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 World Health Organization
Theory of AIDS

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.

The WHO Does What?

"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]

WHOs 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, Slow 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 dtente. 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]

Detricks 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 Cutting Edge 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 Grisly Business 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 Emperors 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 The Band

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 Hot 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]

Montagniers 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 Emperors 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 The Band

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
Gallos 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

- - - - -

Gallos 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 AIDSLike 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 Bull

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 Conspiracy of Cells

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 Patient Zero 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 AIDSLike 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.

Streckers 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.