Email Our Editor

Join Our Mailing List

View Our Archives

Search our archive:

The Last 20 Days' Editorials

Email This Article  Printer Friendly Version

Africa and Aboriginal Tuesdays: Dr. Leonard Horowitz Responds To The Dialogue Room Comments Re: His Interview On The Origin Of AIDS

I appreciate the readers' responses to my research, conclusions, and opinions in this interview concerning the hepatitis B vaccine/Man-made origin of HIV/AIDS. The only personally challenging positions stated in the two dozen responses posted here were written by Oikopolis. S/he wrote falsely, "Here's my understanding of Horowitz’ view of HIV/AIDS having collected various pieces of evidence from interviews and his writings. It originated at Ft. Detrick, where it was developed by Army . . ."

Had s/he critically read my "interviews" and "writings" s/he would have learned of my discovery of the Litton Bionetics contract (NIH Grant #71-2025) and the Merck contract (NIH #71-2059). These are the two most implicated companies in-so-far-as the origin of HIV/AIDS is concerned, NOT THE ARMY!

So you see, a little knowledge, sifted through a biased mindset, may be misleading and, in this case, extremely dangerous--deadly for the public's health. Oikopolis is a great example of one with a SCATOMA. A "scatoma" is defined as "a blind spot, an inability of insight into" a certain subject. That is, a personal bias prohibits Oikopolis, and other reasonably intelligent persons like him/her, to see the forest of reality through the trees of bias, disinformation and propagandist illusion. Compare our two orientations: My position seeks open widespread inquiry and dialogue concerning some obviously urgent documents evidencing ongoing genocide. His/her position supports shutting off such inquiry and dialogue, disregarding documented facts, and rather than refuting the facts and messages, character assassinating the messenger. Whose position serves the greatest common good? Oikopolis, and few others, insinuate I have done my research and writing over the past decade simply to make money on people's fears and ignorance. He/she further admonishes my arrogance and failing personality--lack of professionalism and patience with some individuals who take opposing views. Would you conclude that HIV/AIDS is more than about Dr. Leonard Horowitz? If you were required to make the choice, would you choose to help save the health and welfare of millions of people worldwide at risk for premature demise, versus simply caring about the lives of Dr. Leonard Horowitz and his family? I made that personal choice in 1993. I do not regret making that choice, nor will I ever, despite constant condemnations by the Oikopolises.

Dr. Leonard Horowitz
12/30/2003 2:42 PM

Below, in order, from most recent to earliest (ending January 4, 2004), are the reader responses in the Dialogue Room to our Exclusive Q & A With Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Author, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional?" Re: The Origin Of AIDS


BruceB 1/4/2004 12:00 PM

oikopolis I will leave your full psychoanalysis to RobM but your dismissal Dr. H's thesis of a deliberate origin of HIV, in light of the evidence he documents in his book and this interview of a deliberate search for the development of immunosuppresion viruses by the U.S. government and what atiga points out, if accurate, of the WHO's investigation in 1972 of the human immune system, all in favor of the theory as you wrote "1) counterparts in animals, possibly zoonotic, the oldest class of viruses causing human diseases; HIV fits bill & may have 'jumped' eons ago; would explain diverse HIV strains, wide distribution, high carry rates, and carriers w/ no immune dysfxn, unless one prefers 'oversexed African' theory; no one looked for HIV before Gallo et al, so can't rule out preexistence; one group estimates ~70k yrs"/ does seem to show that you have an emotional need to not believe this more than a rational one. I guess that is why you chose to first argue against Dr. H and hide behind paradox and atiga rather than lay out this convoluted position.


RobM 1/3/2004 4:15 PM

Oikopolis, sure in a way I do not need a reply from you to understand that you fit a profile of people who ridicule "conspiracy theories" so much that when they do occur in fact - like with cointelpro or at the local police department, or in voting "irregularities", or in lending discrimination or in something like the Tuskegee experiments you are ill-prepared to handle it or don't care as an intellectual. It simply does not fit your world. No problem and no dialogue.


Atiga1/3/2004 5:14 AM

Oikopolis wrote: "Rather, it seems quite possible that HIV is an opportunistic retrovirus that has been carried by humans for thousands of years". Ok, now explain why it affects Blacks disproportionately!


oikopolis1/2/2004 9:54 PM

It's more appropriate to refer to HIV as an infectious's a stretch to call any virus an "organism".


oikopolis1/2/2004 9:52 PM

Atiga, I did not say it was crazy; that would have been purposefully insulting. You and I agree that the promiscuity theory is highly suspect, then we part ways. You find it much more likely than I do that HIV/AIDS is the result of a medical-political conspiracy, on the basis that such things have happened before, and the lack of a specific oral history of HIV/AIDS. I find the conspiracy theory less compelling, and remind you of my contention that AIDS is not HIV-dependent [it's not accurate to call them both diseases, one is an organism, the other a symptom complex]. Rather, it seems quite possible that HIV is an opportunistic retrovirus that has been carried by humans for thousands of years. You will find no oral history of "HIV", just as you will find none for Epstein-Barre. But there are oral and written histories of crowding, poverty, starvation, wasting, and death. The medical category AIDS is new, but the symptoms it describes are probably not.


Atiga1/1/2004 6:04 AM

Oikopolis wrote: "claims that the origins of HIV and AIDS lie in a secret plot to commit racial genocide are suspect and deserve serious skepticism" Well, Art, I do appreciate your opinion but I must disagree with you here. You see, when I see that blacks are disproportionately affected by the twin diseases HIV/AIDS I must ask "WHY"? It is when the "WHYNESS" of the issue is dealt with that when can get to the bottom of it. Now many people have asked the question why and have come up with variuos theories that they believe best answers that question; green monkey theory, promiscuios Africans, homosexuals, Vaccines and genocide.... etc. In refelcting upon all these opinions I must analyse each one based on their merits and demerits. The green monkey theory is bogus to say the least since the Central Africans have been eating these monkeys for centuries but never have we heard in their oral traditions that there ever came a time when a strange disease afflicted them in the manner of HIV/AIDS killing millions of them!! There are no traditions, stories nor histories of such, HIV/AIDS are a recent phenomena!!! Now, Africans are no more promiscious than the next person or continent on this earth so I dont buy that argument. But it is a fact that just after introducing polio vaccines in the 70's that HIV/AIDS did break out. What is the linkage here?? I have heard numerous geonocdal activities engaged in by White racists governments in Africa during the apartheid era. Further, we have come across acts of genocide on the part of the U.S government and the early settler community, so what is so strange about that. Like Robm said, you accept that racism exists in government, in schools,at the work place, religion, sports, the police service, the judiciary and so on but ITS ALL OF A SUDDEN CRAZY TO THINK THAT RACIST SCIENTIST EXIST WHO ,WITH THEIR POLITICAL ALLIES ARE BENT ON COMMITTING GENOCIDE ON BLACKS AND OTHER PEOPLE THEY DEEM UNWORTHY OF LIFE. This is what I dont understand about your "SCEPTICISM", what is so crazy about it?? I mean its not like we are accusing Mother Theresa (may God rest her soul)of genocide. So please explain whats so crazy about it??


oikopolis12/31/2003 1:32 PM

Jonas...My argument makes two essential points re race: claims that the origins of HIV and AIDS lie in a secret plot to commit racial genocide are suspect and deserve serious skepticism; but at the same time it is difficult, if not impossible, to deny that the stereotype of 'depraved Africans' has had a profound influence on the world's understanding of HIV/AIDS. Paradox remarked upon this latter point, and you affirmed it. I have not asserted, here or anywhere else, that genocide and racism do not exist. Check my posts. Your friend, Art


Atiga 12/31/2003 6:53 AM

Oikopolis wrote:"my friend Atiga nails the actual racism of HIV/AIDS, which is an innate, widespread, nonsensical perception (implication?) of the whole African diaspora's 'behavioral challenges'." Oikopolis , I am rather surprised that you would doubt that racism exists in the arena of genocide!!! Was is out of love and brotherliness that black men were made guinea pigs in the Tuskegee experiment?? Did you hear of the genocidal activities that the S. African apartheid government engaged in as revealed by the Truth commision?? What about small pox infections that the U.S gave to the native indians?? I would exceed my limit in terms of space allowed on this board if I were to expantiate on the genocidal relationship between whites and members of the darker races so I will refrain from doing so but I beleive the above will suffice for now. What other emotion can fuel genocide other than hate??certainly not love!! To atribute hate and racism to the HIV/AIDS debate is not strange considering the past relationship between whites and blacks as it concerns genocide.


oikopolis12/30/2003 5:22 PM

Rob, r U really awaiting a response from a lame unwise fuzzy thinking person out of touch w/ reality & unworthy of conversation about racism & genocide? Tell me, not the board, in a dignified way, if U think I have my head in the sand or someplace far worse, & I'll listen. Bruce, fair request: NO ONE knows origin of HIV or cause of AIDS, but I find compelling: 1) counterparts in animals, possibly zoonotic, the oldest class of viruses causing human diseases; HIV fits bill & may have 'jumped' eons ago; would explain diverse HIV strains, wide distribution, high carry rates, and carriers w/ no immune dysfxn, unless one prefers 'oversexed African' theory; no one looked for HIV before Gallo et al, so can't rule out preexistence; one group estimates ~70k yrs 2) Retroviruses very rarely implicated in deadly disease; would be novel for one to cause global pandemic; eg, mononucleosis is associated w/ class of retros that are always present, but take advantage of poor immune function in a host (ie, stress); the Rx for mono is bed rest, so we don't know if they cause it, or r just hapless markers of host distress; HIV is disconcertingly similar; has never "killed" anyone; AIDS victims die from wasting & tuberculosis pneumonia &c but are classified as AIDS deaths if they show HIV infection; as many people die from these diseases w/o HIV infection but r not lumped into single group; if they were, HIV probably secondary to poverty & malnutrition 3) Immune dysfxn is much older than vacc & chem-bio research 4) HIV may be older than vacc & chem-bio 5) but perhaps not, and researchers have tinkered w/ some nasty bugs (eg, Ames anthrax, smallpox). Hats shouldn't be hung on either #4 or #5, but we should attempt to disprove them both. Horowitz' research doesn't clear that hurdle, still he declares that HIV=genocide. My recap of his theory is not a caricature at all. Google him.


RobM 12/30/2003 12:42 PM

Like BruceB I await the clear thinking of oikopolis and his origin of AIDS thesis. paradox and atiga are intelligent enough to untangle themselves from oikopolis' answer which uses their posts as props. atiga says "AIDS IS MAN MADE" but is positioned by oikopolis' as somehow supportive of oikopolis' "zoonotic origin theory" of AIDS. Anyway, oikopolis has revealed himself as fitting my profile of an intellectual who probably thinks clearly about every subject but conspiracies involving race. See my posts from 12/29 and compare them with the wisdom of oikopolis' - "my friend Atiga nails the actual racism of HIV/AIDS, which is an innate, widespread, nonsensical perception (implication?) of the whole African diaspora's 'behavioral challenges'." Fitting the profile, for oikopolis, THERE ARE NO EVIL WHITES IN LABORATORIES OR HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS. THEY ONLY EXIST AT THE GROUND LEVEL spreading bad "perceptions" of Africans. If only colonial genocide had been a public relations campaign. Conspiracies don't happen in oikopolis' world. You can have very little dialogue about racism and genocide with such "free" thinkers.


andrea 12/30/2003 11:33 AM

Paradox: you gave me a lot to think about this morning. I do believe that the type of intimacy/interactions that some African’s engage in is a small but important point, if you compare it to other cultural tastes. Also,the major South Africa Hospital has reported that almost 25% of their patients come from the West. I agree with Atiga that promiscuity is not the major factor. I believe that it goes deeper than that. I am interested in comparisons between different cultural attitudes towards sexuality. It’s an avenue worth exploring. Basically, what are African’s doing that we aren’t doing that is allowing AIDS to thrive abundantly? Specifically, what are the preferences in intimacy for the exact reason/example that you gave: Brazilians or Asians aren’t contracting this at the same rate. I believe it has to do with specific sexual ideologies that relate to how the disease can be spread the quickest. If any of you have studied this or have links to sites regarding this, I’d definitely like to hear your thoughts… thanks in advance.


BruceB 12/30/2003 11:02 AM

oikopolis - no hiding behind paradox, or atiga, or a caricature of Dr. H's thesis - just YOUR thoughts. How did HIV and AIDS originate? Straight up, lay it out for us, man. We know what you don't believe, but what do you believe?


oikopolis 12/30/2003 10:40 AM Here's my understanding of Horowitz’ view of HIV/AIDS having collected various pieces of evidence from interviews and his writings. It originated at Ft. Detrick, where it was developed by Army scientists working for NSA’s Kissinger and Zig Brzyz., who were actually toadies of vanished Nazis Adolph Hitler & Martin Bormann, who directed a shadowy, amorphous medical-industrial complex (competition in pharmaceuticals being mere illusion) with groups like Malta, Planned Parenthood, Hapsburgs, Romanovs, Windsors, Freemasons, Rockefellers, and other popular conspiracy targets, whose primary aim was to reduce the human population by 50%. And Drs. Gallo & Duesberg are toadies in a massive global cover-up. Now admittedly, perception is determined by the perceiver, and we’ll all have differing views on this. But my perception is that this is a lot of foolishness. I was convinced when I came across an ironic but not unexpected invocation of Occam's razor at his tetrahedron site. This is a common tactic of one who is seeking out true believers.


oikopolis12/30/2003 10:33 AM

I'll offer a retraction of my wish for a tougher line of questioning. Point is well taken that BEC doesn't engage in 'hammer journalism', but allows its readers to study and decide. I'm passionate about HIV/AIDS as a microcosm of many human concerns & practices, studied it for several years in the 90s. BruceB, I know the zoonotic origin theory quite well, far more reasonable than the conspiracy theories I think, but we'll see. The hepB vacc theory is reasonable too, and all simian vacc development should be dug into. But it's beyond skepticism to implicate studies of mammalian immune systems, especially those w/ a profit motive (a point of hypocrisy w/ Dr. Horowitz?), as having evil conspiratorial designs. Paradox is more up to date than me but w/ my friend Atiga nails the actual racism of HIV/AIDS, which is an innate, widespread, nonsensical perception (implication?) of the whole African diaspora's 'behavioral challenges'. Paradox also nails the shabby epidemiology behind the statistics (Andrea, too much NPR!smile). Horowitz did some good objective work, but the theory he's built is based mainly on speculation (an MPH is allowed to do this, as pure medical research is more rigorously confined).


Atiga 12/30/2003 8:12 AM

Paradox, you make some excellent points!! I really dont buy into this Africans-are-too-promiscious argument. I mean what is the average age of the sexually active in the west and in Africa??? I bet it is must lower in the west than in Africa. I also think that the figures are hyped up a bit. Dont forget that the figures are computer generated and not actual records of AIDS victims!!


paradox12/29/2003 10:02 PM

Cont'd: 4)There is much more contact between West Africa and North Africa than between West Africa and Southern or East Africa. Thousands of North Africans and Lebanese live and work in West Africa and they frequently fly back and forth from palces like Dakar and Bamako. So it's a mystery(well, not really if you understand what's going on) that North Africa is declared AIDS free in the Western media 5)Talk about special tastes in intimacy etc. is amusing, even silly, and should not be taken seriously. Compare the African situation with Brazil, a country that has a raucous, saturnalian carnival every year with loads of Westerners of all permuatations on the sexual landscape flooding in for the drunken baccahnalia that takes place over one month. The birth rate experiences a quantum change every nine months after. Figure that one out. Yet the Brazilian rate is reported to be less than 1% so why is the African rate supposed to be so much higher?


paradox 12/29/2003 9:47 PM

Reply to Andrea: Interesting observations but the following should be noted:1)people in Africa-as elsewhere- go the doctor mainly when they feel ill. The World Health Organisation(WHO)held a conference in Bangui(Central African Republic) and laid down a set of rules to identify AIDS in Africa. The sufficient requirements were based purely on symptoms without resort to the Elisa, Western Blot, etc. tests ruled neccessary in the West. Results based purely on symptons cannot be scientifically reliable.2)West Africans don't as a rule travel to Southern Africa for jobs. Preference is for Europe where there is a greater demand for workers.2)The West and Asia have by far the monopoly on prostitution over Africa. In Africa prostitution caters mainly to Western visitors since even itinerant Africans don't have the resources to pay for such.


andrea12/29/2003 4:47 PM

Everyone has raised interesting theories, but I’d like to respond to Paradox. Testing for AIDS in Africa is based on symptoms because many people still refuse to acknowledge the disease at all, it wasn’t until this century that you were even allowed to say you died of AIDS on your death certificate. So we will never have an exact number of those who have died from this. In the least, until most Africans accept the truth of AIDS, there can be no proper testing as well as no proper treatment. Here is one theory or rather a trend to consider as to why North Africa seems not to be as touched by the syndrome. Millions of poor men travel miles and miles through Western and Southern Africa for work, along the way they stop and have liaisons with prostitutes. I have read reports that In Western Africa, some men prefer dry penetration. So prostitutes do their best to make that possible such as soaking themselves in vats of salted water. Dry penetration without protection enhances the probability of becoming infected. Reportedly, this is becoming more and more common a trend. When these men go home (months later) they are passing it to their wives/girlfriends, who then pass it to their children. That trend alone proves. Africa conforms the MOST to the major risk factor of contracting the syndrome and that factor is ignorance, there are not enough doctors or counselors to go into the villages and educate them because exposure of the epidemic can mean death to the sick as well as the educator. Of course there are many other reasons why Northern Africa has not had as much exposure. I believe it is important to understand the origin, but at this point with the level of urgency that we are at, I think it might be more important to 1) investigate the reasons for the spread in each region of Africa 2) get the government to realize why they need to stop refusing help 3) the UN needs to make this a number 1 priority. It’s not the responsibility of American celebrities to bring this to our attention, it is our world government’s responsibility.


RobM 12/29/2003 3:39 PM

paradox, the most powerful and evil people do not care about money as much as killing the inferior race. In case you haven't noticed the Federal Reserve is privately owned. They make money. Why would they kill for it?


paradox12/29/2003 1:39 PM

But what if the numbers put out to support the "AIDS pandemic in Africa" mantra are deliberately hyped and bulked up to support 1)anti-AIDS drug sales and profits and 2)population control on the basis of condom sales and Trojan horse platitudes like "We really want to help you." Points to ponder:1)why on any AIDS map of Africa, North Africa is portayed as mysteriously immune from the disease? 2)How can a supposed pandemic with high morbidity last 15 years--contrary to the etiolgy of known pandemics? 3)Why if Africa conforms the least to the established major risk factors for AIDS it still harbours 65% supposedly of all AIDS cases? The risk factors are i)male anal homosexuality, ii)IV drug use with needle exchange and iii)easy travel.4)Why is testing for AIDS in Africa("Bangui protocol" based on just symptoms) different from testing in the West?


RobM 12/29/2003 1:06 PM

I hope you all follow my logic. If you are a white or even black conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, green, or whatever there are only racist white cops, corporate executives, football coaches, talk-show hosts, editors, judges, waiters, baseball players, movie directors, and bank officers, BUT NO RACIST SCIENTISTS WORKING IN MILITARY LABORATORIES OR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. There is "institutional racism" at the liberal media, "mainstream" media, conservative media, RNC, DNC, local hospital, police department, fire department, newspaper, radio station, sports team, grocery store, advocacy group, school board, and church BUT NOT AT FT. DETRICK, MARYLAND OR THE WORLD HEALH ORGANIZATION.


RobM 12/29/2003 12:51 PM

This is really a great website, the more I tread through. Avid Reader and Tanyaw, the reason why you won't read this interview at a liberal or conservative website is that only African Americans are sensitive enough as a group (Of course there are exceptions in other races)to ask the deepest questions regarding evil. Conservatives and liberals have cleansed politics of the evils of white supremacy. That is why genocide can't be discussed or believed. It is not allowed in their mental construct. THERE ARE NO EVIL WHITES IN LABORATORIES OR HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS. THEY ONLY EXIST AT THE GROUND LEVEL. Hence, you will never hear any of these supposed intellectuals admit that there are racist scientists that work for the United States military or World Health Organization. But anyone who has studied COINTELPRO or CIA operations would know better. The real problem people have with the conclusion Dr. Horowitz has arrived at is not its science but rather its political implications. The science and documentation he provides is certainly more sound than what we all have swallowed as the origin of AIDS. But that will never be enough to get this story on CNN or Fox or Rush Limbaugh other than to ridicule it.


Trisha 12/29/2003 8:51 AM

That is the point atiga even if you don't agree with Dr. Horowitz when you dig into this what you find is that there is nothing really supporting the view that HIV is an accident or natural.


Atiga12/29/2003 6:21 AM Dr. Sali of Uganda has also done a lot to expose the myth of the so-called natural cause of AIDS through the Green monkey theory. He calculated that the first victim in West central Africa had to have slept with 15000 partners who in turn had to sleep with 15000 people each and so on if the numbers of HIV affected people was to tally. This number of 15000 sex partners of course is ridiculous to say the least so he concluded that there had be another mode of transmission namely VACCINES. It is interesting to note that the WHO published a study into the human immune system back in 1972 in the WHO bulletin No 40 on pages 257-263. It seems to me that all reasonable facts point only one way -- AIDS IS MAN MADE!!!!


Tanyaw 12/27/2003 6:13 PM

oikiopolos please explain your statement "a concern I have with Dr. Horowitz' is that he seems to be engaging in more pedantic and inflammatory dogma than dialogue. It also seems to me that the more tenuous a piece of evidence, the more speculative a conclusion, the more convinced he is of being right (I wish BEC had served up a tougher line of questioning). " I think we are all having trouble following you after having read the interview that i thought was excellent


Khan 12/27/2003 4:04 PM

Funny I just saw on the program "Next@CNN" a report where a Chinese lady was interviewed and she says "SARS doesn't come from animals it comes from a foreign government's germ warfare". I would have normally not paid any attention but not after reading this interview. By the way CNN was pushing the line that SARS somehow mysteriously jumped from animals to humans. But there is evidence that coronaviruses, said to be responsible for SARS did not mysteriously "jump" species, but were manufactured in cultures. "Coronaviruses were first isolated from chickens in 1937. In 1965, Tyrrell and Bynoe used cultures of human ciliated embryonal trachea to propagate the first human coronavirus (HCoV) in vitro. There are now approximately 15 species in this family, which infect not only man but cattle, pigs, rodents, cats, dogs and birds (some are serious veterinary pathogens, especially chickens)." The link:


avid reader12/27/2003 2:54 PM

Bruce B. got me thinking about something when he mentioned political ideologies and talk shows. I will throw it in hear for a twist to the discussion. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh and read conservative columnists you will know that global warming is the defining scientific issue for them. You are automatically deemed a liberal if you believe that global warming is caused by human beings using cars. But after reading the conventional explanations of HIV and where it originated, I am hard-pressed to find any reason why the conservatives who bash the science behing global warming won't do the same about the piss-poor arguments that hold up the theory that AIDS naturally or by accident, even, comes from chimps and monkeys and somehow jumped into the human species. It is a joke to believe this crap that masquerades as science and medical inquiry. All you conservatives out there, if you can refute science on one issue why not another? Why is the ever-present liberal media conspiracy not involved in the explanations of HIV/AIDS - If you can't trust National Public Radio (NPR), the New York Times, USA Today and CNN on what causes global warming why do you trust them on what causes AIDS? Forgive my digression but I am not so sure this is one if you are puzzled to understand why you can't get a decent "Dialogue" started on this topic anywhere other than this website.


clarence12/27/2003 2:29 PM

Oikiopolis should understand that the passion of Dr. Horowitz comes from his sincere belief that this is a life-and-death issue that people are ignorant about or just plain stupid. Dr. Horowitz should realize that his remarks about Dwayne Wickham and his perceived braggadocio turn off sensitive readers like Oikiopolis who may be uncomfortable with even considering what Dr. Horowitz is suggesting.


BruceB12/27/2003 1:10 PM

Oikiopolis go read the 7/22/03 USA Today article, "Tracking evolution of HIV-1 yields clues" AND the UAB article "Origin of HIV-1 Discovered", pointed out by RobM. below.////// Do you really think their combined theory that "Scientists studying the origin of the virus that causes AIDS in humans, HIV-1, have tracked it back in time, through countless evolutionary changes and deep into the African bush. The search, they say, has turned up genetic evidence indicating that the human AIDS virus originated from the chance reshuffling of genes from two monkey viruses in chimpanzees. (USA Today) AND "Chimpanzees are frequently hunted for food, especially in West-Central Africa, and we believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population through exposure to blood during hunting and field dressing of these animals" (UAB)is credible? More plausible than what Dr. Horowitz lays out?


RobM12/27/2003 12:56 PM

Any of the blackelectorate dot com readers infatuated with Dr. Gallo? After reading what Dr. Horowitz says about him check out this article from a decade ago calling into question Gallo's AIDS research. This is revealing and depressing. Just ask around in the profession - people practically worship at Gallo's altar when it comes to HIV and AIDS. So you don't miss it here is what Gallo says of his own work, "There's no question that there are mistakes (and) that it's an embarrassment." The person responsible for exposing Gallo is none other than Dr. Gerald Myers of Los Alamos, the person Dr. Horowitz mentions in the first answer of his interview at this website.


RobM12/27/2003 12:11 PM If you really understood and read it carefully you would conclude that this is actually a very good interview. I wonder what Dr. Horowitz and the rest of you all think of this article from the University of Alabama: "Origin of HIV-1 Discovered" Don't get duped - the crumb to follow in this blackelectorate dot com interview is the Litton Bionetics and Merck contracts (which Dr. Horowitz publishes in his book) that show work being performed to produce "leukemia-lymphoma-sarcoma cancer complex viruses linked to immune suppression, and trials to induce this disease complex in monkeys and humans during the early 1970s". Do your reasearch. Everything you need to start and test Dr. Horowitz' ideas are in this interview.


Trisha 12/27/2003 11:44 AM

Sorry, the link to is I think Dr. Horowitz' thesis sheds light on the theory of the University of Alabama researchers and Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama about the sudden infection of chimps with SIV and how SIV led to HIV and "jumped species." I am not a doctor but I can follow this stuff guys!


Trisha 12/27/2003 11:38 AM

For Dialogue's sake, and anyone interested in comparing and contrasting Dr. Horowitz' theories with others can start by reading's " The Origin Of AIDS & HIV & the first cases of AIDS". It is only one-page long. FOCUS ON HOW THE CHIMPANZEES GOT SIV FROM WHICH HIV DESCENDS. HOW DID (according to "wild chimps became infected simultaneously with two simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs)"?!? Compare that with Dr. Horowitz' FIRST ANSWER IN THE BEC INTERVIEW and this from the front-page of Dr. H's "So if chimpanzees were not used to make the polio vaccine, and therefore the origin of HIV and AIDS did not come from this vaccine nor time period (1950s-early 1960s), then what other vaccine, given during the early to mid 1970s, might have used one or more SIVcpz-infected chimpanzees in the manufacturing process? The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV “punctuated event” occurred."


BruceB12/27/2003 11:03 AM

Unbelievable. This website never ceases to amaze me. All of the too-hot-to talk about subjects are dealt with, and in a way that educates everybody. I really think that this website is going to have to "disappear" before some of you guys get what it is all about. Judging by some of the responses I have read over the last year this is the MOST dynamic site on the internet, unfortunately with the most simple-minded readers. Oikopolis your reply is lame, dude. Just like with all the posters on the Cam'ron and Damon Dash commentary you miss the point of this interview. What do you mean by "(I wish BEC had served up a tougher line of questioning)"? Are you saying that because you have a "tougher line of questioning" in mind or because you are upset with Dr. Horowitz thesis, period? If you come to the website regularly - I agree with Trish - you would understand that the interviews are not antagonistic for the hell of it. They are "for-your-information" questions that are hard, soft, direct and indirect designed to get the person to talk. In none of these interviews does Cedric M. try to be the star. So in that way he is like the folks at C-Span who want you to THINK more than they want you to listen to them. I understand that has to be troubling for people who think education, dialogue and investigative reporting is watching conservatives and liberals make straw-man caricatures of each other and beat the hell out of them. Here we were just reading about Dr. Horowitz and bamm!!! the next week or so you actually get a chance to read his thesis at SO, Oikopolis can just get past HOW Dr. H says what he does and start dealing with WHAT Dr. H is saying. I think you missed the hint that BEC gave us when it gave all those links inside of the interview. They want us to study this issue for ourselves and discuss it intelligently; not whine about the self-conceit of the person being interviewed. Perhaps the problem is your knee jerk reaction to and not Dr. Horowitz way of answering questions. How could you have such a reaction to such an informative interview with tons of leads to follow and CHALLENGE, if you choose.


Trisha 12/27/2003 10:17 AM

Oikopolis I think noticing Dr. Horowitz confidence in himself is fine. Perhaps he is arrogant and perhaps he has a fair estimation of his thesis and research. BlackElectorate.Com's questioning is perfect considering that you and I don't know the whole theory without an introductory interview. The goal should be getting the most information out of the person interviewed. Maybe you aren't that familiar with this website but that is how the interviews are conducted whether it is Najee Ali Russell Simmons, Reuven Brenner to Black Caucus members and popular rappers. By the way, I don't read anything in your reaction that overcomes any of Dr. Horowitz points. Are you only offended by his personality? Can't you get past that to all of what the good Doctor is saying - even naming names and giving you dates to follow and challenge?


oikopolis 12/26/2003 8:43 PM

Trisha, I think you make a fair request. Dialogue over HIV, AIDS, human health & poverty have been woefully inadequate. But a concern I have with Dr. Horowitz' is that he seems to be engaging in more pedantic and inflammatory dogma than dialogue. It also seems to me that the more tenuous a piece of evidence, the more speculative a conclusion, the more convinced he is of being right (I wish BEC had served up a tougher line of questioning). And while I base this assessment on nothing other than my personal experience, I'll say that the people I've come to trust as truth seekers are rarely so sure of themselves, nor are they so convinced that unspeakable evil lurks around every corner.


Trisha 12/26/2003 3:52 PM

Thank U, Thank U, and Thank U again. I am so sick and tired of people rejecting this POSSIBILITY. Now we have a point to start a conversation. I hope that the doctors and scientists and military people will get involved with this "dialogue". I am tired of the professional politicos and opinion folks who can't even think something like this is possible. I agree with BlackElectorate.Com let us reason and research this.


eric77 12/23/2003 8:14 PM

i have always had my su _____ ions about this disease. it seems more people of color are infected by this disease than any other race. aids origin is sayed to be in africa.. i think manufactured infected blood was sent there deliberatly and it has spread rapidly since.. why is it that thses drug companies can make a drug for you to live with it and not cure.. its simple as this aids is big business and the money is in the medicine and not the cure...


Tuesday, January 13, 2004

To discuss this article further enter The Deeper Look Dialogue Room

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of or Black Electorate Communications.

Copyright © 2000-2002 BEC