Introduction and Scientific
The World Health
Organization Theory of AIDS
The World Health Organization (WHO) theory  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. 
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.  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."  Still, the majority subscribed to the African green
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." 
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. 
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.  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. 
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,
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." 
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. 
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. 
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
Fig 1.1 -
Department of Defense Appropriations Hearings for
1970 on the
Development of Immune-System Destroying Agents for Biological
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
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
(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
Mr. SIKES: Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
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
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
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
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
 Strecker R. The Strecker
Memorandum. The Strecker Group, 1501 Colorado Boulevard, Los
Angeles, CA 90041,1988.
 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.
 Collin J. They deployed the AIDS virus. Townsend Letter for
Doctors. April. 1988 p.152.
 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,
 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
 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