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 (World Health Organization) 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 control laboratories." [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]

WHO's 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 Centers... 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 Centers..."

"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 Centers, 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 Centers." [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 bacterial 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 1 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 Tumor 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.

  1. First, the monkeypox virus was found closely related to the variola-vaccinia virus group, which causes and immunizes against human smallpox.

  2. 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 neighbors." [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 Requirements 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:

by A. G. Matthews*

(*Chief of Quality Control, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia. The article is based on a paper presented 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).

International 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 hyper immune 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 international 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 chemical 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 physical 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 Library during an initial investigation into the origin of AIDS. Source: Mathews AG. WHO's influence on the control of biologicals. 'WHO Chronicle' 1969;23;1:3-15]


[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, 19641968, 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 Times 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.

Back to Contents