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 origin 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.


Back to Contents



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:

  1. tarnish the reputations of certain scientists

  2. make it more difficult to maintain science funding

  3. promote antigovernment sentiment

  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

  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 harmful, 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 defined 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 noncompliant 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 minimum, 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.


* 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.

Back to Contents




"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 informed 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 "60MINUTES" 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."


Back to Contents



  1. ABC-Atomic Energy Commission

  2. ABIPP-American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

  3. AIBS-American Institute of Biological Sciences

  4. AIDS-Acquired immune deficiency syndrome

  5. AIFLD-American Institute for Free Labor Development

  6. AMI-Allan Memorial Institute

  7. AMV -avian myeloblastosis virus

  8. ARC-AIDS related complex

  9. ARV -AIDS associated retrovirus

  10. ASCC-American Society for the Control of Cancer

  11. BSL-biological safety level (1-4) BW-biological weapons

  12. BPL-Boston Pubic Library

  13. BPP-Black Panther Party

  14. BLV-bovine leukemia virus

  15. BL-Burkitt's lymphoma

  16. BVV-bovine visna virus

  17. CAfB-Covert Action Information Bulletin

  18. CBW-chemical and biological warfare

  19. CDC-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

  20. CFR-Council on Foreign Relations

  21. CHINA-chronic infectious neuropathic agents

  22. CIA-Central Intelligence Agency

  23. CIC-Counter-Intelligence Corps

  24. CNSS-Center for National Security Studies

  25. COINTELPRO-Communist (Counter) Intelligence Program

  26. CPUSA-Communist Party U.S.A.

  27. CSH-Cold Spring Harbor

  28. DCI-Director of Central Intelligence

  29. DREW-Department of Health, Education and Welfare

  30. DNA-Deoxyribonucleic Acid

  31. DOD-Department of Defense

  32. DT-diptheria, tetanus

  33. EBV-Epstein Barr Virus

  34. ECT-electro-convulsive (shock) therapy

  35. ELISA (test)--enzyme-linked immuosorbent assay

  36. ERTS-Earth Resources Technology Satellite

  37. FBI-Federal Bureau of Investigation

  38. FELV-feline (cat) leukemia virus

  39. FCRC-Frederick Cancer Research Center

  40. FDA-Food and Drug Administration

  41. FNLA-National Front for the Liberation of Angola

  42. FOIA-Freedom of Information Act

  43. FSA-Federal Security Agency

  44. GAO-U.S. General Accounting Office

  45. GRID-Gay related immune deficiency

  46. HAV-human AIDS-related virus

  47. HBsAg-hepatitis B surface antigen

  48. HBV-hepatitis B virus

  49. HELA-Henrietta Lack (cell line)

  50. HIV-human immunodeficiency virus

  51. HRS-Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

  52. HSPH-Harvard School of Public Health

  53. HTLV-human T-lymphocyte leukemia virus

  54. IADB-Inter-American Defense Board

  55. IARC-International Agency for Research on Cancer

  56. IDA-International Development Association

  57. ILC-idiopathic lymphocyteopaenia

  58. INTELSAT -intelligence satellite

  59. IPP-Institute Pasteur Production

  60. JIC-Joint Intelligence Committee

  61. JIOA-Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency

  62. LAV-lymphadenopathy-associated virus

  63. LBI-Litton Bionetics, Inc.

  64. LSAF-Louisiana State Agriculture Farm

  65. MIT-Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  66. MKNAOMI-CIA code for secret biological weapons program

  67. MKULTRA-CIA code for secret mind control program

  68. MLV-mouse-leukemia viruses

  69. MMIC-military-medical-industrial complex

  70. MMMV-maximally monstrous malignant virus

  71. MPLA-Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola

  72. MSD-Merck, Sharp & Dohme

  73. NAACP-National Assoc. for the Advancement of Colored People

  74. NAS-National Academy of Sciences

  75. NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration

  76. NATO-North Atlantic Treaty Organization

  77. NBC-New Bolton Center

  78. NBRL-Navy's Biomedical Research Laboratory

  79. NCAC-National Cancer Advisory Council

  80. NCDC-National Communicable Disease Center

  81. NCI-National Cancer Institute

  82. NFF-Nicaraguan Freedom Fund

  83. NGO-NonGovernrnental Organization

  84. NIAID-National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases

  85. NIH-National Institutes of Health

  86. NRC-National Research Council

  87. NSC-National Security Council

  88. NSF-National Science Foundation

  89. NYCBB-New York City Blood Bank

  90. NYCBC-New York City Blood Center

  91. NYUMC-New York University Medical Center

  92. OPC-Office of Policy Coordination

  93. OSRD-Office of Scientific Research and Development

  94. OSS-Office of Strategic Services

  95. OTRAG-Orbital Transport and Missiles, Ltd.

  96. PAHO-Pan American Health Organization

  97. PUSH-People to Save Humanity

  98. RAPID-Resources for the Awareness of Population and International Development

  99. RNA-Ribonucleic Acid

  100. SCF-Save the Children Fund

  101. SCMV-simian cytomegalovirus

  102. SFV-simian foamy virus .

  103. SMOM-Sovereign Military Order of Malta

  104. SOD-Special Operations Division of the Army

  105. SVCP-Special Virus Cancer Program

  106. SVLP-Special Virus Leukemia Program

  107. SV(40)-simian virus (40)

  108. TEREC-Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance

  109. UNDP-U.N. Development Program

  110. UNFAO-U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

  111. UNFPA-U.N. Fund for Population Activities

  112. UNICEF-U.N. Children's Fund

  113. UNIT A-National Union for the Complete Independence of Angola

  114. USAID-U .S. Agency for International Development

  115. USIA-U.S. Information Agency

  116. USPHS-U .S. Public Health Service

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

  118. VEE-Venezuelan equine encephalitis

  119. VVE-Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis

  120. VFHP-Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion

  121. WRS-War Research Service

  122. WBC-white blood cells

  123. WHO-World Health Organization

  124. WPPA-World Population Plan of Action

Back to Contents



[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-9231 , 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

[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 mystery? JAMA 270:2732-2734, 1993.

[12] CBS News-a 6O-MINUTES report. Kimberly's story. Produced by Josh Howard. June 19, 1994.