Hollywood & Horowitz

 

 

Dr. Horowitz's Latest Book was Guided by and Angel!

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2005, He Scientifically Slammed-Dunked the Reality of Your Genetic Spirituality! Read:

 

Promoting The Concert for the Living Waters!

Dr. Horowitz Collaborated with Jonathan Goldman to Produce the World's Most Powerful CD

 

Three Months Prior to 9/11, Dr. Horowitz Published the Prophetically Titled Exposé on "Who Done It!" Read:

If You Care to Know Who Mailed the Anthrax, and Why, Read the Report That Made the Mystery Disappear from the News: Dr. Horowitz' Classic ANTHRAX REPORT!

 

 

Dr. Horowitz’s Critics “Walk on Quicksand.” Read All About It:

Someone 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.

Dr. 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 science detractors.

Since 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.

The 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, click 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.

The 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.

Regarding 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 Here). The 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?

Following 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 Here)

Dr. 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 organizations, are simply filthy prostitutes for the global pharmaceutical cartel.


Here 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 Investigation (FBI)

250 Northwest Blvd., Ste. 200

Coeur D’Alene, Idaho 83814

fax: 208-665-2525

March 27, 2000

Dear Mr. Dunton,

Thank 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 efforts.

On 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.

As 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.

As 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 be gleaned from his website (http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch):

1) “name-calling”—Dr. 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.”

2) “glittering 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.”

3) “euphemisms”—defined 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.

5) “testimonial”—the 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 representatives 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 agenda.

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 of Idaho.”

Obviously, 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 Watchdog.”

While 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 practices.

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."

Based on this information, and any further investigation the Federal prosecutor and/or 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.

Sincerely yours,

Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.

For more information about Dr. Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett,  (Click Here)


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 medicine:

A letter to Paul Polevoy—Canadian Quackbuster Extraordinaire

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.

What 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 your 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:

That 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.

The fact that you also admitted never reading any of Albert Einstein’s great essays about God additionally proves your ignorance.

Why 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.

While 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 the alternative medical practices we taught and used. Two decades later, as we watch you jump through the same hoops to attack us, defending the drug-based medicine that has produced vast populations of sick, dead, dying, addicted, and financially destitute individuals, a groundswell of grassroots consumerism demands everything natural, that is, Godly.

I 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.


The 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 Ed Graves.

Frequently, 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 Here)

Dr. 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 funding:

Dear Len:

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

(9/17/2001)

Len: 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

(2/11/2002)

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:

Open Letter to Boyd Ed Graves From Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz

Re: The GAO Investigation, Special Virus Cancer Program, and Flow Chart “Discovery”

April 8, 2002

Dear Boyd Ed Graves:

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:

1) you “discovered” the Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP) flowchart, whereas I “overlooked” it;

2) the flowchart represents a definitive “smoking gun” in-so-far as the genocidal conspiracy, currently ongoing, to produce and transmit HIV/AIDS—the “Special Virus;” and

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.

First, 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?"

On 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 believe that, by itself, it represents a “smoking gun” as you have argued.

Thus, 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.

I 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.

Among 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.

For 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. Special (AIDS) Virus program.”

The 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.

Your 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 against 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 worldwide? 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.

You 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?’"

That 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.

Finally, what outcome can we expect from your copious labors, granting that you 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?

If 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 ago. 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?

During 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.

Furthermore, since I am not a lawyer, let me ask you a few final questions for the record. Does your unsuccessful court filings, that is, having your HIV/AIDS origin case against “William 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 you’ve paved with good intentions become part of the living AIDS hell for future generations?

Seen from this perspective, your “direct attack on the U.S. Special(AIDS) Virus program” leaves much to be desired.

Sincerely yours,

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.

Two 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.

(6/27/2002)

This 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 by (Clicking here).

A related press released published by Dr. Horowitz’s publisher regarding this matter is available by (Clicking Here).

The 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.

Dr. 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:

Regarding "Marketing Plugs" Frequently Seen in Dr. Horowitz's Articles and Affiliated Websites


Dear Friends,

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 dollar we have received since 1978, we have earned by hard work and no handouts.

Furthermore, every person in the company, tithes 10% of every dollar that comes in. Not after tax dollars like most pepole who 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.

As 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."

Often 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 as a medical journalist, the sweet fruits and contributions we have made over the past decade have gained us tremendous support 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 much 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.

All 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.

Some 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 the world.

Notice 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.

Having recently hired a "marketing guru" to lead our company, he has urged that we not only continue this practice, 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 people, 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.

Moreover, 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 regard, or for charging anything for his time and speaking services. Here’s how Dr. Horowitz replied to one such person:

Re: Dr. Horowitz's speaking fees—

Over 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 is omnipresent.

Add 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.

You 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.

It is for this reason, primarily, that I must choose to decline invitations and demand reasonable honorariums from 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.

I 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.

I 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 beliefs and 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,

Len Horowitz

The 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

Dear Bob:

Thank you very much for the interview you gave me on July 30, 1996. I found the discussion very interesting, and am responding herein.

First, 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.

In 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 as follows:

Objection #1—The viruses discussed lack the “homology” needed to recombine.

I 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 Virology 70:3706-3715)

Moreover, 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.

Additionally, some restriction enzymes were available before the discovery of HIV-1. Several enzymes were even publicly available to do gene cutting and pasting.

If 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.

You 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.)

Regarding 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.

Thus, 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.

Furthermore, 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).

Additionally 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 of individuals 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 very suspicious. This is like the simian sarcoma virus complex (SSV, SSav and SiSV) which does not have any comparable viruses in the animal kingdom. There has not been a second isolation of that virus (HIV-2) yet.

Where did HIV-2 and other SIVs come from? The world of virology is still waiting for that answer. Max Essex informed me his isolation 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 to explain. I await any additional insights you may be able to share.

Objection #2—Regarding 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.”

It 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?

I 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.

Again, 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.):

“The 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 added]

Though 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).

Having 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 nervous system disease in humans, it appears to this reviewer that the laboratory manipulation of SV40 involves some risks.”

Likewise, reflecting on your work with human white blood cells and type-C cancer viruses George Todaro (and Gallo), concluded:

“Because 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.”

This 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.

A 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.

Hopefully 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.

In 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.

Objection #3—“Obviously, 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.”

The 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?”

Recombinant 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 Press, 1972).

Please 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 of 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)

Objection #4—“Monkeys 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.

Myers 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 59.)

I 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.

Whereas 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.

Additional 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?

“I 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.

So, 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.

In 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.

Dr. John Moore’s Saga

More 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.

Dr. Horowitz published in the journal of Medical Hypothesis (2001) 56(5), 677-686, (See: www.originofAIDS.com) 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 without merit.

“W 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.’

“Regarding 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.”

“It 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.”

In 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.


Stay updated with Dr. Horowitz's e-mailings and newsletter. Join our list of subscribers free now at Healthy World Distributing, LLC's website! click here »


 

Dr. Len Horowitz's Brief Biography

Choosing to be a humanitarian on “a roller coaster ride through the Twilight Zone.”

 
Copyright © 2003. Drlenhorowitz.com All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us