Polio Vaccines and the Origin of AIDS
- The Career of a Threatening Idea
by Brian Martin, Ph.D.
Brian Martin is a professor at the University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
When a virus from one species is able to survive in a different
species, at first it is often quite virulent in the new species.
example, the myxo-ma virus causes little problem in the South
American forest rabbit, its longstanding host, but it was
devastating when introduced among European rabbits in Australia. As
the virus rampages through the new species, susceptible individuals
are killed, whereas the resistant ones survive and reproduce, and
eventually virulence declines, as in the case of myxomatosis in
Thus, when a new viral disease springs unannounced on humans, one
possible suspect is animal viruses. In the case of AIDS, this soon
became the most favored explanation among scientists. In 1983, Luc Montagnier and his colleagues reported isolation of a virus, later
called human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, linked to AIDS. Two
years later, a type of virus very similar to HIV was found in
African monkeys. It was called simian immunodeficiency virus or SIV.
Many SIVs cause no obvious dis-ease in their host species, though
they can be virulent if transmitted to a different, unaffected
monkey species. The obvious explanation for AIDS was that SIV
somehow was transmitted to humans, where it became or evolved into
The next question was how the SIV might have been transmitted from
simians to humans. Before looking at the possible explanations, it
is worth mentioning some other evidence. First, there are two major
types of HIV, called HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is the type found
throughout most of the world; HIV-2 is found mostly in western
There are also different SIVs, and in fact new ones continue to be
dis-covered. There is one known SIV that is very similar to HIV-2,
but none yet proven to be highly similar to HIV-1.
HIV, like any virus, has a genetic structure. Even within one type
of HIV, such as HIV-1, there are many variations. In other words,
the genetic struc-ture is pretty much the same, but there are slight
variations. The variations are due to mutations and selection as the
virus spreads. By examining the spread of variants and working
backwards, it is possible to estimate when HIV-l first entered the
human species. The usual estimate is just before 1960.
The other relevant information is evidence of AIDS in humans. One of
the earliest known cases has been traced to Kinshasa in Africa in
the late 1950s. The implication is that SIV entered humans in
central Africa in or by the late 1950s and thereafter spread to
other parts of the world.
But how did SIV enter humans?
This is of more than intellectual interest. Knowing the process may help to prevent recurrences and
to provide clues for developing a cure.
It is known that HIV does not survive easily outside the body and
that the most effective means of transmission are via blood or
mucosa. One explanation is that a hunter, in butchering a monkey,
allowed monkey blood to enter a cut. Others are that a human ate
some undercooked monkey meat, that monkey blood was injected into
humans as part of certain sexual customs, and that a monkey bit a
An explanation along these lines is the standard view on the origin
of AIDS. But there is one obvious question. Why did AIDS develop in
the 1950s? A cut hunter or monkey bite could have occurred any time
in the past thousands of years. The usual explanation is that
urbanization and travel led to the wider spread of AIDS beginning in
There is, though, another theory available, that explains both the
trans-mission and the timing: polio vaccination campaigns in central
Africa in the late 1950s. This theory is simple and obvious. Polio
vaccines are cultured on monkey kidneys. Many of the monkeys would
have been carrying SIVs, and many of them would have shown no
symptoms and thus not been rejected as ill. Thus it would not be too
difficult for some batches of vaccine to be contaminated with SIVs.
Since the SIVs were not discovered until 1985, there was no way to
screen for them in the 1950s.
There is even a precedent for monkey-human viral transmission. In
the early 1960s, some polio vaccines were found to be contaminated
with a simian virus named SV40. This caused great concern at the
time, since SV40 had been given to tens of millions of people in the
United States and elsewhere. Henceforth, steps were taken to screen
all vaccines for SV40 and other such viruses. (The health
consequences of SV40 in humans is a separate issue that deserves
So here was a theory waiting to be developed and tested. Polio
vaccines were already known to have led to the spread of simian
viruses to humans. Monkeys with SIVs were almost certainly used in
polio vaccine preparation, and there was no screening for the SIVs.
Finally, some of the earliest known cases of AIDS were near to the
time and location of major polio vaccination campaigns in Africa in
the late 1950s.
But this theory was not investigated by the medical research
establishment. There is one obvious reason for this: the theory, if
accepted as true, would be extremely damaging to the image of
The theory might have been talked about
but not seriously studied, as indicated by a report early in 1992.
"A senior AIDS researcher said it
has been an open secret to many AIDS researchers for at least
four years that polio vaccines might have been contaminated by
HIV or a related retrovirus," but no testing
of vaccine stocks had occurred because, according to this
researcher, "Everybody was afraid there would be a public panic or a
If the medical research establishment was reluctant to investigate
the theory, others were not.
One of them was Louis Pascal, an
independent scholar in New York City. In 1987, he heard a radio
talk show with guest Eva Lee Snead who proposed that polio vaccine
contaminated with SV40 was responsible for AIDS. Pascal knew enough
biology to realize that SV40 couldn't be the cause, but what about
the SIVs? He decided to investigate.
By reading medical journals from the 1950s and 1960s and making
comparisons with recent reports about the development of AIDS,
Pascal soon had a powerful set of arguments suggesting that polio
vaccination campaigns in Africa may have led to AIDS. He focused on
a particular batch of vaccine used by Hilary Koprowski, a pioneer in
polio eradication but less well known than Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. Koprowski's CHAT Type 1 polio vaccine was given to some
325,000 men, women and children in central and west Africa from 1957
to 1960, plus a few thou-sand people elsewhere, such as Poland.
Pascal found a remarkable geo-graphical
coincidence. The main use of CHAT was in central Africa, not far
from the area of Africa with one of the highest incidences of AIDS
in the world today. Significant doses of CHAT were also administered
in the city of Leopoldville; today that city, now called Kinshasa,
has an extremely high
incidence of AIDS. Sabin later found this batch of vaccine to be
contaminated by an unidentified virus.
Koprowski's vaccine was administered orally, by spraying a mist of
vaccine into a person's mouth. This seems to raise an immediate
objection: HIV, some later critics said, has not been shown to be
orally, so it is unlikely that SIV could be transmitted to humans
Pascal has two responses. First, HIV can be transmitted orally, most
clearly from breast-feeding mothers to their children. All that is
required is that the mucus [membranes] in a recipient's mouth have
reduced immune response. Second, it is quite possible that some of
the recipients of the vaccine had ulcers or cuts in their mouths,
allowing SIV to enter the bloodstream.
Pascal's main interest was to track the origin of HIV-1. He
attributes it to an undiscovered SIV that infected a small number of
people in central Africa via Koprowski's CHAT vaccine, followed by
the spread of HIV-1 elsewhere via person-to-person contact.
Pascal had one further argument. He notes that the immune system normally resists alien cells, or indeed any biological material
with an unfamiliar genetic sequence. This of course is why it is
necessary to suppress the immune system when transplanting organs.
Pascal asks rhetorically, how better to spread a virus from one
species to another than by giving it to large numbers of
individuals, some of whom are likely to have impaired immune
systems? He then points out that Koprowski's vaccine was given to
large numbers of children, some of whom were less than 30 days old.
Not only are young children's immune systems undeveloped; the
youngest children were given 15 times the adult dosage of polio
Pascal found much else in his search through the medical literature,
enough to convince him that this theory was worth testing because of
its serious implications. One immediate implication is that vaccines
should not be cultured on monkey kidneys. There are a number of
different SIVs and new ones continue to be discovered. Pascal
speculated that a new SIV might be entering the human species every
few years, potentially leading to a new type of HIV and causing the
death of a million or more additional people.
Because different HIVs
have different rates of exponential spread, one or two types will
usually dominate infection statistics. Nevertheless, the human
consequences of a single further new HIV are considerable.
Therefore, Pascal thought his theory deserved urgent consideration.
After all, a delay of a few years might conceivably lead to the
deaths of millions of people.
Another implication of Pascal's theory is the need for an urgent
assessment of other possible methods for spreading disease from one
species to another. One example is the recently carried-out
transplantation of a baboon liver into a human. This provides an
ideal opportunity for the spread of any virus in the baboon to the
human, given the mixing of cells and blood and the use of drugs to
suppress the recipient's immune system. Another example is some of
the experiments with genetic engineering.
Pascal had a theory and had good reason to believe it deserved
urgent consideration. If the theory could be proved wrong, then
there was nothing to worry about; but if it proved correct (or possibly correct)
then its implications should be dealt with immediately. He assumed
that since the theory seemed so obvious, there would be others who
would come up with it independently. But, just in case, he did what
he could to make sure it received critical examination.
Pascal believed that if he wrote up his findings and sent them to
scientists and to scientific journals, then—taking into account the
important potential social implications of the theory—scientists
would either refute his ideas or accept them. In other words, he
expected his ideas to be considered objectively, irrespective of
who he was or how he wrote up his material. Proceeding on this
assumption, Pascal wrote an account of his theory, including plenty
of references and logical argumentation so that others could check
his facts and inferences. He sent his paper to a number of prominent
scientists for their examination and also submitted it to a number
of leading scientific journals.
From the prominent scientists, Pascal received only one cursory acknowledgment. From the scientific journals—Nature, Lancet, and
New Scientist—he received the brush-off, either a rejection with
little or no explanation, or year-long failures to answer.
Pascal thought that scientists and scientific journals would give
his ideas a fair hearing. Unfortunately, the standard view that
science is objective and open to new ideas—a view that is taught to
science students in high school and university and to the general
public through many popular treatments—is flawed. The reality is
that being taken seriously by the scientific research establishment
depends sensitively on who the writer is, what their institutional
affiliation is, how they write their paper and, not least, what they
have to say.
To be taken seriously, it is a great advantage to be an
eminent scientist, to write from a prestigious address, to write
precisely in the standard journal style, and to say something that
is just marginally original and not threatening to any powerful
interest group. Pascal, by being an "independent scholar" with no
institutional affiliation, by writing in a style that deviated
somewhat from the standard passionless prose and not citing
prominent scientists in quite the appropriate respectful way, and by
presenting a highly threatening proposal, was never taken seriously.
Defenders of the system would say that Pascal should have couched
his ideas in the standard format. If he wanted to be taken
seriously, he had to play the game of scientific publication by the
rules. From Pascal's point of view, this sort of attitude misses the
point. It was he who was raising a serious issue for science and
public health. He felt it was the responsibility of editors to deal
with his concerns promptly and effectively. If he was wrong, nothing
was lost; if he was right, many might suffer.
Therefore the "scientific reception
system," namely the system by which potential contributions to scientific knowledge are considered, certified,
and published, was responsible for making sure his ideas received
proper consideration, even if he didn't couch them precisely in
Cynically speaking, the system works reasonably well to serve the interests of career scientists, who have a strong incentive to play
the game by the rules, since that is the way they obtain publication
and thereby obtain jobs, grants, and promotions.
But Pascal was not
seeking a career in science, nor did he particularly care about
having his name in print. He was primarily concerned about
scientific ideas and the social implications of science. This lack
of career motive and personal ambition can seem strange to
professional scientists. Likewise the operation of the scientific
reception system seems strange, indeed immoral, to someone like
Pascal with different motivations and goals.
One of his correspondents, a philosopher, sent Pascal's paper to the
Journal of Medical Ethics, whose editor then invited Pascal to
submit a paper on the ethical issues associated with his case. After
much labor, Pascal prepared a new paper, but it was rejected ... for
being too long.
In 1990 I began corresponding with Pascal and was quite impressed by
his ideas, his grasp of the issues, and his thoroughness. After his
paper was rejected by the Journal of Medical Ethics, I arranged for
it to be published in a working paper series at my university.3 As
soon as it began to be cir-culated, it generated considerable
interest among scientists and others.
One of the responses was by
the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, who wrote an editorial
explaining why they had rejected it, making known its availability
and commenting that Pascal's thesis,
"is an important and thoroughly
argued one and ought to be taken seriously by workers in the AIDS
Pascal had long said that he would not be surprised if others
independently developed the same theory, since it was so obvious.
indicated by the quote from the AIDS researchers, it had indeed been
considered, but apparently not investigated further because of
reservations about the possible implications. Most of the
scientific community remained ignorant of the theory, aided by
One exception was two South African scientists, Professors Gerasimos
Lecatsas and Jennifer J. Alexander. Independently of Pascal, they
wrote several letters and short pieces to scientific journals
raising the possibility of AIDS arising from polio vaccines. Most
of their early submissions were rejected, but not all.5 However,
this airing of the idea in a medical journal did not stimulate
others to investigate more deeply. Instead, they
were personally attacked in a reply to their letter in the South
African Medical Journal.
Blaine Elswood, an AIDS activist and employee of the University of
California at San Francisco, also developed the same theory
independently of Pascal. Elswood worked with medical researcher
Raphael Stricker and they prepared a carefully written scientific
paper. It was rejected by the British Medical Journal. They next
tried Research in Virology.
After being given strong encouragement
by Luc Montagnier, months passed. Then, in an apparent reversal,
they were asked to shorten the paper, delete most of a section on
SV40, and resubmit their material as a letter to the editor. Many
more months passed before their letter was finally published.6 It
was fol-lowed by a rebuttal from the editorial board of the journal.
Clearly the mainstream scientific journals were not eager to give
the theory much visibility. Elswood had anticipated this, and he
had encouraged Tom Curtis, a free-lance journalist based in Houston,
to investigate. Curtis was enthusiastic. Starting with materials
obtained from Elswood, he delved further into the literature and
also did interviews with many scientists, including Sabin, Salk, and
Koprowski. He wrote a series of important stories in the Houston
Post and a major piece published in Rolling Stone.1
Whereas the scientific journals had stalled on the story for years,
Curtis' Rolling Stone story broke through the usual barriers. It
became a news item not only in the press, radio and television, but
also a story in the news columns of scientific journals.8
Koprowski wrote a response in the form of a letter to the editor of
Science.9 Curtis wrote a reply, but Science refused to publish it.
The Wistar Institute, headed by Koprowski until 1991, holds seed
stocks of polio vaccines. Koprowski had earlier been asked by
medical researcher Robert Bohannon to release its vaccines for
testing. If vaccines from the 1950s African campaigns were found to
be contaminated by SIVs, this would provide support for the polio
vaccine-AIDS theory. But Koprowski failed at first to even answer
Bohannon's letters. Bohannon also had little success with similar
requests to the Food and Drug Administration.
Curtis' story in Rolling Stone made it harder for Wistar to refuse
to cooperate. The Institute set up an independent advisory committee
to advise it concerning the implications of the theory. The
committee pro-vided a brief 8-page typed report which concluded that
the chance that AIDS had originated from polio vaccination campaigns
was "extremely low."10
Unfortunately the committee never consulted Pascal, Elswood or
in preparing its report. Even if, a priori, the chance of causing
polio vaccines was quite low, we know now that AIDS did develop
somehow. Therefore, the key issue is not the absolute probability of
AIDS developing from a particular sequence of events, but the
relative probability, namely the probability compared to other ways
that AIDS might have developed (cut hunters, monkey bites, and so
forth). But the Wistar committee made no such comparisons.
The only bit of real evidence that the committee used to criticize
the theory was the case of a Manchester seaman who died in 1959, in
retrospect apparently having contracted AIDS. HIV was detected
postmortem. Koprowski, in the letter to Science, also made a big
issue of the Manchester seaman. Yet there are several possible
explanations for this case which reduce its power as an objection to
First, the test for HIV in the seaman's remains may have been a
false positive. In other words, the seaman may not have had AIDS at
all, but instead the tests that showed HIV may have been
contaminated. Aptly, the first four pages of Pascal's paper deal
with how easy it is for cell lines to be contaminated, drawing on
the famous case of HeLa.11 (See the inset "The HeLa Affair" on page
81.) Pascal uses the example to show how easy it is for scientists
to slip up and how eager they are to avoid acknowledging their
Second, the seaman might have been infected by HIV during a trip to
Africa or by contact with other seamen, and then have developed AIDS
much more rapidly than usual, especially considering that he was
given immune-suppressive drugs.
Third, the seaman might have contracted AIDS via some earlier
vaccine experiments from the 1920s to the 1950s, at least one of
which involved the injection of live monkey cells into thousands of
people.'2 Pascal points out that there is evidence of experiments
involving grafts of monkey or chimpanzee organs at least as early as
1916.13 It is possible that monkey viruses could have been
transmitted to humans on one or more of these earlier occasions,
leading to anomalous cases of disease. This is compatible with polio
vaccination campaigns in Africa being the cause of the AIDS
It is now the conventional wisdom in the history and sociology of
science that a single piece of evidence is not sufficient to reject
a theory. Within any general picture, such as a scientific paradigm,
there are always some anomalies. These anomalies are either
explained away or ignored so long as there are compensating
advantages or insights to be gained from the wider picture. This is
not to say that anomalies should be dismissed as trivial. Quite the
contrary. But they are not alone sufficient basis to reject a
The importance placed on the Manchester seaman example by opponents
of the polio vaccine-AIDS theory, and their lack of examination of
alternative explanations, suggests the eagerness with which they
sought ways to dismiss the theory. Curtis' interviews revealed the
extreme hostility with which Koprowski, Salk, and Sabin responded to
This is not surprising, considering the strong emotional
investment that leading scientists have in their own ideas.14
The HeLa Affair
The HeLa affair is the story of the contamination of cell cultures
around the world and the corresponding refusal on the part of
mainstream science to face up to and deal with the problem that
The HeLa affair begin in 1951, when the first human cells were grown
in long term tissue culture. The HeLa cells were cervical cancer
cells taken from a woman named Henrietta Lacks. Although Henrietta
Lacks died of her disease, the cells from her tumor—given the
shortened name HeLa—not only survived, but flourished.
Because her cells were so strong, they were sent to various other
laboratories around the country and from there around the world for
experimental purposes. Unfortunately, laboratory errors allowed HeLa
cells to contaminate other tissue cultures, and the HeLa cells
quickly overtook and replaced the other cells. However, much of the
time, the colonization of other tissue cultures by HeLa cells went
unnoticed, since the appearance of many tissue cultures is highly
similar. Thus, scientists who believed that they were studying cells
from human breast tumors or monkey heart cells, for example, were in
many cases studying HeLa cells.
To add to the problem of the spread of HeLa cells, many researchers
would share their particularly hardy line of "breast tumor" or
"monkey heart" cells with their colleagues. It took only a few years
for the problems of HeLa contamination of other cell lines to have
reached crisis proportions. An investigation by geneticist Stanley
Gartler found that of seventeen tissue cultures—obtained from a
number of different laboratories—all were HeLa cell cultures,
contrary to their official designation as a variety of human cell
The problem of HeLa contamination of tissue cultures was finally
tackled by Walter Nelson Rees, who was then the head of a cell bank
at the University of California. Nelson Rees also held the position
of vice president for the Tissue Culture Association —the
professional body to which scientists involved in tissue culture work
belonged. When he confirmed Stanley Gartler's findings, Nelson Rees
submitted long lists of contaminated cell lines to journals.
However, instead of promptly publishing these important documents,
many journals procrastinated while still others refused to publish
Nelson Rees's lists at all.
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute published what
independent researcher Louis Pascal described as a "cooked-up" case
by workers previously discredited by Nelson Rees, using
"illegitimate photographs of chromosomes" and "shoddy logic" to try
and prove that the charges of contamination were not valid.
One major supplier of
biological supplies, Microbiological
Associates—later M.A. Bioproducts—reportedly continued to
sell a HeLa contaminated culture for thirteen years after the
company was first informed by Stanley Gartler that it was
contaminated—and seven years after other scientists had
confirmed the contamination.
Nelson Rees's campaign against the contamination of
tissue cultures made him so many enemies that he was
forced to retire in 1981, aged just 52.
After his retirement, the
National Cancer Institute ceased funding his laboratory, sounding
the death-knell for the best run cell culture center in the United
There are of course many other arguments
concerning the theory, ranging from the problems of gene sequences, the species of monkeys
used in polio vaccine trials, the spread of AIDS in other countries,
and much more.
The aim here is not to address these complexities but
to outline the theory and point out the failure of the mainstream
scientific community to confront it adequately.
This failure has an intriguing self-righteous twist. Many scientists
look down upon the mass media and consider that science is only
proper when it takes place in professional forums.
example, said that,
"as a scientist, I did not intend to debate Tom
Curtis when he presented his hypothesis about the origin of AIDS in
He did con-descend to reply after a letter by
Curtis appeared in Science. In another example, Luc Montagnier
supported the decision of Research in Virology to request Elswood
and Stricker to shorten their paper to a letter to the editor by
referring to the "extensive publication" of their views in the lay
This seems rather unfair, since the reason the story obtained
attention in the "lay press" first is that scientists, knowing about
the theory for some years, declined to investigate it and editors
refused to publish submissions to scientific journals. In other
words, the relevant scientific community failed to come to grips
with a theory that deserved critical attention, even if only to
refute it. Then, when individuals outside the scientific main-stream
worked on the theory and obtained media coverage, their approach was
Nevertheless, some inroads into mainstream practice may yet occur.
The Wistar committee, in spite of its assessment of the polio
vaccine-AIDS theory as highly unlikely, have recommended that polio
vaccine no longer be cultured using monkey kidneys,* because,
may well be other monkey viruses that have not yet been discovered
that could possibly contaminate vaccine lots."17
* As of January, 1998, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Ministry
of Health confirmed that at least some of the polio vaccine used in
New Zealand is still grown on monkey kidney tissue. The alternative
growth media is a human diploid cell line derived from aborted
This was exactly
the thing that Pascal has been warning about for years. It took an
article in Rolling Stone for scientists to take it seriously.
The implications are wider than just polio vaccines. All transfers
of material from one species to another should be scrutinized. For
example, it has recently been found that many cattle in the United
States are infect-ed by bovine immunodeficiency-like virus or BIV,
which has a genetic structure similar to HIV. This is not a
scientific curiosity, Pascal points out, because bovine hemoglobin
is being used to manufacture substitutes for human hemoglobin. The
danger of introducing new diseases to humans may be low, but at the
very least it should be investigated.
Thus, even if the theory is wrong, it may be valuable in leading to
discoveries or revised practices that will advance the
understanding of AIDS, how to deal with it, or how to prevent
similar diseases. That is the most that can be asked of any
I want to thank Tom Curtis, Blaine Elswood, and Louis Pascal for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Editor's Note: In December 1992, Mr. Koprowski sued Tom Curtis and
Rolling Stone magazine for defamation. This effectively quashed
further investigation into the story by mainstream media. Brian
Martin publicised the lawsuit through the Sci-Tech Studies
electronic mailing list, and also wrote a letter to Nature about the
dangers of allowing legal action to stymie scientific debate.
seemed to stimulate renewed interest in the theory within the
scientific community. Finally, in November 1993, just before Mr. Koprowski was to undergo deposition, his lawyers settled out
of court. Rolling Stone, facing legal costs of $500,000 paid Mr.
Koprowski damages of $1.00.
Department of Science and Technology Studies
NSW 2522, Australia
Seale, U. Crossing the species barrier—viruses and the origins of
AIDS in perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.
82, Sept. 1989, pp. 519-523.
Curtis, Tom. Vaccines not tested for HIV? Houston Post, 18 March
1992, p. A-l.
Pascal, Louis. What happens when science goes bad. Science and
Technology Analysis Research Programme Working Paper #9, Department
of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, NSW
2522, Australia, December 1991.
Gillon, Raanon. A startling 19,000-word thesis on the origin of AIDS
should the JME have published it? Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol.
18, 1992, pp. 3-4.
Lecatsas, G. and Alexander, J.J. Safety testing of poliovirus
vaccine and the origin of HIV infection in man. South African
Medical Journal Vol. 76, 21 October 1989, p. 451.
Els wood, B.F. and Strieker, R.B. Polio vaccines and the origin of
AIDS. Research in Virology Vol. 144,1993, pp. 175-177.
Curtis, Tom. The origin of AIDS, Rolling Stone, issue 626, 19 March
1992, pp. 54-55, 61, 106, 108.
For example, Brown, Phyllida. US rethinks link between polio vaccine
and HIV. New Scientist, 4 April 1992, p. 1; Cohen, Jon, Debate on
AIDS origin Rolling Stone weighs in. Science, 20 March 1992, p.
Koprowski, Hilary. Letter. Science. Vol. 257, 21 August 1992, pp.
Basilico, Claudio et al. Report from the AIDS/Poliovirus Advisory
Committee, 18 September 1992.
Gold, Michael. A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy
and the Medical Scandal it Caused. State University of New York
Pascal, op. cit., pp. 34-35.
Voronoff, Serge. Life, E.P. Dutton, 1920, p. 106.
Mitroff, Ian L. The Subjective Side of Science. Elsevier, 1974.
Loprowski, op. cit., p. 1024.
Montagnier, Luc. Fax to Raphael B. Stricker, 10 September 1992.
Basilico et al., op. cit., p. 7.
Back to Contents
Back to Killer Vaccines - Vacunas Que Matan