Horowitz’s Critics “Walk
on Quicksand.” Read All About It:
as “high profile” as Dr. Horowitz
is—“dangerous” to entrenched political and pharmaceutical
interests that largely control Capitol Hill—it’s natural
he would be under a steady stream of attacks. This section of Dr.
Horowitz’s official website deals with his battles, including
those who have attempted to manipulate, discredit, or disparage
him or his various works.
Horowitz’s most outspoken critics generally fall into
five categories: 1) religious and political zealots; 2) “quack-busters” or
fraudulent “consumer protectors;” 3) Dr. Horowitz “want-a-bees;” 4)
people who say he does what he does for the money; and 5) medical
Dr. Horowitz’s professional integrity and research
credentials are so impeccable, few examples exist for the later
group two groups. Government health officials and/or medical scientific
experts heavily influenced by the drug lobby typically ignore Dr.
Horowitz’s challenges since many know better than to attack
him, especially since they have the luxury of controlling the media’s
mainstream (and subsequently the public’s mind) anyway.
following interesting articles and letters reflect a sample of
such widespread challenges to Dr. Horowitz’s integrity
as a person and health science investigator. For a quick example,
here. You will read Dr. Horowitz’s recent response
to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding their failed attempt to undermine Dr.
Horowitz’s development and marketing of herbal and homeopathic
formulas to fight SARS.
next series of controversies relates to areas of religion, religious
convictions, or religious politics. Why would this subject
even enter into health science debate in Dr. Horowitz’s regard?
Because Dr. Horowitz has fervently embraced wholistic models for
healing that recognize spiritual well-being as important, if not
central, to self care philosophy and successful practices. In Dr.
Horowitz’s case it is easier to character assassinate the
messenger than refute his meticulously documented clearly communicated
messages. For this reason, on occasion, his detractors have slandered
him using a wide array of labels from “Jewish traitor” to “false
Christian prophet.” Suffice it to say that Dr. Horowitz rebukes
these labels and any religious affiliation ascribed to him. He
prefers to be recognized, not as “a Jew,” or “Christian,” or “Muslim-loving
traitor,” (as he was recently called) but simply a “holy
child of Yah.” (Yah is the Creator’s correct Hebrew
name—not “dog” spelled backwards.) Those compelled
to attack Dr. Horowitz in this regard, including those calling
themselves “Jews” or “Christians” tread
on quicksand, as do all critics of this fascinating man. Click
here for letters and articles pertaining to this subject.
political zealots setting traps and launching propaganda campaigns
against Dr. Horowitz, the public health
authority got caught in a spider’s web of deception spun
by right wing political “anti-communist” fundamentalist
Mr. Clifford Kincaid. As you read the letters between Mr. Kincaid
and Dr. Horowitz, widely circulated by Dr. Horowitz’s
political detractors, please be advised the these deceptive
critics always omit Dr. Horowitz’s final explanatory
remarks. These communications are accessible by (Clicking
bottom line is that Dr. Horowitz views such attempts to slander
him as the “same old, same old, divide the sheeple to
conquer the flock routine.” Dr. Horowitz writes in Death
in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare that all
the “isms”—including Communism vs. Capitalism—are
all brokered and administered by the same multi-national corporate
industrialists and “international ‘banksters’ that
have been making fortunes by waging wars for centuries, if
not millennia. These hidden agents of conflict make use of
people, both witting and unwitting, like Mr. Kincaid to effect
the old “divide to conquer” program. Unfortunately,
Mr. Kincaid’s anti-Horowitz propaganda has received repeated
attention and high priority on many of our nation’s leading
Internet search engines. And you thought the Internet was primarily
a “free public forum?”
religious and political zealots, the second set of controversies
document the attack waged against Dr.
Horowitz, or his works, by individuals claiming to be “quackbusters” or “consumer
protectors.” Most vocal among these is Dr. Terry Polevoy,
a Canadian acne care physician. Dr. Polevoy who developed a website
specifically to target Dr. Horowitz, makes extensive use of
standard propaganda methods including libelous labeling, yet
never once identifies himself as the source of these statements.
Instead, by placing the U.S. federal government’s “Consumer
Sentinel” complaint file link adjacent his masthead,
he gives the impression he is a reputable and official source.
How clever! (Click
Polevoy’s business and enterprises are associated
with the international efforts of Quackwatch.com and the National
Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., largely directed by Dr.
Stephen Barrett, who in the 1980s, launched a venomous attack
against practitioners of “wholistic dentistry” largely
influenced by Dr. Horowitz and his colleagues. It is generally
understood in the fields of alternative medicine, chiropractic,
nutrition, herbal medicine, naturopathy, acupuncture, and
massage that these individuals, and their closely affiliated
are simply filthy prostitutes for the global pharmaceutical
is a letter Dr. Horowitz sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) regarding Dr. Polevoy’s anti-Semitic
attacks against him:
Mr. Kevin Dunton
Federal Bureau of
250 Northwest Blvd., Ste. 200
Dear Mr. Dunton,
you for your perusal and advice regarding
Terry Polevoy, M.D., his anti-Semitic
proclamations on his website (http://www.healthwatcher.net),
and his targeting of me in a blatantly hateful manner. I greatly
appreciate you forwarding this information and query to the
U.S. Federal prosecutor’s office for his review, followed
by whatever action(s) deemed prudent, including advising concerned
agencies, internet servers, and search engines regarding the
anti-Semitic and hate crime inspiring nature of Dr. Polevoy’s
Sunday, March 19, 2000, during the Canadian
Consumer Health Association’s
annual meeting in Toronto, I was personally introduced to Dr. Polevoy
by a number of individuals who he had likewise offended. At that
time, he denied publishing on the internet anything derogatory against me. The enclosed
photocopies show him to be an outlandish liar.
mentioned, my professional background
includes a postdoctoral master’s degree from Harvard
University in the area of health education and media persuasion
technologies for promoting health. I am very familiar with
propaganda methods, and have published more than thirty articles
in the scientific peer reviewed literature, some regarding
the use of persuasive communications to positively affect health
behavior change. I have also authored, or co-authored, more
than a dozen books, videos, and audiotape programs including
the scientific work, Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident
or Intentional?, an American bestseller. My
new book is based on Bible code revelations entitled, Healing
Codes for the Biological Apocalypse, and a tape
series called “Why
It’s Time Jews and Christians
Unite.” Throughout my efforts in these fields, and during
my lectures, I consistently promote pro-social interaction
and reconciliation behaviors including love, tolerance, and
forgiveness, along with assorted preventive healthcare communications.
As you can see by reading my company’s mission statement
(http://www.tetrahedron.org), I have been working diligently
since 1978 to contribute to public health.
I inspect Dr. Polevoy’s website, I must conclude that he is not
an amateur propagandist, and not merely a concerned medical
doctor. His tedious and costly efforts, including tracking
me and other “targets” from meeting to meeting,
funding an expensive website, and his sophisticated use of
the seven basic propaganda devices, strongly suggests he is
a paid industry propagandist. For your information
and convenience, the following professional examples may
from his website (http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch):
Polevoy never refers to my professional title Dr. Leonard Horowitz, nor
to me as a “doctor” legitimately degreed in dental
medicine from Tufts University in Boston. He
labels me a “Jewish boychik from Boston,” a “Divine
Dental Surgeon,” a “Messianic Jew,” or most
often demeaningly to my childhood name “Lenny.”
generality”—According to his propaganda, “Lenny
Horowitz” is “hell bent on the destruction of basic
medical science,” wishing to “replace it with
crackpot theological rants.”
as “substituting an agreeable or inoffensive expression
for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant,” Dr.
Polevoy’s website is deceptively titled “Healthwatcher.” This
suggests a positive health promoting activity as Dr. Polevoy
defames a variety of health professionals and public service
organizations engaged in primary prevention,
health education, and consumer health promotion. All the while,
he promotes drug-based (allopathic) medicine and disease care.
This again strongly suggests special interest group (e.g.,
pharmaceutical) funding. More correctly, his website might
be labeled “Medical Mudslinger.”
4) “transfer” of
authority/legitimacy—Dr. Polevoy posts “What others
think [about Dr. Horowitz re: his “quackery” on
AIDS].” Here he gives the false impression that my works
have received serious consideration and rebuttal by leading
names in AIDS science including Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Peter
Duesberg. He neglects to include numerous accolades and testimonials
I have received by bona fide medical researchers and health
scientists. His website also displays direct links to the U.S.
federal government’s “Consumer Sentinel” to
facilitate filing complaints and perception of official endorsement.
common technique whereby high profile individuals and/or
experts are projected to allegedly endorse
an entity or position is
also used by Dr. Polevoy. His references to AIDS experts
and Canadian medical faculty and organizational
with whom he urges consumer contact intentionally relays
a false impression that they endorse
his activity. By citing
them, and urging consumer response, he covertly attempts
to generate conflict supportive to his
6) “bandwagon”—“We would like
the medical ethics committee, the faculty, and the Dean of
Medicine at the University of Toronto to take
a long hard look at Horowitz and [others],” Dr. Polevoy
writes. Here he gives the false impression he is not alone.
He also cites esteemed entities implying their endorsement
or shared negative view of his targets.
7) “fear”— Used
throughout his website, Dr. Polevoy professionally engages
the readers imagination to inflame emotions against his targets.
Examples of fear-based messages include his linking my “Messianic
messages, to convert any Jew or non-believer into becoming
a mindless automaton . . . [that would] head out to Idaho
with him and join the folks who live around Ruby Ridge. Remember, they don’t
use trigger locks out in the wild-wild, unimmunized panhandle
Dr. Polevoy provides what medical and
pharmaceutical industrialists treasure—professionally
prepared propaganda effectively frightening the public away
from its competition. This best explains Dr. Polevoy’s
sudden and sordid activity surrounding Canada’s
burgeoning consumer healthcare movement as he portrays himself
and his website as “Canada’s Best Consumer Health
on the faculty at Harvard School of Dental
Medicine in 1980, others far more
intelligent, vengeful, and less anti-Semitic than Dr. Polevoy—other
so-called “Quackbusters”—targeted me and
my colleagues in “holistic” medicine. They temporarily
succeeded in vilifying many of the alternative medical practices
we taught and used. We now witness the same persecution coming
as a majority of consumers become aware that drug-based medicine
has produced vast populations of sick, dead, dying, addicted,
and financially destitute individuals. In essence, Dr. Polevoy
and his American counterparts, represent an organized response
against a groundswell of grassroots consumerism that is demanding
far more “natural” and “Godly” healthcare
As reported recently
by Burton Goldberg, the editor of The
Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, “quackbusters” such
as Dr. Polevoy, as well as America’s most
notable, Stephen Barrett, M.D., provide little, if any, benefit
to society while gravely risking the public’s health. Patients,
the editor concluded after considered analysis, “do not
benefit at all” from their efforts, “so who does?
The makers of drugs, petrochemicals . . . in short, the massive
food and chemical industry of North America. The quackbusters
say they’re protecting public health, but in fact, they’re
abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the
financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no
. . . ability to produce benefits for myriad diseases
and conditions helped by alternative methods and practitioners."
on this information, and any further
investigation the Federal prosecutor
FBI officials deem necessary, I greatly appreciate your efforts
in determining: 1) From whence financial support for Dr.
Polevoy and America’s Dr. Stephen Barrett comes? 2) Whether other
Federal agencies such as the hate crimes division of the FBI,
as well as those concerned with internet abuses should be notified?
3) If you would advise working with the Antidefamation League
of B’nai B’rith, and the Southern Poverty Law Center,
to help persuade Dr. Polevoy to cease and desist? and 4) Whether
you might alert Canadian health and law enforcement officials
regarding the dangers surrounding Dr. Polevoy’s activities,
not only against my person and family, but other targets
and the public at large.
I look forward to
hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Leonard G. Horowitz,
D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
information about Dr. Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett, (Click
Finally, in this
regard, the following letter was written by Dr. Horowitz to
Dr. Polevoy, but never published. It is presented here as a
classic example of the direct manner in which Dr. Horowitz
addresses wrongdoings and devil-doers in health science and
A letter to Paul Polevoy—Canadian
Dear Pharmaceutical Whore Polevoy:
When I personally confronted you at length on Sunday,
March 19, 2000 at the Canadian Consumer Health Association’s
annual meeting in Toronto, and you denied publishing anything
derogatory against me on your website, www.healthwatcher.net,
my review of
the same shows you to be a pathological liar, a flaming coward,
and a hateful anti-Semite.
a pharmaceutical industry treasure you are for the deranged
neo-Nazis successfully engaged in manufacturing iatrogenic
diseases and delivering global genocide. Now that I know
true propagandist nature, I am not surprised you failed to
retract your inane labels of me, or edit what you said you
might—any dishonest statements.
So I will state what you said you would, but neglected
to, for the record:
I ask[ed] anyone who does not appreciate the power and
glory of the Creator in all aspects of life and science,
to leave before beginning my [lecture] programs with a full
refund of their tuitions. Your comment that you loathe the
mention of God’s name in virtually any forum, and that
you remained in my audience despite my up-front dis-invitation
policy, to assemble your disinformation and wield your drug
propaganda, demonstrates your malicious intent and evil heart.
fact that you also admitted never reading any of Albert
Einstein’s great essays about God additionally
proves your ignorance.
am I bothering to write you? Not because I expect you to
post this reply, even though you seem enthralled to
post much of my work out of context. This is your, and the
public’s, official notice of my reporting you to the
Anti-defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the Southern
Poverty Law Center, and the hate crimes section of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The public deserves to know:
1) that you are a hate monger, 2) that you are seriously
deranged; and 3) have you investigated by official investigators.
on the faculty of Harvard in 1980, others far more intelligent,
and far more vengeful, than
you--other so-called “Quackbusters”--targeted
me and colleagues in “holistic” medicine and
dentistry. They temporarily succeeded in vilifying many of
medical practices we taught and used. Two decades later,
as we watch you jump through the same hoops to attack us,
the drug-based medicine that has produced vast populations
of sick, dead, dying, addicted, and financially destitute
individuals, a groundswell of grassroots consumerism demands
natural, that is, Godly.
feel sad for you that the international pharmaceutical
and chemical cartel that you serve—linked
historically to IG Farben, Rockefeller Standard Oil, and
other Nazi eugenicists,
are on their way out, undermined by a shifting paradigm.
Of course, you have “no eyes to see, nor ears to hear” what
I am saying, have you?
Yours in the Spirit of health,
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
third category of Dr. Horowitz’s detractors, the “want-a-bees,” are
best exemplified by two individuals—one engaged in the
vaccine risk awareness movement heavily influenced by Dr. Horowitz,
and the other advancing Dr. Horowitz’s pioneering thesis
on the man-made origin of HIV/AIDS. The first fellow is Mr.
Gary Krasner, the second is unlicensed attorney Boyd
Dr. Horowitz is assailed by critics as being a “conspiracy theorist.” Mr.
Krasner developed a new “conspiracy theory” of
his own regarding Dr. Horowitz. Read all about it (Click
Boyd Ed Graves, the doctorate denoting a law degree, leads
the class of the Horowitz “want-to-bees.” His political activism
has focused on advancing the man-made theory on the origin of HIV/AIDS—largely
the documented thesis pioneered by Dr. Horowitz concerning the “Special
Virus Cancer Program” and Dr. Robert Gallo’s role in
overseeing Litton Bionetics at the time they were manufacturing
and shipping these types of bioweapons, and contaminated chimpanzees,
to vaccine makers including Merck, Sharp & Dohme in New York,
during the early 1970s, under National Cancer Institute (NCI) contracts.
This was the thesis Dr. Horowitz documented with the publication
of the now national bestseller Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? first
published in 1996. Obviously, this is a very important, if not
globally urgent, controversial thesis. Yet, despite the commonality
in objectives and obvious utility of collaboration, a great percentage
of Dr. Graves’s time has been spent denigrating Dr. Horowitz
with myriad offensive communications. He has masterfully used Dr.
Horowitz’s reputability, the Internet, and various e-mail
networks, to attack, often venomously, Dr. Horowitz. Here are just
a few of Dr. Graves’s libelous and slanderous writings about
Dr. Horowitz within months of Dr. Horowitz providing the gay, black,
HIV-positive, and financially destitute attorney with substantial
Thanks for your help. Living with the U.S.
Special AIDS Virus is no fun. You are placed on the bottom rung of life and from there all you do is catch shit.
It means a lot that you are backing up your words with direct input into the social and economic rape that I and others are under.
Please give my regards to Elaine and all your staff.
Sincerely, Boyd Ed Graves
Thanx for standing up again and again. I could"really" use
some help right about now. Please give me a call. Looking
forward to our conversation.
Sincerely, Boyd Ed
THEN, SOMETHING APPARENTLY
SNAPPED WITH MR. GRAVES. His letters to public
health officials and to Dr. Horowitz reflected his obvious
frustration with his, and the world’s, situation concerning
HIV/AIDS. His previously respectful letters increasingly became
littered with foul language, ridicule, unsubstantiated allegations,
ethnic slurs antagonistic to Christian and Jewish people, and
self-absorbed arrogance. For instance, Dr. Graves wrote Dr.
Horowitz in early April, 2002:
“[Len:] Your Hegelian job has remained the same, keep them (Blacks) mis-focused while we 'waste' (nazi visna) [on] them. . . . If you are the great white hope for the [people] of the Black race, prove it. Otherwise do what you do best, kiss ass to sell books.”
At this juncture,
Dr. Horowitz felt compelled to withdraw, for the first time,
his support for Dr. Graves. This was described in the following
Open Letter to Boyd
Ed Graves From Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
The GAO Investigation, Special Virus Cancer Program, and
Flow Chart “Discovery”
April 8, 2002
This letter is in response
to your habit of broadcasting and e-mailing derogatory allegations
concerning myself and
colleagues to lists of HIV/AIDS investigators, including government
officials, pertaining to the Special Virus Cancer
Program (SVCP) and its “flow chart.” The following
officially places in writing my position and objections to
your myriad efforts.
Specifically, the following
addresses your claims that:
you “discovered” the Special Virus Cancer
Program (SVCP) flowchart, whereas I “overlooked” it;
the flowchart represents a definitive “smoking
gun” in-so-far as the genocidal conspiracy, currently
ongoing, to produce and transmit HIV/AIDS—the “Special
3) other investigators who preceded you in documenting
and supporting this thesis, including myself, are often bigots,
if not racists or co-conspirators, who only you recognize because
of your status as a gay/black/HIV-positive person. Moreover,
seemingly anyone who disagrees with you, in part or whole,
are part of the larger conspiracy abetting the HIV/AIDS establishment
and ongoing genocide.
Finally, this letter articulates why I believe, despite
your enthusiasm for the cause of truth and justice in this
matter affecting millions of people, your unsupported claims,
unjustified ranting, and often myopic efforts, have produced
much harm, and in the long run, may undermine the entire effort
for which at least eight scientific investigators sacrificed
their careers in the years preceding your efforts.
in response to your writing, “For the record,
I was aware of the U.S. Special Virus program as early as 1993,
several years before Len's Book [Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? Tetrahedron
Publishing Group, 1996] . . . However, I did follow his lead
and ordered the reports [referenced therein] through inter-library
loan. Somehow, Len overlooked the flowchart and on August
23, 1999 asked me, "Where did I find it?"
at least two occasions I relayed to you the fact that I
had “discovered” the
flow chart in the front section of the SVCP Project Report
#8 along with the rest of
the document, and had chosen not to publish it for three
reasons: 1) its size, 2) its complexity, and 3) I do not
by itself, it represents a “smoking gun” as you
to repeatedly misrepresent this fact, claiming instead
that you “discovered” the flow chart and “somehow” I “overlooked” it
(insinuating a deficiency, or worse, malice on my part when
you claim I am part of a larger conspiracy) is unbecoming
a legal professional or even a simple crusader for truth.
simply asked, “Where
did you find it?” to
determine if you had followed my lead and references to the
SVCP Project Report #8, or had gotten it elsewhere, perhaps
from another investigator.
the many HIV/AIDS researchers with whom I am in contact,
including people who conclude this affliction was
man-made and vaccine induced, only you see the flow chart as
a “smoking gun.” The best argument you relay in
this regard is well taken. Indeed, the flow chart shows the
cancer/biological weapons industry was very interested in creating
and pharmaceutically treating a “Special Virus” that
would trigger profound immune suppression followed by infections
and certain cancers, including those linked later
to HIV/AIDS. So do virtually all of the Progress Reports. Is
that a “smoking gun?” Unfortunately it is not for
critical readers, the scientific community, or even intelligent
lay persons. In fact, the flow chart is confusing to the point
it is largely meaningless when examined apart from the contents
(contracts and explanations) in the SVCP Project Reports themselves,
and the mountain of related scientific and circumstantial evidence
supporting the man-made genocidal theory of HIV/AIDS.
Your socially offensive and narcissistic writings, however,
are the main reason I have periodically withdrawn my support
for your efforts. I now wish to disassociate myself from you
entirely. Others whom you openly chastise, and who would be
similarly inclined to lend you support, have been likewise
repulsed by you.
example, you recently broadcast over the Internet, “anytime
that Len wants, I get made out as having some hidden agenda,
personality problem (Angry Black man syndrome), . . . This
attitude is pervasive in the larger society here in the United
States. The 'nigga's got a grudge against White people, that's
the only reason he's looking into this'. . . In light of the
'solid evidence' of U.S. sponsored African Genocide,
I am glad I have a problem. The drum beat of 'pay no attention'
to Boyd Graves will soon end. Len will have to move over on
top of this hill, and allow for a direct attack on the U.S.
game called “king of the hill” you have
elected to play by yourself. In the process, you have successfully
alienated your colleagues. I do not take your offensive statements
personally since you readily generalize them. You disparage
me, Don Scott, Garth Nicolson, and many other
Caucasian investigators with your freewheeling racial slurs.
You have tried on many occasions to discredit me and others
who preceeded your efforts in this regard. You choose to “overlook” far
more often than you acknowledge the people who laid the foundation
for your research. This is in stark contrast to ethical and
professional standards in science and justice. These standards
presume humility in acknowledging those who labored before
you to bring truth to light. Instead of humility and sensitivity,
you liberally chastise modern heroes like Don Scott, Allen
Cantwell, and yes, your self-created nemesis Garth Nicolson—people
who could have been highly supportive to your cause.
You decry your gayness/blackness
and HIV-status in a white supremacist world as justification
for your persecution,
yet you alone are accountable for the responses you get,
or fail to gain, from even potential allies.
belligerent communications speak volumes about you more
than those you disparage. Excuse me, but why is your
work more important, or more exacting, than others battling
evils in the world today? What about the multi-racial
and ethnic millions suffering from a host of other vaccine
induced ailments including autoimmune diseases and childhood
injuries? What about Gulf War Illness? Breast cancer? How
about the effects of globalization on native populations
What about chemical toxicities and injuries? What of these
genocides? Does your flow chart speak for them as well?
If so, why have you detracted from others whose works embrace
these victims and equally urgent issues?
I simply refuse to support, any longer, your self-serving/self-pitying
tirades. This kind of writing, much like the foul verbal harangues
you copiously spew to anyone who questions your position(s),
and for which you are now becoming infamous, have no place
in serious HIV/AIDS discussions. Your misdirected attacks and
false accusations detract from your credibility as a researcher,
lawyer, political commentator, and journalist. The critical
ethnic, political, and scientific issues at hand get lost in
your senseless dribble.
proudly alleged recently that you have “met
every scientific and medical challenge, but not a single person
has answered my first question. . . .” Which, you wrote,
is, “By what natural mechanism does the Icelandic sheep
disease, VISNA, appear in the nucleotide sequencing of HIV/AIDS?’"
has never been your “first question.” It
was Robert Strecker’s principle determination and question
as early as 1985. Boyd Ed Graves’s “first
question” has always regarded his smoking gun claim against
the flow chart. In fact, had you spent the time and energy
you gave promoting your “smoking gun” theory, and
your “discovery” of the flow chart, instead on
the ramifications of cross-species gene sequences and the suspicious
hybridizations found in HIV, linking it to the SVCP labs, you
might have done everyone a far greater service.
what outcome can we expect from your copious labors, granting
were solely responsible for initiating,
through Congressman Trafficante’s office, the ongoing
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the
flow chart as a smoking gun?
history is an accurate predictor, the U.S. GAO has been
known to whitewash some
of the most important conspiracies
of our time. Dr. Gold’s highly effective hydrazine
sulfate cancer treatment was squelched by the GAO a few years
A couple of years before that, as an industry and investigation
insider, I watched the GAO cover-up all of the most incriminating
evidence in their study of HIV/AIDS transmissions by Florida
dentist David Acer. Do you really expect the GAO to report
the biggest truths regarding the man-made theory of HIV/AIDS?
And what IS the small
truth the GAO is likely to report for your sake, but not
the benefit of humanity?
my 45-minute interrogation by GAO “scientists” assigned
to investigate what you had asked Congressman Trafficante to
research—that is, your “smoking gun” theory
regarding the SVCP flow chart—they revealed to me general
disinterest in much of the most incriminating documents and
circumstantial evidence reinforcing the apparent laboratory
creation and vaccine transmissions of HIV/AIDS. Reflecting
procedural laxity, they informed me that my testimony was NOT
being tape recorded, but they were “taking notes.” Instead
of the big truths begging investigation and disclosure, the
GAO investigators seemed most interested in determining what
you had insisted they myopically study. In fact, they gave
me the distinct impression that their consensus held the flow
chart was far less than a “smoking gun”—a
fair conclusion for everyone except you.
since I am not a lawyer, let me ask you a few final questions
record. Does your unsuccessful
court filings, that is, having your HIV/AIDS origin case
S. Cohen, et al.,” at the Pentagon, dismissed as “frivolous,” and
rejected more than once, finally by the U.S. Court of Appeals,
establish a legal precedent making it more difficult for
future class actions and plaintiffs devastated by this pharmaceutical
industry-linked genocide? If so, what has your anger, ego-centrism,
and lone warrior activities cost humanity? Will the path
paved with good intentions become part of the living AIDS
hell for future generations?
from this perspective, your “direct attack
on the U.S. Special(AIDS) Virus program” leaves much to be desired.
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
President/Publisher, Tetrahedron Publishing Group
Author of Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional?
In response to the
above letter, Dr. Graves widely circulated e-mails stating
that Dr. Horowitz is operating on behalf of the CIA to discredit
him and others advancing the man-made theory of HIV/AIDS. Furthermore,
that Dr. Horowitz affiliations with electromagnetic frequency
generators (e.g., Rife technologies) for use in healing, was
exploitative and shameful.
Furthermore, on 5/30/01
Dr. Graves and his publicist, Joel Bales, circulated statements
calling Dr. Horowitz “two
faced” following his African medical conference presentation
in which he addressed the likelihood that HIV/AIDS was developed
and transmitted to elicit Third World (particularly) African genocide
for the following reason: “[t]he AIDS crisis may serve an
ideologically justified function concerning burgeoning ethnic populations
in a period of globalistic transition. In effect, it provides a
revenue generating control mechanism for national security interests
and the organizations, institutions, and industries aligned with
what amounts to utilitarian global genocide.” Dr. Graves
alleged that Dr. Horowitz was an active party to this practice.
On 6/11/2002, Dr. Graves further assailed
Dr. Horowitz claiming he was withholding valuable HIV/AIDS cures,
despite two months earlier openly chastising him for endorsing
electromagnetic and bioacoustic energy technologies widely believed
to be a viable option within an HIV/AIDS treatment regime.
weeks later, Dr. Graves openly wrote Dr. Horowitz, “You
apparently did not testify in favor of your own book, before
the GAO. You got up to the plate and took off your sheep's
clothing. What a piece of shit you are.”
Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
delightful message followed Dr. Horowitz’s
honest testimony to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
Their investigation, thanks to Dr. Graves’s advisement
of Ohio Congressman, Anthony Traficant, failed to focus on
the contracts describing the Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP).
Instead, Dr. Graves urged everyone to focused on the program’s “Flow
Chart” that he insisted was a “smoking gun” that
proved HIV/AIDS had been not only man-made during the SVCP,
but that this particular document proved malicious intent
through the exclusive development of HIV/AIDS.
As a result of this controversy,
Dr. Horowitz requested an apology from Dr. Graves after openly
publishing his entire
GAO testimony, showing how he had supported Dr. Graves and
implicated the SVCP. That oral testimony, that the GAO decided
to entirely neglect for their whitewashed study is available
related press released published by Dr. Horowitz’s
publisher regarding this matter is available by (Clicking
Bible speaks of reserving harsh judgment of others, “lest
ye be judged.” Not long after Dr. Graves accused Dr.
Horowitz of performing his service strictly for fiscal rewards,
others condemned Dr. Graves likewise.
Graves was not the first, nor likely the last, to criticize
Dr. Horowitz for promoting the books, audiotapes,
videocassettes, and health products that he endorses. Covering
the fourth category of Dr. Horowitz’s critics, the
following letter from him to whoever it may concern:
Plugs" Frequently Seen in
Dr. Horowitz's Articles and Affiliated Websites
I am posting this notice in response to several loving
supporters expressing their concerns that the frequent references
made in my articles and websites to various books sold by Tetrahedron,
LLC is a sales gimmick.
Indeed it is, but vital necessity as I will explain below.
First, this publishing company has never accepted
any tax deductible contributions, nor any grant monies. Every
we have received since 1978, we have earned by hard work
and no handouts.
every person in the company, tithes 10% of every dollar
that comes in. Not after tax dollars like most pepole
tithe, but 10% of gross revenue. This is because we feel
this is the correct interpretation of the "first fruit" covenant
with God. Beyond this, every penny of profit gets put back
into growing our product line for human awareness and service.
humble servants of God [correct name is “Yah”],
we are frequently judged by people of various religions to
be "in it for the money." This common misperception is simply
a Freudian projection of the individual's own economic issues
and fears. Scripture counsels against such prejudice, and urges
judgment only based on a critical assessment of the "fruits
of one's labor."
people relay this prejudicial opinion without having followed
my work for years. Most who issue condemnations haven't
my most recent works. If they had, they likely would not
be thinking such ugly thoughts. In fact, as a company, and
a medical journalist, the sweet fruits and contributions
we have made over the past decade have gained us tremendous
and appreciation from grassroots organizations and individuals
around the world. Our efforts at helping to save one life
at a time, wake one person up daily, have obviously brought
fruit. We often hear from parents, for instance, who thank
us for saving the health and lives of their second and third
children following the tragedy of having their firstborn
die or become injured from "routine" vaccinations.
Some well-meaning critics contend we should be giving
our books away for free since the information is God's truth
that should simply be heralded from the highest rooftops. We
agree. Here's the solution. Simply find us someone who is willing
to tithe the money needed for us to continue to pay our bills
while continuing to serve God and the public as we have been
doing, and we will gladly give our books, audios, videos, and
health products away for free. As a non-profit educational
corporation, we would certainly be happy to have
the financial pressures taken off of us in this way.
Moreover, other critics have said that they
can't understand why we charge anything for our publications
since the public
should be helping to spread this truth.
In fact, that is precisely why we feel the public should
be reasonably charged for our products and services. People
should recall my family's sacrifice between 1993 and 1996 when
I sold everything, including my daughter's college fund, to
support my research into Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature,
Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron, LLC,
1998; 1-888-508-4787) This cost us approximately $330,000 over
that period. Where were our critics then? Thank God the book
became a bestseller, and we got every penny back and more,
and used all profits to publish subsequent books and tapes.
of these revenues have gone directly back into the company’s
growth as a human service organization. This is what allows
us to continue to publish our fine growing line
of books, videos and audiotapes.
people say, "I'm not going to buy from you, or your
website for a 10% discount, I'm going to Amazon.com to get
a heavily discounted price." These people never stop to realize
by doing this you are literally undermining the entire independent
publishing industry and small presses around the world. We
simply cannot afford to sell our books at the highly discounted
[multinational corporate subsidized] price Amazon or other
large chain retailers get for our books. Why?
Because we can't afford to lose money like they have been doing
for years in efforts to establish monopolies. Obviously, they
are extraordinarily well funded. We are not. This aspect of
the publishing business reflects the same old war games that
have been going on in various industries in which global cartels
have consistently worked to eliminate the "small guy." By saving
a few dollars at the large retailer's expense, you are actually
sticking a dagger into our hearts and those of every other
small press or author who is trying to make a difference in
three paragraphs above the reference to my first, and thus
far only, bestseller. As stated above, we have been
accused of putting my book titles into every article that we
issue as a "marketing ploy." The fact is, marketing is only
one objective here. These books contain the hard
cold documents that distinguish my works from "foolish conspiracy
theories." Without these citations, original record reprints,
and this documented proof, we might as well give up trying
to open people's eyes.
I am not a marketing guru. And since money has never
been my primary, or even secondary, focus for
more than two decades of this publishing company's operation,
I have been, perhaps, less than optimally successful in getting
our important truths out to the public.
recently hired a "marketing guru" to
lead our company, he has urged that we not only continue this
but expand it! His argument hinges on the fact that most
Americans are simply used to this "high pressured" sales pitching,
and that if we really want to inform the greatest number of
as well as remain economically viable, we must do what the
[Christian] Messiah did. That is, go to where the people
hang out and speak their language.
In essence, we welcome supportive feedback and constructive
criticism. But before you submit your concerns to us, make
certain they are well considered, from all
perspectives. Ideally, present us with solutions for the
problems your raise.
Otherwise, you will not be helping us, but simply dumping
your mental/emotional baggage into our already swollen mailboxes,
and wasting more of our precious time—time that could
be used helping humanity.
Sincerely yours in the Spirit of health by Yah's grace,
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
Dr. Horowitz is frequently asked to lecture and present seminars
before audiences worldwide. Quite often
he volunteers to do fund raisers for different needy groups
or individuals. He receives many requests, in fact, to
do programs without the benefit of an honorarium. Even so,
some of his
critics have chastised him for not doing enough in this
or for charging anything for his time and speaking services.
Here’s how Dr. Horowitz replied to one such person:
Dr. Horowitz's speaking fees—
any given week, I am called upon to respond to approximately
1,000 e-mails. So when I take time away
from the office, and my family for any reason, the challenge
of catching up
to this my responsibilities with regard to updating websites,
advancing two to four book publishing projects at
any given time, fielding daily phone calls that include frequent
urgent consultations with terminally ill people and their
loved ones, conducting radio interviews—sometimes four hours
a day—and it's remarkable that I am able to conduct
speaking tours at all.
notice my family was not mentioned above. During the past
several years, my greatest unfulfilled longing has
been to spend more quality time with my children, who are
growing up so quickly I'm missing it.
is for this reason, primarily, that I must choose to decline
invitations and demand reasonable honorariums
my audiences. Most people can appreciate how much I have been
willing to give and give up in order to perform the services
I provide. It is reasonable to conclude that our Creator does
not want me to burn out, neglect my family or business demands,
or go broke serving people who, quite often, are unwilling
to give as much as they receive. My published honorariums are
a way to “weed out” people or groups who fall into
this category. Generally, I am open to mutually supportive
and sustainable “win-wins,” but not
open to serving people or organizations who do not share my
hard work ethic and high level commitment to carry vitally
important, life-saving, messages of truth to the world.
used to compromise my honorariums, needs, and integrity for
people who expressed good-will and their desire to have
me come speak, but dropped the ball for any number of reasons.
I would show up, but their expected audiences didn’t.
A few years ago, for example, one “Christian” woman,
an alleged “American Patriot,” from the Louisiana
persuaded me to sacrifice a whole week of my time, drive more
than 1,000 miles, and ship about 300 books at great cost, on
her word and on good faith. At the last minute she cancelled.
She never even had the courtesy to inform me, or call my office
while I was enroute to her “great event,” explain
why her plans had suddenly changed. The entire affair cost
me about $10,000.
Therefore, my fees are not unreasonable. Particularly
when you consider I it takes me at least a full day to get
to most other cities, and a day return. What is two days of
your time worth?
Moreover, if I compromise my needs and fees
for one group, then it's not fair for other groups or individuals.
For people who wish to receive the information I am blessed
and privileged to share, but can't afford to have me come to
speak, I produced a whole series of video and audio programs.
People can get these through local libraries for no charges
to them or for a small fee by calling toll free 800-336-9266.
will serve any person or organization that doesn't violate
these personal and professional needs. In this spirit
I have served Jewish, Christian, and Muslim congregations,
people of all ethnic backgrounds, even though I have been
criticized and even condemned for doing so. If I were to
exclude certain racial, ethnic, or religious groups, like
some people have urged me to do, often because of their limited
abundant misconceptions, then those who seek global depopulation,
and administer ongoing planetary biochemical genocide, have
indeed won—we might as well all go around killing each
other right now, and saves ourselves and our persecutors
future pain and expense.
My lecture and seminar fees may be confirmed by calling
my office (1-208-265-2575). Please let me know if my honorariums,
transportation, and accommodation expenses cannot be arranged.
Perhaps we can put our heads together to develop a workable
solution. But please do not commit to something that you are
unable to achieve. I have no problem with rescheduling programs,
or even canceling them in due course without expense. My wife,
children and I could use the time together.
Best wishes and Yah bless,
final category of Dr. Horowitz detractors involves those
who have been engaged in medical science. For the sake
of brevity, the following two examples provide proof that Dr.
Horowitz is always open to constructive criticism, especially
when it comes to scientific assessments and related dialogue.
In the instances cited below, HIV/AIDS experts Dr. Robert Gallo
and Dr. John Moore, both of whom challenged Dr. Horowitz’s
AIDS origin thesis, are discussed. In 1996, Dr.
Robert Gallo—the man credited with the AIDS-virus discovery
in 1984—who Dr. Horowitz’s research revealed oversaw
the development of numerous AIDS-like and Ebola-like viruses
under NIH contract # 71-2025 (as revealed and reprinted in Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident
or Intentional?)—criticized Dr. Horowitz for
raising legitimate concerns regarding the man-made origin of
HIV/AIDS, specifically related to his early work with Litton
Bionetics. Likewise, during the XI International Conference
on HIV/AIDS where Dr. Horowitz originally presented his scientific
thesis, Dr. John Moore—affiliated with Rockefeller
University’s Aaron Diamond Research Center in New York—flippantly
rebuked Dr. Horowitz’s claims in Canadian newspapers.
Here is how Dr. Horowitz effectively responded to these
critics in published scientific reports:
October 28, 1996
Dr. Robert C. Gallo
Director, Institute for Human Virology
725 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Thank you very much for the interview you
gave me on July
30, 1996. I found the discussion very interesting, and am responding
I greatly appreciate your offer to help in determining the
origin of human immunodeficiency viruses (HIVs). I understand
that you must, however, limit your views partly for political
expediency, and partly due to lack of any definitive knowledge.
any case, my responses to your four specific objections to
my thesis—that HIV-1, or its progenitors, could have
evolved from laboratory experiments and subsequent human vaccine
contaminations (i.e., hepatitis B and polio) with simian and
type-C cancer viruses routinely studied and recombined during
the “Special Virus Cancer Program”—are
viruses discussed lack the “homology” needed to recombine.
will grant you that some degree of homology is needed for
recombination, and the more homology the more
recombination. However, neither
the whole genome needs to be homologous nor is there a requirement
that the homologous regions be contiguous. Small stretches
of even a few base pairs are all that is needed for recombination
of type-C cancer viruses—the focus of substantial “Special
Virus Cancer Program” research. HIV has been shown
to evolve through type-C like morphogenesis. (Salakian, P
et al. J
random natural recombination is not the only issue. You may
recall, given your first hand knowledge of bench level virology
during the late 1960s and early 1970s, that people who were
really up on molecular virology at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) including the late Dr. George Khoury, Ed
Scolnic, and others, recombined such viruses in their labs. Documents
show many government and industry researchers, known or unknown
to you, were heavily involved in genetic engineering,
in this time frame, preceding the discovery of HIV.
some restriction enzymes were available before the discovery
of HIV-1. Several enzymes were even publicly available to
do gene cutting and pasting.
you insist on homology of genomic organization, or nucleotide
sequences, let me point out that the world of virology has
known the lentiviruses for a long time. What about the
bovine immunodeficiency virus? I do not need to tell
you that there are a lot of organizational similarities between
HIV and BIV.
mentioned Ray Gilden during our interview. I am currently preparing
a paper that discusses Gilden’s warning in this regard.
Following lengthy trials, concerning the homology of C-type
cancer viruses, and the RD114 cat/human viral recombinant,
Gilden stated: “[A] new virus with no growth restrictions
may be accidentally introduced in a new species, perhaps by
vaccine, and these become epigenetic as opposed to a rarely
seen endogenous virus. Possibilities of recombinants are thus
raised . . . , which could have an extended or newly acquired
oncogenic potential.” Gilden’s warning obviously
foreshadowed the AIDS pandemic. (See: Viruses,
Evolution, and Cancer: Basic Considerations—International
Conference of Comparative Virology, 2nd, Mont
Gabriel, Can., 1973. New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 235-256.)
the little genetic similarity between the viruses used in your
and Litton Bionetics’s labs and HIV-1, this does not
negate the probability that the SIVs and HIVs evolved from
recombinant viral research. Having studied SV40, you may recall
how this and another very dissimilar virus—the human
adenovirus—were found to combine, creating a potentially
deadly mutant—the ad-SV40 hybrid. In 1973, Andrew Lewis,
at the NIAID (see: Biohazards in Biological Research, Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1973, pp. 96-113) showed that following
unexpected and unexplained recombination of these grossly different
viruses, hybrids emerged that contained as little
as 6% of the original SV40 genome.
few viral sequences resembling those of C-type cancer viruses
may appear in HIV, yet this does not negate the possibility
that some segments of the SIVs and HIVs may have come from
NCI laboratory specimens.
molecular virology entails a lot more than homologous
recombination. One could practically construct new viruses
residue by residue using the general pattern of established
viruses viz, the LTR, gag, pol, env and all the interesting genes sprinkled
in. Though building and then testing the stability and function
of new constructs is a painstaking and time consuming process,
documented evidence shows this is precisely what was done during
the 1960s and early 1970s by biological weapons contractors
(see: Geissler E. Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. London:
Oxford University Press, 1986 with contributions by David Baltimore
and Raymond Zilinskas).
significant and suspicious is that HIV does not fit the mold
for naturally evolved viruses. There is a lone~40 percent
homologous virus—HIV-2—which may or may not have
been a progenitor of HIV-1, and it may not have originated
in monkeys. HIV-2
is definitely not endogenous to any of the species from which
it has been isolated. The word “endogenous” is
meant here in the classical sense. Which came first? The
fact that we now find them in several monkeys and a group
in one region of Africa (i.e., “high risk” Senegalese
female prostitutes who, due to their “risk,” and
participation in public health/research programs, likely
received the most suspected heptatitis B vaccine) makes one
This is like the simian sarcoma virus complex (SSV, SSav
and SiSV) which does not have any comparable viruses in the
kingdom. There has not been a second isolation of that virus
did HIV-2 and other SIVs come from? The world of virology
is still waiting for that answer. Max Essex informed me his
came from monkeys infected with human tissues during laboratory
experiments. My theory of sloppy science (e.g., contaminated
vaccines for HIV-1 and HIV-2, and contaminated monkeys being
released back into the wild for the other SIVs) best explains
the circumstantial and scientific evidence at hand. Do you
have any better explanations? You indicated that you were
able to provide a more “plausible” iatrogenic
theory on the origin of AIDS but time did not permit you
I await any additional insights you may be able to share.
the viruses I discussed as having been recombined by your colleagues
at the NCI and Litton Bionetics, “not any one of them have
any homology to what is HIV. Therefore, none of them could contribute
to any part of HIV.”
is a matter of public record that once you firmly believed
HIV was closely related to HTLV-1 and HTLV-II. Hence the name
HTLV-III. As a matter of fact there was a publication in Science (see: Homology of AIDS-associated
virus with genomes of human T-cell leukemia viruses, Arya
SK, et al. Science 1984;225:927-930) showing molecular
similarity. Did you ever withdraw that paper?
agree that since there are no known viruses in the evolutionary
scheme that look very similar to HIVs, HIV must be considered
unique by design. However, you know that HIV is not totally
unique. In very general terms, HIV is similar to both type
C and type D viruses along with the inclusion of regulatory
genes typical of lentiviruses.
you may recall Ray Gilden’s instruction on this subject
in the “Comparison and Evolution of RNA Tumor Virus Components” (In: Viruses, Evolution, and Cancer: Basic Considerations—International
Conference of Comparative Virology, 2nd, Mont
Gabriel, Can., 1973. New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 235-256.):
relationship of viruses such as Visna, Mason-Phizer, and
mouse MTV (mammary
tumor virus) to type C particles cannot be assessed in quantitative
terms, yet the presence of reverse transcriptase and approximate
morphologic similarity of virions present a strong case for
common ancestry however remote. . . . We should stress here
that groupings such as “type
C” are man-made abstractions, and arguments
of differences are only indicators of variability that are
difficult for men to accommodate in simple classification schemes.
. . . Once the ability to make comparisons is granted, a second
major problem of critical significance to any attempt to discuss
evolutionary relationships arises. Simply stated this is, how do we know that the viruses chosen for analysis
are representative of the species from which they were isolated?”[emphasis
Gilden’s conclusions were drawn long before the arrival
of sophisticated DNA sequencing techniques, his point is still
valid and particularly applicable to the question here: Did
HIV evolve from laboratory experiments in which chance or intentional
encounters occurred between different viruses of foreign species?
The answer, as your comments suggest, is very plausibly “yes,” despite
the fact we may be unaware of the largest contributing virus(es).
studied SV40, you may again recall Andrew Lewis’s conclusions
at the NIAID (see: Biohazards
in Biological Research, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,
1973, pp. 96-113.) Regarding the ad-SV40 hybrids, “Until
satisfactory studies evaluate the long-term effects of SV40
infection in humans and clarify the relationship between
SV40 and SV40-related agents to chronic degenerative central
system disease in humans, it appears to this reviewer that
the laboratory manipulation of SV40 involves some risks.”
reflecting on your work with human white blood cells and type-C
cancer viruses George Todaro (and Gallo), concluded:
viruses can alter their host range either by adaptation or
selection, these human hybrid
cells would appear to constitute a potential biohazard since,
in this situation, one has an endogenous virus of a species
being produced by cells which, at least in part, are human.
These hybrid cells are being extensively explored by geneticists
all over the world who do not realize that they contain
high titers of potentially oncogenic [cancer causing] viruses.
. . .What is not clear is the nature of the relationship between
the acquisition of oncogenic potential by a cell and the expression
of that cell’s endogenous type C viral information. Type
C viruses carry oncogenic information and can produce tumors
(leukemias, lymphomas and sarcomas) by exogenous infection;
whether horizontal spread (cell to cell and/or animal to animal)
of exogenous type C virus is responsible for a significant
portion of naturally occurring cancers in vertebrates is uncertain;
that they can have oncogenic potential and can produce tumors
in a variety of species is firmly established. It follows,
then, that these viruses and the cells that produce them must
be treated as potentially hazardous agents.”
is why I asked you in Vancouver whether you remain
concerned that your early research with colleagues at Litton
Bionetics might have given rise to AIDS virus progenitors.
final point deserves mention here. HIV and other newly discovered
viruses are still trying to stabilize themselves in their respective
hosts. A similar situation was described by Todaro regarding “the
feline leukemia and sarcoma viruses [that] might be derived
from other species.” (See Todaro’s work “Endogenous
type-C viruses in cell cultures. In: Biohazards in Biological Research. A Hellman,
MN Oxman and R Pollack Eds. New York: CSHL, 1973,
pp. 114-130.) Todaro, who cited additional examples of cross
species laboratory transfers, noted that since these viruses
grow so readily in cat cells, and spreads so “readily
through the population, producing a high level of diseases,
[their presence] represents an apparently unnatural situation
among mammalian species.” Likewise, Gerald Myers at Los
Alamos recently shared with my colleague, author Ed Haslam,
that HIV mutates faster than anything he has ever studied.
In this manner, HIV stretches the bounds of nature. This, coupled
with the fact that no close ancestors exist strongly suggests
HIV is not natural but man-made.
these extremely variable genomes may finally select a few stable
versions, and like influenza, may settle down to be mildly
harmful to its present hosts to mutual advantage.
conclusion, in the absence of orderly evolution, uniquely high
mutational tendencies, and its timely appearance the decade
following recombinant biotechnology initiation, HIV was very
possibly designed and put together along the lines of several
well known agents with very adverse functional properties/consequences
post infection in their present hosts.
you didn’t say it was done intentionally, but just in case
anybody ever said, it was impossible to do intentionally, because
the viruses existed in human beings at least since the 1960s; and
molecular techniques for gene cloning, doing these things in a
laboratory, didn’t evolve until the late ’70s and early
1980s. So it’s off by almost twenty years.”
earliest confirmed isolates of HIV go back only to 1976 (Myers
and Pavlakis. The Retroviridae. New
York: Plenum press. 1992, pg. 59). Regarding the reports claiming
the earlier existence of HIV, I can only say—“What
won’t people do to get published?”
DNA technology was beginning to unfold, even in the public
domain, by the early 1970s. You even reported a cellular cloning
operation involving SV40 in a 1972 publication (Gallagher R,
Ting R, and Gallo, RC. Biochemica et Biophysica Acta 1972:272:570).
Definitive experiments in phages and molecular biology using
DNA manipulation goes back to 1952 (see: Phage
and the origin of Molecular Biology, Eds. Cairas
J, Stent GS, and Watson JD. Cold Springs Harbor
allow me to refresh your memory that a 1969 Congressional Record cites Litton Bionetics
as sixth largest U.S. Army biological weapons contractor.
This is exactly the time when members of the National Academy
Sciences–National Research Council (NAS–NRC) informed
U.S. Department of Defense officials of their ability to produce,
through genetic engineering, a “new infective microorganism” that
may ravage the human immune system, and leave people susceptible
to infectious diseases and cancers. Obviously then, by 1968,
shortly after you began work at the NCI, the NAS–NRC
was aware of genetic engineering capabilities, and offered
to help develop “synthetic biological agents” for
germ warfare. (See Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, pp. 6-7)
are infected with viruses . . . We know [HIV] came from monkeys.
No rational informed person could argue otherwise.”
The later is not true. I, like other researchers
includingTodaro (re: feline leukemia virus), Gerald Myers,
and George Pavlakis,
can argue otherwise.
and Pavlakis, in “Evolutionary Potential of Complex Retroviruses
(In: The Retroviridae,
op cit.)” were unconvinced HIV evolved from either monkeys
left alone in the wild or from monkeys at all! This was made
clear when the authors discussed only the “possible simian
origin of HIV.” And though evidence, they said, was mounting
HIV evolved from monkey virus relatives, they entertained
the possibility ancestral viruses may have formed during the
1950s “as part of malaria experiments.” (See page
agree that HIV appears to have evolved substantially from monkeys
and/or monkey virus parts. But as these scientists, as well
as Ray Gilden (see Gilden, op
cit.) indicated, we can’t be sure. My investigation
confirms that much was done to monkeys and monkey viruses that
might have contributed to HIV’s development.
I accept that SIV from the chimpanzee is the closest relative
to HIV-1, and that HIV-2 is much like SIV present in wild sooty
mangabeys, these viruses are all relatively recent isolates,
and may themselves have evolved from laboratory experiments
conducted during the 1950s, 1960s, or perhaps early 1970s when
immune deficiency studies in New York City and Central Africa
were in vogue.
support for this iatrogenic theory comes from a series of letters/articles
in the February 1988 issue of Nature wherein Essex and Kanki raised the “obvious
possibility” that macaques “became infected with
SIV from another primate species in captivity.” Yet,
Kestler, et al. concluded SIVmac, the laboratory
contaminant identical to HIV-2, did not likely evolve from
SIVagm or SIVmangabey. So if not from these primates, then
where did SIVmac(HIV-2) come from?
am aware . . . of at least five instances in other laboratories
in the United States and Europe where noninfected
cell cultures became infected with HIV-1 in the same containment
hood,” wrote Carel Mulder in Nature.
Thus, it remains highly plausible the original SIV evolved
from laboratory outbreaks of HIV-1, or some related virus,
carried by monkeys or vaccines into the wild. As John Martin
reminded us in the foreword to Emerging
Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, it was not uncommon to
have experimental animals, particularly ailing ones, released
back into the wild.
how did the infectious agent HIV enter humans around 1970?
Well, documents show that in the late 1960s, and early 1970s,
hepatitis B vaccine efforts concentrated in New
York City and Central Africa. The virus was pooled from live,
heavily infected, chimpanzees, Rhesus monkeys, and humans.
Serum for the vaccine lots, containing 200,000 human doses,
was obtained from the humans who received these viruses and,
most assuredly, simian virus recombinants as well. By the way,
these humans had received the earliest polio vaccines containing
SV40, simian foamy retroviruses, and more. The primate resource
for this effort was, as you mentioned, Litton Bionetics vis
the U.S. Army.
conclusion, I greatly appreciate this dialogue with you on
a subject that has been kept in the closet for a variety of
understandable reasons. Since I have your permission, I will
incorporate your response in future work, and look forward
to expanding common ground and reaching a scientific consensus
regarding the origin of AIDS.
Yours in the Spirit of health,
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
John Moore’s Saga
recently, opponents of the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV)/AIDS
hypothesis had criticized,
like Dr. Horowitz, Edward Hooper for his text, The River,
as being “irresponsible,” and “very, very short
of . . . hard facts.” The man who issued these
remarks and criticism of Hooper, like Dr. Horowitz among
his leading detractors, was retrovirologist John Moore.
Horowitz published in the journal of Medical Hypothesis (2001) 56(5), 677-686,
his man-made origin of HIV/AIDS thesis wherein the following
discussion regarding Dr. Moore was written:
“In 1996, following
the XI International Conference on AIDS wherein I initially
presented this paper’s polio/HB vaccine/AIDS hypothesis
during a poster session, this thesis was flippantly rebuked
by Moore in the Canadian press. As with his critizue
of Hooper’s well researched tome, Moore alleged that
my conclusions were devoid of ‘scientific basis’ and
this author personally contacted Dr. Moore in an effort to
open dialogue and further genuine scientific discourse following
his Canadian press interview, he refused any formal discussion.
Responding later to my continued prodding, he wrote from the Aaron
Diamond AIDS Research Center, ‘I explicitly denied you
an interview when you requested one. . . . I said to you that
I had ‘no interest’ in your . . . grotesque
theories. . . . For the record, I know what your views
are, and I reject them. Indeed, I dismiss them as uninteresting,
incorrect and downright stupid.’
Hooper’s work, Moore wrote, such efforts
were potentially damaging to the public’s trust of western
medicine, and harmful to ‘ongoing efforts to make AIDS
vaccines for use in Africa.”
should be noted that Moore’s institutional benefactors
include the Rockefeller family which, along with the Rockefeller
Foundation, has heavily invested in ‘Western medicine,’ the
cancer and vaccine industries, and the Merck pharmaceutical
company in particular, along with propaganda and population
control organizations worldwide. Moore’s
bias is thus strongly suggested.”
this simple and honest way, Dr. Horowitz’s completely discredited Dr.
Moore for the rest of his professional career, since this is
now published scientific peer reviewed fact that may effectively
warn scientists indefinitely regarding Dr. Moore’s
industrial allegiances and obvious biases.