The ʺWorld Health Organization Theory of AIDSʺ
Emerging Viruses – Aids & Ebola – By Leanard Horowitz
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.
Inventing the AIDS Virus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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. Thesecondary 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 manmade
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 Tlymphocytes.
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.]
Related articles
- Threatwatch: The cost of drugs for a dead disease (newscientist.com)
- Cancer drugs to stop bioweapons (foxnews.com)
- Could smallpox really be turned into a biological weapon by terrorists? (metro.co.uk)
- Man Infected With Smallpox-like Virus Through Sex (prn.fm)
- The Strecker Memorandum – Dr. Robert B. Strecker – DVD Quality (disclose.tv)
- HIV/AIDS: The US Government Bio-Weapons Project For Global Depopulation (occupycorporatism.com)
