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 (DoD) 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:


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, animal-lymphotrophic 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 Defense Appropriations Hearings for

1970 on the Development of Immune-System Destroying Agents for Biological Warfare


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].)


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:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

  • 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).

  • 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.]



[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.

Back to Contents