including sheep and cows, and that the

latter species is used to produce the smallpox vaccine.


Literature provided by The Strecker Groups urged readers to:

"PLEASE WAKE UP!

In 1969 . . . [the] United States Defense Department requested

and got $10 million to make the AIDS virus in labs as a

political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against Blacks. The

feasibility program and labs were to have been completed by

1974-1975; the virus between 1974-1979. The World Health

Organization started to inject AIDS-laced smallpox vaccine into

over 100 million Africans (population reduction) in 1977. And

over 2000 young white male homosexuals (Trojan horse) in 1978

with the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease

Control/New York Blood Center. . . ."

Collin, in his review, added:

"Strecker remarks that it would be relatively easy to implant such

viruses in the cow carcasses used to produce the smallpox

vaccine. When the smallpox vaccine sera was recovered from the

animal carcasses, animallymphotrophic viruses could be carried

or mutated or incorporated in the vaccine. . . . [T]he

epidemiology of multiple "contaminated" smallpox vaccines

given in the early 1970s would provide exactly the right

timetable for such a widespread AIDS epidemic in Africa today." [3]


Strecker vigorously promoted his theory that the AIDS virus was

transmitted to the American homosexual community during the

course of the experimental hepatitis B vaccination program

sponsored by the USPHS between 1978 and 1979. [1,3,6]


I recalled reviewing this research as a post-doctoral student at

Harvard. [6]


At that time, Collin wrote:

"The USPHS notes the recipients were sexually active, having

more than one sexual partner, and at particular risk for

developing hepatitis. The homosexual populations given the

vaccination were in six major cities, including New York, San

Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Houston and Chicago.


Epidemiologically, these cities now have the highest incidence of

AIDS and ARC, as well as the highest death rates from AIDS. [3]

After reading this, I began to question more of what I learned

about the origin of AIDS. My curiosity, piqued by the DOD

appropriations request for 1970 (see fig. 1.1) beckoned me to

investigate further.


- - - - -

Fig 1.1 - Department of Defence Appropriations Hearings for

1970 on the Development of Immune-System Destroying Agents

for Biological Warfare:

SOVIET CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Mr. SIKES: The statements indicate that the Soviets have made

extensive progress in chemical and biological weapons. I would

like you to provide for the record a statement which shows what

they are doing in this area and with some indication of their

capabilities in this area.


Mr. POOR: We will be happy to provide that.

(The information follows:)

The Soviet Union is better equipped defensively, offensively,

militarily, and psychologically for chemical and biological

warfare than any other nation in the world. She has placed a great

deal of emphasis on these systems in her military machine.


Utilizing a wide spectrum of chemical munitions, the Soviets

consider that chemical tactical weapons would be used in

conjunction with nuclear weapons or separately, as the case may

dictate. The Soviet agent stockpiles include a variety of agents

and munitions capable of creating a wide range of effects on the

battlefield. The Soviet soldier is well equipped defensively. He

trains vigorously and for long periods of time utilizing his

equipment. He looks upon chemical as a real possibility in any

future conflict, and respects his protective equipment. The

research program in the Soviet Union for chemical warfare and

biological agents has encompassed every facet from

incapacitating to lethal effects, both offensively and defensively.


(Additional classified information was supplied to the committee [including the testimony below].)

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like

to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise.


Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and

eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it

would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an

agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural

immunity could have been acquired.


Mr. SIKES: Are we doing any work in that field?

Dr. MACARTHUR: We are not.


Mr. SIKES: Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?

Dr. MACARTHUR: Certainly not lack of interest.


Mr. SIKES: Would you provide for our records information on

what would be required, what the advantages of such a program

would be, the time and the cost involved?

Dr. MACARTHUR: We will be very happy to.

(The information follows:)

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular

biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science

to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this

matter and provided the following observations:

1. All biological agents up to the present time are representatives

of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists

throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified

scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.


2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to

make a new infective microorganism which could differ in

certain important aspects from any known disease-causing

organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory

to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we

depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.


3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be

completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.


4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program.


Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not

many highly competent scientists in the field, almost all are in

university laboratories, and they are generally adequately

supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was

considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the

National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council

(NAS-NRC).


5. The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC and tentative

plans were made to initiate the program. However, decreasing

funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our

reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial

endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.


It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe

such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another

method of massive killing of large populations. On the other

hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is

possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there

is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an

enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area

of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no

adequate research program.


[The above testimony of Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Research and Development, Charles L. Poor, was printed on

page 79 of the public record cited below. However, Dr.


MacArthur's above statements were deleted. Dr. MacArthur was,

at the time, the deputy director of the Department of Defense.


The complete testimony was found initially by military

investigator Zears Miles and subsequently by attorney Theodore

Strecker, J.D., through the Freedom of Information Act (on page

129 of the supplemental record). A copy of the original classified

document was later published on page 124 of 'Deadly Innocence'

by this author in 1994. Source: Department of Defense

Appropriations for 1970. Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the

Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives, Ninety-

First Congress, Part 5 Research, Development, Test, and

Evaluation, Dept. of the Army. Tuesday, July 1, 1969, page 79.


Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.]


- - - - -

‐NOTES‐

[1] Strecker R. The Strecker Memorandum. The Strecker Group,

1501 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90041,1988. [2] Gonda MA, Braun MJ. Carter SG, Kost TA, Bess Jr JW,

Arthur LO and VanDer Maaten MJ. Characterization and

molecular cloning of a bovine lentivirus related to human

immunodeficiency

virus. Nature 1987;330, 388-391; Mulder C. Human AillS virus

not from monkeys. Nature 1988;333:396; See also: Penny D.


Origin of the AillS virus. Nature 1988;333:494-495. [3] Collin J. They deployed the AIDS virus. Townsend Letter for

Doctors. April. 1988 p.152. [4] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives, Ninety-first Conpess, First Session,

H.B. 15090,

Part 5, Research, Development. Test and Evaluation, Dept. of the

Army. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.,

1969. [5] This text was typed at the top of page 129 in the document

cited in reference #4 above. A portion of this DOD

appropriations document was provided by The Strecker Group

and published as document number RS-028. Los Angeles: The

Strecker Group, 1988. [6] Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Harley EJ, Zang EA and Oleszko

WR et al. Hepatitis B vaccine: Demonstration of efficacy in a

controlled clinical trial in a high-risk population in the United

States.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Chapter 2

WHO Plays in the Big Leagues

JACKIE, my wife and co-investigator had been instrumental in

helping me research the Florida dental AIDS tragedy for 'Deadly

Innocence.' [1]


The loving mother of our now two children, Jackie began her

working career as a dental assistant for the Saskatchewan Dental

Plan in Canada. We met in Cancun, Mexico, waiting in line at

Carlos and Charlie's Bar and Grill. At the time, she was looking

for a job and I needed an assistant. The rest is history.


Besides her big blue eyes, long silky auburn hair, slight build,

and innocent appearance, what attracted me most about my future

wife was her survival instinct. She had spent almost two months

touring the back roads of Mexico virtually unchaperoned. This

girl's a survivor, I respectfully considered.


Over the years, I found this trait increasingly comforting,

particularly while confronting the many frightening realities we

encountered during our research.


ʺThe WHO Does What?ʺ

"The only thing I know about the World Health Organization," I

said to Jackie after learning of Strecker's theory, "is that it's a

prestigious internationally supported organization that develops

health and vaccination programs for developing countries."

It suddenly seemed odd to me that over the course of my training

- more than four years of college, three years of dental school, ten

years of postdoctoral research and teaching, and sixteen years of

clinical dental practice - I had learned very little about the WHO.


"I don't even know what's involved in becoming a WHO

member," I admitted. "The name sure imparts an air of scientific

aristocracy."

Eventually, as the novelty of Strecker's theory wore off, and

further attempts at contacting Strecker by phone failed, I decided

to venture into the dungeons of Harvard's Countway Medical

Library to prove "the null hypothesis" - that nothing was true

about Strecker's memorandum. [2] What I unearthed, however, in

back issues of the 'WHO Chronicle' was engaging.


Dozens of 'WHO Chronicle' articles that I photocopied and

brought home revealed that by 1968 the WHO had been solely in

control of the world's experimental "biologicals" for almost two

decades. [3]

"WHO has exerted a powerful influence on the quality control of

biological substances since its very inception in 1948. . . . Since

1952, when WHO interest in the establishment of international

requirements for such biological products began, various possible

measures have been examined for attempting to achieve a greater

degree of uniformity in the quality, safety, and potency of

vaccines, antisera, etc. . . . for the control of substances of

particular interest to WHO in relation to its mass immunization

and mass prophylaxis schemes in developing countries. . . . The

main purpose served by these international standards, reference

preparations, and reference reagents is to provide a means of

ensuring worldwide uniformity in expressing the potency of

preparations used in the prophylaxis, therapy, or diagnosis of

human and animal disease." [3]


The coordinating body for all this work I learned was "the WHO

secretariat." The Geneva-based organization maintained several

full-time officers and part-time consultants who worked in

collaboration with several other laboratories in other countries:

"The laboratories most deeply involved are the WHO

International Laboratories for Biological Standards within the

departments of biological standards of the Statens Seruminstitut,

Copenhagen, the National Institute for Medical Research,

London, and the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge,

England. Between them, these laboratories undertake the detailed

work of organizing international collaborative assays and of

holding and distributing the international biological standards and

many of the international biological reference preparations and

international biological reference reagents. The initiative for

setting up standards and reference preparations usually comes

from a WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization,

which is convened annually in Geneva. It comprises recognized

experts in the field, who serve without remuneration in their

personal capacity and not as representatives of governments or

other bodies, together with members of the WHO secretariat.


This Expert Committee also establishes the international

standards and reference preparations on the basis of the results of

the international collaborative assays."

"For pharmaceuticals generally, still including some biologicals,

the drawing up of standards is in the hands of the Expert

Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations, in

collaboration with the WHO secretariat and with the help of the

Expert Advisory Panel on the International Pharmacopoeia and

Pharmaceutical Preparations. Needless to say, close liaison is

needed between the secretariat, the Expert Committee on

Biological Standardization, the Expert Committee on

Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations, and various other

expert committees on, for example, antibiotics, tuberculosis,

yellow fever, and cholera." [3]


Another article [4] discussed the WHO's "National control

activities" which provided advice and encouragement when

countries became "conscious of the need for controlling

biologicals." WHO helped them establish and develop their

"national controllaboratories." [3]


It was quickly apparent that the WHO set the standards for the

development, manufacture, distribution, and administration of

essentially all pharmaceuticals used throughout the world (see

fig. 2.1). [3,4]


As seen in figure 2.2, they were also intimately involved in

determining which drugs should be made or remain illegal. [4]


Besides assembling teams of scientists to develop, test, and

standardize new (and ancient) drugs, the WHO applied similar

administrative leadership to develop plans for attacking all the

woes of humanity. Polio, yellow fever, cholera, smallpox,

whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, anthrax, typhoid,

tuberculosis, influenza, and even the common cold were all

targeted. The WHO's approach to controlling communicable

diseases was spelled out by their Assistant Director-General, Dr.


A. M, Payne:

"Mass campaigns against certain communicable diseases require

an initial attack sustained uninterruptedly over a relatively large

area within a short period of time. . . . In smallpox, for instance,

the buildup of new susceptibles in the absence of routine

vaccination creates an explosive situation resulting in the familiar

pattern of epidemics of smallpox followed by epidemics of

vaccination. . . " [5]


WHOʹs Developing Viral Network

Applauding WHO's support for pioneering work in viral

research, Dr. D. A. Tyrrell reported the common cold (rhino)

virus provided valuable insights into the burgeoning field of

virology. In the early 1960s, WHO designated Tyrrell's research

unit in the United Kingdom and the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, as "two International Reference

Centres. . . in order to promote their [respiratory virus] study,"

From here, newly developed techniques for virus cultivation,

Tyrrell wrote, were widely applied:

"Hundreds of strains of rhinoviruses have been isolated and

shown to be antigenically distinct from at least some other

strains. They have been reported in the scientific literature under

a confusing variety of designations, and it was accordingly

decided at a meeting of the Directors of the WHO Virus

Reference Centers to undertake collaborative study in which sera

and strains were distributed to a number of laboratories so that

cross neutralization tests could be performed of all well-

characterized and apparently new strains. This work was

supported by the US Vaccine Development Board [emphasis

added] and coordinated by the two WHO International Reference

Centres. . . ."

"Work on these viruses," Tyrrell continued, demanded "a supply

of cells" that were "sensitive to such organisms." It required

considerable work to find such cells. Often cell lines would

"change their sensitivity after prolonged cultivation." The

Reference Centres, thus, maintained stocks of cells, "stored in

liquid nitrogen," which they distributed to labs conducting viral

research throughout the world.


Some viruses that failed to grow in the usual tissue cultures,

Tyrrell revealed, "were propagated in cultures of the human

trachea and nose," that is, "in the organs and tissues in which

they multiply in nature." These viruses, some "new rhinoviruses,"

and other new types "never before detected in man were

"disseminated through the WHO network of Virus Reference

Centres." [6]


"So, let me get this straight," Jackie said. "World renowned

scientists developed WHO policies and practices, studied and

distributed viruses, with financial support from groups like the

'U.S. Vaccine Development Board.' Was the board, like the

WHO connected to any pharmaceutical companies?"

"I'm not sure," I replied, "but most likely. There was obviously

lots of money to be made with vaccines, and only a few

companies made them."

"Which ones?"

"Well Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) is one of the largest, and

they did fund the hepatitis B vaccine research Strecker alleged

spread HIV to homosexuals in America."

Another report four months later showed Israeli scientists were

supported by the WHO to study the genetic determinants of the

human immune response. [7]


A few others stated that the WHO was funding several programs

designed to evaluate the specific disease vulnerabilities of

minority groups - from American Indians [8] to African natives [9] - through the collection and analysis of "gene pools" and

"blood supplies." [10]


"That's just what the Nazis did," Jackie recalled.


"Here are a couple more articles noting the WHO and the U.S.


Vaccine Development Board also funded 'large-scale human

trials' of newly developed vaccines made from both bacteriall and

viruses." [12,13,14]


"Let me see."

I passed the reports over to my co-investigator.


"Just as Strecker reported," Jackie said after reading the articles

carefully.


"Yeah. I hate to say it, but maybe there's something to his theory.


Their 'smallpox eradication program' used vaccines made from

antisera made largely in the United States and given for free to

African countries, including Kenya, Ethiopia, Guinea, The

Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.


"The Democratic Republic of the Congo, which eventually

became Zaire, they said would 'have a sufficient production

capacity to supply the needs of all the African countries south of

the Sahara."' [13,14]


"That's interesting, and very noble," Jackie retorted somewhat

cynically. "Zaire-the center of the African AIDS belt-supplying

neighboring countries with the technology and expertise they

needed to become healthier and more self-sufficient is great. I

only wonder who paid for it and why?"

"I just read that their vaccine development committee endorsed a

1970 African campaign budget of $14 million," I answered. [15]


"That was a lot of money for those days."

"About how much in present dollars?" I asked my more

mathematically gifted partner.


"Say about five times that, around $70 million."

"Much of it apparently came from the United States and other

world governments interested in Africa. And periodic infusions

of more cash for revaccination campaigns were needed and

supplied."[16]


The Lausanne Laboratories

In 1964, shortly after President Kennedy's assassination, the

WHO created the International Reference Centre for

Immunoglobulins at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland.


Three years later, the WHO Regional Reference Centre for

Immunology (Research and Training) was designated at the same

site. Its director, Dr. Rowe, reported that the center was

established to broaden the WHO's "range of activities" in-so-far-

as the "study of antibodies and immunoglobulins," the naturally

produced proteins that defend the body against attack by toxins

and germs. Rowe noted the WHO's special interest in cell-

mediated immunity, that is, the cells that recognize antigen

(foreign proteins associated with germs and toxic substances),

secrete antibody, and are themselves able to attack foreign cells.


Primary defense cells, called lymphoid cells, Rowe noted, were

under intensive investigation to determine how they initiated and

maintained the immune system, "paramount. . . in determining

the pathogenic effects of infectious agents ranging from viruses

to parasites." [17]


"Apparently their experiments went well," I remarked. "In

December 1969, the WHO issued its second five-year research

report on viral experiments it had funded or conducted since

1959."

The report stated,

"In the years 1964-68 the principal advances in virology were in

knowledge of the fundamental structure of viruses and cells and

of their interrelationships and interactions. A much greater

understanding was gained of the natural behavior of viruses as

infectious agents, of the pathogenesis of virus diseases, and of the

means of controlling many of the common virus diseases -

generally by improving existing vaccines or by developing new

ones."

"Though direct proof of a causal relationship between viruses and

human cancer still escapes the numerous investigators working

on this subject, the quest continues to be energetically pursued.


The hypothesis that at least some malignant neoplastic diseases

such as leukemia are associated with virus infection is perhaps

even more strongly expressed now than in the past." [18]


The article went on to state that Russian and American

researchers were privy to the same vaccines, viral samples, and

information about how the human immune system could be

bolstered or destroyed by old and newly developed germs,

including those produced from monkey viruses. [17,18]


"All this during the cold war," Jackie noted.


Green Monkeys, ʺSlowʺ Viruses, and $10 Million

"Strecker's material said that the DOD provided one contract in

1970 for $10 million for the development of a synthetic

biological agent with no natural immunity. Which WHO

reference center got that?" Jackie asked.


"It had to have been one in the U.S."

"For sure, but where?"

"There were only two possibilities," I said, "Atlanta, Georgia, and

Bethesda, Maryland." [17-19]


The Atlanta lab, was run by the CDC's predecessor - the National

Communicable Disease Center (NCDC). The Bethesda lab was

run by the NIH. The later was cited in the WHO Chronicle as one

of the initial two International [virus] Reference Centers. Yet, it

was reported to be inadequately equipped to handle dangerous

smallpox viruses. These were allegedly handled in Atlanta.


"If that's the case, it's not likely they would have handled deadly

viruses like HIV either," Jackie reasoned.


"Not necessarily," I responded. "The smallpox virus and the

DOD requisition may have posed different risks."

Shortly after our conversation, an article by Charles Siebert in

'The New York Times Magazine' clarified the biological safety

level (BSL) risk rating system used by the CDC and the NIH:

"In the hierarchy of precaution taken against biological threats at

the CDC, BSL I and 2 are the lowest level of safety. Work is

done there only with non - or moderate-risk organisms - viruses

that cause colds, for example, or bacteria that cause diarrhea. At

BSL 3, known as "the hot zone" or the "blue suit lab," workers

visit with highly transmissible viruses or with those viruses or

bacteria for which there is no known cure. There are only two

BSL 4 labs in the country, one at the United States Army Medical

Research Institute for Infectious Diseases [USAMRIID] at Fort

Detrick in Frederick, Md., and the one in Atlanta." [20]


Our road atlas showed us Frederick was very close to Bethesda. I

picked up the telephone to learn more.


An administrator at the NCI's Thmor Cell Biology Lab in

Bethesda confIrmed Siebert's report. Additionally, the woman

told me, "The AIDS virus is considered a BSL 3 hazard. It's

being studied in Bethesda as well as numerous labs across the

nation."

We also learned that, once developed, the most dangerous viruses

planned for use as biological weapons were shipped to the Pine

Bluff Arsenal for storage. [21]


Among the tens of thousands of viral strains cultured, developed,

and transported for study by WHO reference centers, we learned

that two received special attention and an inordinate share of

research dollars: monkey viruses, including the simian pox virus,

and the "slow" viruses, particularly visna and scrapie. [17-19, 22]


We read these reports carefully since Strecker noted the AIDS

virus bears the greatest likeness to the human-bovine (cow)

lymphotrophic (lymph-cell-targeting and cancer-causing) virus

combined with sheep visna virus. [2]


Monkeypox was of great interest to researchers, the 'WHO

Chronicle' said, for two reasons. First, the monkeypox virus was

found closely related to the variola-vaccinia virus group, which

causes and immunizes against human smallpox. Second, the

monkey is man's closest relative in the animal kingdom, and

experimental results using monkeys were expected to provide the

best indication of what might occur in humans exposed to the

same elements. [17-22]


Alternatively, "slow" viruses were of the greatest interest to

WHO, CDC, NIB, and NCI scientists between 1968 and 1974.


The reasons for this were not as obvious. The 'WHO Chronicle'

reported:

"Recent interest in the "slow" viruses, in particular those causing

chronic degenerative disease of the nervous system-the CHINA

(chronic infectious neuropathic agents) viruses-has come from

painstaking work with visna and scrapie, degenerative diseases of

the central nervous system of sheep, and kuru, a degenerative

disease of the central nervous system of man restricted to the

Fore people of New Guinea and their immediate neighbours." [18]


"Why so much interest in two sheep viruses that cause nerve

disorders and don't infect humans?" Jackie asked.


"I'm not sure."

"And what about kuru? Who are the 'Fore people of New

Guinea'?

What makes them so important that viral centers around the

world took up their cause?"

"Well, let's look it up." I walked over to our library and pulled

out a copy of Steadman's Medical Dictionary.


"Kuru, it says is":

"A highly localized, fatal disease found in New Guinea,

resembling paralysis agitans [a nervous disorder with frequent

bouts of shaking]; found among certain cannibalistic people who

ingest raw brain of recently deceased victims of the disease. Also

called a laughing sickness." [23]


"When in history has helping cannibals been a world priority?" I

wondered.


"Never," Jackie responded. "The notion seems utterly

harebrained."

"Oh. That was awful."

"Sorry, I couldn't help myself."

We read on:

"CHINA viruses are distinguished by the languishing character of

the infection process they initiate. The incubation period in the

host may be months or years, and the disease itself may progress

laggardly towards an irreversible deterioration of the victim.


Cells infected with "slow" viruses are in general neither impaired

nor stimulated to proliferate. Their functions are impaired but the

nature of the dysfunction has not as yet been clarified." [18]


"It's remarkable how closely this matches several of the most

prominent features of AIDS," I said. "And there's more":

"The resistance of the scrapie agent to heat, ether, formalin, and

other enzymatic and chemical agents, as well as its very small

particle size, poses the question whether it is a conventional

virus, an incomplete virus, or some other agent. . . . The findings

of different [research] groups are at variance and in several

instances are totally inexplicable within our present concept of

infectious agents. . . ." [18]


"That reads just like the DOD order for a 'new infective

microorganism' that couldn't be defended against," I remarked.


The article went on to state that additional experiments had been

conducted in order to prompt the human immune response "by

the injection of double-stranded RNA." [18]


"HIV is a single-stranded RNA 'slow' virus," I explained. "And

gene cutting and splicing techniques were well developed at that

time." [24]


"Could they have cut double-stranded RNA to make single

stranded RNA?"

"I'm not sure, but what I don't understand is, here, the 'WHO

Chronicle' stated the primary objective of their viral research

program was "to acquire a thorough knowledge of the virus

diseases so that prophylactic and other public health measures

can be introduced as soon as possible." [18]


"What's the matter with that?"

"Look at what they were studying to accomplish it. Two rare

diseases that only affect sheep and one totally remote virus that

makes brain eaters laugh themselves to death."

"Do you think they might've been looking at these things for use

as biological weapons?" Jackie asked and then added, "Think

about it - scrapie - a totally unconventional germ that they're not

even sure what it is. You can't kill it with heat or chemicals, and

there are 'still no tissue culture systems or antibody systems' by

which enemy defenses could be prepared."

"And 'at variance' and 'totally inexplicable' with the current

knowledge at that time," I added, "the enemy would not only be

surprised, but baffled and helpless."

We reflected again on the DOD document that detailed their

desire to acquIre:

"a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain

important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms.


Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the

immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend

to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."

"It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe

such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another

method of massive killing of large populations. . . ." [25]


The following week we learned that despite heavy opposition by

the public and House of Representatives, the United States

Congress gave the Army $23.2 million for biological warfare

research. About half of that, at least $10 million of taxpayer

money, went directly toward funding the manufacture of

immunosuppressive agents allegedly for defense. [26]


"In essence, this one 1970 DOD biological weapons

appropriation cost more than half of all the money the WHO

spent in Africa that year for all of their health care and

vaccination programs." Jackie calculated.


- - - - -

Fig 2.1 - WHO Requirments for Biological Substances:

Year Subject

1958 General Requirements for Manufacturing Establishing

and Control Laboratories (revised in 1965)

1958 Poliomyelitis Vaccine (Inactivated) (revised in 1965)

1958 Yellow Fever Vaccine

1958 Cholera Vaccine (revised in 1968)

1958 Smallox Vaccine (revised in 1965)

1959 General Requirements for Sterility of Biological

Substances

1961 Poliomyelitis Vaccine (Oral) (revised in 1965)

1963 Pertussis Vaccine

1963 Procaine Benzylpenicillin in Oil with Aiuminium

Monostearate (revised in 1965)

1963 Diphtheria Toxoid and Tetanus Toxoid

1965 Dried BGG Vaccine

1965 Measles Vaccine (Live) and Measles Vaccine

(Inactivated)

1966 Anthrax Spore Vaccine (Live-for Veterinary Use)

1966 Human Immunoglobulin

1966 Typhoid Vaccine

1967 Tuberculins

1967 Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

1969 Immune Sera of Animal Origin (to be published)

Source: Mathews AG. WHO's influence on the control of

biologicals. 'WHO Chronicle' 1969;23;1:3-15.


- - - - -

Fig 2.2 - WHO's influence on the control of Biologicals

Involving the development of International Standards Regulating

Pharmaceuticals:

WHO'S INFLUENCE ON THE CONTROL OF BIOLOGICALS

by A. G. Matthews*

(*Chief of Quality Control, Commonwealth Serum Laboritories,

Melbourne, Australia. The article is based on a paper presente to

the Australian Pharmaceutical Science Association at a seminar

on drug control, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zeland,

February 1968)

This seems to be a most appropriate time to review the work of

WHO in relation to the quality of biological products, for in 1968

the Organization completed its twentieth year of existence. It is

during its second decade that WHO has exerted a particularly

direct influence in this field, by virtue of the establishment of a

series of Requirements for Biological Substances (see Table 1).


Internatiooal biological standards

However, in a somewhat less direct fashion, WHO has exerted a

powerful influence on the quality control of biological substances

since its very inception in 1948. The work of setting up and

distributing international biological standards was not started by

WHO but was taken over, already in an advanced stage of

development, from the Health Committee of the League of

Nations. Indeed the first few international standards for

biological substances were established by a national body, the

Statens Seruminstitut, Copenhagen, a few years before the

creation of the Health Committee.


The very first such standard - the International Standard for

Diphtheria Antitoxin, which consists of a dried hyperimmune

horse serum - was established in 1922 and it is still in use today.


It says much for the forethought and wise choice of the early

authorities, as well as for the stability of at least some biological

products, that a single preparation has served world requirements

for a period of 46 years. The supply of this particular standard is

expected to last for at least another 46 years.


From this small start in 1922, and up until 1948, when WHO was

established, the number of international standards distributed by

the League of Nations grew to 32, in the categories enumerated

in Table 2. The total number of international biological standards

issued by WHO is now 79, and in addition there are 56

international biological reference preparations. Also, in recent

years, 96 inter-

national biological reference reagents have been established by

WHO. Generally, these are intended as reference materials for

substances used in the diagnosis of disease and in the

identification of micro-organisms. Many leptospiral typing

antisera are included among these reagents, and a recently

established set of viral typing antisera is being rapidly expanded.


Table 2 gives a classification of the current international

preparations, with comparative figures for 1948.


In general, the main purpose served by these international

standards, reference preparations, and reference reagents is to

provide a means of ensuring world-wide uniformity in expressing

the potency of preparations used in the prophylaxis, therapy, or

diagnosis of human and animal disease. Most of the substances

for which these international standards, etc. have been

established could not, at least at the time of their establishment,

be characterized fully by chemieal and physical means. The

activity of an ill-characterized substance may be measured by

biological assay, and the results may be best

expressed as a ratio of its activity to the activity of a closely

similar physieal specimen, designated the international standard.


In many eases, the defining of an international...


[One of numerous 'WHO Chronicle' reports obtained from

Harvard's Francis Countway Medical Libruary during an initial

investigation into the origon of AIDS. Source: Mathews AG.


WHO's influence on the control of biologicals. 'WHO Chronicle'

1969;23;1:3-15]


- - - - -

‐NOTES‐

[1] Horowitz LG. Deadly Innocence: Solving the greatest murder

mystery in the history of American medicine. Rockport, MA:

Tetrahedron, Inc., 1994. Includes a chapter titled "The Clinton-

CIA Connection" which relays the story told by ex-intelligence

asset Terry Reed. According to Reed's Compromised

(S.P.I.Books, 1993), much of the Iran-Contra affair-the drugs for

arms and hundreds of millions of dollars of laundered cash-was

apparently handled by Clinton administration officials under a

Banana Republic set up by the CIA and agents William Barr and

Oliver North during the Reagan era. [2] Strecker RB. The Strecker Memorandum: The cause, the

effects and the possible cure for the pandemic AIDS. Eagle Rock,

CA: The Strecker Group, 1988. [3] Mathews AG. WHO's influence on the control of biologicals.


WHO Chronicle 1968;23; 1 :3-15. [4] Glatt MM. The development of international control of drugs.


WHO Chronicle 1970;24;5: 189-197. [5] Payne AAM. Approaches to communicable disease control:

Specialized and integrated services. WHO Chronicle

1968;22;1:3-7. [6] Tyrrell OAJ. The common cold research unit: WHO

International Reference Centre for respiratory virus diseases.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;1:8-11. [7] WHO News and Notes. Genetic susceptibility to infection.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;4: 162. [8] WHO News and Notes. Studies of the American Indian.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;10:459 [9] Barrai I. Human genetics and public health. WHO Chronicle

1970;24;6:246-247. [10] WHO Report. Multipurpose serological surveys. WHO

Chronicle 1971;25;3:99-101. [11] WHO News and Notes. Large-scale BCG trials. WHO

Chronicle 1968;22; 11 :496. [12] WHO Current Research Projects. Live measles vaccines.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;12:534-5. [13] WHO Report (Based on a report presented to the Twenty-

first World Health Assembly, and on discussions at the

Assembly.) The smallpox eradication programme. WHO

Chronicle 1968;22;8:354-362. [14] WHO Report (Based on a report presented to the Twenty-

second World Health Assembly.) The smallpox eradication

programme. WHO Chronicle 1969;23; 1 0:465-476. [15] WHO News and Notes. Regional Committee for Africa.


WHO Chronicle 1969;23;8:341-344. [16] Unfortunately, with the smallpox vaccination as with

hepatitis B vaccination, the WHO reported that "in persons

vaccinated only in infancy, the incidence of smallpox increases

with age as immunity diminishes; the data indicate a high degree

of protection for 4-5 years, followed by a slow decline, but even

after a longer period, smallpox in vaccinated persons is usually

milder than in unvaccinated persons and this appears to indicate

some residual immunity. Similarly, the difficulty in producing a

major reaction to revaccination lessens with time, but even after

10 or 20 years the vaccine required to produce a high percentage

of takes must be at least 5-10 times more potent than vaccines

that will produce the same percentage of takes in primary

vaccinations. The duration of immunity after revaccination

cannot be assessed accurately because not enough is known about

the occurrence of smallpox in successfully revaccinated persons.


. . ."

Quotation from: World Health Organization Report.


Communicable diseases in 1970: Some aspects of the WHO

programme. WHO Chronicle 1971 ;25;6:249-255. [17] Rowe OS. The WHO immunology laboratories at Lausanne.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;11:496. [18] WHO Report (Based on the 1969 report The medical

research programme of the World health Organization, 1964-

1968, Geneva.) Five years of research of virus diseases. WHO

Chronicle

1969;23;12:564-572. [19] Kalter SS and Heberling. The study of simian viruses. WHO

Chronicle 1969;23;3:112-117. [20] Siebert C. Smallpox is dead: Long live smallpox. The New

York nmes Magazine, Sunday, August 21, 1994, Section 6, pp.


31-55. [21] Walsh J. Civilian use for biological warfare facility under

study. Science 1970;167;923: 1359. [22] Henderson OA and Arita I. Monkeypox and its relevance to

smallpox eradication WHO Chronicle 1973;27;4:145-148. [23] As defined in Stedman's Medical Dictionary, Kuru is a

"highly localized, fatal disease found in New Guinea, resembling

paralysis agitans; found among certain cannibalistic people who

ingest raw

brain of recently deceased victims of the disease. Also call

laughing sickness." [24] Lederberg J. Biological warfare: a global threat. American

Scientist. 197159;2:195-7. [25] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives, Ninety-first Contress, First Session,

H.B. 15090, Part 5, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,

Dept. of the Army. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1969. [26] Washington Correspondent. Gas and germ warfare

renounced but lingers on. Nature 1970 228;273:707-8.


Chapter 3

Cold War, Biological Weapons, and

World Health

THE Francis Countway Memorial Library is a stone's throw from

Harvard's School of Dental Medicine where I had served on the

faculty. A modem structure of glass and concrete, the building

looks somewhat misplaced amid the grandeur of its centuries old

Gothic marble neighbors.

What seemed ironically amusing about the building is that this

tribute to health science learning would be diagnosed as a "sick

building." After a couple of hours in the Countway, people

commonly became ill. Headaches and dizzyness were the most

frequent symptoms. The graduate students next door at the

School of Public Health always joked that the library was

contraindicated for women in their third trimester of pregnancy.


Nevertheless, here's where I conducted most of my post-doctoral

research.


Access to Countway from Boston's Northshore was relatively

painless. An hour's train-ride dropped me off at the old Boston

Garden. Two transfers and a half-hour later I disembarked the

Huntington Avenue street car on Harvard medical turf. A brief

trek through two concrete corridors, a pair of glass doors, and a

guarded gate, and I was at work.


The first floor of Countway is mostly administrative offices,

reference books, and on-line services. Computer literature

searches are easily conducted here. The Index Medicus and

current stacks are located down an open stairway on the first

lower level. Current periodicals are neatly arranged on display

shelves filling the south side of the gymnasium-size floor. Work

desks line the walls and are in greatest demand on the same

sunny side of the room.


The older stacks and copy machines are all in the basement.


There is no natural light here and barely any oxygen. At the heart

of this floor are eight high-speed copiers. All are almost always

in use filling the room with heat and noise. Faculty and students

alike await their turns seated uncomfortably at the center of the

room on cracked black vinyl love seats. The lights flicker like a

strobe. This is Countway's dungeon-where I accessed the

scientific literature dating to the late 1960s. Sweat and time

quickly disappeared here.


Prelude to a Protocol

After our cursory review of early 'WHO Chronicle' reports, my

search was on for articles about biological warfare (BW). There

were many.


In February 1967, as international protests resounded against the

Vietnam War, more than 5,000 domestic scientists petitioned

President Lyndon Johnson (and soon thereafter Richard Nixon)

to "reexamine and publicly state" the government's research and

deployment policies on chemical and biological weapons. Their

request was met with stoic silence. Notes from White House

science adviser Donald Hornig to correspondents simply said,

"thank you for your interest in national security." [1]


The official government position on chemical and biological

warfare (CBW) had been articulated by Deputy Defense

Secretary Cyrus Vance a year earlier:

"I have indicated that we seek international understandings to

limit chemical and biological warfare and that we have not used

weapons of the sort condemned by the Geneva protocol. [Though

"agent orange," the powerful defoliant, was being used heavily in

Vietnam at that time, only later was it acknowledged to be highly

toxic to humans as well.] I should also point out that we have at

the same time maintained an active chemical and biological

program. In the last few years we have placed increasing

emphasis on defensive concepts and material. As long as other

nations, such as the Soviet Union, maintain large programs, we

believe we must maintain our defensive and retaliatory

capability. It is believed by many that President Roosevelt's

statement in 1943 which promised "to any perpetrators full and

swift retaliation in kind" played a significant role in preventing

gas warfare in World War II. Until we achieve effective

agreement to eliminate all stockpiles of these weapons, it may be

necessary in the future to be in a position to make such a

statement again." [1]


Worldwide Protests

Between 1967 and 1972, debate raged over whether America's

CBW industry should be scrubbed [2-5] or bolstered.[6,7] Dr.


Joshua Lederberg relayed the consensus of protesters in a 1971

'Science' article. [8] Germ warfare he wrote:

". . . has been universally condemned as a vile perversion of

scientific insight. This emotional reaction is buttressed by a

rational consideration of the strategic and political instabilities

that would follow from threatened uses of biological weapons

and of the possibilities of worldwide spread of infectious disease.


In the interest of world order and to reduce the possibilities of

igniting world conflict, the development, stockpiling, and general

accommodation of biological weaponry must be controlled by

international agreement."

Lederberg, a professor of genetics at Stanford University's

School of Medicine described work in synthetic small gene

assembly. He warned that very soon through "chemical

operations on DNA components," researchers would be able to

synthesize small viruses and engineer their design "to exquisite

detail." He argued that biological weapons stand "apart from all

other devices in the actual threat that it poses to the health and

life expectancy of every human being whether or not he is

politically involved in belligerent actions." [8]


"In a word, the intentional release of an infectious particle, be it a

virus or bacterium, from the confines of the laboratory or of

medical practice must be condemned as an irresponsible threat

against the whole human community. . . ."

"We have learned in recent years that viruses undergo constant

evolution in their own natural history, not only by mutations

within a given strain, but also by the natural cross-hybridization

of viruses that superficially appear to be only remotely related to

one another. Furthermore, many of us carry viruses in our body

cells of which we are unaware for years and which may be

harmless - though they may eventually cause the formation of a

tumor, or of brain degeneration, or of other diseases. At least in

the laboratory, we can show that such latent viruses can still

cross-breed with other viruses to give rise to new forms. . . ."

"We are all familiar with the process of mutual escalation in

which the defensive efforts of one side inevitably contribute to

further technical development on the other, and vice versa. . . .


And the potential undoubtedly exists for the design and

development of infective agents against which no credible

defense is possible, through the genetic and chemical

manipulation of these agents." [8]


'Nature,' 'Science,' and 'Lancet' published dozens of articles

expressing grave concerns over the fate of humanity should

biological weapons research continue. One such article entitled

"The Biological Bomb," written by an anonymous author,

discussed the ethical implications of biological weapons research

- an industry that lay "at the heart of the cellular nucleus, ticking

us to destruction." [9]


Dr. V. W. Sidel, a Boston physician, declared that not only

should medical personnel refuse to participate in such activities,

but physicians "must actively protest against the development,

production, and use of biological weapons." Failure to do so, he

argued, represented an insult to the medical profession,

complicity, and one of the greatest dangers to society. [9]


Scientists could not "retain public esteem if they did nothing

about the present state of the world," declared another protestor.


The delicate balance between good and evil was "changing

rapidly" and the "present juncture" was seen as crucial. [9]


In Britain, several groups frustrated by the secrecy surrounding

experiments conducted at Porton, England's CBW research

facility, lobbied their government too. Protestors included Nobel

Prize winners Professor Sir Cyril Powell, Professor H. F.


Wilkins, and Dr. F. Sanger. All desired to have the Ministry of

Health assume responsibility for Porton from the Ministry of

Defense to assure that all CBW research would be strictly

defensive.' [10]


Another English notable, Lord Ritchie-Calder, summoned

support for an international biological weapons accord and haled

one group of scientists who were devoted to preventing diseases

over another who was busy "devising man-made epidemics." [9]


Likewise, another anonymous author published in 'Lancet':

"The whole field [of biological warfare] bristles with difficulties.


Organisms for biological warfare can be produced quickly,

cheaply, and easily; many are required in ordinary and perfectly

legitimate ways for production of vaccines; clandestine research

could easily be conducted; storage is scarcely necessary, for

chemical plants and even breweries could be quickly switched to

producing harmful microorganisms in enormous quantities; and

delivery systems are multiple. . . ."

"The Government could give a sound basis to its Geneva

proposal by declaring all future work carried out at Porton

declassified. . . . This would carry especial conviction if. . . it

were linked to participation with WHO. . . . In 1963 Prof. Roger

M. Herriott!l of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health,

suggested that the United States should offer to place its

biological laboratories under WHO if Russia and other countries

agreed to do the same. The risks to national security in this

procedure are a good deal less than might be thought, for despite

all the secrecy, it seems to be difficult for any country to steal a

march on another in this sphere where the essential basic

knowledge is so readily obtainable."

"These large and frankly political questions may hardly seem of

pressing concern to the medical profession. But biological

warfare implies a misuse of medical science for which doctors

cannot evade responsibility. Medical knowledge and medical

participation are inherent in most of its projects, and the

profession's silence on this issue is liable to be interpreted as

consent. The secrecy demanded is also contrary to the principles

of medical ethics and is totally rejected in every other medical

activity. If the fetters of secrecy were discarded and an

international orientation adopted, more immediate and

constructive thought could be given to feeding the world's 1000

million under-nourished citizens." [12]


Though this author's heart was in the right place, I thought it

naive to think that placing all "biological laboratories under the

WHO's control," would have made any difference. Americans

were sharing secrets with the Russians through the WHO

network anyway.


Moreover, the WHO made it clear that security wasn't an issue.


They expressed their objections to safeguarding DNA research

this way:

"The requirements for high security laboratories may be an

inordinate burden (who, in fact will pay for them?) in relation to

the prospective gains. The best strategy here seems to be the

development of safe vectors: plasmids and bacteria engineered to

have little chance of survival outside the laboratory. In fact, in the

long run this is a safer procedure than relying upon uncertain

human compliance with fixed rules and regulations." [13]


Discussing the "remaining controversies" in the field of genetic

splicing and hazardous germ development - techniques that

require "rather complicated analyses of the remotest kinds of

risks," WHO reported:

"Those who regard themselves as guardians of the public safety

must count not only the speculative hazards of these marginal

situations, but also the costs to the public health of impeding their

investigation."

"This partly voluntaristic [recommended] approach will not

satisfy a demand for absolute assurance that no foolish

experiment is ever attempted. But the history of human

institutions should suffice to show that no system of sanctions

can have such a perfect outcome." [11]


These were the WHO's reservations to safeguarding hazardous

gene research despite the fact that the one who brought the issue

of increasing security to the floor of WHO debate was Professor

Lederberg. The world renowned geneticist, Lederberg, at the

time, was serving as a member of the WHO's Advisory

Committee on Medical Research. [13]


The Proponents of CBW Research

My computer search also revealed that though opponents of

CBW research appeared to outnumber proponents by at least

three to one, the typical BW advocacy position was expressed in

numerous publications. Donald McCrary in Science, for instance,

wrote:

"What is apparently overlooked and totally ignored by these

petitioners is that [the war in Vietnam] . . . is not an academic

exercise divorced from life and death. It is a very real exercise in

how to achieve a goal, however distasteful, with a minimum of

casualties among our own combat personnel. I believe that any

technique, weapon, tactic, or strategy that will minimize

casualties among our combat personnel is right, and any

technique, tactic, or strategy that preserves the combat

effectiveness of our opponent is wrong." [14]


But in March 1970, even WHO consultants noted that all

biological agents permit the danger that if a disease capable of

spreading widely is produced, it may get out of control and

become "a source of disaster to the attacker as well as the

attacked."

"The viral infections suitable for use in warfare include yellow

fever, tick-borne encephalitis, Japanese encephalitis, dengue,

Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE), chikungunya, O'nyong-

nyong, Rift Valley fever, influenza, and small-pox. Tick-borne

encephalitis may be taken as an example of the agents belonging

to this group. Susceptibility is almost universal, and the ease with

which the Far Eastern virus can be grown in the laboratory and

its high infectivity and lethality by the aerosol route make it

likely that a case fatality rate of 25% would be achieved. . . ."

"The attacking country could, of course, attempt to protect itself,

e.g., by immunization, but. . . more virulent forms of the

organism concerned might develop or the massive doses used

might be such that ordinary levels of immunity would be useless.


Thus it is possible that biological agents may be used

tactically, rather than strategically, to achieve the

simultaneous infection of key groups of people, and the

military consequences might well be of major importance. . . .


A decision to develop chemical and biological weap-ons implies

that they will ultimately be used." [emphasis added]


The consultants even predicted "a virulent mutant" that could

"spread rapidly to produce an uncontrollable epidemic on a large

scale." In addition, they warned, if mutants were deliberately

produced, there was the "ever-present risk of an accidental

escape." [15]


Psychosocial Consequences

WHO consultants additionally predicted grave psychosocial

consequences of such an escape, including mass hysteria:

"They thus present a real danger that is conducive to both anxiety

and fear. Anxiety in particular may result from the fact that many

chemical and all biological agents are undetectable by the senses,

so that there are no warning signs to enable people to defend

themselves. In addition, with biological agents, there is the latent

period between infection and illness and the fact that the extent to

which an infection may spread through a community is

unpredictable. As a result, an exposed person cannot be sure

whether he has been infected or know how ill he will be or when

the danger has passed. A further confusing factor is that many of

the symptoms of illness are also symptoms of emotional stress." [15]


That sounded remarkably similar to the "fear of AIDS epidemic"

I had frequently written and talked about. [l6-I8]


In the event of an attack, the researchers added:

"Panic. . . may be so great that. . . those who have not been

affected will view those who have as potential agents of disease.


The response to a chemical or biological attack may require

precautionary or other measures on such a scale that

extraordinary means of social control will have to be introduced

and these may remain in force long after the need for them has

passed. Thus, an attack may lead to social changes out of all

proportion to the actual damage done."

Isn't that interesting, I thought. They even predicted social

changes like the need to legislate AIDS as a disability rather than

a disease, and requiring infection control measures that have yet

to prove their value in saving costs or lives.


WHO consultants further predicted that the masses would try to

avoid anything that would bring them in contact with deadly

germs. Much of this avoidance was expected to be

disproportionate to the actual risk.


In my role as a health professional AIDS educator, I recalled

several similar experiences. One had occurred a few weeks

earlier following a television interview in Rockford, Illinois. A

viewer called me at the station to express her concern about

leaving her house. The last time she went shopping, she said a

storekeeper handed her a box of laundry detergent. She noticed a

few cuts on his hands and refused to touch him or the box. She

just panicked, left the store, and hadn't gone shopping since.


"Even though casual contact can't transmit HIV," I said to the

station receptionist, "people are still afraid-especially of shaking

hands with AIDS patients or HIV carriers." Exactly what was

predicted, I reflected.


Besides this, the consultants even envisioned extensive health

and medical emergencies as a consequence of a biological attack,

"including mass illnesses, deaths, and epidemics." They expected

that "WHO might be called upon to furnish technical assistance

in dealing with allegations that chemical or biological weapons

had been used. . . and in achieving disarmament." [15]


The authors concluded:

"As long as research on the military use of chemical and

biological agents is continued. . . new agents of even greater

destructive power [may be discovered]. . . . It is clear, therefore,

that the best interests of all Member States, to say nothing of

mankind in general, require that the development and use of

chemical and biological agents as weapons of war be outlawed in

all circumstances. The nations of the world must renounce the

use of such weapons, in accordance with the resolutions on

chemical and biological warfare adopted by the United Nations

General Assembly and the World Health Assembly." [15]


Sadly, I realized, their notice fell before blind eyes. Army

medical scientists allegedly wanted vaccines and diagnostic

methods developed quickly in the event of a viral attack. [19]


Between 1967 and 1968, the Johnson administration lanquished

amid cries for America's withdrawal from Vietnam. Richard

Nixon was then propelled to the White House and soon

thereafter, toward détente. Superficially, under Nixon, the world

seemed safer. But in the viral research laboratories of the NIH,

the "cold war" raged.


During this time, the NCI, under NIH administrative direction,

provided the CDC with prototype "reagents"-viruses, vaccines,

antibodies, and cell lines-as the American and international viral

research program advanced. [21-23]


Who Bit First, the Texan or the Simian?

Once we considered the cold war climate in which bioweapons

research advanced, we reviewed the WHO's written accounts of

the NIH's and NCI's primary role in manufacturing human

"prototype" viruses, including new strains of simian viruses, for

world distribution and testing. [21-23]


In 1969, the WHO Chronicle reported:

"Representative working stocks and. . . [vaccines] for the various

viruses are being prepared and tested. The distribution of these

reagents will be through WHO or the National Institutes of

Health, or on their instructions. Obviously certain limitations

must be imposed on distribution, as it will be impossible to

produce sufficient amounts of the reagents to send them out

indiscriminately. Reference reagents also have been prepared in

the centre [the WHO immunology laboratories at Lausanne], as

well as in other cooperating laboratories under the auspices of

the Research Reference Reagents Branch and National

Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health, [emphasis

added] for many of the prototype human viruses and, to a more

limited extent, for simian viruses. Reagents prepared against

newly recognized simian viruses will be distributed only to

recognized investigators in primate research." [21]


Another WHO report added:

"As additional means of providing advanced training, three

meetings on the joint activities of WHO virus reference centres

and national virus laboratories have been held, one in Atlanta in

1967, one in Prague in 1968, and one in Dakar in 1968. At these

meetings most of the time was devoted to laboratory bench work.


They were designed not only to disseminate information on

recent advances and on new techniques but also to foster closer

relations between regional reference centres and

nationallaboratories." [23]


"Isn't that nice," Jackie observed, "'closer relations' and germ

warfare method and material exchanges between NATO allies

and communist bloc countries at the height of the cold war,"

After another hour of reading, Jackie said "I'm going to bed. Are

you coming?"

"Wait till you read this," I replied,

"Haven't you had enough for one day?"

"You know the theory that a simian monkey bite caused an

African to get AIDS," I said, Well here's a report by two doctors

from San Antonio that suggests that the simian may have first

been bitten by a Texan,"

"What?"

I showed her the article and pointed to the section that explained

that in 1969, WHO encouraged researchers to use simian

monkeys as "animals phylogenetically close to man," [21] They

recommended establishing "bio-medical systems that will permit

the evaluation of different zoonoses [infections or infestations

shared in nature by man and lower animals to] . . . yield

information on human disease," [21]


"WHO scientists were concerned about the potential risks of

introducing 'a new group or species' of such animals into research

since this might be 'potentially dangerous' for both the animals

and the investigators," I explained, "They noted that an 'exchange

of organisms' might occur from the laboratory into nature

affecting both animals and man that, 'in most instances, result in

inapparent and latent infections rather than in overt illness,' Here,

read this,"

"No, I'm tired, Read it to me in bed,"

We marched off to the bedroom, got settled, and then I began to

read, "It says here that 'overt human and non-human illness is

possible,' as it apparently occurred with 'Herpesvirus simiae

disease, Yaba-like disease, and haemorrhagic disease, the

outbreak in Germany associated with African green monkeys,

and the spread of a number of bacterial infections,' " [21]


"This is nightmare material," Jackie protested,

"Wait," I continued to read:

"The importance of such occurrences is enhanced by the fact that

simians come from diverse geographical areas. A possibility

exists, therefore, that new and exotic agents may be transported

internationally, introducing an unrecognized clinical syndrome

into the animal colonies and perhaps into the human population

as well. Thus, while the use of non-human primates in certain

experimental studies is to be commended, disregard for the

potential problems would be foolhardy indeed." [21]


"The report goes on to say that despite their concerns, the authors

reported working with various governmental agencies as well as

commercial firms to obtain 'reference seed virus and specific

antisera' for dozens of monkey types and related diseases. With

funding from the NIH and methods and materials from the NCI,

the doctors continued to grow their simian monkey viruses until

the WHO ordained them the 'WHO Collaborating Laboratory on

Comparative Medicine: Simian Viruses.' They're located at the

Southwest Foundation for Research and Education [currently

called

the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research]."

"Listen to their 'specific aims:'"

(1) the development of a working repository for simian viruses;

(2) the provision of a source of reagents such as certified

reference seed virus strains and specific antisera;

(3) the provision of consultation services, including serum survey

data, on the existence of antibody to various viruses of human

and simian origin in various genera and species of primates;

(4) the provision of diagnostic services, including the

identification and characterization of viruses for primate research

workers unable to identify isolates obtained from their primates

(this would also

include screening for human viruses);

(5) the provision of information and the organization of

exchanges of organisms between primate centres and other health

organizations; and

(6) the training of interested students in virological laboratory

procedures associated with primate investigations. [21]


"And here again, they stated they received their 'working stocks'

of viruses and antisera from the NIH's Research Reference

Reagents Branch as well as from the NCI, and that they were

now creating their own new forms of viruses and vaccines."

"Sounds like a 'clearinghouse' for simian viruses," Jackie

responded with one eye open. "Just what the world needed. Now

can we go to sleep."

"Not yet. Consider the financial payoff. They already

acknowledged working with private companies. In the late 1960s

and early 1970s they stockpiled everything that might be needed,

and undoubtedly lucrative, in the event of a future simian virus

outbreak. They clearly acknowledged the Marburg virus outbreak

in Europe and Africa as a sign of times to come. It also says they

would continue their 'present cooperation with investigators

using primates in cancer studies.'

"What's interesting," I continued, "is that they blamed the

monkeys for transmitting these newly discovered viruses which

they most plausibly isolated, cultured, and then inoculated into

the animals. Here's how they closed:"

"Perhaps it should be reemphasized that there is a very practical,

important side to this programme. Recent outbreaks of human

and simian disease in several centres handling simians indicate

that these animals are responsible for the transmission of the

etiological agents." [21]


"How treasonous," Jackie chuckled. "The monkeys asked to be

jailed so they could later be held responsible for their crimes

against humanity. How dare they transmit deadly viruses back to

the humans who were infecting them."

I joined in the comic relief. "Yeah. Maybe instead of three

monkeys symbolizing denial, it should be three NCI virologists

with their eyes, ears, and mouths covered.


"The last thing it says is that:"

"It is highly probable that more such incidents can be expected.


The work to be done at the centre will do much to evaluate and

elucidate the situation, and the centre may be called upon for

assistance." [21]


"That's the best example I think I've ever heard of successful

entrepreneurs creating their own niche market," Jackie chided.


Early Cancer Research Under WHO

The next morning after getting Alena, now three, off to day care,

Jackie and I reviewed the last of the WHO's viral research

reports.


We immediately learned that the WHO's intensified interest in

viruses dated from around 1950 with the initiation of their

"smallpox eradication programme."

Initially, a number of countries "generously donated smallpox

vaccine to the WHO Special Account for Smallpox Eradication,"

and by 1971, more than 37 million doses had been distributed

with Russian contributions outpacing America's by more than

two-to-one. [29]


Yet, despite such international investments, the mammoth

undertaking, we learned, returned only mixed results since many

vaccinated countries experienced repeated outbreaks of deadly

smallpox. [25-29]


Besides smallpox, the WHO Chronicle stated the importance of

viral infections on cancer as early as 1965. The WHO's Scientific

Group on Viruses and Cancer met in Geneva that year to plan a

common research agenda. The Group, comprised of international

representatives, including three from the United States and one

from Russia, cited the need to study viruses since cancer cells

maintained altered genetic material. [30,31] Consequently, they

recommended attempts be made "to determine the structural

alterations in cellular nucleic acids," that is, the basic chemical

building blocks of all life. They desired to search for all parts of

the virus genome, the genetic makeup or reproductive blueprint

of the viruses, their chemical reaction triggers, or enzymes, or

other "virus-associated intracellular substances." They ordered

study of the "specific changes in the metabolism" of virus

infected cells, and wrote:

"Any genetic structure peculiar to viruses suspected of causing

cancer should be identified and mapped out. Immunological

methods might prove of value, since virus-transformed cells carry

antigenic [that is, foreign chemical] markers. . . . A rust step in

such research would be to induce transformation [cancers] in

various experimental animals with viruses that commonly infect

man. . . ." [30]


"The Group also suggested that, although there is no reason at

present to suspect transmission of animal cancer viruses to man,

any possible relationship that might exist between bovine [cow]


lymphosarcoma [cancer of the lymphatic cells and tissues] or

other mammalian leukemias and human leukemia should be

explored, both by epidemiological studies and by laboratory

research on suspected etiological agents." [31]


"That's exactly what Strecker alleged brought on the AIDS

epidemic," I said. Could this research have really created HIV

and AIDS-related diseases like lymphomas and sarcomas?

Hot Viruses During the Cold War

It soon became obvious that by the late 1960s, the WHO's viral

research program shifted into hyperdrive. [32-35] After reading

several papers about their major advances, my attention focused

on additional written conflrmation of the USPHS's and the NCI's

leading role in the WHO's viral and cancer research program.


Perhaps not coincidentally, at the exact time the DOD petitioned

Congress to fund their AIDS-like virus project, the WHO

announced its center for viral research and development was the

NCI. [36-39]


By 1968 - ten years into their viral research program - the NCI

and WHO reference centers in Copenhagen, Denmark, and

Lausanne, Switzerland, had served as authorized technical

advisers and suppliers of "prototype virus strains, diagnostic and

reference reagents [e.g., antibodies], antigens, and cell cultures" [22] for more than "120 laboratories in 35 different countries." [23]


Within a year of this announcement, this number increased to

"592 virus laboratories. . . . [O]nly 137 were outside Europe and

North America." [24] Over these twelve months, four of the most

active centers, including the CDC and NCI, distributed "2,514

strains of viruses, 1,888 ampoules of antisera mainly for

reference purposes, 1,274 ampoules of antigens, and about 100

samples of cell cultures." [22] More than 70,000 individual

reports of virus isolations or related serological tests had been

transmitted through the WHO network. [23]


"This sounds like something out of a James Bond novel." Jackie

responded. "I expect to read the word SPECTRE any minute

now."

Instead, we read that the NIH in Bethesda and the National

Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, the predecessor of the

CDC, had made great progress in testing vaccines produced in

large quantities in horses.


We soon learned that the horses were actually stabled and tested

in Frederick, MD at Fort Detrick, America's premier biological

weapons testing center.


‐NOTES‐

[1] Langer E. Chemical and biological weapons: Once over

lightly on Capitol Hill. Science 1967. 156;778:1073-5. [2] Anonymous. War on chemical and biological warfare. Nature

1968 218;145:905-6. [3] Lesse S. Editorial: Poison and the United States Public Health

Service-a study of medical perversion. American Journal of

Psychotherapy 1975;29;4:463-5. [4] Beckwith J. Science for the people. Annals of the New

YorkAcademy of Sciences 1972 196;4:236-40. [5] Anonymous. Can biological war be stopped? Nature

1968219;155:665-6. [6] Crozier D. and Woodward TE. Report on research activities

of the Commission on Epidemiological Survey. Military

Medicine 1967 132;8:609-13. [7]Wallach DP. Deterrent value ofCB research. Science 1968

161;842:631. [8] Lederberg J. Biological warfare: a global threat. American

Scientist 197159;2:195-7. [9] Anonymous. The biological bomb. Lancet 1968;1;540:465. [10] Staff writer. War on chemical and biological warfare. Nature

1968;218:905-906. [11] The incomplete reference was given as "Hersh SM.


Chemical and biological warfare. Indianapolis, N.Y., 1968. [12] Anonymous. Control of microbiological warfare. The Lancet

1968;2;564:391. [13] World Health Organization. Biomedical research: WHO's

commitments examined. WHO Chronicle 1975;29:417-422. [14] McCrary DI. Letter to the Editor: Moral issues ofCB

warfare. Science 1967 156;780:1307-8. [15] WHO Group of Consultants. Chemical and biological

weapons: The hazard to health. WHO Chronicle 197024;3:99-

108. [16] Horowitz LG, Lewis PL, and Cohen P. AIDS-related fear:

Beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Chicago Dental Society Review

1993;86;2:18-23. [17] Horowitz LG and Kehoe L. Fear and AIDS: Educating the

public about dental office infection control procedures. Journal of

the American Academy of General Dentistry 1993;41 ;5:385-

392. [18] Horowitz LG and Lipkowitz RD. Survey on AIDS, Fear and

Infection Control: Attitudes affecting management decisions.


Journal of Clinical Preventive Dentistry 1992;14;6:31-34. [19] Crozier D and Woodward TE. Report on research activities

of the Commission on Epidemiological Survey, AFEB. Military

Medicine 1967 132;8:609-13. [20] Covert NM. Cutting Edge: A history of Fort Detrick.


Maryland 1943-1993. Fort Detrick: Head-quarters U.S. Army

Garrison Public Affairs Office (HSHD-PA), 1993. [21] Kalter SS and Heberling. The study of simian viruses. WHO

Chronicle 1969;23;3:112-117. [22] World Health Organization Report. Communicable diseases

in 1970: Some aspects of the WHO programme. WHO Chronicle

1971;25;6:249-255. [23] World Health Organization Report. Five years of research

on virus diseases. WHO Chronicle 196923;12:564-572. [24] World Health Organization Report. Recent work on virus

diseases. WHO Chronicle 1974;28:410-413. [25] World Health Organization Report. Communicable diseases

in 1970: Some aspects of the WHO programme. WHO Chronicle

1971;25;6:249-255. [26] World Health Organization Report. The smallpox

eradication programme. WHO Chronicle 1968 22;8:354-362. [27] World Health Organization Report. Smallpox eradication:

the first significant results. WHO Chronicle 196923;10:465-476. [28] World Health Organization Report. The smallpox

eradication programme. WHO Chronicle 1975 29:134-139. [29] World Health Organization Report. The eradication of

smallpox. WHO Chronicle 1968. 22;12:523-527. [30] In other words, cancerous cells that have been presumably

"transformed" by viral infections can be identified by specific

foreign proteins (called antigens). Interestingly, The Group noted

that these

foreign proteins may enter a cell and thus be demonstrated

regardless of the species or animal used as an infected host. [31] WHO Scientific Group on Viruses and Cancer (1965)

Report, Geneva (Wid Hlth Org. techno Rep. Ser., 1965, No. 295). [32] Mathews AG. WHO's influence on the control of

biologicals. WHO Chronicle 1968;23;1:3-15. [33] WHO Scientific Group on Human Viral and Rickettsial

Vaccines. WHO Chronicle 1966 20;7:255-261. [34] Gillette R. VEE Vaccine: Fortuitous Spin-off from BW

Research. Science 1971 ;173;995:405-8. [35] WHO Respiratory and Enterovirus Centres. WHO

Chronicle. 197428:410-413. [36] The Directors of WHO Respiratory and Enterovirus Centres.


Recent work on virus diseases. WHO Chronicle 1974;28:410-

413. [37] Tyrrell DAJ. The common cold research unit: WHO

International Reference Centre for respiratory virus diseases.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;1:8-11. [38. Kalter SS and Heberling RL. The study of simian viruses-

work of the WHO collaborating laboratory on comparative

medicine: Simian viruses. WHO Chronicle 1969;23;3:112-117. [39] WHO Report (Based on the 1969 report The medical

research programme of the World health Organization, 1964-

1968, Geneva.) Five years of research of virus diseases. WHO

Chronicle 1969;23;12:564-572.


Chapter 4

The Road to Fort Detrick Runs

Through Bethesda

ONCE again, from the bowels of Countway's dusty basement

came a wealth of information about Fort Detrick. As the WHO

and NCI viral research quietly expanded, a growing wave of

world opposition to biological weapons (BW) came crashing

down on Detrick's gate.


The scene was set in 1968 as these Army biowarfare labs were

operating at full tilt on numerous assignments, including the

testing of synthetic viruses designed to attack the very nature of

human immunity.


At the same time, medical experts and political leaders from

around the world shamed America for its continued BW program

and its use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.


As a calculated public relations ploy designed to bolster sagging

public opinion and counter threatened congressional funding,

Detrick's public relations department announced the Fort's plan to

celebrate its silver anniversary.In response, protests erupted on

Detrick's perimeter. [1-8]


Detrickʹs Silver Anniversary

Fort Detrick was the nation's, and likely the world's, "largest and

most sophisticated" BW testing center. The facility employed

some 300 scientists, including 140 microbiologists, 40 of whom

had PhDs, 150 specialists "in other disciplines ranging from plant

pathology to mathematical statistics," and between 700 and 1,000

supporting staff. The operation occupied "some 1,230 acres of

federally owned land" upon which 450 structures were

maintained. It produced annually "some 900,000 mice, 50,000

guinea pigs, 2,500 rabbits. . . and 4,000 monkeys." There was

also a large "corral" area for holding larger animals such as

horses, cattle, and sheep. The cost of running Detrick's BW

research alone was reported as $21.9 million in 1969. [1-3]


Among the academic festivities planned for Detrick's twenty-fifth

anniversary was an international symposium dealing with the

"entry and control of foreign nucleic acid" into cells during the

process of human and animal immunosuppression. The frank

threat of manipulating nature's own genetic blueprint for life, and

celebrating its possibilities, brought sharp protests from leading

scientists. Despite their harshest warnings, on April 4 and 5,

1969, Detrick played host to the American Institute of Biological

Sciences (AIBS) - sponsored event.


The AIBS involvement additionally outraged conscientious

objectors.


A boycott ensued that was believed to be unparalleled in the

"stormy history of relationships between the military and the

scientific cornrnunity." [4]


Science news reported:

"At least 16 scientists refused to give papers at a Detrick-

sponsored symposium on nucleic acids as part of a half-

spontaneous, half organized protest against the use of science for

destructive military purposes. Some scientists rejected Detrick's

invitation shortly after it was received; others accepted the

invitation, but then, after receiving letters and calls from their

colleagues, decided to withdraw. Four scientists even withdrew

after the final program had been printed, thus forcing Detrick to

rearrange the program at the last minute."

"Pickets marched outside Detrick's main gate carrying signs that

proclaimed "Fort Detrick IS NOT a Respectable Scientific

Institution" and "Fort Detrick Scientists are Prostitutes." One sign

asked "Want to Get Sick? Consult Your Local Physician at Fort

Detrick"; and several signs were decorated with drawings of

skulls." [4]


Mark Ptashne, a Harvard graduate researcher, declined on the

grounds that he found Detrick's work "highly repellant" and did

"not want my name associated with Fort Detrick." Dean Fraser, a

professor of microbiology at Indiana University, balked at

celebrating research conducted in an effort to develop BW. He

wrote in declining his invitation, "It seems at best a little like

commemorating the creation of the electric chair and at worst

like celebrating the establishment of Dachau." [4]


Even some AIBS officials appealed the event. Dr. John Allen and

a group of AIBS board members published a clarification notice

in 'Science' citing their principal concerns:

"It is not appropriate nor proper for an organization representing

a large segment of the biological community to actively

participate in a celebration honoring 25 years of biological and

chemical warfare research. . . . It is not proper for AIBS to lend

its name and prestige to this celebration indirectly conveying the

impression that AIBS actively favors this aspect of Defense

Department activity. . . . The essential issue is a moral one. . . ." [5]


World consensus among physicians and scientists was much the

same.


Calling Fort Detrick

Considering that the symposium papers on the "entry and

control of foreign nucleic acid" might hold important

information, I decided to call the library at Fort Detrick. By this

time, I realized the NCI had been the Fort's chief tenant for over

two decades. After phoning directory assistance for their number,

I soon contacted one of the NCI's chief librarians.


It took her several hours to field my request for the papers

generated during the beleaguered symposium. "I'm sorry, I wasn't

able to find any publications relating to that conference, but it's

possible the library at the Army's Cancer Research Facility may

have them. Would you like their number?"

"Sure."

Unfortunately, the Army's Cancer Research Facility librarian

reached a similar dead end. She called me back and said, "You

know, you might try calling the public relations office to see if

they can dig up the information for you."

Within minutes, I was speaking with Mr. Norman M. Covert, the

chief public relations officer for the United States Army Garrison

at Fort Detrick.


What a great name for a secret military facility's public relations

officer, I mused.


I found Mr. Covert exceptionally knowledgeable about the

history of The Fort, and very kind as well. He recalled the late

1960s being a period of widespread dissent but could not recall

the symposium.


"Protestors held a twenty-four-hour vigil outside the gates for a

full year," he lamented. "I documented it in my new book about

our fifty-year history. Would you like to receive a copy?"

"Well, sure, but how much is it?"

"Oh, there's no charge. I'll be happy to send you one."

Two days later, 'Cutting Edge' [9] arrived in the mail, and I

devoured the eighty-seven page hardcover in a few hours.


Merck: On the ʺCutting Edgeʺ of Biological

Warfare

According to Covert's version of Detrick's anthology, The Fort

celebrated its "Birth of Science" in 1943 for two purposes

defined by President Roosevelt and the War Department. They

were to "develop defensive mechanisms against biological attack;

and they were to develop weapons with which the United States

could respond 'in kind' if attacked by an enemy which deployed

biological weapons." Covert wrote:

"From the moment of its birth in the highest levels of

government, the fledgling biological warfare effort was kept to

an inner circle of knowledgeable persons. George W. Merck was

a key member of the panel advising President Franklin D.


Roosevelt and was charged with putting such an effort together.


Merck owned the pharmaceutical firm that still bears his name."

"Merck! If that don't beat all," I wailed.


My surprise was based on the knowledge that the hepatitis B

vaccine Strecker alleged infected the American gay community

was almost certainly manufactured by Merck's company. To

confirm my suspicions, I dug out the New England Journal of

Medicine report that I had studied years earlier. The paper

reported that, indeed, the homosexual hepatitis B vaccine study

had been supported "by a grant from the Department of Virus and

Cell Biology of Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories,

West Point, PA." The "National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,

of the U.S. Public Health Services's National Institutes of Health"

also provided grant money for the project. [10]


Then I recalled another interesting fact from the 'Deadly

Innocence' investigation. Robert Gallo's Cell Thmor Biology

Department at the NCI, that had been credited for having

discovered the AIDS virus in 1984, bore a resemblance to

Merck's "Department of Virus and Cell Biology."

I leafed to the page that discussed the Merck vaccine and read:

"The vaccine was prepared in the laboratories of the Department

of Virus and Cell Biology Research, Merck Institute for

Therapeutic Research, West Point, PA. . . . The vaccine, made

from the plasma of HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] carriers.


. . was treated. . . . A large number and variety of tests were

carried out by the manufacturer on the initial plasma pools, the

antigen concentrates, and the vaccine to insure microbial sterility

and the absence of extraneous viruses. The vaccine was also

tested for live hepatitis A virus (HAV) in marmosets [South and

Central American monkeys] and live HBV [hepatitis B virus] in

susceptible chimpanzees. The placebo, also prepared in the

Merck Laboratories, consisted of alum alone in the vaccine

diluent." [10]


So, they produced the experimental and placebo vaccines. They

allegedly tested them both for "extraneous viruses." But wait, I

thought. It's not clear whether they tested the placebo vaccines.


Perhaps there was no need to test the placebo, but could there

have been a potential for sabotage?

A Mysterious French Connection

In fact, a few days later, alone again in Countway's dungeon, I

discovered a 1983 'Nature' article" that said that France's Institut

Pasteur - credited along with Luc Montagnier for having isolated

LAV, the first AIDS virus (identical to Robert Gallo's HTLV-III)

- was under suspicion for allegedly importing tainted hepatitis B

vaccine serum from the United States. The news report said:

"[Their] independent commercial offshoot, Institut Pasteur

Production (IPP) . . . was accused of clandestine importation of

American blood plasma (automatically suspected of AIDS

contamination) to help with manufacture of hepatitis B vaccine.


A chimpanzee was also said to have died in testing the first batch

of such vaccine: it was an apparent scandal."

The report noted the IPP was up against:

". . . fierce competition with its American rival, Merck, Sharp and

Dohme. Both companies are seeking lucrative contracts in Asia,

and particularly in China where IPP had foreseen a market of

"dozens of millions of doses of vaccine," an order of magnitude

larger than its previous sales. . . ." [11]


With so many millions of doses worth billions of dollars in

revenue, I realized, there was certainly potential motive for

industrial espionage. The article did not cite, however, the source

of the American plasma, an omission possibly due to liability

concerns. But it could have been Merck or one of its subsidiaries,

I reckoned.


It was certainly plausible that the imported plasma had been as

tainted as our domestic blood supply had been until screening

procedures began in 1986. If tainted though, I reasoned, it could

have just as easily been sabotage - an intentional targeting of a

competitor. It would have been easy to hide and hard to trace the

source of HIV in contaminated vaccines months or even years

after they were administered.


"As for some of Libertion's accusations, the truth now seems a

little difficult to establish since French Health officials who

earlier were said to have been "furious" about not having been

informed by IPP about the use of American plasma now have to

accept a Ministry of Health statement that the ministry was, in

fact, informed, and had granted authorization from the first date

of importation in March 1982. . . ." [11]


That was two years before Gallo announced the discovery of

HIV, I reflected.


". . . In this particular chimpanzee, treated with the first lot of

vaccine to be based in part on American plasma (3 per cent of the

total), there was a small lesion of the liver. Two French and one

American expert concluded it was "nonspecific" and the vaccine

was marketed with approval. . . . However, there had been "some

disagreement" (says Dr. Netter) among the experts about the

nature of the lesion. When a kit for detecting human T-cell

leukaemia virus (HTLV) - a suspected AIDS agent - arrived from

the United States [by way of Dr. Robert Gallo's NCI research lab

no doubt], the ministry requested a new test. Marketing was

stopped for a while but the [second] test proved negative and

sales were resumed." [11]


That meant Montagnier and the French had used Gallo-supplied

anti-bodies for AIDS-like virus testing two years before they

announced the discovery of HTLV-III or LA V-the AIDS virus.


How could that be? I recalled that Margaret Heckler, Secretary of

Health and Human Services, announced in 1984 that they would

not have such a test kit available for at least six months. How

bizarre, I thought.


The article concluded:

"Libertion is left with one substantial point: that confusion over

the origin of IPP's plasma, and an early lack of information about

the chimpanzee, which resulted in the facts being "discovered" by

journalists, indicate a lack of "clarity" in IPP's affairs; and that it

would have been much better for the company if the confusion

had not been allowed to arise. IPP might heartily agree." [11]


In any case, I considered, the fact that the press discovered the

confusion meant they were tipped off, and who stood the best

chance of capitalizing on IPP's negative publicity more than their

foremost

competitor - Merck, Sharp and Dohme.


More Merck Nostalgia

According to Covert's 'Cutting Edge,' the United States

biowarfare effort began "in the fall of 1941 when Secretary of

War Henry Stimson wrote to Dr. Frank B. Jewett, then president

of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"Because of the dangers that might confront this country from

potential enemies employing what may be broadly described as

biological warfare, it seems advisable that investigations be

initiated to survey the present situation and the future

possibilities. I am therefore, asking if you will undertake the

appointment of an appropriate committee to survey all phases of

this matter. Your organization already has before it a request

from The Surgeon General for the appointment of a committee

by the Division of Medical Sciences of the National Research

Council to examine one phase of the matter. I trust that

appropriate integration of these efforts can be arranged." [9]


I noted the reference to the NAS's National Research Council

(NAS-NRC), recalling its part in the DOD appropriations request

for funding AIDS-like virus research and development (see fig.


1.1).


A year later, Secretary of War Stimson added:

"The value of biological warfare will be a debatable question

until it has been clearly proven or disproven by experiences. The

wide assumption is that any method which appears to offer

advantages to a nation at war will be vigorously employed by that

nation. There is but one logical course to pursue, namely, to

study the possibilities of such warfare from every angle, make

every preparation for reducing its effectiveness, and thereby

reduce the likelihood of its use." [9]


A couple months after this report to President Roosevelt, Stimson

was authorized to develop a civilian agency to "take the lead on

all aspects of biological warfare." It was assigned to the Federal

Security Agency (FSA) to obscure its existence, and George

Merck was named director of the new War Research Service

(WRS). [9]


As a result of this covert effort, according to Detrick's public

relations director, "recombinant DNA research techniques" were

being employed "through which certain organisms. . . [were]


cloned to produce weaker, stronger or mutations of the original."

These experiments, Covert wrote, became the "legacies of Fort

Detrick, but it was not done in the Fort Detrick laboratories."

In other words, I thought, the road to Fort Detrick leads through

Bethesda. If Covert printed the truth, the AIDS-like virus

prototypes were developed outside the Fort and brought in for

testing. The only other regional facilities with the means and

organisms needed to produce immune-system-destroying viruses,

in 1969-1970, was right down the road in Bethesda at the NCI's

labs, [12] or in West Point, Pennsylvania at MSD's. [10]


The NAS on CBW

On October 13, 1969, following the onslaught of opposition to

Fort Detrick's silver anniversary festivities and the international

CBW race in general, the NAS responded - not by disclosing its

clandestine efforts to support the development and testing of BW

and antidotes, but by addressing the controversy at a

"Symposium on Chemical and Biological Warfare." [13] The

meeting was chaired by Dr. Matthew S. Meselson, Director of the

Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, and included three

presentations from American CBW notables.


Attorney George Bunn, a former General Counsel for the United

States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency presented a

session dealing with "Gas and Germ Warfare: International Legal

History and Present Status," during which he heralded the

"success" of "the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the

use of gasses and bacteriological methods of warfare. More than

80 countries have ratified this treaty. . . . Many in recent years.


The United States, the one country most responsible for the

drafting of the treaty, has still not become a party to it," he noted. [13]


The chairman, commenting on Bunn's presentation, wrote:

"This winter a group of 21 nonaligned states at the United

National General Assembly introduced a resolution declaring as

contrary to international law as embodied in the Geneva Protocol

the use in war of all toxic chemical agents directed at men,

animals, or plants. Its sponsors made clear that the resolution

applied to irritant gases and anti-plant chemicals such as those

used by the United States in Vietnam. Just this month, the

resolution was passed by a vote of 80 to 3, with only Portugal,

Australia, and the United States in opposition." [13]


Next, Han Swyter, formerly with the DOD, addressed the NAS

assembly with the "Political Considerations and Analysis of

Military Requirements for Chemical and Biological Weapons."

He commented:

"We are talking about a dollar magnitude of only hundreds of

millions of dollars annually. This is insignificant in an $80 billion

Defense budget. On the other hand, these funds could instead be

spent on other scientific or medical research, on welfare, or on

housing. . . ."

The entire chemical and biological warfare research budget for

1969, Covert reported, was $300 million. Research for

herbicides, such as the ones used in Vietnam that were "designed

to kill food crops or strip trees of foliage to deprive enemy forces

of ground cover," was granted $5 million. [9] I found it

interesting that twice this amount - $10 million - was requested

and received by DOD for developing an AIDS-like virus that

same year. [14]


After reading this, I reflected on Covert's admission in 'Cutting

Edge' that despite preparations for President Nixon to ratify the

1925 Geneva Accord, "Nixon assured Fort Detrick its research

would continue."

Lt. Col. Lucien Winegar, Covert wrote, said it would "be fair to

assume" that the Frederick, MD labs:

". . . would continue to work with dangerous organisms used in

offensive BW since any defense required knowledge of those

agents. Continuation of the defensive research program was

authorized in the biological warfare convention." [9]


The ʺGrisly Businessʺ of CBW

Within months of Winegar's announcement, Swyter said before

the NAS:

"Chemical and biological war is grisly business. I am going to

approach it unemotionally, much as an economist analyzes the

need for mythical widgets, rather than like a Dr. Strangelove,

gleefully plotting the destruction of millions by plague or

anthrax. My general approach - that is, identifying objectives,

breaking the problem into smaller manageable parts, and examine

each part in terms of objectives - is being used at the Pentagon.


Secretary Laird has a group, known as his Systems Analysis

Office, which examines the need for each kind of military

capability much as I will examine for you the need for chemical

and biological capability. Unemotional analysis of the need for

war - fighting capability goes on every day." [emphasis added]


"The first kind of capability I will analyze is lethal biologicals. . .


. These are population-killing weapons. In situations in which our

national objective would be to kill other countries' populations,

lethal biologicals could be used."

"If we want to kill population, we can now do that with our

strategic nuclear weapons - our B-52's, Minutemen, and Polaris.


We keep the nuclear capability whether or not we have a lethal

biological capability. A lethal biological capability would be in

addition to our nuclear capability rather than a substitute for it."

"Therefore, we do not need a lethal biological capability." [13]


Failing to describe the benefits of biological versus nuclear

weapons for population control, the former Defense Department

analyst rhetorically concluded that since a ". . . crude biological

capability is economically available to very many nations."

". . . a decision to have capability, to have an option for that rare

situation, requires weighing the uncertainties of nonproliferation

with the value of human life, perhaps of tens of thousands of

Americans. If we decide today that we would be willing to

sacrifice our soldiers in the situation I described, we do not need

a capability. However, if we want the option to decide later,

perhaps we need an incapacitating [as opposed to lethal]


biological capability." [13]


Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., a former Deputy Director of the United

States Office of Science and Technology, was the last one to

address the NAS general session. The topic of his presentation

was "The Significance of Chemical and Biological Warfare for

the People." He began by defining biological weapons as

"organisms, whatever their nature, or infective material derived

from them which are intended to cause disease or death in man,

animals, or plants, and which depend for their effects on their

ability to multiply in the person, animal or plant attacked." [13]


"Both chemical and biological agents lend themselves to covert

use in sabotage," he noted, against which it would be exceedingly

difficult to develop any really effective defense.


"As one pursues the possibilities of such covert uses, one

discovers that the scenarios resemble that in which the

components of a nuclear weapon are smuggled into New York

City and assembled in the basement of the Empire State Building.


In other words, once the possibility is recognized to exist, about

all that one can do is worry about it." [13]


"General military philosophy according to Bennett:

says that our national security demands that we "keep all options

open" no matter how limited the need for or the utility of a given

option may be. Similarly, arguments of cost-effectiveness or

maintaining an option because it is "cheap" should be countered

by asking, "Relative to what?" Indeed, insofar as lethal chemical

and biological weapons are concerned, all arguments for

possessing them finally come down to the basic assertion that if

the Soviets or some other potential aggressor possesses them,

then we must have them too. . . . In essence, then, the real

military effectiveness of lethal CBW, in terms of inflicting

casualties, will accrue to the force that initiates use against an un

warned enemy. . ." [13]


Kissinger and Nixon Respond

The following month, as a calculated diplomatic measure, Dr.


Henry Kissinger, Nixon's National Security Counsel director and

foreign policy chief, advised the president to sign the Geneva

accord. History proved the act was a public relations ploy

intended to silence American BW critics, bolster sagging public

opinion regarding American military efforts, and respond to

threatened congressional funding for additional BW research.


President Nixon-pressured on the one hand to respond to growing

public criticism of America's involvement in Vietnam, and on the

other by DOD militarists citing their unwillingness to "sacrifice

our soldiers" should Russia deploy their biological weapons -

renounced the "first use of lethal chemical weapons. . .


incapacitating chemical[s], . . . and biological weapons" of any

kind in support of the objectives of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.


Covert wrote:

"President Nixon, scoring a major international diplomatic

victory on November 25, 1969, signed an executive order

outlawing offensive biological research in the United States. . . .


Nixon said the Nation would destroy its stockpile of

bacteriological weapons and limit its research to defensive

measures." [9]


"The President articulated his BW concerns this way:

" "Biological weapons have massive, unpredictable, and

potentially uncontrollable consequences. They may produce

global epidemics and impair the health of future generations. I

have therefore decided that:

-The U.S. shall renounce the use of lethal biological agents and

weapons, and all other methods of biological warfare.


-The U.S. will confine its biological research to defensive

measures such as immunization and safety measures, and

-The Department of Defense has been asked to make

recommendations as to the disposal of existing stocks of

bacteriological weapons." " [13,15]


Nixon's recommendation to Congress went further than the

position of many other countries that had earlier ratified the

protocol in suggesting that "bacteriological weapons will never

be used, whatever other countries may do." [15]


In an accompanying document, Nixon's Secretary of State

William P. Rogers made it clear that "the United States

Government considers that toxins, however manufactured, will

be considered as biological weapons and not chemical weapons."

In this and other ways, Nature observed, "the position of the

United States on chemical and biological weapons" had been

"transformed within the short space of a year." (see fig. 4.1)

The Ruse

By November 1970, a year after Nixon ratified the Geneva

Protocol, nothing had changed except the public's perception of

CBW risk. [16] Rather than receive the promised annual cut in

biological warfare research funding, the DOD's BW budget

increased from $21.9 to $23.2 million. The stockpiled

bioweapons Nixon pledged would be rapidly destroyed remained

intact in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and the announced transition of

Fort Detrick from a BW testing facility to a solely defensive NIH

run health research lab had not occurred.


'Nature' carefully followed the events from Washington,

Bethesda, and Fort Detrick, and reported:

"The general absence of forward movement in the direction

pointed by President Nixon is ascribed by some to skillful

delaying tactics by the Army, which is held to be determined not

to drop its biological weapons until its hand is forced. . . . Nixon

seems not to have been properly briefed on the extent of the

likely opposition [to the cuts]." [16]


I later learned that, indeed, Nixon may not have been properly

advised, but the ruse was by no means an accident.


The BPL Exercise

"Would this library have the Rockefeller Commission's report on

CIA Wrongdoing?" I asked Mike, one of several Countway

librarians stationed at the on-line services center. I was interested

in following up a hunch that the CIA, reportedly involved in LSD

and other drug experiments, might have also been involved in

viral research. A Canadian colleague had mentioned the

Rockefeller report might be available through a local library. [17,18]


"Let me check," Mike replied; then he quickly keyed in a few

words on his PC. "That's over in the BPL, The Boston Pubic

Library. They have a copy available in the government

documents office."

"All right. Thanks."

That afternoon I visited the BPL's government documents office

and asked one of the librarians for assistance in tracking down

the CIA wrong-doing report.


"That'll be a few minutes," the librarian responded after I handed

him my completed request form. "Have a seat and we'll bring it

right to you."

I made myself comfortable in a seat adjacent a functioning PC.


The screen displayed a search menu that beckoned my curiosity.


Just for the hell of it I thought, I typed the words, "biological

weapons" and "CIA" in the subject field. Then I pressed the Enter

key. To my surprise, the screen filled with data-references

regarding the CIA and biological weapons.


Somewhat astonished, I suddenly realized how easy it was to

access infor-mation I assumed would be classified. I selected and

then output the information to the printer.


The hardcopy included Soviet, Caribbean, and Cuban

International Affairs references. "Belitskiy on How, Where AIDS

Virus Originated," read one title. It documented a Moscow World

Service broadcast in English. Another, "Commentary Accuses

U.S. of Developing AIDS Virus," was broadcast by the Havana

International Service. A third in the Caribbean press was tagged

"German Claims AIDS Created by Pentagon." [19-21]


Moments later, the BPL librarian returned with the Rockefeller

Commission report about the CIA. Before he left, I asked how I

might locate the documents I had just learned about. He told me

they were on microfilm two floors up. Within a couple of hours, I

had retrieved and read them all.


Apparently, several researchers throughout the world - Dr. John

Seale from London, Dr. Maneul Servin in Mexico, and Dr.


Jacobo Segal from Berlin - had alleged what Strecker had. The

Russian report even cited a West German company named

OTRAG for having conducted green monkey virus experiments

in Zaire that had allegedly led to the development of "a mutant

virus that would be a human killer." [19]


I filed these documents neatly away for later reference.


The Rockefeller Commission Report on CIA

Wrongdoing

In the spring of 1970, after Congress granted DOD funds for the

development of AIDS-like viruses, the CIA illegally "forwarded

two checks totaling $33,655.68 to the White House. . . ." This

money, the report said, was used to help fund Richard Nixon's

upcoming reelection campaign, and was allegedly spent for

direct-mail expenses. [18]


So as Nixon administration officials were stalling the announced

biological weapons cutback, the president was being rewarded by

America's espionage establishment, I realized, though the two

may not have been related.


In April 1970, E. Howard Hunt, most famous for orchestrating

the Watergate break - in which led to President Nixon's

resignation, allegedly "retired from the CIA after having served

in it for over twenty years."

With the help of the CIA's External Employment Affairs Branch,

The Rockefeller Commission reported that Hunt then obtained a

job with Robert R. Mullen and Company, a Washington, D.C.,

public relations firm, a CIA "front". [18]


"The Mullen Company itself had for years cooperated with the

Agency by providing cover abroad for Agency officers, carrying

them as ostensible employees of its offices overseas. Hunt, while

employed by Mullen, orchestrated and led the [Dr. Lewis]


Fielding and Watergate break-ins and participated in other

questionable activities. . . ."

"During 1971, the CIA, at the request of members of the White

House staff, provided alias documents and disguise materials, a

tape recorder, camera, film and film processing to E. Howard

Hunt. . . ."

"Some of these materials were used by Hunt and [G. Gordon]


Liddy in preparing for and carrying out the entry into the office

of Dr. Fielding, Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. In particular, the

CIA at Hunt's request developed pictures taken by him of that

office in the course of his reconnaissance for the break-in." [18]


It took till 1974 before a stunned public learned that at least four

CIA operatives had engineered "Watergate" allegedly to discredit

Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy who was viewed as Nixon's only

formidable Democratic rival.


Nostalgic Foreshadowing

In retrospect, Ted Kennedy's brother Bobby had been considered

a "shoe-in" for defeating Nixon in the 1968 presidential election.


He was assassinated not long after Dr. Martin Luther King was

shot and killed. Besides embodying the Kennedy mystique,

Bobby was gaining in the polls for being sharply critical of

America's increasingly unpopular involvement in Vietnam. In

particular, both John and Bobby Kennedy had found the use of

chemical and biological weapons abhorrent. [18,22]


" "These horrors, Bobby said, were the responsibility of all

American citizens, not just the administration's policymakers. "It

is we," he said, "who live in abundance and send our young men

out to die. It is our chemicals that scorch the children and our

bombs that level the villages. We are all participants." " [22]


Unlike his brothers, Ted Kennedy's position on CBW and related

"defense" research was one of moderate tolerance. He alleged

that "society must give its informed consent to technological

innovation." On the other hand, he argued that the "prospects of

significant medical advances" surely outweigh the "hazards of

saying no" to such exploration. "The particular field of DNA-

splicing research," he commented not long after Bobby's

assassination is "far from being an idle scientific toy." [23]


Ted Kennedy, I also learned that afternoon in the government

documents library, had been appointed to serve as vice president

of NATO during the Nixon and Ford administrations. [24]


Onward and Upward

With Jack and Bobby out of the way, the King-led civil rights

movement in disarray, and Ted on board and politically

neutralized, the manufacturers of war and biological weapons got

on with their business.


Researchers at the NCI were now hard at work filling the DOD's

order for AIDS-like viruses. Because of the adverse political

climate, and Nixon's superficial endorsement of the Geneva

accord, funding needed to be secured covertly through an

"amendment to the appropriation bill for the Departments of

Labor and of Health, Education and Welfare." [25]


This was how it came to pass that Fort Detrick - the world's

largest and most active biological weapons facility - was virtually

overtaken by the NIH and NCI for allegedly "peaceful uses." The

cost of the conversion (approved by the U.S. Senate) was $15

million. [25]


"The proposals by the National Institutes of Health were judged

the most meritorious and seem to have had the agreement in

principle of Mr. Robert Finch, previous Secretary of the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and Dr. Lee

Dubridge, former science adviser to the President. . . ." [25]


All of Fort Detrick's staff were, as Nature reported, "looking

forward with great expectation to taking on the health research

projects the National lnstitutes of Health would assign the

laboratories. . . ." Since many scientists at Fort Detrick were "in

any case involved in basic research and some are already

cooperating in projects with the National Cancer Institute, there

would not be much of a shift." [25]


Not surprisingly then, among the projects heralded for immediate

action at the new NIH-run facility, was "research on hazardous

viruses." The NCI, it was reported, would "use Fort Detrick for

the containment and large scale production of suspected viral

tumor agents." [25]


The following year, 1971, in the heat of his reelection campaign,

Nixon launched the "war on cancer" and soon thereafter, hailed

Dr. Robert Gallo, the head of the NIH and NCI's Section on

Cellular Control Mechanisms, for having discovered leukemia's

alleged cause - an "RNA-retrovirus." It was then announced that

the NCI would have a vaccine for cancer available by 1976. [26]


This knowledge brought me back to Countway for the final hour

of my day. In a mad rush to find anything Gallo had published,

my search led me to a fascinating and disturbing discovery: As

this history-making announcement was being made, Gallo was

drafting a review article describing his group's methods of

injecting ribonucleic acids from one strain of virus into other

strains in an effort to create mutants that functioned just like the

AIDS virus. In essence, they developed AIDS-like viruses by the

early 1970s. Their stated purpose was to alter a host's genetic

immunity allegedly to control cancer. Experiments were designed

to produce an assortment of lymphocytic leukemias, sarcomas,

and opportunistic infections in chickens, mice, rats, sheep, cats,

monkeys, and humans. [27]


Thirteen years later, President Reagan's Secretary of Health and

Human Services, Margaret Heckler, hailed Dr. Gallo for having

"discovered the virus which causes AIDS." [28]


The train ride home that night was one I will always remember.


It's amazing what you can dig up in libraries, I thought as I

solemnly contemplated the lessons of the day.


- - - - -

Fig 4.1 - President Nixon Visits Fort Detrick in 1972:

President Richard M. Nixon greets members of the press outside

former Fort Detrick Headquarters in November 1972. Nixon,

under advisement of Henry Kissinger, established Frederick

Cancer Research and Development Center in former Army

laboratory buildings. This change he heralded by saying the U.S.


was "beating its swords into plowshares." Source: Covert NM.


'Cutting Edge: A history of Fort Detrick, Maryland 1943-1993.'

U.S. Army Garrison Headquarters, Fort Detrick, Maryland

21702-5000, p. 83.


- - - - -

‐NOTES‐

[1] Washington Correspondent. Biological warfare: Detrick left

hanging. Nature 1971;229:5279:8. [2] Washington Correspondent. Biological warfare: Relief of Fort

Detrick. Nature November 28.1970;228:803. [3] Boffey PM. Fort Detrick: A top laboratory is threatened with

extinction. Science. January 22,1968;171:262-264. [4] Boffey PM. Detrick birthday: Dispute flares over biological

warfare center. Science. April 19,1968;171:285-288. [5] Allen JM, Emerson R, Grant P. Schneiderman HA and

Siekevitz P. Science. 1%8;160;834:1287-8. [6] The incomplete reference was given as "Hersh SM. Chemical

and biological warfare. Indianapolis, N.Y., 1968. [7] Anonymous. Control of microbiological warfare. The Lancet

1968;2;564:391. [8] World Health Organization. Biomedical research: WHO's

commitments examined. WHO Chronicle 1975;29:417-422. [9] Covert NM. Cutting Edge: A history of Fort Detrick,

Maryland 1943-1993. Fort Detrick, MD: Headquarters, U.S.


Army Garrison, Public Affairs Office, 1993. [For copies call301-

619-2018] [10] Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Harley EJ, Zang EA and 01eszko

WR et al. Hepatitis B vaccine: Demonstration of efficacy in a

controlled clinical trial in a high-risk population in the United

States. New England Journal of Medicine 1980;303;15:833-841. [11] Walgate R. Hepatitis B vaccine: Pasteur Institute in AIDS

fracas. Nature 1983;304:104. [12] This knowledge also made me wonder whether Bethesda

maintained any secret, highest biosafety leve14, BSL4, labs.


Later I learned that, BSL 4 facilities were only available at Fort

Detrick and at the CDC, they were not needed to produce or

study the AIDS virus. This was confirmed during a telephone call

to Bethesda's NCI AIDS research labs. The technician I spoke

with there responded to my question, "Yes, we are handling the [AIDS] virus in level 3 labs as are numerous study groups around

the country." Despite the CDC labs ability to handle the AIDS-

like viruses however, a review of the research literature from that

period shows they were not active in such efforts. Only the NCI

was conducting this kind of research and only in the Cell Tumor

Biology Department at the NCI which was headed by Dr. Robert

Gallo. [13] National Academy of Sciences. Symposium on chemical and

biological warfare. Proc. N.A.S. 1970;65:250-279. [14] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives. Ninety-first Contress, First Session.


H.B. 15090, Part 5, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,

Dept. of the Army. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1969. [15] Staff writer. CBW: Geneva Protocol at last. Nature

1970;227;261:884. [16] Washington Correspondent. Gas and germ warfare

renounced but lingers on. Nature 1970 228;273:707-8. [17] My hunch that the CIA might have been involved in viral

research was based on my association with a Canadian colleague

who relayed the story of Dr. Ewen Cameron. Cameron, the Chief

of Psychiatry at McGill University's Allan Memorial Institute in

Montreal, conducted LSD experiments for the CIA during a

project code named MKULTRA. Victims of Cameron's

brainwashing experiments were paid $7 million in settlements in

a case which never went to court and was hushed up in the U.S.


See: Bindman S. Ottawa has paid $7 million to brainwashing

victims. Montreal Gazette, Wed. Jan. 19, 1994. p. Bl. [18] The Rockefeller Commission. Report to the President by the

Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States. Vice

President Nelson A Rockefeller, Chairman. (Co-commissioners

included Ronald Reagan). New York: The Rockefeller

Foundation. 1975. [19] Moscow World Service in English. Belitskiy on How,

Where AIDS Virus Originated. March II, 1988. Published in

International Affairs. FBIS-SOV-88-049, March 14, 1988, p. 24.


Text discusses

Seale's allegations, but does not furnish specifics. [20] Havana International Service in Spanish. German Claims

AIDS Virus Created by Pentagon. FBIS-LAT 91-017. January

25,1991. Caribbean, Cuba. Text discusses Dr. Jacobo Segal's

allegations.


Document PA 2401213091-0000 GMT 24, January 1991. [21] Havana International Service in Spanish. Commentary

Accuses U.S. of Developing AIDS Virus. LAT 24, June 1987.


Caribbean, Cuba "Viewpoint" commentary read by Angel

Hernandez. Document PA 200342- OOOGMT 19, June 1987. pp.


A5-6. [22] McGinniss J. The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy

Kennedy. New York: Pocket Star Books, 1994. [23] World Health Organization. Biomedical research: WHO's

commitments examined. WHO Chronicle 1975;29:417-422.32.


Washington Correspondent. Relief of Fort Detrick. Nature

1970;228:803. [24] Brumter C. The North Atlantic Assembly. Dordrecth:

Martinus LijhoffPublishers, 1986, p. 215. [25] Washington Correspondent. Relief of Fort Detrick. Nature

1970;228:803. [26] Goldman BA and Chappelle M. Is HIV=AIDS wrong? In

These 1imes. August 5-18,1992, pp. 8-10. [27] Gallo R. RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in viruses and

cells: Views on the current state. Blood 1972;39;1:117-137. [28] Shilts R. And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the

AIDS Epidemic. New York: Penguin Books, 1987, pp. 450-453.


Chapter 5

The Emperorʹs New Virus

"You discovered WHAT!?" Jackie shrieked.


"I found out that Robert Gallo may have created the AIDS virus

about a decade before he allegedly discovered it."

"Come on."

"Well, I'll know more tomorrow. I'm going back to the dungeon

to search his early work."

"You think there's a paper trail? But why would he have

published something so incriminating?"

"Because he couldn't have possibly predicted that his creations

might have caused an epidemic a decade later. Besides, Randy

Shilts characterized Gallo as having a huge ego in And The Band

Played On,' and those types like to see their names in print."

I had quickly read Shilts's highly regarded work about two years

earlier. Though I skimmed through much of it, my most vivid

memory was that Gallo erected barriers for colleagues racing

against time in search of the deadly AIDS virus.


"You know the old saying 'publish or perish.' Today I discovered

that Gallo's lab at the NCI put AIDS-like viruses together by the

mid-1970s. They proudly published it."

"Really?"

"I might be wrong, but my intuition is telling me to thoroughly

check it out; especially now that I know that the NCI, and most

likely Gallo's lab, was the principal beneficiary of the $10 million

DOD AIDS-like virus contract?

"How do you know that?"

"By putting the pieces together," I replied. "The NCI was the

WHO's chief virus distributor and they took over Fort Detrick.


And Gallo was their top retrovirologist, that is, immune-system-

destroying germ expert. Anyway, I'll find out more in the

morning. I'm leaving for Boston again early."

That night I couldn't sleep. Questions darted through my mind at

lightening speed: Had WHO officials known that their viral

"reagents" and laboratory instructions were being used by

biological weapons developers? How could they not have?

Immune system destroying "slow" cancer viruses were the rage

back then. Were WHO officials connected to NAS-NRC

members who worked for the DOD? Was Gallo a member of the

NAS-NRC, and if so, was he directly involved in their

negotiations with the DOD? Had he participated in the

controversial Fort Detrick symposium on "entry and control of

foreign nucleic acid?" Could he have been injecting RNA into

cells to create cancers and analyzing white blood cell control

mechanisms as early as the 1960s? This would have drawn DOD

attention to his work for potential application in BW research.

It struck me odd that soon after the WHO published its report on

chemical and biological warfare, the WHO Chronicle ceased

publishing its "Current Research Projects" column that had

appeared almost monthly until 1969. Had the military contractors

hushed the WHO Chronicle up? Had the CIA - the

counterintelligence arm of the Defense Department - protested

the practice of giving CBW secrets away?

"I can't sleep," I said to Jackie who was dozing soundly.


"I'm getting up to read."

Gallo Sounded Dreadful in ʺThe Bandʺ

Driven to satisfy my wakeful curiosity Gallo, I walked to the den,

flicked on the reading lamp, and thumbed to the index of 'And

The Band Played On.' I then settled back into the recliner and

began to read the sections Shilts had written about him.


Robert Gallo, I immediately learned, was the son of a hard-

working president of a Connecticut metal company. His mother,

Shilts simply described as charismatic, extroverted, and clannish. [3]


In 1949, at the age of thirteen, young Robert suffered a "turning

point" in his life. His younger sister struggled unsuccessfully to

fight leukemia. While she was at the hospital, Gallo met the

famous Harvard University cancer expert, Sydney Faber, and

other researchers who worked to save his sister from death. This

experience sparked Gallo's desire to become a research biologist. [3]


An uncle who taught zoology at the University of Connecticut

encouraged young Robert to study at a local Catholic hospital

with a grossly cynical research pathologist. Here, as a teen, Gallo

performed numerous autopsies. [3]


Later, above his mother's garage, while attending Providence

College, he slew scores of mice and studied diligently. [3]


He graduated from Jefferson Medical College in 1963 and then

went on to a two-year postdoctoral residency program at the

University of Chicago. Next he became a clinical associate in the

Medical Branch of the NIH's National Cancer Institute. Here,

assigned to work in the children's leukemia ward at the NIH

Hospital, he swore he would "never work with patients again." [3]


Later he was appointed to head the NCI's Cellular Control

Mechanisms Section of the Human Tumor Cell Biology Branch,

and then in 1972, he became the Chief of Lab Tumor Cell

Biology at the NCI.


From 1966 to 1970 Gallo earned fame investigating the theory

that viruses played a role in leukemia and other forms of cancer.


His efforts examined the role of retroviruses and focused on the

unique enzyme reverse transcriptase - the chemical that

retroviruses used to reproduce themselves in victim cells.


Identifying reverse transcriptase aided scientists in detecting

retrovirus infections, and represented a significant advance. Yet,

few scientists appeared particularly impressed by Gallo's work.


At that time, retroviruses were seen to infect chickens, mice, and

cats, but not humans. [4]


Following his discovery of interleukin-II, a natural substance that

kept cultured T-cells alive and multiplying, Gallo's "career

advanced smoothly-until the false alarm of 1976. It appeared that

he had discovered a new virus, and proudly, Gallo announced it

to the world. When it turned out that an animal virus had

contaminated his cell line, and there was no new virus, Gallo's

reputation plummeted." [4]


"For all his accolades," Shilts recorded, "Bob Gallo remained a

controversial figure in science." Critics saw him as pompous and

arrogant. In scientific politics, "he could be ruthless" and "not

always reliable." Gallo himself recognized this criticism reflected

"the shadowy side of his character." In his mind however, this

pride and arrogance, was required "from the few brave scientists

who challenged nature to yield its secrets." [4]


Among his most valuable contributions to the AIDS research

effort, Shilts acknowledged, was Gallo's cell culturing and virus

typing techniques.


". . . By easily being able to grow lymphocytes, Gallo had already

overcome a formidable research barrier. Some viruses eluded

decent study simply because scientists couldn't figure out how to

propagate their host cells." [5]


"Experiments to detect antibodies [blood markers that are used to

indicate exposure to a foreign substance or an active infection] to

the Human T-cell Leukemia virus, HTLV, were performed easily

with reagents sent from Dr. Bob Gallo's lab. . ." [6]


What troubled me after reading these sections was the realization

that he had the cell lines to culture the AIDS virus and the

antibodies to detect it before anyone in the world knew what it

was.


My selected review of 'The Band' quickly drew my attention to

another interesting oddity. Gallo, credited with having identified

HTLV-the first isolated retrovirus known to cause leukemia in

humans, in 1980, had apparently shown his retrovirus was linked

to a Japanese outbreak of leukemia. Apparently, Gallo had first

discovered this unique retrovirus; then "searched worldwide for a

disease that it might cause." [7]


"That's kind of like playing pin the donkey on the tail," I

muttered to myself. "A very unusual approach to medical

science."

Allegedly by chance, Gallo stumbled upon Japanese researchers

who were searching for T-cell leukemia's viral culprit.


Identifying HTLV, forged a major scientific breakthrough in

virology. It also disturbed scientists who recognized that such a

killer, due to its long incubation period, could spread widely

before it caused disease or was even suspected. [7] Something

which Gallo was undoubtedly aware with the NCI's charter

membership in the WHO "lentivirus" or "slow" virus research

network.


Still, scientists remained doubtful about the importance of Gallo's

work and the future of retrovirus research altogether. Many stuck

to the belief that such germs preyed mainly upon chickens, pigs,

and cats. [7]


So I suspected Gallo's early work probably involved chickens,

pigs, and cats. That's interesting, I thought as I remembered

reading in Shilts's anthology that AIDS patients suffered

complications very similar to cats infected with feline leukemia

virus:

"Both feline leukemia and this new gay disease were marked by a

trail of opportunistic infections that seemed to take advantage of

an immune system weakened by a primary infection. In cats, the

infection was a leukemia virus that knocked out the cats' immune

systems and left them open to a number of cancers. Clearly, some

similar virus was doing the same thing to these homosexual men,

and they were getting cancer too. Secondly, feline leukemia has a

long incubation period; this new disease must have long latency

too, which is the only way it was killing people in three cities on

both coasts before anybody even knew it existed." [7]


Dr. Don Francis, one of the CDC's chief virologists, Shilts noted,

quickly realized this association. Next, he examined the unique

affnity the mystery disease had to gays and intravenous drug

users, and how similar this was to the distribution of hepatitis B

cases. He rapidly concluded, "Combine these two diseases -

feline leukemia and hepatitis - and you have the immune

deficiency." [8]


Slow Start Against a ʺHotʺ New Virus

"More than a year into the epidemic," Shilts reported, "the

Nationallnstitutes of Health had no coordinated AIDS plan.


Everything was done on the basis of temporary assignments. . . .


At Bob Gallo's lab at the NCI's Division of Tumor Cell Biology,"

things could have been different, but they were much the same.


Only "about 10 percent of the staff effort went into poking

around the devastated lymphocytes of AIDS patients." This,

despite the availability of generous NIH funding. [9]


Even more suspicious was the fact that nearly a year after the

NCI acknowledged the need to channel its resources to fight the

oncoming epidemic, the institute withheld its request for funding

proposals, and failed to free available funds for AIDS researchers

outside Bethesda. [9]


With all the financial resources at its disposal, and the earnest

need, why had they held up everyone's search for the AIDS

virus?

Furthermore, Shilts wrote that by the end of 1982, "Gallo had had

it up to here with this goddamn disease." [9]


But that was only about eighteen months after the CDC

announced there may be an epidemic brewing. I recalled that it

was in June 1981 that the CDC reported in 'Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report' (MMWR) the first cases of what would

soon be called GRID - Gay-Related Immune Deficiency disease -

the first acronym given AIDS.


It also struck me as odd that Gallo suspected a retrovirus - his

career's passion - and then he decided to quit. Shilts wrote that

"AIDS had always created some discomfort for Gallo, who hailed

from traditional Italian - Catholic stock in New Jersey. There was

all this dirty talk of 1,100 partners, fist-fucking, and other exotic

sexuality; frankly, Gallo found it embarrassing to talk about." [10]


Again, my mind flashed back to Strecker's hypothesis and then

questioned - If the NCI began taking over Fort Detrick in 1970

for the expressed purpose of developing defenses against

retrovirus attacks and immune deficiency epidemics, then why

did they not respond to this suspected retrovirus crisis over a

decade later? Was it because the disease was principally striking

Africans and homosexuals?

Brilliance, Treachery, or Both

Between 1978 and 1983, Gallo's lab continued to pay little

attention to AIDS at the "lethargic NCI." In those days, the NCI's

chief retrovirologist allegedly perceived the cause to be more

frustrating and distracting than legitimate. [11]


During this period of AIDS research, Gallo's behavior appeared

at best erratic and at worst contemptuous. Shilts recorded a series

of suspicious interactions in which Gallo all but sabotaged

international research efforts to isolate the AIDS retrovirus.


One episode involved Dr. Max Essex, a Harvard researcher who

had flown in to Atlanta to discuss with Gallo the results of a test

he conducted on behalf of the CDC The CDC had sent a cell line

teeming with viruses to Essex to determine if HTLV-I or HTLV-

II - the viruses Gallo's lab initially discovered and then reported

as AIDS suspects - was involved. To find out, Essex used

"monoclonal antibodies" that had come from samples Gallo had

previously supplied. But when Gallo learned the group was still

using his materials, he blew up.


"How can you collaborate with me and you're doing stuff behind

my back?" Gallo exploded. "If you're using my materials on

anything, I need to know about it in advance. You need my

approval."

Gallo spent the better part of an hour berating Essex and

embarrassing CDC doctors. "This was the ugly side of the

National Cancer Institute that the CDC researchers sometimes

talked to each other about," Shilts wrote.


The NCI appeared to be "a repository for researchers concerned

with little more than personal glory." Gallo's outburst confirmed

the "darkest suspicions about the NCI." [12]


Another bizarre tale involved Dr. V. S. Kalyanaraman. Kaly, as

he was called, had been recruited by Dr. Don Francis at the CDC

to develop a "top-rate retrovirus lab" in late 1983. Kaly had

gained fame for his HTLV-II discovery while working under

Gallo.


"When cajoling did not persuade Kaly to stay in Bethesda, Gallo

resorted to threats: He would not let his researcher take any

reagents to any retrovirus from his NCI lab to the CDC. He'd

have to culture his own viruses and anti-bodies, Gallo said.


Meanwhile, Don Francis heard in early August that Gallo had

asked top officials at the National Cancer Institute to stop the

CDC from hiring the younger researcher. . . . [When] Gallo knew

these efforts would not succeed. . . he phoned Don Francis

directly."

Gallo said there was no need for two government agencies to

replicate retrovirus research efforts. When this approach failed,

Gallo warned, "There's no way we will collaborate with you." He

saw "no evidence of CDC goodwill" toward the NCI.


Allegedly, for that reason, he withheld experimental reagents

including the antibodies needed to identify AIDS-like

viruses.[13]


Later, Gallo voiced his concern to colleagues that the CDC was

conspiring to determine the cause of AIDS and then "run without

me," fearing he would get no credit.


At various times, Gallo warned Francis not to work with other

researchers, especially the French. "Don't form tertiary

relationships," Francis was told. "Keep me in a prime relationship

with AIDS and cherish the goodwill." [13]


Shilts also reported that Gallo's collaboration with Luc

Montagnier was altogether shameless. When Montagnier had

allegedly discovered what later turned out to be the AIDS virus,

he asked Gallo to supply the antibody needed to examine the

retrovirus's dissimilarity to Gallo's HTLV-I. "Oddly," wrote

Shilts, "his antibody had been almost inactivated when it arrived

from Dr. Robert Gallo's lab." Montagnier labored to run the

analysis anyway.


But that also seemed odd. The report I had read in 'Nature'

revealed that Montagnier already had Gallo's HTLV antibody test

kit as early as 1982. [14]


Shilts also reported that after writing up the results and

submitting his paper to Science for publication, Montagnier

learned that Gallo was sent the manuscript as "part of the review

process." Gallo criticized the work and informed Montagnier that

the acronym he had used to initially name his retrovirus, "RUB,"

was offensive. The NCI chief retrovirologist then persuaded the

French researcher to claim his find was from the HTLV family of

viruses that he had discovered. [15]


Collusion at the Top

Jim Goedert was one of many AIDS researchers at the NIH who

was foundering for lack of staff and money. In April 1983, he

approached the NCI for assistance and was met with a response

far less than was expected given. Gallo's widely recognized work

with reverse transcriptase. Shilts wrote:

"[T]he NCI lab where he sent his blood samples. . . [allegedly]


did not have the capabilities to look for reverse transcriptase, the

sure marker of retroviral infection. The tests were never run. Life

as an AIDS researcher at the National Cancer Institute, he later

remarked, meant "chronic frustration." " [16]


Later:

"On Capitol Hill, Representative Ted Weiss experienced similar

frustrations when he attempted to review unclassified NCI and

CDC documents. Weiss, assigned by the House Subcommittee on

Federal AIDS Funding to review CDC budget records, obtained

through less-than-formal channels a National Cancer Institute

memo, ordering that before any interviews with congressional

investigators, NCI researchers should advise agency officials and

"invite" a top administrator to attend."

So much for an independent review, Weiss thought.


Another memo, sent by CDC Director William Foege, instructed

federal agency chiefs that, "All material submitted to the

Congress must evidence the Department's support of the

administration's stated policies." [17]


Change of Heart

Despite his "distaste for the whole subject of AIDS," by April

1983, Gallo could see that "the stakes were being redefined." [4]


The French were about to publish their findings as was Max

Essex at Harvard. "So on April 11, 1983, the NCI's Deputy

Director Peter Fishinger called a meeting for 4:30 P.M. in the

director's conference room. This marked the first gathering of the

NCI Task Force on AIDS." Here, Gallo forcefully acknowledged

his concern about the French who had delivered a lymph node for

him to study. [4]


"I believe a retrovirus is involved, and we're going to prove it or

disprove it within a year," declared Gallo. "We're going to spend

a year and nail this down one way or another."

Allegedly then, Fishinger promised Gallo that he could have the

full resources of the NCI's elite laboratory in Frederick (Fort

Detrick), Maryland. [4]


Montagnierʹs Alleged Discovery

Once Montagnier learned that the new retrovirus he had isolated

was not a leukemia virus, but something completely unique, he

chose to rename it LAV, or lymphadenopathy-associated virus,

rather than RUB or HTLV. . . .


Shilts chronicled:

"Montagnier was surprised that there wasn't more enthusiasm

about the Pasteur Institute's announcement of a new retrovirus.


Most scientists wanted to defer final judgment until more

research came from Robert Gallo's lab. . . .Gallo was, after all, a

far more famed retrovirologist, and he was talking HTLV. . . .


Montagnier was gaining more confidence that the Pasteur

Institute had indeed discovered the virus that caused AIDS. Still,

he was stumped as 'to which family of viruses LAV belonged. If

not HTLV, then what?"

"The chance encounter with another virologist on the Pasteur

campus gave Montagnier the final piece to the puzzle. The

associate mentioned a family of viruses, primarily found in

animals, called lentiviruses. Lenti means slow. These viruses go

into the cells, lie dormant for a while, and then burst into frenzied

activity. Montagnier had never heard of the family before. . ." [18]


"What!" I exclaimed, breaking the night's silence. I couldn't

believe my eyes. He had never heard of the family of slow

viruses before? "That's absolutely ludicrous." How could he not

have heard about the hottest rage in virology during the late

1960s and early 1970s?

What I had just read in Shilts's book didn't jive with my

knowledge of the scientific reality. Something was up with the

French connection that Shilts completely overlooked. Something

deeply troubling.


Montagnier allegedly spent the night reading about cattle viruses

and was amazed to find LAV had the same morphology, the

same proteins, and even the same look under the electron

microscope. [18]


The French Francis Fracas

Prior to hailing the discovery of HTLV-III as the AIDS virus,

Gallo, representing the NCI, met with Don Francis from the CDC

and Dr. Jean-Claude Chermann from the Pasteur Institute to

negotiate the claims that would be made to the international

press. The discussions, wrote Shilts, "quickly acquired the mood

of delicate arms negotiations among parties who shared only

mutual distrust." [19]


Gallo absolutely refused to discuss specifics about his upcoming

HTLV-III publication in Francis's presence. Francis was

frequently required to leave the room while Chermann and Gallo

conferred privately.


"The Pasteur scientists were astonished that one branch of the

U.S. government should hold another in such low regard." [19]


Ultimately, Don Francis determined from electron micrographs

he had obtained from Europe that Montagnier's and Gallo's

retroviruses were the same. In light of the germ's dissimilarity to

the HTLV family of retroviruses, he argued in favor of the

French naming the virus. Following intense negotiations,

however, the naming issue remained unresolved, though the three

researchers worked out an agreement to jointly announce the

discovery of the AIDS virus by the CDC, NCI and Pasteur.


Shilts then chronicled Gallo's efforts to sabotage this agreement

and claim the lion's share of credit for himself. Standing

alongside Chermann in the pissoir, he offered, "We can do this

together - just the Pasteur Institute and the NCI," he said. "We

don't need the CDC." Chermann dismissed the proposal. The next

morning, during breakfast with Don Francis, Gallo remarked that

he would probably get the most credit during the announcement

because he maintained the most HTLV-III isolates. Then he

offered Francis the proposal Chermann refused the night before.


"We don't need the Pasteur Institute," he argued. "The CDC and

the NCI can announce this ourselves." [19]


On April 23, 1984, the announcement was made by Margaret

Heckler, Secretary of the Office of Health and Human Services,

that Robert Gallo, essentially unaided by the French and COC,

had discovered the AIDS virus.


"The doctors who accompanied Heckler to the podium blanched

visibly," Shilts noted, "when she proclaimed that a blood test

would be available within six months and a vaccine would be

ready for testing within two years." The blood test had already

been available for over two years, I reflected, but I understood

why they blanched with the announcement of a vaccine. [20]


The Emperorʹs New Virus

Ten months later at a prestigious AIDS meeting in New York,

Dr. Joseph Sonnabend revealed that Gallo's HTLV-III and

Montagnier's LAV were "identical. . . to a degree that would not

be anticipated with two independent isolates from the same

family."

"Would you be brave enough to voice explicitly the implications

of what you're saying here?" Sonnabend was asked by an

attending physician.


"No, I wouldn't," Sonnabend replied. "I'm not the right person to

be saying that."

"Neither am I," said the other doctor.


"What are you talking about here?" asked an Associated Press

reporter.


"Do you know something that you are not saying?"

"They appear to be the same actual isolate," Sonnabend finally

admitted. "Or some strange coincidence."

"What are you suggesting?" another person asked.


Dr. Mathilde Krim, the conference organizer, chimed in, "Dr.


Montagnier felt very appropriately that he was not the person to

point this out."

"Nobody's pointed it out quite exactly yet," voiced a frustrated

reporter.


"It's perhaps a complicated notion for you to understand," said

Krim, "but I think you are coming close."

Donald Drake, a veteran science writer for the Philadelphia

Inquirer was one of few journalists present who understood the

meaning of Sonnabend's remarks.


"Are you suggesting that Gallo swiped his virus from the

French?" Drake queried.


"Or Montagnier swiped Gallo's virus, or we are dealing with a

very strange coincidence," replied Sonnabend diplomatically.


"A light bulb goes off," blurted the San Francisco Chronicle

panelist.


It was now understood by all in attendance. In virology, it is

inconceivable that a genetic variation between two different

viruses could be less than 1 percent as was the case with Gallo's

HTLV-III and Montagnier's LAV. As Shilts put it, "That would

be like finding two identical snowflakes.


It simply didn't happen." [21]


Sonnabend was pointing out the scientific fact that Gallo had

simply cloned the virus Montagnier had sent him, then claimed it

was his discovery, or Gallo had supplied Montagnier with his

virus, and now both were claiming credit for the discovery.


Disharmony in ʺThe Bandʺ

Even more disturbing than the French-American AIDS fracas,

however, was the possibility that Gallo may have indeed

discovered the virus, not in 1984, but at least a decade earlier,

and the French most likely knew about it.


Support for this frightening theory existed, I realized, not only in

the suspicious and offensive actions Gallo and the NCI took in

trying to prevent others from discovering the AIDS virus.


Apparently, Gallo resisted and resented the challenge of

identifying the suspected retrovirus as late as December 1982.


Shilts reported with masterful clarity:

"Because the genetic material of retroviruses is made of RNA

that must be transcribed to DNA for the construction of viral

duplicates, retroviruses need a special enzyme to reproduce - the

reverse transcriptase enzyme. By November [1982], Gallo's lab

had found evidence of reverse transcriptase in the infected

lymphocytes of AIDS patients. This enzyme, in effect, had left

the footprints of a retrovirus allover the lymphocytes. But it was

impossible to find the damned retrovirus itself [emphasis

added] That was the rub."

In addition, Gallo's staff couldn't keep the lymphocytes alive.


They died. Any leukemia virus, Gallo knew, caused the

proliferation of cells, not their death. People with leukemia have

too many white blood cells. When Gallo's staff added

lymphocytes from the blood from AIDS patients, however, to

lymphocytes in culture, the lymphocytes would die without any

proliferation. The frustration was galling and, by November,

Gallo had made what would prove to be among the most

important decisions of his career. He gave Up. [16]


This doesn't make any sense, I thought. Gallo discovered

interleuken-II. Six months earlier, "an associate of Gallo said that

he had started culturing lymphocytes from a GRID patient in a

special culture medium Gallo had developed that contained

interleukin-II." The IL-II, Don Francis recognized was a perfect

addition to a growth medium for lymphocytes. "By easily being

able to grow lymphocytes, Gallo had already overcome a

formidable research barrier," Shilts reported. [11]


Now, I considered, Gallo was quitting because he allegedly

couldn't keep infected lymphocytes alive long enough to study

them or isolate their attackers. I found both hard to believe. First

of all, the French discovered how to keep their lymphocytes alive

quite rapidly. Why couldn't Gallo who had far more experience

in the field? Second, Shilts noted earlier Margaret Heckler's

correct comment that Gallo alone had discovered how to

reproduce the virus in large enough quantities to develop a blood

test - a test used by the French as early as 1982. [20] Third, to

reproduce the virus, he needed the cell lines in which to grow

them - lymphocytes which he had apparently kept alive long

before the French. Fourth, if the French had isolated AIDS

viruses using Gallo's largely inactivated antibodies to tag them,

then how come Gallo couldn't find them with his superior-quality

reagents? And finally, seasoned researchers just don't give up so

easily.

But that was not the worst of it. Following the official United

States government announcement that Gallo had discovered the

AIDS virus, Shilts wrote:

"How timely was the discovery of the long-sought AIDS virus? .


.As it turned out, the AIDS virus was not a particularly

difficult virus to find. The French took all of three weeks to

discover LAV [emphasis added] and had published their first

paper on it within four months. This early publication lacked the

certainty of a definitive discovery, but the French had enough

evidence to

assert they had found the cause of AIDS by the summer of 1983,

seven or eight months into the research process." [22]


And their efforts had been allegedly delayed by Gallo's

inactivated antibodies, I reflected.


"Nor was the NCI research marked by great longevity. Gallo's

announcement of forty-eight isolates of HTLV-III came just

twelve days past the first anniversary of the April 11, 1983, NCI

meeting in which the researcher swore he would "nail down" the

cause of AIDS. Meanwhile, at the University of California in San

Francisco, it took Dr. Jay Levy about eight months to gather

twenty isolates of a virus he called AIDS-associated retrovirus, or

ARV, which he too believed to be identical to LAV. Levy's

research was hampered by lack of resources and did not begin in

earnest until after the arrival of his long-sought flow hood and the

release of UC research funds impounded the previous autumn." [22]


And all the discoveries used methods and materials developed,

perfected, and supplied by Dr. Gallo, I realized.


The next day, I learned that the testing methods and reagents for

identifying RNA reverse transcriptase in virus-infected cells as

well as antibodies to detect retroviruses, Gallo and coworkers

developed more than ten years earlier than had been publicized. [22-27]


Gallo was among the world's champions at quickly identifying

reverse transcriptase enzyme and RNA retroviruses. Long before

identifying the growth hormone interleuken-II [26,27,29] Gallo

and coworkers identified more than a dozen human lymphocyte

and RNA tumor virus growth stimulants. [30]


His primary business was allegedly trying to determine the cause

of leukemia, a cancer associated with the rapid proliferation of

white blood cells. Thus, methods and materials used to increase

the reproductive rate of RNA retroviruses and the white blood

cells they infected, Gallo and company researched in depth in the

early 1970s. It was highly suspicious then that following a decade

of successfully doing so, he was suddenly unable to keep RNA

retrovirus-infected lymphocytes alive.


So, I considered, if this was a lame excuse to quit searching for

the easily isolated AIDS virus, then what was his real

motivation?

As "most CDC researchers privately believed," [22] Shilts wrote,

it is inconceivable that Gallo would not have readily isolated the

"true" AIDS virus well before 1982 given his formidable

background and resources.


"What delayed the NCI, therefore, was not the difficulty in

finding the virus but their reluctance to even look." [22]


With all the glory attached to the earliest discovery of the AIDS

virus, what powerful force could have moved the world's citadel

of retrovirus research - Gallo and the NCI - away from the

challenge that could have been met so handily?

There were few plausible explanations - only more horrifying

questions. Had Gallo been ashamed of creating the virus years

earlier, so he tried to block its discovery, terrified it might be

traced to BW research?

I never did get any sleep that night.


‐NOTES‐

[1] Shilts R. And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the

AIDS Epidemic. New York: Penguin Books, 1987. [2] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives, Ninety-first Contress, First Session,

H.B. 15090. Part 5, Research. Development. Test and Evaluation.


Dept. of the Army. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1969. [3] Shilts R. Op. cit., p. 269. [4] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 270-271. [5] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 151. [6] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 163. [7] Shilts R. Ibid., pp. 73-74. [8] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 186. [9] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 173. [10] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 201-202. [11] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 151. [12] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 350. [13] Shilts R. Ibid., pp. 366-367. [14] Walgate R. Hepatitis B vaccine: Pasteur Institute in AIDS

fracas. Nature 1983;304:104. [15] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 264. [16] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 272. [17] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 354. [18] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 319 [19] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 444. [20] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 451. [21] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 528-29. [22] Shilts R. Ibid., p. 452. [23] Gallo RC, Sarin PS, Allen PT, and Newton WA, et al.


Reverse transcriptase in type C virus particles of human origin.


Nature New Biology 1971;232:10-142. [24] Talal N and Gallo RC. Antibodies to a DNA:RNA Hybrid in

systemic lupus erythematosus measured by a cellulose ester filter

radioimmunoassay. Nature New Biology 1972;240:240-242. [25] Bobrow SN, Smith RG, Reitz MS and Gallo RC. Stimulated

normal human lymphocytes contain a ribonuclease-sensitive

DNA polymerase distinct from viral RNA-directed DNA

polymerase. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1972;69; 11 :3228-3232. [26] Gallo RC. Reverse transcriptase, the DNA polymerase of

oncogenic RNA viruses. Nature 1971;234:194-198. [27] Gallo RC and Whang-Peng JW. Enhanced transformation of

human immunocompetant cells by dibutyryl adenosine cyclic 3'5'

-monophosphate. J. National Cancer Institute 1971;47;1:91-94. [28] Gallo RC, Hecht SM, Whang-Peng J and O'Hopp S. N6_(

2isopentenyl) adenosine: the regulatory effects of a cytokinin and

modified nucleoside from tRNA on human lymphocytes.


Biochimica Et

Biophysica Acta 1982;281 :488-500. [29] Herrera F, Adamson RH and Gallo RC. Uptake of transfer

ribonucleic acid by normal and leukemic cells. Proc. Nat. Acad.


Sci. 1970;67;4:1943-1950. [30 Among the human lymphocyte and RNA retrovirus

reproductive stimulants Gallo and his co-workers studied were:

phytohemagglutinin (a plant protein which makes red blood cells

stick together) - see Riddick DH and Gallo RC. The Transfer

RNA Methylases of Human Lymphocytes: Induction by PHA in

Normal Lymphocytes. Blood 1971;37;3:282-292.;

isopentenyladenosine (a plant hormone and component of yeast

and mammalian tRNA}--see Gallo RC, Whang-Peng J and Perry

S. Isopentenyladenosine Stimulates and Inhibits Mitosis in

Human Lymphocytes Treated with Phytohemagglutinin. Science;

1969: 165:400-402; dibutyryl adenosine cyclic 3'5'-

monophosphate (a chemical messenger and hormone stimulent in

cells}--see Gallo RC, Whang-Peng J. Enhanced Transformation

of Human Immunocompetent Cells by Dibutyryl Adenosine

Cyclic 3',5'-Monophosphate. Journal of the National Cancer

Institute. 1971;47;1:91-94; magnesium (an element and dietary

component) see Gallo RC, Sarin PS, Allen, PT, Newton WA,

Priori ES, Bowen JM and Dmochowski L. Reverse Transcriptase

in Type C Virus Particles of Human Origin. Nature New Biology

1971;232;140-142; Epstein Barr virus (a virus strongly linked to

Burkitt's-type lymphoma, cancer of the nasopharynx and

infectious mononucleosis) see Fujioka S and Gallo RC.


Aminoacyl Transfer RNA Profiles in Human Myeloma Cells.


Blood 1971; 38;2:246-252; manganese (a metalic element)-see

Smith RG and Gallo RC. DNA-Dependent DNA Polymerases I

and II from Normal Human-Blood Lymphocytes. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 1972; 69; 1 0:2879-2884;

adrenal corticosteroids and related steroid hormones including

dexamethasone, prednisolone,fludrocortisone, hydrocortisone,

corticosterone, cortisone, testosterone, progesterone, and insulin-

see Paran M, Gallo RC, Richardson LS and Wu AM. Adrenal

Corticosteroids Enhance Production of Type-C Virus Induced by

5-Iodo-2'-Deoxyuridine from Cultured Mouse Fibroblasts.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

1973;70;8:2391-2395.


Chapter 6

Galloʹs Research Anthology: The AIDS

Buck and Virus Stops Here

EARLY the next morning, I made my way to Countway's

Cumulated Index Medicus to look up all of Gallo's early work. I

started my search in 1965, figuring it would have taken him at

least five years to establish himself as an expert in the field of

retrovirology by 1970. The 1965 and 1966 year-books cited

nothing of Gallo's efforts, but 1967 held two such references in

what became a long list of Gallo publications. By days end, I

held a stack of nearly forty research reports published by Gallo

and coworkers before 1975.


It took me about two weeks of reading, with frequent referencing

of medical texts for explanations to technical information that I

found difficult to understand. My earlier lessons in biochemistry,

cell physiology, genetics, and virology all needed refreshing.


With my head buried in scientific literature, I saw very little of

my family those weeks.


I began my review of Gallo's papers by organizing them

chronologically. I read each paper, highlighted important details

in yellow, then noted the purpose, conclusions, and potential

relevance to the development of AIDS-like viruses. In the end, I

held six pages of tables summarizing the data (see fig. 6.8).


Introduction to Retrovirology

A fundamental understanding of what HIV is and how it works is

required before discussing the development of AIDS-like viruses

by Gallo and his coworkers.


The AIDS virus is an extremely unique germ. Most astonishing is

that it incorporates elements that cause normal white blood cells

(WBCs) to produce more viruses through a somewhat unnatural

and uniquely backward process.


One of HIV's main components is a single chain of genetic

material. This single strand is called RNA, short for ribonucleic

acid. It comprises sugars combined with chemical (molecular)

rings called purines and pyrimidines (see fig. 6.2).


After the virus gets into a T4lymphocyte or CD4 helper cell (a

type of WBC), its RNA genetic code directs the blood cell to

produce a similar nucleic acid chain called DNA, short for

deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is the genetic blueprint all cells use

to reproduce normally.


DNA directs the manufacture of all new proteins and other cell

parts, including RNA. In the case of an RNA retrovirus infection,

however, this natural direction is commandeered to run in

reverse. In this case, the viral RNA directs the manufacture of

deadly foreign DNA, which then commands the cell's

reproductive machinery to produce more viruses rather than

healthy new cells.


This switch in reproductive control is accomplished partly

because RNA and DNA are very much alike. The only difference

between them is the substitution of one sugar-linked molecule,

called uracil in RNA, for another one, called thymine, in the

DNA (see figs. 6.1 and 6.2).


As shown in fig. 6.3, AIDS viruses have a special attraction for

T4 lymphocytes. These blood cells possess special magnetlike

CD4 receptors. These attachments normally serve to detect and

help destroy foreign invaders, called antigens, via a complex

immunological defense system. These CD4 receptors bind to a

portion of HIV's outer envelope known as the gp 120 antigen.


The CD4-gp 120 interaction allows the AIDS virus to be

transported across the lymphocyte's protective outer membrane,

and once inside the cell, the viral envelope opens releasing the

unique RNA and special enzymes into the human cell. [1]


Then, by means of the special reverse transcriptase enzyme-so

named because it prompts the "reverse" process of copying DNA

to RNA - the RNA code is copied to produce a new "proviral

DNA" strand. This enzyme is technically called RNA-dependent

DNA polymerase. It directs the cell to produce a DNA gene

sequence from the viral RNA template, the exact opposite of

what normally occurs in the non-infected cell.


This DNA provirus then enters the cell's nucleus where genetic

materials are stored. Here the provirus is inserted into the host's

normal gene sequence through the work of another unique

enzyme known as viral endonuclease. The endonuclease enzyme

functions like a pair of scissors. It cuts open the cell's normal

DNA strand allowing the newly formed provirus to be inserted.


Later, during normal cell operation, the provirus directs new viral

proteins to be produced, which eventually bud off the cell

forming new viruses. [1]


This is the theory Gallo advanced fIrst in 1972 during the "war

on cancer" in order to explain retrovirus related cancers such as

lymphoma, leukaemia, and sarcoma. Twelve years later, he

advanced the same theory to explain AIDS.


- - - - -

Fig 6.1 - The Molecule Structures Compriising Nucleic Acids

RNA and DNA - Life's Building Blocks:

PENDING

Source: Asimov I. The Intelligent Man's Guide To Science.


Volume II, The Biological Sciences. Basic Books, 1960. pp.526-

527.


- - - - -

Fig 6.2 - A Model of the Nucleic-Acid Molecule:

PENDING

The drawing at the left shows the double helix; in the center a

portion of it is shown in detail (omitting the hydrogen atoms); at

the right is a detail of the nucleotide combinations. Source:

Asimov I. The Intelligent Man's Guide To Science. Volume II,

The Biological Sciences. Basic Books, 1960. p.532. Reprinted

with permission.


- - - - -

Fig 6.3 - Replication of the AIDS Virus - HIV/CD4 Cell

Interaction:

PENDING

Source: Germain RN. Antigen processing and CD4+ T cell

depletion in AIDS. 'Cell' 1998;54:441-414

- - - - -

Galloʹs Cancerous Creations

In 1971, the year following the $10 million DOD appropriation

for the development of AIDS-like viruses,s the NCI acquired the

lion's share of the Fort Detrick facilities, and the Cell Thmor

Biology Laboratory's output increased as measured by the

publication of eight scientific articles by Gallo and his coworkers

compared to at most four in previous years.


Among Gallo's earliest reports was the discovery that by adding a

synthetic RNA and cat leukaemia virus "template" to "human

type C" viruses - those associated with cancers of the lymph

nodes - the rate of DNA production (and subsequent provirus and

virus reproduction) increased as much as thirty times. Gallo and

company reported that such a virus may cause many cancers

besides leukaemias and lymphomas, including sarcomas. [10]


Regarding Gallo's widely accepted 1983 speculation that the

AIDS virus arose from an African monkey virus that naturally

jumped species and then was carried by Portugese seamen to

Japan (see fig. 6.4), in 1971 he and his team published a

seemingly conflicting statement. "Only one virus [of 27 then

known RNA retroviruses] which contains reverse transcriptase,"

they wrote, "does not seem to be oncogenic [cancer causing]" -

the simian foamy virus. [10]


At the time, simian foamy viruses were known to be common,

humanly benign, vaccine contaminants. Had the simian virus

simply jumped species then, I considered, it is doubtful it would

have gained the cancer-causing capabilities seen in AIDS.


Additional mutations would have been needed to make it so

carcinogenic.


Then, suddenly, there it was. "Mama Mia!" I exclaimed. "I can't

believe he published this." Gallo and company, including

frequent coauthor Robert Ting from Litton Bionetics, reported

modifying simian monkey* viruses by infusing them with cat

leukaemia RNA to make them cause cancers as seen in people

with AIDS (see fig. 6.5). [9,10]


Furthermore, Gallo and his coworker Seitoku Fujioka concluded

from studies conducted in late 1969 or early 1970 that they would

need to further "evaluate the functional significance of tRNA

changes in tumor cells." To do this, they designed an experiment

in which "specific tumor cell tRNAs" were "added directly to

normal cells." They explained that one way of doing this was to

use viruses to deliver the foreign cancer producing tRNA to the

nonnal cells. The viruses that they used for this purpose, were the

simian monkey virus (SV 40) and the mouse parotid tumor

(polyoma)

virus." [11]


These experiments, I realized, could have easily established the

technology for the development of HIV-allegedly of simian virus

descent - which similarly delivers reverse transcriptase and a

foreign cat leukemia/sarcoma-like RNA to nonnal human white

blood cells.


[* The word "simian" before monkey, introduced by the mass

media, is actually redundant. Since most people now associate

the two, however, particularly in connection with the origin of

the AIDS virus, the phrase "simian monkey" will be used in this

book to mean just "monkey."]


- - - - -

Fig 6.4 Possible Origin of HTLV:

PENDING

This diagram was presented by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National

Cancer Institute during his introductory speech before a meeting

on "Human T-Cell Leukemia Viruses" at the Cold Spring Harbor

Laboratory in New York. Source: Essex M and Gallo R. Human

T-Cell Leukemia Viruses: Abstracts of papers presented at the

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Meeting, Sept. 14-15, 1983. New

York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1983, p. iv.


- - - - -

Obvious Link to NATO

That same year, Gallo and his coworkers presented research

describing the experimental entry of bacterial RNA into human

WBCs before a special symposium sponsored by the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? The paper published in

the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discussed

several possible mechanisms prompting the "entry of foreign

nucleic acids" into lymphocytes.


I flashed back to my knowledge of the controversial symposium

on the entry and control of foreign nucleic acids, held on April 4

and 5, 1969, at Fort Detrick, and noted Gallo's link to this work.


Here was documented evidence that senior investigator Robert

Gallo presented the methods and materials used to produce

AIDS-like viruses before NATO military scientists at "the NATO

International Symposium on Uptake of Infonnative Molecules by

Living Cells" in Mol, Belgium, in 1970. [2]


I sat stunned while reading that Gallo and his coworkers had also

published studies identifying (1) the mechanisms responsible for

reduced amino acid and protein synthesis by T-lymphocytes

required for immune system failure; [3] (2) the specific enzymes

required to produce such effects along with a "base pair switch

mutation" in the genes of WBCs to produce the small DNA

changes needed to create extreme immune system failure; [4] and

(3) the methods by which human WBC "DNA degradation" and

immune system decay may be prompted by the "pooling" of

nucleic acids, purine bases, or the addition of specific chemical

reagents. [5]


A subsequent study published in 1970 by Gallo and his

colleagues identified RNA-dependent DNA polymerase. Gallo's

team noted that this enzyme was responsible for gene

amplification and biochemical cytodifferentiation (the

development of unique WBC characteristics including cancer cell

production) and leukaemogenesis (the production of leukemia). [6] Another of their studies identified L-Asparaginase synthetase

- an important enzyme that, if blocked, will cause treatment-

resistant leukemias and other cancers. [7]


Just what the DOD ordered, I recalled,

"[M]ake a new infective microorganism. . . most important. . .


that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic

processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative

freedom from infectious disease." [8]


- - - - -

Fig 6.5 - Development of AIDS-like Viruses by Robert Gallo and

Associates at the NCI and Litton Bionetics:

PENDING

- - - - -

Creating More AIDS‐Like Viruses

By 1972, Gallo and coworkers studied portions of simian

monkey and mouse salivary gland tumor viruses to determine

differences in RNA activity between infected versus uninfected

cancer cells. [9 They wrote:

"[B]y studying viral or cellular mutants or cell segregants . . .


which have conditional variations in virus-specific cellular

alterations, it should be possible to more precisely determine the

biological significance of the . . . RNA variation reported here." [9]


The group was trying to determine the importance of various

viral genes on the development of human cancers and immune

system collapse. They reported their desire to use this

information to find a cure for cancer, but at this time their activity

was more focused on creating various cancers and carcinogenic

viruses that could infect humans. [9-11]


From this work, I also realized, Gallo was actually cloning

simian monkey viruses as early as 1970. So allegations that he

had cloned Montagnier's virus were buffeted by the fact that he

had over a decade of practice in the procedure.


Another example of Gallo's work in creating new viruses to cause

cancer in humans was published for the benefit of the NAS. Here

Gallo and company examined the activity of the special AIDS-

linked DNA polymerase enzyme in normal versus acute

immature leukaemic lymph cells, that is, lymphoblasts. To do so,

they evaluated the single stranded "70S RNA retrovirus" found in

chickens, which caused prominent features of AIDS, including

WBC dysfunction, sarcomas, progressive wasting, and death (see

fig. 6.5). [12]


Gallo and his team injected this chicken virus RNA into human

WBCs to determine if the cells were prompted to produce

proteins and new viruses called for by the viral RNA.13 Another

Gallo team evaluated the human cancer-causing effects of the

single-stranded 70S RNA reverse transcriptase enzyme-a genetic

catalyst essentially identical to the one found in HIV. They used

cat leukemia viruses (FELV) and Mason-Pfizer monkey viruses

to deliver these carcinogens to normal human lymphocytes. [14]


I instantly realized that this work foreshadowed the observation

made ten years later by the CDC's chief AIDS researcher, Don

Francis, who noted the "laundry list" of feline leukemia-like

diseases associated with AIDS. [15] Had Francis known about

this early work? I considered it most conceivable that he would

have.


Other Gallo publications detailed the steps involved in creating

immune-system-destroying-cancer-causing viruses by adapting

monkey, rat, and bird leukemia and tumor viruses for

experimental use in a human (NC-37) cell line. 16 One Gallo

team discussed the synthesis of new RNA tumor viruses induced

by 5-iodo-2'-deoxyuridine (IdU), a constituent of RNA in rodent

cell cultures, and noted that chemical treatment might be used to

halt the reverse transcriptase-linked viral reproduction cycle. [17]


They were apparently looking for a cure for AIDS-like symptoms

as early as 1972.


Then I read a Gallo team discussion in 1973, which concerned

the origin of the RD 114 cat-human virus. "It can always be

argued," they wrote, that a virus that jumped species would be

expected to have foreign protein markers, that is, antigens, that

differ "from the antigen found on the viruses of known" origin. [18]


So if Gallo and his coworkers had synthesized HIV for military

or medical purposes from various animal virus components, I

realized, it would be difficult if not impossible to prove.


Finally, in another report published in the 'Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences,' Gallo and associates proclaimed

they had isolated a virus-like particle from human acute, that is,

quick-acting, leukemic WBCs. This particle, they noted, has a

specific density of 1.16-1.17 g/ml, which allowed it to be

repeatedly recovered without being destroyed by physical

handling. Moreover, it was capable of producing the principal

rapidly growing cancers seen in AIDS, including leukemias,

sarcomas, and carcinomas. [19]


In conclusion, I learned that Gallo and his group of researchers

created numerous AIDS-like viruses for more than a decade

before Luc Montagnier announced the discovery of LA V.


Links to the DOD

Throughout my review of Gallo's research, besides citing the NCI

as his chief source of support, the names Bionetics, Bionetics

Research Laboratories, and Litton Bionetics, Inc., repeatedly

appeared (see fig. 6.6).


For days, I wondered who or what Bionetics was? This mystery

ended when I retraced Ted Strecker's steps through the Ninety-

first Congress's House hearings on DOD appropriations for 1970.


The Congressional Record contained several sections dealing

with chemical and biological weapons funding. One contained

the list of major Army contractors shown in fig. 6.7.


Bionetics Research Laboratories, a subsidiary of Litton

Industries, Inc. was sixth on the list of acknowledged biological

weapons contractors. [20]


Later congressional records showed that Bionetics's affiliate -

Litton Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Litton Industries, Inc. - was

among the most frequently contracted companies involved in BW

research and development between 1960 and 1970.20 Additional

BW contractors with whom Dr. Gallo or his coworkers

associated during the late 1960s and early 1970s included the

Universities of Chicago, Texas, Virginia, California, Yale, and

New York. [21]


Breaking the News

I emerged from my two weeks of laborious isolation noticeably

pale. My mind raced with questions about the risk of continuing

the investigation. I also wondered how I would break the whole

truth about my findings to Jackie. The pragmatist in our family,

she would immediately consider the sensitivity of the information

and its potential affect on our lives.


Following a brief summation of my findings aided by the six

pages of tables I had developed (see fig. 6.8), Jackie shattered a

long and anxious silence. "What are you going to do now?"

"I don't know. What do you think I should do with this kind of

information?"

"Bury it! Or else we'd better get the hell out of this country. Do

you know what the risk is in getting this information out?"

"I don't even want to think about it."

"Well you'd better think about it," she ordered. "Look what

happened to Strecker's brother and that congressman from

Illinois.


"And what about Strecker? Have you been able to reach him?"

"No. Every time I call, the phone just rings and rings. And that

other doctor from Georgia who wrote that article about Strecker,

William Douglass, I've left a half-dozen messages for him on his

answering machine, but he's never returned one."

"Well you better find out if Strecker's still alive before you do

anything else," Jackie said.


That night before bed, after her initial shock lessened, I said,

"You know, this thing is bigger than just us. This is about the

world. The kind of world we'll leave behind for our children."

"I know it," Jackie replied. "That's what scares me most."

- - - - -

Fig 6.6 - Sample Publication Documenting Robert Gallo's Work

With Investigators at Litton Bionetics:

NATURE VOL. 228. DECEM8ER 5, 1970

RNA Dependent DNA Polymerase of Human Acute leukaemic

Cells

by

ROBERT C. GALLO.


Section on Cellular Control Mechanisms,

Human Tumor Cell Biology Branch,

National Cancer Institute.


National Institutes of Health,

Bethesda, Maryland 20014

STRINGNER S. YANG

ROBERT C. TING

Bionetics Research Laboratories,

Bethesda, Maryland 20014

An RNA dependent DNA polymerase analogous to that of RNA

tumour viruses has been found in lymphoblasts of leukaemic

patients but not of normal donors. The enzyme can use an RNA

template from mammalian cells to synthesize DNA.


RECENT reports by Temin and Baltimore that an RNA

dependent DNA polymerase activity is present in oncogenic

ANA viruses, now confirmed and extended in other laboratories

provide a mechanism by which an RNA virus may insert stable

genetic information into a host cell genome.


The aetiology of human acute leukaemia is not known, but a role

for RNA oncogenic viruses in human neoplasia has been

proposed for several reasons. Although RNA virus particles have

not been clearly accociated with human leukaemia, we have

examined human leukaemic cells for the presence of an RNA

dependent DNA polymerase because: (1) it is possible that RNA

Virus particles are regularly present in human leukaemic cells but

cannot be detected by ordinary means. The presence of a unique

enzyme might be a more sensitive index. (2) The virus particles

may never be formed but the viral genome would be integrated

and undetected, yet functional in the host cell. The enzyme could

be required for subsequent formation of additional viral DNA

used in infection of other host cells. (3) Information flow from

RNA to DNA raises interesting questions regarding gene

amplification during biochemical cytodifferentiation. This

mechanism could have considerable implications for

cell growth and differentiation, and because human leukaemia

has been considered a disorder of celll differentiatio, it may also

have implications for leukaemogenesis"'.


Choice and Preparation of Cells

Several considerations influenced our choice of cells. First, acute

leukaemia was selected rather than the chronic form because the

characteristics of the former cell type are more malignant and

less often contaminated with other types of leucocytes. In

leukaemia of an acute "blastic" type, a population of almost 100

per cent blasts can be obtined directly from a patient. Second, the

lymphoblastic type was chosen rather than the myeloblastic

(granulocytic type) because the latter are more likely to be

accociated with other more differentiated cells of the myeloid

(granulocytic) series. These cells contain abundant lysosomes

with high nuclease activities, making any RNA analysis or

polymerase assay extremely difficult. Third, proliferative

lymphoblasts can also be obtained from normal human

volunteers. This is achieved by transformation of normal

peripheral blood lymphocytes to lymphoblast with a mitogenic

agent. Fourth, the polymerase activities of tumour cells are

generally higher than those of normal adult organs. A much

greater content of various polymerases would be more likely to

lead to a spurious interpretation of a unique polymerase in such

cell types. For this reason, we would expect a better controlled

comparison between normal and nooplastic cells of comparable

DNA and RNA polymerase activities.


The simple use of peripheral blood leucocytes, which consist

primarily of fully mature non-proliferating granulocylcs and

lymphocylcs, cannot be considered as controls for leukaemic

blast cells, particularly in view of the fact that these cells have

minimal or no detectable DNA dependent DNA polemerase

activity. On the other hand, after 72 h of stimulation of normal

hunan lymphocytes with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA), DNA

synthesis is maximal. In addition, Loeb 'et al' have reported a 30

to 100-fold induction of DNA polymerase at this time, so that

activities reach levels comparable with neoplastic cells, and

Hausen 'et al' have reported an induction of RNA polymerase in

lymphocytes stimulated with PHA. We have confirmed both

these finding (unpublished results). Fifth, human cells obtained

directly from peripheral blood instead of human tissue culture

cell lines were chosen for these initial investigations because they

obviously are a more true reflexion of the disease. Furthennore,

there is much less chance of contamination with microorganisms

or of developing mutations not relevant to leukaemogenesis.


The leukaemic cells utilized in this study, therefore were

peripheral blood lymphoblasts obtained from three patients with

acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). In each, the number of

lymphoblasts was more than 100,000/mm of blood. Two patients

were untreated and the third received hydroxyurea for one day.


Normal lymphocyctes were obtained from the peripheral blood

lymphocytes of forty-eight normal donors.


Tho lymphocytes were separated from other blood cells, as

previously described, except that an additional nylon column

chromatographic step was carried out to obtain more pure cell

populations (more than 98 per cent lymphocytes). These cells

were incubated with the mitogenic agent and harvested after 72 h

as previously described. In our conditions, at 72 h the number of

cells transformed to lymphoblasts and the rate of DXA synthesis

are maximum. After terminating the incubation, the cells were

extensively washed with 0.15 NaC1 and used for polymerase

assays.


RNA dependent DNA Polymerase Activity

Nueleic acid from preparations were made by gentle manual

homogenization (Ten.Broeck) of purified lymphoblast pellets in

3 volumes of 25 mM Tris-sulphate buffer, pH 8.3; 1mM MgSo; 6

mM NaCl; 4 mM dithiothrecitol; and 0.1 mM EDTA. The

samples were centrifuged at 15,000 r.p.m., and the supernatants

and pellets seperated. The pellets of membranes and nuclei were

washed with the same buffer with gentle homogenization. After

centrifugation the wash (second supernatants) was combined with

the forst supernatants and the nuclei-membrane pellets removed.


Nucleic acids were removed from the supernatant fractions by

successive precipitations with MnCl2 and...


[One of dozens of publications authored by Robert C. Gallo and

colleagues affiliated with Bionetics Research Laboratories,

Bionetics, or Litton Bionetics. These subsidiaries of Litton

Industries, Inc. were listed among most frequently contracted

companies involved in biological weapons research and

development during the 1960s and 1970s. [20,21] Source: Gallo

RC, Yang SS and Ting RC. RNA Dependent DNA Polymerase

of Human Acute Leukaemic Cells. Nature 1970; 228:927.]


- - - - -

Fig 6.7 - Major United States Army Biological Weapons

Contractors for Fiscal year 1969:

Mr. Mahon. List for the record the major contractors and the

sums allocated to them in this program in fiscal year 1969.


(The information follows:)

The following list contains the major contractors and amounts of

each contract.


Contractor

Fiscal year 1969

Miami, University of Coral Gables Fla

$645,000

Herner and Co., Bethesda. Md

$518,000

Missouri, University of, Columbia, Mo

$250,000

Chicago, University, of Chicago, Ill

$216,000

Aerojet-General Corp,. Sacramento, Calif

$210,000

Bionetics Research Laboratories, Inc., Falls Church, Va

$180,000

West Virginia Univercity. Morgantown, W. Va

$177,000

Maryland. University of, College Park. Md

$170,000

Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich

$158,000

Hazelton Laboritories, Inc., Falls Church, Reston. Va

$145,000

New York University Medical Center, New York, NY

$142,000

Midwest Research Institute. Kansas Clty, MO

$134.000

Stanford University, Palo Alto, Califf

$125,000

Stanford Research Institute, Menio Park, Califf

$124,000

Pfizer and Co., Inc., New York, NY

$120.000

Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., Milwaukee, Wis

$117,000

Computer Usahe Development Corp., Washington, D.C.

$110,000

New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, Mass

$104,000

Source: Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970:

Hearings Before A Subcommittee of the Committee on

Appropriations House of Representatives, Ninety-first Congress,

First Session, H.B. 15090, Part 5, Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation of Biological Weapons, Dept. of the Army. U.S.


Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1969, p689.


- - - - -

Fig 6.8 - The Early Research of Cr. Robert Gallo at the National

Cancer Institute and it's Implications in relation to the Theory of

synthetic HIV Development:

PENDING

- - - - -

‐NOTES‐

[1] Germain RN. Antigen processing and CD4+ T cell depletion

in AIDS. Cell 1988; 54:441-414. [2] Herrera F. Adamson RH and Gallo RC. Uptake of transfer

ribonucleic acid by nonnal and leukemic cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci

1970;67;4: 1943-1950. This paper was presented before the

"International Symposium on Uptake of Informative Molecules

by Living Cells, Mol, Belgium, 1970," the year in which $10

million in funds were appropriated by the Department of Defense

for the development of AIDS-like viruses. [3] Gallo RC, Perry S and Breitman RT. The enzymatic

mechanisms for deoxythymidine synthesis in human leukocytes.


Journal of Biological Chemistry 1967;242;21:5059-5068. [4] Gallo RC and Perry S. Enzymatic abnormality in human

leukaemia. Nature 1968;218:465-466. [5] Gallo RC and Breitman TR. The enzymatic mechanisms for

deoxythymidine synthesis in human leukocytes: Inhibition of

deoxythymidine phosphorylase by purines. Journal of Biological

Chemistry

1968;243;19:4943-4951. [6] Gallo RC, Yang SS and Ting RC. RNA dependent DNA

Polymerase of human acute leukaemic cells. Nature

1970;228:927-929. [7] Gallo RC and Longmore JL. Asparaginyl-tRNA and

resistance of murine leukaemias to L-asparaginase. Nature

1970;227:1134-1136. [8] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Comminee on Appropriations

House of Representatives. Ninety-first Contress. First Session.


H.B. 15090. Part 5. Research. Development. Test and Evaluation.


Dept. of the Army. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1969. [9] Gallaher RE, Ting RC and Gallo RC. A common change

aspartyl-tRNA in polyoma and SV transformed cells. Biochimica

Et Biophysica Acta 1972;272:568-582. [10] Gallo RC, Sarin PS, Allen PT, Newton WA Priori ES,

Bowen JM and Dmochowski L. Reverse transcriptase in type C

virus particles of human origin. Nature New Biology 1971 ;232:

140-142; see also Gallo RC. Transfer RNA and transfer RNA

methylation in growing and "resting" adult and embyonic tissues

and in various oncogenic systems. Cancer Research 1971

;31:621-29. [11] Fujioka S and Gallo RC. Aminoacyl transfer RNA profiles

in human myeloma cells. Blood 1971;38;2:246-252. [12] Smith RG and Gallo RC. DNA-dependent DNA

polymerases I and II from normal human-blood lymphocytes.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1972;69;

10:2879-2884. [13] Bobrow SN, Smith RG, Reitz MS and Gallo RC. Stimulated

normal human lymphocytes contain a ribonuclease-sensitive

DNA polymerase distinct from viral RNA-directed DNA

polymerase. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences

1972;69; 11 :3228-3232. [14] Robert MS, Smith RG, Gallo RC, Sarin PS and Abrell JW.


Viral and cellular DNA polymerase: Comparison of activities

with synthetic and natural RNA templates. Science 1972;

176:798-800. [15] Gallo RC, Abrell JW, Robert MS, Yang SS and Smith RG.


Reverse transcriptase from Mason-Pfizer monkey tumor virus,

avian myeloblastosis virus, and Rauscher leukemia virus and its

response

to rifamycin derivatives. Journal of the National Cancer Institute

1972;48;4:1185-1189. [16] NCI staff. The Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress

Report #8. Office of the Associate Scientific Director for Viral

Oncology (OASDVO). J. B. Moloney, Ed., Washington, DC.:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, p. 22. [17] Wu AM, Ting RC, Paran M and Gallo RC. Cordycepin

inhibits induction of murine leukovirus production by 5-iodo-2'-

deoxyuridine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

1972;69;12:3820-3824. [18] Gillespie D, Gillespie S, Gallo RC, East J and Dmochowski

L. Genetic origin of RD114 and other RNA tumor viruses

assayed by molecular hybridization. Nature New Biology

1973;224:52-54. [19] Gallo RC, Miller NR, Saxinger WC and Gillespie D.


Primate RNA Tumor Virus-Like DNA Synthesized

Endogenously by RNA-Dependent DNA Polymerase in Virus-

like Particles from Fresh

Human Acute Leukemic Blood Cells. Proceedings National

Academy of Sciences 1973;70; 11 :3219-3224. [20] Department of Defense Appropriations For 1970: Hearings

Before A Subcommittee of the Comminee on Appropriations

House of Representatives, Ninety-first Contress. First Session.


H.B. 15090, Part 5. Research. Development. Test and Evaluation.


Dept. of the Army. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 689. [21] Comminee on Human Resources. United States Senate.


Hearings before the Subcomminee on Health and Scientific

Research. Biological Testing Involving Human Subjects by the

Department of

Defense. 1977: Examination of Serious Deficiencies in the

Defense Departments Efforts to Protect the Human Subjects of

Drug Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, May 8 and May 23, 1977, pp. 80-100.


Chapter 7

An Interview with Dr. Robert Strecker

THE next morning, I tried contacting Strecker again. First I

dialed what I thought was his published telephone number.


Again, it rang continuously unanswered. Then I called the

number directory assistance had given me for Dr. William

Campbell Douglass, a physician from Clayton, Georgia, who had

published an article entitled "WHO Murdered Africa," which

supported Strecker's theory. As in past attempts, a machine

instructed me to leave a message.


"Is there anyone there!? This is about the sixth time I've called.


I've been trying to reach you for months. I'm trying to reach Dr.


William Douglass. I need to get in touch with Dr. Robert

Strecker. My name is Dr. Len Horowitz, and this is an

emergency. If anyone can answer, would you please return my

call?" I then left my 800 number and hung up.'

Two days later I received a call from a Mr. William Douglass. I

was delighted. He immediately informed me, however, that he

was not the person I sought.


"I've been getting a couple of calls a month for Dr. Strecker, so I

finally decided to get his number. If you like, I can give it to

you."

"Please. I would really appreciate it."

Finally! I thought as I quickly dialed the magic numbers, feeling

the end of my frustration might be near.


"Hello, this is Dr. Strecker's office," a woman's kindly voice

answered.


Following a lengthy introduction, the woman informed me that

Dr. Strecker was indeed alive, well, and practicing internal

medicine in Needles, California. He was busy seeing patients, I

was told, but I was assured he would return my call that evening.


"All right!" I affirmed as I hung up the phone. Then I quickly

relayed the good news to Jackie.


The infonnation on Strecker's whereabouts immediately helped to

ease her concerns.


On the Line

That night, Robert Strecker returned my call with news about his

ongoing crusade to bring the "truth to light." We spoke at length

about our independent investigations, immediately developing

the warm rapport that two black sheep isolated from the

establishment's scientific flock might.


Pondering safety, I asked, "Has anyone from the government

ever bothered you over all these years?"

"Not really," he replied. "Since the suspicious deaths of my

brother and Representative Huff, [1] I've just gone about my

business. There was one incident though that occurred shortly

after I sent reports of my findings to all the health and

intelligence agencies."

"What happened?"

"Well, first, the CIA warned all agencies that I was a communist

and told them not to take anything I said seriously. My brother

Ted obtained a copy of the release they sent out through the

Freedom of Information Act. Their counterintelligence efforts

apparently worked."

"Do you still have a copy of the release?"

"I wish I did," Strecker replied. "It disappeared along with a lot

of other records Ted and I had collected. Shortly after Ted's

death, my office was burglarized."

"Interesting," I said. "Who do you think did it?"

"I believe it was the CIA, but I obviously can't prove it."

Following an illuminating conversation, Robert - as he preferred

to be called - and I agreed to mail each other copies of our

previous publications. He would send me a copy of 'The Strecker

Memorandum,' which I still had not viewed, and I would send

him 'Deadly Innocence,' which he had not heard about.


Then we also agreed to exchange interviews. I set up a time to be

a guest on "He Said/She Said," a radio program Strecker co-

hosted with Betsy Prior on KGER-AM, Los Angeles, and he

agreed to be interviewed for this book.


The Strecker Interview

Several weeks went by before we could coordinate our schedules

for my telephone interview with Strecker. By this time, I had

watched 'The Strecker Memorandum,' and considered, as Acer

had, Strecker's position that AIDS had been "predicted,

requested, created, and deployed."

Strecker, I now knew, was a stocky, earnest-looking man in his

late 40s or early 50s. His dark blond hair glistened as he spoke.


His wire-rimmed glasses and slightly graying temples portrayed a

more mature, intelligent, demeanor than what his boyish face

disguised. He spoke quickly and easily, accompanied by an

unmistakable Midwestern drawl. He appeared to me to be a once

all American, football hero type, whose athleticism and idealism

was quickly dashed by the nature of medical education and

academic politics.


I began the interview by reading from a list of questions I had

prepared for Robert to answer:

LEN: Robert, first off, what convinced you that the AIDS virus

was synthetically manufactured?

ROBERT: What convinced us [The Strecker Group] was the fact

that this new agent had suddenly appeared out of nowhere. That

the virus had characteristics of animal viruses more so than

human viruses, and that the genetic structure of the AIDS virus

actually looked like the viruses that appeared in animals that

would not normally adapt themselves in humans. . . .

That could have occurred spontaneously, but not by the process

that scientists have normally talked about. For instance, not by

the virus running in primates [the highest order of mammals,

including man, monkeys, and lemurs] because if you look at the

genetic structure of the AIDS virus, what you find is that the

codon choices [the specific sequence of three (purine and

pyrimidine) bases in the viral RNA that codes for the production

of a specific amino acid by the infected cell] included in the

AIDS virus are not existent in primate genes.


Therefore, to assume that they simply mutated in order to adapt

themselves into primates in the case of AIDS is vanishingly small

although still possible. What happened is that the virus either

mutated in cattle and sheep, and then was artificially adapted to

humans by growing in human tissue cultures, which they [virologists] do and in which they are easily manipulated in that

manner - or the virus was actually constructed in a laboratory by

gene manipulation, which was available to scientists in the early

'70s although many of the techniques were not talked about until

the mid '70s, because the biowarfare laboratories throughout the

world have always been about five to ten years ahead of other

laboratories working on all kinds of projects.


In addition, a clearer reason is, if you look at the appearance of

the 'human retroviruses,' the fact is that there were a host of these

things that appeared all at the same time. So, you have to explain

not only the appearance of HIV-I, but also HIV-II, HTLV-I,

NTLV-II, HTLV-IV, HTLV-V, HTLV-VI, ad nauseam.


And so, to say that these things all spontaneously mutated at the

same time in nature, and in the same direction, to infect human

beings spontaneously and spread disease in worldwide epidemic

proportions, in my opinion, is absurd compared to the known fact

that scientists were working with exact progenitors of these

viruses in their laboratories, which we can document.


The Green Monkey Theory

LEN: But what about the green monkey theory - the theory that a

green monkey bit an African or someone had sex with an ape?

ROBERT: That's just nonsense. . . . Green monkeys are about the

size of chickens. So the idea of a human having sex with a female

monkey the size of a chicken is, of course, absurd.


In addition, the theory that a transmission occurred through

biting, of course, is always said to be close to impossible. If you

look at the CDC and everybody else, they say that biting is not an

easy way to spread these diseases except in the case of the

purported green monkey which is suddenly the way it was

spread. [2]


We don't believe that the viruses came from primates or from

green monkeys. In addition, if you look at the whole theory that

was published in Rolling Stone. . . which accused Wistar Institute

of spreading AIDS to Africa in the polio vaccines of the early

1960s; Wistar, of course, says that they have now reviewed all

their stocks [without finding any incriminating evidence for the

allegation]. . . . Wistar Institute is one of the world's biological

leaders in 'retrovirus, virus, and cancer causation, cancer

research,' [and is] located in Philadelphia. [3]


And these viruses were originally known by their Philadelphia

names. They were called 'NBC' for New Bolton Center, which is

also in Philadelphia. And if you look up the original AIDS virus,

in our opinion, that goes back to cattle viruses that were called

NBC, New Bolton Center I through about XIV or XVI. [4]


And we identified HLTV-I and HLTV-II and HLTV-III in those

first cultures that were adapted to human beings by growing them

in human tissue culture. . . . For many years actually, you could

simply call up New Bolton and say, "Give me some NBC-XIII."

And they would send it to you. And then when AIDS appeared

around 1978 or so, all of a sudden the NBC line all disappeared.


You could no longer order them.


LEN: How interesting.

The Cow Theory

ROBERT: Yeah. It is interesting. And so we tracked NBC, I think

it's [NBC-] XIII . . . back to Louisiana State Agriculture Farm

(LSAF) cow BFC-44. And what happens was you see, they were

looking a lot at HLTV-I, which is like bovine leukemia virus

(BLV), [5] and this cow at the LSAF got they thought a BLV

infection. She got huge lymph nodes in the neck just like

HLTVV-I/BLV in cattle. And then she apparently conquered it

because the lymph nodes went down; she got better after a

mononucleosis-like disease, and she made lots and lots and lots

of antibodies against this virus.


Then about five or six years later, she started losing weight

rapidly, developed diarrhea, and died with pneumonia. And they

autopsied her and of course she had no immune system left.


And as far as we can tell, that was the original bovine visna virus

isolate.


LEN: What year was that?

ROBERT: 1969. And that virus was capable of wiping out T-cells

selectively, it produced syncytium [a mass of cell fluids

containing many cell nuclei formed by the joining of originally

separate cells as a result of infection or disease] [6] in tissue

culture, and it does everything that AIDS does.


LEN: Now, who was studying that?

ROBERT: That was isolated from the LSAF outside of New

Orleans.


LEN: So Gallo wasn't the only one studying that virus?

ROBERT: No, everybody was. These [cultures] were [widely

distributed]. If you go back and look at the veterinary literature,

they were looking at all the BLV, bovine leukemia virus lines,

bovine syncytium viruses, and bovine visna viruses. And all these

things were being studied. . . .


Well, at this point, they were still essentially noninvasive because

they were restricted to animals. But, then what happened was in

the late '60s and early '70s they started growing these in human

tissue. Early Researchers

LEN: Now when you say 'they,' can you be more specific in

terms of the labs that you're familiar with that were doing this

work?

ROBERT: Yeah, well virtually every lab in the world that was

doing sophisticated lymphocyte studies. But particularly Gallo

and company at the NIH, ahh . . . ahh . . . actually there were only

a few guys you know - Gallo, Montagnier, a couple of guys that

are dead, Baltimore, [7] Teman, [8] and a few others and a few

veterinarians. . . . Dmochowski was interesting because he was

the first one to show that you could basically adapt retroviruses to

different mammalian species by growing them in the tissue

cultures that you wanted them to go to. Now he's down in Texas. [9]


Miller, in 1969, took bovine leukemia virus and injected it into

chimpanzees, and the chimpanzees formed antibodies against the

virus. [10] So they concluded that these chimpanzees were

immune. And so that was the decision for telling everybody that

bovine viruses in human beings posed no threat; which is

relatively true, there is a species barrier.


Since the 1950s and even the 1940s Bumy, [11] Bobrow, [12]


and all these guys from Europe said these [bovine] viruses posed

a threat to humans, so they began a whole program of mass

extermination of cattle in Europe that carried BLV and other

viruses. [13]


In this country, half of our herds are infected with BLV, BFC, or

BVV, and the only thing that has prevented, in my opinion,

everyone from dying of T-cell leukemia is the fact that

pasteurization of the milk kills viruses.


Now if you look at the distribution of T-cell leukemia across the

upper United States, from like Minnesota to Wisconsin, there's a

huge incidence of T-cell leukemia in dairy farmers. And if you

actually look at some of the studies done in France, they found

that guys working in meat-packing plants had a greater incidence

of T-cell leukemia too. [13]


So there's all this evidence that T-cell leukemia is related to BLV,

which it certainly is, [and] for sure, if you culture the virus in

human tissue and adapt it, what you get [is an HTLV-I-Iike virus

that thrives in humans]. . . .


If you look at BVV, bovine visna virus, [13] . . . it's very closely

related [to HIV], but it's still not there; it's not the same as AIDS

because what you have is bovine visna virus - a virus growing in

cattle - and that's not adapted to humans yet. To adapt it to

humans, you've got to grow it in human tissue, as they were

doing in those early '70s. And what they discovered was that it

was a selective T-cell destroyer [just as the AIDS virus is].


French/American ʺBullʺ

ROBERT: Do you know what the true conflict [was] that

occurred between Gallo and Montagnier?

LEN: The one that I'm aware of was that Montagnier allegedly

gave him what he thought was the virus, and Gallo supposedly

cloned it.


ROBERT: That was all bull. . . . Because they both had the

viruses growing in their labs in the early 1970s.


The real problem was, and what happens is - suppose you take a

culture of lymphocytes, you take T-cell lymphocytes and you

dump in HTLV-I or II. What happens to the T-lymphocyte

culture?

LEN: It gets infected, and it proliferates.


ROBERT: That's exactly what happens. The tissue grows and

grows and grows in human beings. That's what results in

leukemia. You have to take the cells out; they get so packed that

the tissue culture dies.


Now what happens when you dump bovine visna or AIDS virus

into the same tissue cultures?

LEN: The cells don't grow.


ROBERT: Exactly! They're lysed. They die. So when you come

back in a day or two and look, there's nothing left except debris.


And so Gallo couldn't figure out how to make enough virus for

the antibody tests. They needed virus in quantities to get

everything going. And they couldn't get them to reproduce long

enough to get large quantities of virus.


[I felt the urge to interrupt Strecker at this point since I had

questioned this same allegation before when Randy Shilts

advanced it in 'The Band.' Instead, I remained silent, heeding my

father's recommendation that I could, "learn more from listening

than speaking."]


ROBERT: So that's the real argument. And what Montagnier

figured out was if you dump in Epstein-Barr virus on to the T-

lymphocytes, you immortalize them. . . . They will just sit there

and make virus for you, which is why if you have an Epstein-

Barr virus infection on top of an AIDS virus infection you're in

sorry, sorry shape. . . . The immortalized Epstein-Barr-virus-

infected T-cells will just churn out AIDS viruses day after day

after day. . . . And so that was the real thing that Montagnier

discovered. . . . [14]


LEN: And that's not published anywhere?

ROBERT: Oh sure it's published. But it's the true argument versus

the suspicious argument that, "You stole my virus." That's all a

lot of bull because they both had the virus, and they both knew

what they were doing from day one in my opinion.


[If that was true, I considered, then Gallo would have also known

about the Epstein-Barr virus effects, which I recalled he also

published. [14] So I questioned Strecker:]


LEN: Now when I look back at the research literature, at least in

the Index Medicus, Montagnier did not have too many

publications in this field [in the early 1970s], whereas Gallo had

been churning out the publications.


ROBERT: Except that Montagnier had worked with Gallo! [15]


LEN: They did?

ROBERT: Yeah, they were in the same [building] or on the same

hallway.


LEN: At the NCI?

ROBERT: Yes! . . . Montagnier was over here. . . around 1965 or

so; he and Gallo were working together. . . . They're all

connected.


LEN: Interesting.


[I had not considered the possibility that Gallo and Montagnier

had known about each other's work prior to 1978 as Shilts

documented.]


ROBERT: And then when. . . Donald Francis and what's his

name? When they published that cat house experiment, and

questioned, "Is it possible that there's a human retrovirus similar

to this one." Of course [there was]! Gallo had already isolated

HTLV-III. . . . And his office was only twenty-five feet away.


[I sat up on the edge of my seat taken by the allegation. 'The

Band' presented Francis as somewhat of a hero during his alleged

conflict with Gallo and other NCI administrators over

withholding support for AIDS research. I suspected he knew

about Gallo's early research, and Strecker was now alleging the

same.]


LEN: You mean Don Francis from the CDC? Francis was

originally at the NCI before he went to the CDC?

ROBERT: Yes. . . . He was working there right next to Gallo.


And that's when they did their famous cat house experiments

showing that the cats were transferring the viruses back and forth

amongst themselves. And then they wrote this article that said, "It

is possible. . ." [16]


I mean, they knew or else they didn't talk for the whole time.


They knew that there was a similar virus out there growing in

human beings. . . . Gallo had already isolated it, and their labs

were twenty-five feet apart.


LEN: Now what I seem to have dug up in the 'WHO Chronicle,'

is that the first American laboratory to be sent any of the viral

strains from which they began was the NCI [17]


ROBERT: Yeah. Well, I think that's a lie. I mean, I think the

viruses were growing in the basement of the NCI all along. . . .


Do you know about the meeting between Gallo, Montagnier, and

Salk?

LEN: No.


ROBERT: Oh my God! Anyway, a year or two ago, and this is

documented in 'Science' or somewhere, Gallo, Montagnier, and

Salk met in San Diego to write up the history - the official history

- of their discoveries. [18]


LEN: Salk? The polio virus Salk?

ROBERT: Yeah, they met down there and made up a story. . . .


And I personally believe that virtually everything they wrote was

bull. . . . We [referring again to his brother and other colleagues

in The Strecker Group] understood that they used to meet like

two or three times a week and decide what to tell next - how to

package it, how to discuss it. In other words, they already knew

everything because they'd been working on it since the early

1970s. They basically knew they had the same stuff [retroviruses

and reagents] because if you look at what happened, their

discoveries were too quick. . . .


LEN: OK. Explain this now. Why did Gallo in 1980 become so

frustrated that he couldn't keep the [T-lymph] cells alive, so

allegedly he quit.


ROBERT: What?

LEN: According to Shilts, Gallo dropped out of the AIDS race

for about two years.


ROBERT: I don't believe that either. I don't know what he was

doing in that time frame, but he was still working on AIDS;

there's no doubt about that.


LEN: According to Shilts, Gallo had only about 10 percent of his

lab going on the AIDS problem. He said that Gallo stonewalled

researchers throughout the world [by] not providing the

antibodies, not providing the cell lines that were required to

identify and cultivate the virus.


ROBERT: Yeah. . . . Why would they want to give things away

when they knew what was going on already, and it was a matter

of Gallo and Montagnier deciding who was going to tell what

when. . . . Do you know the story about the patent? [19]


LEN: Gallo ripped Montagnier off.


ROBERT: Yeah. That's what brought the split. You see we [the

United States] tried to take all the money.


LEN: Well, that's what they've done.


ROBERT: Yes. Yes. Yes. So that's what got the French so angry.


And what was Montagnier going to do? Come out and say,

"Well, we lied. We've been doing this work all along. We're all

crooks."

So that's, in my opinion, what happened. Anybody with any

scientific credibility knew that Gallo stole the virus if that's what

they were talking about because they [HLTV-III and LAV] were

identical. . . . But I think that the big war was really a war over

money.


LEN: Oh, for sure.


ROBERT: Yeah. Anybody with any sense knew; I mean

retrovirologists laugh about it because they knew that Gallo stole

it. It was only the press that was blind.


LEN: But how do YOU reconcile the first comment that they all

had these things and then later that he [Gallo] cloned it [Montagnier's LAV]?

ROBERT: They had them, and you can grow the virus in

perpetuity if you keep constantly changing their cell line as it

kills it. That doesn't mean you can grow it in any quantity. In

other words, every lab in the world - and these were all over the

world, they weren't just here and in France; they were in

Germany and Russia and everywhere - [and] a lot of people had

the [human] cell lines, and they had the cattle cell lines [in the

early 1970s]. . . . And we know they had, in 1976, BVV, bovine

visna virus, growing in brain tissue in Brussels because we have

papers on that. One paper said that the AIDS[-like] virus would

infect [human] brain tissue. And the guy even wrote, "Is it

possible that this is a cause of slow virus disease of man?" [20]


So, I mean, they were everywhere.


The ʺConspiracy of Cellsʺ

ROBERT: Plus, they were growing in cattle naturally, and we

were using fetal calf serum as growth medium for every cell

culture in the world. . . . The theory was that since these were

extracted from fetuses, they were sterile, but in fact, they weren't.


Because the AIDS virus and BLV-I and II were being transferred

in the gene lines. And so they were potentially transferring these

viruses into every tissue culture throughout the world. . . .


So it gets very mixed up. You've got to read a book called

'Conspiracy of Cells,' by Michael Gold. [21] This is a story about

Walter Nelson Reese who worked in the highest containment

laboratory in the NIH - the BSL 4 lab. That's where they keep

their tissue cultures, and they had like 300 to 400 of them. And in

1981, Walter Nelson Reese published a paper [in 'Science']


saying that over a third of them were Henrietta-Lack-cell-

contaminated cell lines.


Henrietta Lack was a black lady who worked at Hopkins in the

late 1950s. She died around 1965 or so while she was still

working there. . . [from] a tumor of the uterus that literally ate her

alive. And that tissue was the first human tissue that was grown

in perpetuity in tissue cultures. Because up till then, they would

only grow one or two divisions and then die, and her tissue called

HELA - that's where HELA comes from, Henrietta Lack - was

the first [cancer cells] that would grow in tissue cultures.


Now those cell lines were sent all over the world, and what

happened was that scientists were contaminating their tissue

culture cells with HELA accidentally. And in the early 1970s, I

think '72 under Nixon, the Russians sent us six cell lines that they

thought contained human cancer-causing viruses. And those were

sent to Walter Nelson Reese who was the keeper of the cell lines

in the United States. He was in San Francisco, and it was his job

to keep the cell lines straight and not contaminate them. That was [during] the great "war on cancer," that's where all this stuff came

from. The NIH was funded in '72 with billions of dollars to find

the cancer virus. . . . Nixon was trying to steal the show from [Teddy] Kennedy by coming up with a virus and vaccine against

cancer. They said, "Let's find a virus." So that's where the big

cancer virus hypothesis came from.


Now when we got these six cell lines from the Russians. . . Reese

started looking at them and discovered that they were all female;

then he discovered that they were all black. And so he

questioned, 'How many black females are there in Moscow who

have cancer?' And, of course, what he discovered was that these

were all Henrietta Lack cell contaminants that contained monkey

viruses. And so all that stuff the Russians sent us was in fact a

fraud. But. . . it was a very embarrassing thing because they

thought they had got there first, and what we proved was that

they were awful scientists.


So then what Walter Nelson Reese did is that he started looking

at all the cell lines of the United States, and closely. And [then

he] discovered that at the NIH, over a third of them were HELA

contaminated.


What happened was that when they would open their tissue

culture lids, they would aerosolize small particles into the air.


They would float around and drop into another cell line, and

HELA's so aggressive that it will literally take over. And so it

just takes one cell to drop into another cell line and it takes over,

and it amalgamates, and those were called HELA contaminated.


And so what the NIH did to him [Dr. Reese] was, of course, de-

funded him and put him out of business. Because he proved they

were all a bunch of idiots.


LEN: Oh - I see.


ROBERT: So then the problem was you had a whole bunch of

HELA-contaminated cell lines floating around and being sent out

as clean cell lines and they weren't; they were actually human

cancer malignant cell lines, and some of them contained viruses

that were from other species.


And so it represented a big problem. Plus, they were throwing in

fetal calf serum which was contaminated with these bovine

viruses.


So you had a mixture for a natural [disaster]. I mean, the thing is,

like they said in the '72 conferences, it's a wonder that we don't

have worse disasters. You just wonder why we haven't been

annihilated by these idiots.


If, for instance, you look at the tissue cell culture that was used to

determine x-ray tolerance of human tissue, it turns out it's a

HELA-contaminated cell line. Which means the most radiation-

resistant cell line in the world is used as the standard to determine

how much radiation a human should be exposed to!

LEN: Unreal.


ROBERT: Well, that's all documented in 'Conspiracy of Cells' by

Michael Gold. . . . Walter Nelson Reese now runs an art gallery.


They put him out of business. . . .


The ʺPatient Zeroʺ Theory

LEN: All right, let's get back. . . to the situation with AIDS. What

about the "patient zero theory?"

ROBERT: That's nonsense. First off, this guy lived in Canada and

flew primarily in Canadian cities, yet you must propose that he

only had sex in American cities because the disease broke out in

specific American cities where he allegedly had sex.


In addition, it doesn't make any sense if you look at the time

frame. AIDS broke out in '78 in Manhattan and then in '80 in San

Francisco. It didn't break out in Montreal in '79, or in Toronto, in

Quebec, or Ontario in '80, whatever. It broke out in select cities

in the United States in a select time frame which corresponds

exactly to the hepatitis B study. [22]


LEN: OK. Let's talk about that study for a minute. If you could

conceive of a way that vaccine could have been contaminated,

how could it have happened?

ROBERT: Two ways. One way accidentally and one way

intentionally.


LEN: All right then, elaborate. . . .


ROBERT: Well the vaccine was prepared from gays first off, and

then it had plasma expanders that came from cattle added to it.


LEN: So the hepatitis B vaccine is produced through the bovine

serum.


ROBERT: Yes. . . . It had expanders put into it as a mechanism

of production.


LEN: Like serum?

ROBERT: Yeah, serum. . . . Because they needed to expand the

volume.


LEN: Now is the vaccine produced in cow carcases?

ROBERT: No, it's made from humans.


LEN: The hepatitis B vaccine [is made] from the gay men's

serum?

ROBERT: And also from straight men's serum.


LEN: OK.


ROBERT: And. . . that's the most interesting thing. Why did they

make two separate

vaccines?

LEN: Yeah. Why?

ROBERT: Because the epitopes [23] [surface molecules] of

hepatitis B [antigens] in gays was different than in straights. . . .


So what does that tell you?

LEN: I'm not quite sure.


ROBERT: Well it tells you there's not a lot of exchange going on

between the two pools. Because if there were, the hepatitis B

would not have separated into two epitopes. So if there was a lot

of exchange, the information would have been heterogeneous in

the pools, not homogeneous and not different [between

homosexual and heterosexual men].


Now suppose you introduce a virus which is transferred like

hepatitis B into the gay pool or population. When will it show up

in the heterosexual pool?

LEN: I don't know. When?

ROBERT: Well it will take it a long time to show up there,

because what you know is that the exchange of information going

on between homosexuals and heterosexuals is limited.


So Szmuness was the guy who conducted that study. [22]


Szmuness came from Poland, and was educated in Moscow. He

somehow managed to escape [from Poland] to the United States

with his family in tow, and ended up in New York City. . . as the

head of the New York City Blood Bank.


[That is interesting, I thought as I reflected on my recent tour of

the National Holocaust Museum in Washington. The Nazis, I

learned, had done extensive blood and genetics research in an

effort to discriminate and exterminate mixed breeds from their

racist and white supremacist world. A Russian-educated Polish

researcher with Szmuness's credentials could have best survived

Nazi-occupied Poland by joining the Nazi's research effort, or

post-Nazi Poland by serving Russia. How did he end up in the

United States? I wondered if there was a link between the Nazi

effort to exterminate homosexuals and Szmuness's study that

targeted gays with allegedly tainted hepatitis B vaccines? The

Gennan-owned Merck Company, after all, funded the study and

produced the experimental and control vaccines] [22]


LEN: So [still somewhat perplexed, I asked,] that's the theory of

unintentional in-

fection?

ROBERT: Well, the fact is that the vaccine could have been

prepared in a way that unintentionally infected them. Yes. [But]


it might have been intentionally contaminated by somebody [also]. . . . They may have been testing gays trying to develop an

immunity against something they knew was already ripping

through Africa. . . . It could be that they were testing it just to test

it, or it could be that somebody intentionally was trying to

extenninate gays, or in our opinion, it could be that their actual

goal was to exterminate the United States.


Strecker's latter remark took me by surprise. It was the first thing

he said which to me made no sense.


LEN: The actual goal was to try to exterminate the United States?

And that's one of your most plausible explanations?

ROBERT: Yes.


LEN: And who would have been behind that?

ROBERT: Some foreign party. The Russians or someone who

didn't like us. Because the Russians have talked about that for

fifty years. There have been KGB biological warfare experts that

have been trying to do that to us for fifty years.


[I felt intuitively uncomfortable with Strecker's explanation. I

recalled his comments about Walter Nelson Reese which proved

the Soviets knew far less about viral biotechnology than

American researchers. Moreover, it seemed farfetched to believe

the Russians had somehow managed to infiltrate the New York

City Blood Center which appeared to be the starting point for the

AIDS epidemic in America. This part of Strecker's theory would

have required Szmuness, or one of his associates, to have been a

secret agent working for Russia.]


LEN: OK, but why would they have started with gays?

ROBERT: For a very obvious reason. And that is because nothing

would be done. Just think about this. Suppose you put this virus

in the heterosexuals or kids. What kind of response would have

occurred compared to the response that did occur?

LEN: Right. That's for sure. Quite different. I appreciate that, but

still, even to this day, the heterosexual spread is limited

compared to the spread in the gay population.


ROBERT: Only in this country.


LEN: Right.


ROBERT: If you look in the world, what percentage of the

world's AIDS cases are heterosexuals?

LEN: Ninety percent.


ROBERT: Over 90 percent. Right. Exactly. . . It's only in this

country that you have this strange, unexplained predominance of

homosexuals. Now, that's why you have to remember what I just

told you. What happens when you put a virus that is transferred

like hepatitis B into the homosexuals? When does it appear in

heterosexuals?

LEN: Not for a long time.


ROBERT: Exactly. . . [That's why] I think it was pure genius.


Now people say, "Well nobody would think of that." And my

answer to that is: "Well, I thought of it. So why couldn't they

think of it?"

LEN: I still like my theory better.


[Problems with the 'communist theory' flooded my head. Strecker

noted the Russians were way behind us in viral research. How

would the Russians have gained access to the viruses in Gallo's

or Merck's labs in the first place. Even if Szmuness had been a

Russian agent, he would have needed to gain access to the

viruses first in order to contaminate the vaccines. Also, had the

Russians created AIDS-like viruses shortly after Gallo surely did,

then why had Gallo become the world's preeminent

retrovirologist and not some Russian? Also the patents are worth

millions. Why would the United States and not Russia hold the

patents on the AIDS virus antibodies and cell lines?]


ROBERT: Yeah. I mean I don't have the answer. I'm just telling

you my theory.


African Vaccine Trials

LEN: OK. So that's the intentional theory.


ROBERT: Yeah. It could've been an experiment. It could've been

intentional to get rid of gays. It could've been intentional to infect

all of us.


LEN: OK.


ROBERT: And you see what happened. In our opinion, IARC, the

International Agency for Research on Cancer, took these viruses

to Africa in the early 1970s and tested them. Because we think

they were trying to get the virus/cancer hypothesis proved; they

wanted to develop a vaccine, and they wanted to find out which

of those [viruses] were actually causing cancer because they

weren't sure. [24]


So how do you prove it. How do you prove Koch's postuiates [25] in the case of virus and cancer?

LEN: Difficult.


ROBERT: Yeah. You've got to test them.


LEN: Right.


ROBERT: It's like saying because you have lung cancer in

women; it's because they wear hose. That doesn't prove anything.


You've got to have causation. So they were stuck.


Now that's what was said in our references. They said, "let's test

it; let's test it in humans with the same degree of sophisticated

experiments that we use in animals." What does that mean?

And then they published their test sites. And the test sites are

exactly where AIDS is. We had these huge laboratories over

there. [24]


LEN: And what year was that?

ROBERT: 1972, I think. . . . It says that epidemiological studies

are of no use per se. So what do you conclude?

LEN: That they're going to have to test it in a population.


ROBERT: Exactly. And then it says we're going to test these

things in sibships - brothers and sisters from the same family.


And they were going to study the time course of the infection.


And then we said, well, what do you mean by that? And they

said, well, we're gonna study the antibody response. And I said,

well you already knew the antibody response. How could there

be any time course to that. The only thing that a time course

could refer to is an infection. Which means you had to have

active particles. That's all in the references, [26] Anyway in 1972

they said, let's make a T-cell destroyer. That's out of the bulletin

of the WHO.


LEN: That I know.


ROBERT: The same year, they said let's test it, and then let's

inject it. And then they published their test sites which is a map

of Africa where they have all their test sites, and that corresponds

exactly to the outbreak of AIDS.


LEN: Do you have those maps anywhere?

ROBERT: They're in the references [we published]. [26] They're

also in the Federal Register. . . .


So we think that they went over there and tested it. . . . Then

somebody put it back into us or simply used it in us.


[Again, I thought, it makes more sense to place the source of the

experimental AIDS viruses in Bethesda and not Russia given that

the WHO had made the NCI, and not a Russian institution, the

initial distributor of viral testing reagents [27-29] And since the

initial homosexual outbreak of AIDS was in New York,

Szmuness and his New York colleagues along with Merck

researchers seemed to be the prime suspects. Then I wondered

whether there were any documented links between Gallo's group

and Szmuness?]


Manufacturing AIDS‐Like Viruses

LEN: OK. Now let's get a little bit more specific about the virus

itself. With regard to the AIDS virus, had it been specifically

manufactured, what might have been the first steps? What do you

think the researchers began with?

ROBERT: I think they began with bovine visna virus, which they

knew was a T-cell destroyer. And they made that by crossing

bovine and visna [viruses] in cattle. . . .


Visna is the virus in sheep. Its characteristic is a destroyer, and

they wanted a T-cell destroyer. So they took a T-cell attacker-the

bovine leukemia virus and crossed it with a visna to make a T-

cell destroyer, which is exactly what they got. But then all they

had was a T-cell destroyer in cattle which wasn't very good for

humans. So then they grew it in human tissue, and when you do

that it adapts to human beings (see fig. 7.1). And there are a host

of ways to get these things to grow in tissue even if the receptors

won't take [the virus]. . . .


LEN: They could have delivered the viral RNA a number of

ways.


ROBERT: Yes. One of the ways is by pseudovirus formation. . ..


Pseudovirus formation is where you put in a simultaneous

mixture of cells and viruses, and what happens is, for instance, if

you put bovine and visna viruses in with herpes virus; in the

packaging process, you'll get BVV genome inside a herpes coat

and visa versa.


So then you separate out all the herpes ones, and it just infects

any cells which are sensitive to herpes. And you can artificially

introduce BVV into a herpes-sensitive cell, because it has BVV

on the inside and herpes on the outside.


LEN: I remember reading through studies about that technique

being used.


ROBERT: Yeah. Another way is you treat 'em with heat, and they

open up. Or you can use some detergents that will open them up,

or there's a host of different things; even some viruses will tend

to open them up. It makes the cells permeable even though they

normally wouldn't be, so you can introduce the one you want to

get in even though there's no real receptor for it.


LEN: OK. So it could've been bovine visna virus, BVV, but also

there was some speculation it could have been scrapie, another

sheep virus, right?

ROBERT: Yeah, well. . . . Scrapie's a little bit different than

visna, but basically I don't think scrapie's a retrovirus. It's like it,

but it's not the culprit.


LEN: During our first conversation, you also mentioned, like

other researchers, you could actually take a look at the AIDS

virus, and it looks like it's been spliced in particular regions.


ROBERT: Oh yes. Actually, looking at it was one of the first

things that told us what it was because BVV and AIDS, of

course, look identical, and there weren't that many 'D-type'

retroviruses. There were only a few.


The 'D-type' are cylindrical-shaped retroviruses which of course

BVV and AIDS are identical. Besides the fact that they were both

magnesium dependent and were T-cell attackers that would

produce syncytium and could wipe out cells.


And then what you do is look at the genome. Actually, a paper by

Gallo published in 'Science' I think about '83, or '86, said he took

the restriction endonucleases [scissor-like enzymes] and treated

the virus, and showed that when the virus falls apart, that where it

falls apart are exactly at the gene lines.


In other words, it manages to fall apart just at the places where

they could have constructed it.


LEN: Is that right? Just where the foreign pieces might have

come together?

ROBERT: Yes, it falls apart in ten or twelve places. . . because

those endonucleases cut at specific points.


But, what's interesting is . . . if it occurred spontaneously [in

nature], why would it fall apart exactly where the genes occurred

- the gag, pol, envelope, the tat genes? [30] Everything sort of

cuts apart just the way you would put it together if you were

constructing it. . . . [This] we thought [was] the strongest piece of

evidence that would have said they actually put it together

entirely in a lab.


LEN: And how might they have done that then? Let's say they

started with BVV.


ROBERT: Well, in this case if you start with BVV, you just

manipulate it to grow it in human tissue to adapt it to humans.


If you started with BLV and visna, you would. . . take the

viruses, cut them up [with enzymes], then chromatograph them

so that they're homologous. That is, the ten different parts [separate], then you take each different part that you want

uniquely and put it together with other parts and zip' em up.


LEN: And how do they 'zip 'em up' or combine them?

ROBERT: They have enzymes that sow them back up just like

they've got ones which cut' em apart. These are repair enzymes.


LEN: Then they separate those particular viruses, and they put

them into cells?

ROBERT: They put them into serum. . . [add] your enzymes and [other] parts and wait for awhile. And then throw [everything] . .


. into a culture and see what happens."

[I was still a bit fuzzy.]


ROBERT: But you see that's work. You don't have to do that.


Nature does it all for you. All you do is take a cow and

simultaneously inject bovine in one hip and visna in the other,

and the cow is your mixer. And it will do it for you

automatically. Because what happens is the viruses are so

unstable that they will recombine and produce every

thermodynamically stable recombinant possible.


LEN: Interesting. It's unbelievable.


ROBERT: Yeah. You see that's why everybody says, "We didn't

make these viruses! We didn't have the techniques."

LEN: That's nonsense.


ROBERT: Right. That's bull too, but, of course, our answer is:

"Well. . . the virus makes itself." So you don't even have to

implicate them for the genetic [engineering] viewpoint, if you

don't want to.


[Strecker then provided a unique, common sense, metaphor for

the emergence of HIV.]


ROBERT: It's like saying you've got a baby with no arms and legs

and somebody dressed it up and took it to a party in Beverly

Hills. Well, it sure couldn't do that and get there by itself!

- - - - -

Fig 7.1 - Theoretic Manufacture of AIDS-Like Viruses From

Bovine leukemia and Shee Visna Viruses:

PENDING

Diagram depicts the theoretic manufacture of AIDS-like viruses

according to Roben Strecker, M.D., Ph.D., beginning with the

bovine leukemia virus and sheep visna virus. Suppon for this

theory was presented by Fort Detrick, NCI researchers Gonda

MA, Braun MJ, Caner SG, Kost TA, Bess Jr JW, Arhur LO, and

VanDer Maaten MJ. Characterization and molecular cloning of a

bovine lentivirus related to human immunodeficiency virus.


Nature 1987;330, 388-391.


- - - - -

Evidence Against Simians

LEN: What about simian monkey viruses? Why do they have

scientists throughout the world claiming HIV is a simian monkey

type of virus?

ROBERT: Because they get money for that. You know. . . . Here.


. . send more money. Let me tell you about the simian AIDS

virus.


First off, how does simian AIDS virus work? It produces a

protein that causes AIDS in simians, and it's very easy to make a

vaccine against a protein. And that's actually a derivative of the

Mason Phizer monkey virus, which is another laboratory

creation. . . another man-made virus made in the lab which was a

simian virus that was being used for various things. It will cause

AIDS in apes, but it doesn't do it [like HIV]; it does it by making

a protein that wipes out their immune system.


LEN: Is it also a specific T-cell destroyer?

ROBERT: No. . . . The virus produces a protein, and the protein

messes up the immune system. And it's very easy to make a

vaccine against a protein. But AIDS works entirely differently. It

wipes out the T-cells and works inside of macrophages. . . . It

inhibits the processing plant. AIDS is really a problem of

macrophages, not of lymphocytes. . . . The virus makes the

macrophage dysfunction.


What really is supposed to happen is that the macrophage is

supposed to chop up the virus and present it to the T4 cell [thymus-derived cells] for the production of delayed immunity,

and then to the B [bone-marrow-derived] cell for antibodies. But

what happens is that the macrophage can't process it.


LEN: OK. So what happens then?

ROBERT: They run around the body and inject it into other cells.


That's how the virus gets into other cells. That's how the virus

gets into cells that don't have receptors for it.


LEN: So the macrophage actually reproduces the virus and then

distributes it?

ROBERT: Yes. That's exactly what happens. That's how it gets

into the brain. It's carried across the blood-brain barrier by

macrophages that then inject it into brain cells.


LEN: Because T4lymphocytes don't cross the barrier?

ROBERT: Yeah, they do, but they don't inject it. . . . They don't

have sex with cells, whereas the macrophages do. And also the

viruses are bigger than the pores of the membranes, so they can't

get across directly. So something has to carry it.

Streckerʹs Colleagues

LEN: Now let's discuss some of your colleagues. Others have

reported similar findings to yours. During our first conversation,

we talked briefly about John Seale. [31] What do you know about

his work?

ROBERT: Seale started writing about AIDS in '81 or so, even

before us, and he was the fIrst guy to say AIDS was not a

venereal disease, and that it appeared to be artificial and

spreading in an unusual manner, which was really just looking at

the fact that the virus appeared in different areas of the world at

the same time.


ROBERT: By the way, do you know the story of Parvo II?

LEN: No.


ROBERT: Parvo-II virus is a dog virus that appeared

simultaneously around the world at the same time and proceeded

to kill hundreds of millions of dogs. How does a virus appear in

Australia, Europe, and Asia all at the same time?"

LEN: American Airlines.


ROBERT: Right. American Airlines.


[We both laughed.]


ROBERT: OK. And then instead of spreading contiguously [from

one dog to another], the viruses were spreading and popped up [in different areas around the world] as if directed mutations had

occurred [and been delivered by humans].


And Parvo II was eventually proven by genetic techniques to be

feline panleukopenic virus which had contaminated dog vaccines. [32]


So Seale was observing the same thing with AIDS. How was this

virus appearing at different spots in the world at the same time in

a sense without any contiguous spread? I mean, even if you look

at the gay [transmission] theory [if AIDS started in Africa, Haiti,

Paris, and then New York], why wasn't there AIDS in Miami, or

New Orleans, or Dallas. I mean those guys were going to Haiti [New York, Africa, and Paris] far more than the gays from San

Francisco. I mean none of this theory makes any sense!

Then Segal began to write the same thing.


LEN: Jacabo Segal, from Humboldt University in Berlin? [33]


ROBERT: Yes. He was at the Institute of Biology in East Berlin.


He was writing the same stuff, but again, he thought that the

virus was constructed from HTLV-I and visna. And that's correct

except he didn't go far enough because really HTLV-I is just

bovine leukemia virus in man.


So both [Seale and Segal] were saying the same sort of stuff, but

neither one could exactly figure out how it was done. And so

that's basically what we figured out, how it occurred. And we

believe it occurred at Fort Detrick. . . . And Segal was probably

supplied information by the KGB.


[This sudden reference to the KGB threw me again. Somehow I

needed to reconcile why Strecker, who believed the Russians

may have brought AIDS to America, also recognized Fort

Detrick as the source of the scourge.]


ROBERT: The Russians wrote in over 400 public places that the

virus was constructed over here. And if you remember our good

surgeon genital went over there and made a deal with them. I

don't know if you know anything about that?

LEN: Which surgeon general was that?

ROBERT: Koop.


LEN: No. I didn't know that.


ROBERT: Yeah. Koop went to Russia - to Moscow - and

basically made a deal with them to stop talking about it and we'd

give them our money.


[That doesn't surprise me, I thought, reflecting on the alleged

apology Gorbachev offered Reagan according to Covert's

'Cutting Edge.'] [34]


LEN: That's what I figured cause something like that is talked

about vaguely in the book that I got from Fort Detrick. By the

way, have you seen that book?

ROBERT: No.


LEN: You've got to get a copy of it. It came out in 1993. It's the

fifty year history of Fort Detrick. It's free. They'll send it to you.


ROBERT: Well they won't send me one.


[Strecker seemed to relish that possibility and his notoriety.]


LEN: Oh they will. It's by a very nice guy. He's the public

relations director for the fort. His name is Norman Covert.


Imagine that?

ROBERT: Norman Covert? [Strecker laughed heartily] Is that a

code name?

LEN: That's his real name. It's perfect, huh?

ROBERT: Well, do you know anything about what's going on

there, the anthrax building?

LEN: Yes. I read about that.


ROBERT: Do you know about the Ebola building?

LEN: Vaguely.


ROBERT: Well they've got another building that's contaminated

now; that they can't get into because of Ebola. You know they've

got a whole bunch of problems. There's a bunch of people in

Frederick [Maryland] that believe everything we talk about.


We've quite a few supporters there, because they've had a lot of

problems with strange illnesses. And so they're not entirely

unsuspicious.


[I shuttered for a moment considering the fact that I was

scheduled to visit Frederick on my way to present an AIDS

education seminar in Western Pennsylvania later in the year.]


LEN: Robert, here's another one - Dr. Manuel Servin of the

National Autonomous University of Mexico said that research

conducted at Columbia by the U.S. Army was starting to point to

the deadly disease in Haiti. He said that an unexplained accident

caused the virus to spread to an employee of Haitian origin, and

this person he believed, brought it back to Haiti. What do you

think of that theory? [35]


ROBERT: No. There were like 47,000 Haitians working in Zaire

at the time of these experiments. . . . So we think they either got it

from the vaccine project or from the gays that were infected.


LEN: OK. So there were tens of thousands of Haitians working

on health and welfare activities in Zaire during the 1970s?

ROBERT: Yes.


LEN: OK. So here's another one. There was a European physician

who told a Russian journalist that he believed he was working for

a DOD subcontractor with orders to mutate simian monkey

viruses to produce fast-killing human viruses. [31] Had you heard

that?

ROBERT: No, but that's entirely possible.


LEN: And this report went on to say that the experiment was

considered a partial failure because they got a slow-acting virus

rather than a fast one. They were allegedly looking for fast acting

killers.


ROBERT: Except that quick viruses are, of course, worthless

because they're too easy to defend against. I mean a very fast-

acting virus is not any good.


LEN: What do you mean?

ROBERT: Frank Fenner talks about all the characteristics. . . .


Ahh. . . . It's out of. . . Cold Springs Harbor, that's the other great

biowarfare palace. It's the Eugenics Institute. . . . Cold Springs is

in upstate New York. . . . That was the place started by Margaret

Thanger and others. Now they're, of course, the big biological

warfare place under the guise of just research.


Anyway, Cold Springs Harbor put out a big thing on MMMV,

that is, the 'maximally monstrous malignant virus,' and then they

gave all the characteristics. And they talked about what it would

take to produce this kind of virus. And, of course, all the

characteristics are exactly those of the AIDS virus except for one

thing, and that is, aerosolized transmission - which we believe is

potentially possible.


[Oh, God forbid, I thought. I hadn't heard that theory before.


Given Strecker's obvious intelligence and formidable knowledge,

his assertion startled me.]


ROBERT: But they produced papers about what makes viruses

malignant and monstrous. And one of the things is that they work

slowly, and not fast. And that they are constantly mutating.


Exactly the characteristics of AIDS.


LEN: Interesting. It's unbelievable.


ROBERT: Yes it is.

Final Recommendations

LEN: Now, the first time we spoke, you mentioned something

about. . . a forthcoming cure for AIDS. How might it work?

ROBERT: Well, it's very simple in theory; complicated in

practice. Basically, just as viruses are little crystals, you might hit

them with electromagnetic frequencies and destroy them. Just as

you can shakedown a crystal and destroy it without disrupting the

surrounding house, you can [theoretically] disrupt viruses

without destroying the surrounding cell structure.


LEN: Are there laboratories working on that?

ROBERT: Not that I know of.


LEN: OK. Now there was something in the news the other day

that the French had allegedly discovered a cure. Have you heard

anything new?

ROBERT: Nah. I haven't heard or seen anything. . . . I can't

believe the word would not be all over everywhere if they thouht [they had a cure] . . . particularly the French.


Now you see also what is Pasteur? The Pasteur Institute is their

biowarfare institute, the same as Porton Down [in England], the

same as Ivanofsky Institute [in Russia], the same as the Tokyo

Institute. These are all the biowarfare centers for these countries;

they're also the great AIDS research centers for these countries.


LEN: Right. It figures.


Now my last question. If you could tell people one thing about

AIDS or your theories, what would it be?

ROBERT: The whole story. Everything. How the virus was made;

that it was man-made, and we think it represents a threat to the

human species.


LEN: And if there's some positive thing that people can do you

might recommend, what would it be?

ROBERT: Other than no IV drugs, reduce their [sexual]


promiscuity, and no blood products, start by questioning some of

the things that they hear which may or may not be true.


‐NOTES‐

[1] According to The Strecker Group, Dr. Strecker's brother, Ted

Strecker, was found shot to death alone in his home in

Springfield, Missouri, an apparent suicide, on August 11, 1988.


In the past he suffered from depression and monumental

frustration at the relative lack of interest in his findings. Ted had

been working with Robert to uncover evidence linking the DOD

to the development of HIV. Ted is credited, along with Black

military officer, Zears Miles, for having discovered and

distributed fig. 1.1. However, Robert spoke with Ted the night

before his death. He seemed cheerful - "in good spirits," - looking

forward to new developments that promised progress. The

following day he was found dead. His 22-caliber rifle lay next to

him. He left no note, no message, and he said no goodbyes. This

was very untypical of him. Officially the death was ruled a

suicide. "Next," according to The Strecker Group, "Illinois State

Representative Douglas Huff of Chicago was found alone in his

home, dead from an apparent overdose of cocaine and heroin, on

September 22, 1988. Representative Huff did everything in his

power to make the Illinois State Legislature and the people of

Chicago aware of Dr. Strecker's work. He was very vocal, gave

many press interviews, was constantly on television and radio

urging people to wake up to the coverup concerning AIDS. Did

Representative Huff use drugs? Perhaps yes, but only

occasionally and recreationally. Was he an addict? No. Would he

have known how dangerous a massive overdose of cocaine and

heroin was? Yes of course. Cause of death: officially a stroke.


Dr. Strecker has serious doubts. . . ." [2] Strecker's comment came months prior to the first confirmed

case of HIV transmission from a human bite. See: Singer G and

Athans M. 91-year-old teaches world about AIDS: HIV

contracted from prostitute's bite. Sun-Sentinel Saturday October

28, 1995 pplA and 6A. [3] Several reports confirmed that The Wistar Institute is located

at 36th and Spruce Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215-222-6700).


See: Science and Technology Division National Referral Centel:

Biological Sciences: A Director of Information Resources in the

United States. Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1972, p.


493. [4] New Bolton Center is apparently now part of the University

of Pennsylvania. One reference which appeared during my

Medline search was: Bowman KF, Tate LP Jr., Evans LH and

Donawick WI. Complications of cleft palate repair in large

animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

1982;180;6:652-7. [5] Gonda MA, Braun MJ, Carter SG, Kost TA, Bess JW, Arthur

LO and Van Der Maaten MJ. Characterization and molecular

cloning of a bovine lentivirus related to human

immunodeficiency virus. Nature 1987;330:388-391. This

research group, which reported stark similarities between the

bovine immunodeficiency-like virus (BIV) and HIV,

interestingly enough was funded by the National Cancer Institute

and based at the Frederick (Fort Detrick) Cancer Research

Facility in Maryland. [6] Stedman's Medical Dictionary, Twenty-Second Edition.


Baltimore Maryland: Williams & Wilkins Co., p. 1233. [7] Temin HM. The role of the DNA provirus in carcinogenesis

by RNA tumor viruses. In: The Biology of Oncogenic Viruses,

LG Silverster, Ed. New York: Elsevier, 1971, 176; Temin HM.


The protovirus hypothesis. J. National Cancer Institute

1971;46:3. Also see: Temin HM. The participation of DNA in

Rous sarcoma virus production. Virology 1964; 23:486; Temin

HM and Mizutani S. Nature 1970; 226:1211. [8] Baltimore D. Viral RNA-dependent DNA polymerase. Nature

1970;226:1209. [9] Maruyama K and Dmochowski L. Cross-species transmission

of mammalian RNA tumor viruses. Texas Medicine 1973;69:65-

75. Regarding Hilary Koprowski serving at The Wistar Institute

in Philadelphia, see: Silversti LG. The Biology of Oncogenic

Viruses. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company,

Inc., 1971, p. 332; HuebnerRJ, TodaroGJ, SarrnaP, Hartley JW,

FreemanAE, Peters RL, Whitmire CE, Meier H and Gilden RV.


Switched Off' Vertically Transmitted C-type RNA Tumor

Viruses as Determinants of Spontaneous and Induced Cancer: A

New Hypothesis of Viral Carcinogenesis. In: Defectiveness,

Rescue and Stimulation of Oncogenic Viruses: Second

International Symposium on Tumor Viruses, Royaumont, France

June 3-5, 1969. Paris: Centre National De La Recherche

Scientifique, 1970, pp. 33-77; Montagnier L. Alterations de la

surface des cellules BHK21 en rapport avec leur transformation

par des virus ongogenes. Ibid., p. 6; For more on ethnic cancer

studies see: MacMahon B. The ethnic distribution of cancer

mortality in New York City, 1955. Acta Unio Internat. contra

cancrum, 1960 16;1716; Newill VA. Distribution of cancer

mortality among ethnic subgroups of the white population of

New York City, 1953-58. J. National Cancer Institute

196126:405. [10] Miller JM, Miller LD, Olsen C and Gillette KG. Virus-like

particles in phytohemagglutinin-stimulated lymphocyte cultures

with references to bovine lymphosarcoma. Journal National

Cancer Institute 1969;43:1297-1305. See also: Miller JM and

Van Der Maaten MJ. The biology of bovine leukemia virus

infection in cattle. In: Viruses in Naturally Occurring Cancers:

Book B. Essex M, Todaro G, and zur Hausen H, Eds. Cold

Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, Vol. 7, New

York: Cold Spring Harbor Lahoratory, 1980, pp.901-909. [11] Burny A, Bex F, Chantrenne J, Cleuter Y, Dekegel D,

Ghysdael J, Kettmann R, Leclercq M, Leunen J, Marnrnerickx M

and Portetelle D. Bovine leukemia virus involvement in enzootic

bovine leucosis [lymphosarcoma in cattle]. Adv. Cancer Res.


1978;28:251; See also: Bumy A, Bruck G, Cleuter y et al. Bovine

leukemia virus, a distinguished member of the human T-

lymphotropic virus family. Soc. Press. Tokyo: VNU Science

Press, Utrecht, pp. 219-227,1983 [12] Bobrow SN, Smith RG, Reitz MS and Gallo RC. Stimulated

normal human lymphocytes contain a ribonuclease-sensitive

DNA polymerase distinct from viral RNA-directed DNA

polymerase. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1972;69;11:3228-3232; Gallo

RC, Pestka S, Smith RG, Herrera, Ting RC, Bobrow SN, Davis C

and Fujioka S. RNA-and DNA-dependent DNA polymerases of

human normal and leukemic cells. In Silvestri, L. (Ed.): II.


Lepetit Colloquia on Biology and Medicine "The Biology of

Oncogenic Viruses." Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1971, p. 210. [13] Mussgay M, Dietzschold B, Lorenz R, Matheka HD,

Matthaeus W, Straub OC, Weiland F, Wilesmith JW, Frenzel B

and Kaaden o. Some properties of bovine leukemia virus, its use

in seroepidemiological studies, and eradication of the disease

from infected herds. In: Viruses in Naturally Occurring Cancers:

Book B. M. Essex, G. Todaro and H zur Hausen, Eds. New York:

Cold Spring Hamor Laboratory, 1980, pp. 911-925; Flensburg

JC. Attempt to eradicate leukosis from a dairy herd by slaughter

of cattle with lymphocytosis. Report over a ten-year period. Vet.


Microbiol. 1976 1 :301; Callahan R, Lieber MM, Todaro GJ,

Graves DC and Ferrer FJ. Bovine leukemia virus genes in the

DNA of leukemic cattle. 1976 Science 192:1005; Crespeau S,

Sarsat FP, Vuillaume A, Levy D and Parodi AL. A two-year

sero-epidemiological survey of bovine leukemia virus (BLV)

infection in a high-incidence area of the southwest of France.


Ann. Rech. Vet. 19789:747; Haase A. The slow infection caused

by visna virus. Curl: Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 197572:101.;

Narayan 0, Griffin DE and Clements JE. Virus mutation during

"slow infection"- Temporal development and characterization of

mutants ofvisna virus recovered from sheep. J. Gen. Virol.


197841:343. [14] Though I was unable to locate the Montagnier publication

re: placing EBV into infected T-cell culture to keep them alive, I

did locate several articles published in the early 1970s that noted

the presence EBV caused lymphocytes to proliferate. Several

papers were presented during conferences attended by both

Montagnier and Gallo that emphasized the role of EBV in

molecular biology and tumor virology. Gallo wrote about the

work of Pagano and the role ofEBV in human cancer in his 1977

book, referred to EBV as a model oncogenic virus: "The

evidence with EBV, although not definitive, has been extended

from Burkitt's lymphoma to nasopharyngeal carcinomas." So he

was certainly well aware of the ability of EBV to prompt

lymphocytic proliferation. See: Gallo R. Recent Advances in

Cancer Research: Cell Biology. Molecular Biology, and Tumor

Virology, Volume I. Cleveland: CRC Press, Inc., 1977; In 1971

EBVwas also studied by Gallo and co-workers. See FujiokaS and

GalloRC. Aminoacyl Transfer RNA Profiles in Human Myeloma

Cells. Blood 1971; 38;2:246-252. [15] I was unable to find direct evidence that Montagnier had

worked side-by-side with Gallo at the NCI. However, I located

ample evidence that the two traveled in some of the same

scientific circles, and attended many of the same cancer virus

conferences. It is clear they were aware of each others' research

from the late 1960s. Also, Montagnier published a report that

suggested links between LAV/HTLV-III and the bovine leukemia

virus. See: Alizon M and Montagnier L. Relationship of AIDS to

other retroviruses. Nature 1985;313:743. [16] Strecker's comments about the "famous cat house

experiments," wherein Don Francis and Robert Gallo allegedly

knew it was possible for mutant forms of feline leukemia virus

(FeLV) to jump species to humans, are supported by parallel

presentations made by the researchers during the same Cold

Spring Harbor conference in 1980 See: Gutensohn N, Essex M,

Francis DP and Hardy, Jr. WD. Risk to humans from exposure to

feline leukemia virus: Epidemiological considerations; and

Wong-Staal F, Koshy R and Gallo RC. Feline leukemia virus

genomes associated with the domestic cat: A survey of normal

and leukemic animals. In: Viruses in Naturally Occurring

Cancers: Book A. Essex M, Todaro G, and zur Hausen H, Eds.


Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, Vol. 7,

New York: Cold Spring Hamor Laboratory, 1980, pp. 699-706;

623-634. [17] World Health Organization Report. Five years of research

on virus diseases. WHO Chronicle 1969 23;12:564-572; World

Health Organization Report. Recent work on virus diseases.


WHO Chronicle 1974;28:410-413; Kalter SS and Heberling RL.


The study of simian viruses-work of the WHO collaborating

laboratory on comparative medicine: Simian viruses. WHO

Chronicle 1969;23;3:112-117. [18] Strecker was also accurate in reporting that Salk and

colleagues at The Salk Institute had been researching RNA and

DNA retroviruses including the simian monkey virus (SV40)

with financial support from the NCI and the West German Max-

Planck Society. Thus, Salk quite plausibly participated, as

Strecker alleged, in writing up the history of AIDS virus

research, and in making "up a story." See: Tonegawa S, Walter G

and Dulbecco R. Transcription of SV 40 genome transformed

and lytically infected cells; Eckhart W. Induction of cellular

DNA synthesis after infection by polyoma virus: viral gene

expression in the presence of hydroxyurea. (Both research teams

from The Salk Institute) In: The Biology of Oncogenic Viruses.


Proceedings of the second Lepetit Colloquium, Paris France,

November 1970. LG Silvestri, Ed. New York: Elsevier, 1971, pp.


65-75;290-294. [19] Beardsley T. AIDS: Pasteur sues over patent. Nature

1985;318:595; Palca J. AIDS: US wins round in patent row.


Nature 1986;322:200; Palca J. Franco--US agreement on AIDS

test within sight: AIDS patent dispute near end? France and

United States call truce. Nature 1987;326:115; See also: Staff

writer. Settling the AIDS virus dispute. Nature 1987;326:425-

426; Anderson C and Butler PD. US rejects French request to

reopen AIDS patent deal. Nature 1987;326:425-426; Rensberger

B. AIDS scientist Gallo, rival meet to discuss cooperation. The

Washington Post, Saturday January 9, 1993, p. A2; Anderson C.


Scientific misconduct: Popovic is cleared on all charges; Gallo

case in doubt. Science 1993;262:981-983; Culliton BJ.


Misconduct charges against Gallo withdrawn after Popovic

decision. Nature 1993;366:191; Brown Dand SchwartzI. Case

against AIDS scientist dropped: Agency decides evidence

insufficient to sustain Gallo charges. The Washington Post

Saturday, November 13, 1993, pp AI;16; Greenberg DS. End of

the Gallo case-maybe. The Lancet 1993;342:1289; Staff writer.


What to do about scientific misconduct. Nature 194;369:261-262. [20] Gutensohn N, Essex M, Francis DP and Hardy, Jr. WD. Risk

to humans from exposure to feline leukemia virus:

Epidemiological considerations; and Wong-Staal F, Koshy R and

Gallo RC. Feline leukemia virus genomes associated with the

domestic cat: A survey of normal and leukemic animals. In:

Vruses in Naturally Occurring Cancers: BookA. Essex M,

Todaro G, and zur Hausen H, EdS. Cold Spring Harbor

Conferences on Cell Proliferation, Vol. 7, New York: Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1980, pp.699-706; 623-634. [21] Gold M. Conspiracy of Cells Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press, 1986. [22] Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Harley EJ, Zang EA and Oleszko

WR et al. Hepatitis B vaccine: Demonstration of efficacy in a

controlled clinical trial in a high-risk population in the United

States. New England Journal of Medicine 1980;303;15:833-841.


Regarding Szmuness, I later learned from AIDS researcher and

physician Alan Cantwell, Jr. that Wolf Szmuness became a

professor of epidemiology at Columbia University School of

Public Health, and chief of epidemiology at the New York City

Blood Center in Manhattan shortly after his arrival in the United

States. According to Cantwell, who credits Magic Shots (1982)

by Allan Chase, Szmuness was born in 1919 in Poland, and came

to the United States in 1968 after being expelled from Poland "by

the communist government in an anti-semitic purge." With no

other history, it is interesting that Szmuness, so quickly, in 1969,

became the chief epidemiologist at the New York City Blood

Center. For more information see: Cantwell A. AIDS and the

Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS

Epidemic. Los Angeles: Aries Rising Press, 1988. [23] An epitope is a molecular region on the surface of an

invading microorganism or infectious agent capable of eliciting

an immune response and of combining with the specific antibody

produced by such a response. It is also called a "determinant," or

"antigenic determinant." [24] Gardner WU. International union against cancer: Brief

history, organization, and program review of a nongovernmental

voluntary organization. National Cancer Institute Monograph

197440:51-55; Higginson J and Muir CS. Epidemiologic

program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.


National Cancer Institute Monograph 197440:63-70. [25] Koch's postulates were advanced as a scientific method to

determine the cause and effect relationship between a germ and

the disease it is believed to cause. It is based on three tests: 1) the

microbe must be invariably found among organisms

demonstrating the disease; 2) the microbe must not be present in

disease-free organisms; and 3) the microorganisms must be

effective in causing similar diseases among laboratory animals

infected with the germ. [26] Strecker R. This is a bio-attack alert. The Strecker Group,

1501 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90041. March

28,1986, pp. 24-26. [27] Rowe DS. The WHO immunology laboratories at Lausanne.


WHO Chronicle 1968;22;11 :496. [28] WHO Report (Based on the 1969 report The medical

research programme of the World health Organization, 1964-

1968, Geneva.) Five years of research of virus diseases. WHO

Chronicle

1969;23;12:564-572. [29] Kalter SS and Heberling. The study of simian viruses. WHO

Chronicle 1969;23;3:112-117. [30] Three HIV genes-gag, pol and env-code for the structural

parts of the AIDS virus envelope, or for the enzymes needed for

gene transcription and insertion. According to authorities

(Haseltine WA, Wong-Staal F. The molecular biology of the

AIDS virus. Scientific American 1988;52-62; and Kieny MP.


Structure and regulation of the human AIDS virus. J AIDS

1990;3:395-402), the gag, or group specific antigen, gene codes

for the p24 proteins which form an "inner shell" within the virus.


The pol gene codes for the reverse transcriptase enzyme which

transcribes viral RNA to form a proviral form of DNA. The pol

gene also codes for the endonuclease enzyme which transports

the provirus into the host cell's nucleus and then deposits it into

the host chromosome. The env gene codes for the

"transmembrane protein" gp41 (glycosylated protein 41), which

is incorporated into the envelope along with a closely associated

gp120 protein which itself may have cell and nerve killing

effects. The tat gene codes for a protein that enhances viral

replication. [31] Moscow World Service in English. Belitskiy on How,

Where AIDS Virus Originated. March 11, 1988. Published in

International Affairs. FBIS-SOV-88-049, March 14, 1988, p. 24.


Text discusses

Seale's allegations, but does not furnish specifics. [32] Allison AC, Beveridge WIB, Cockburn WC, et al. Virus-

associated immunopathology: Animal models and implications

for human disease. Bulletin WHO 1972;47:257-263. [33] Havana International Service in Spanish. German Claims

AIDS Virus Created by Pentagon. FBIS-LAT 91-017. January

25,1991. Caribbean, Cuba. Text discusses Dr. Jacobo Segal's

allegations. Document PA 2401213091-0000 GMT 24, January

1991. [34] Covert NM. Cutting Edge: A history of Fort Detrick,

Maryland 1943-1993. Fort Detrick, MD: Headquarters, U. S.


Army Garrison, Public Affairs Office, 1993. [For copies calI301-

619-2018]. [35] Havana International Service in Spanish. Commentary

Accuses U.S. of Developing AIDS Virus. LAT 24, June 1987.


Caribbean, Cuba "Viewpoint" commentary read by Angel

Hernandez. Docu-

ment PA 200342- OOOGMT 19, June 1987. pp. A5-6.