Part 2 of 2
• Part 5
Now, what about the so-called, what I call "myths of AIDS"? The virus coming out of a monkey is impractical or impossible for the following reasons: If you look at Africa, if the virus came from monkeys, you would expect the virus to have spread from the jungles to the cities. Of course, that isn't what happened, it's spreading from the cities into the jungles. If you look at Africa, those most closely associated with the African green monkeys, the reputed animal origin in pygmies, they should have been infected with the AIDS virus. And up until the last six months or a year or so, pygmies were virtually 100% free of AIDS virus infection. They only got infected after intercourse or contamination from prostitutes of the cities, or by drug contamination from intravenous drug abuse from the cities.
Stronger evidence against the virus actually coming from monkeys is the Codon choices of the AIDS virus. And that means that the genetic information of the AIDS virus, known as "codon choices," are NOT found in monkeys. They are not in monkeys; they are not in man; they actually exist in visna virus, and a few other viruses of the laboratory. That's where the genetic structure, the genetic material, the so-called "information" of the genes of the AIDS virus look like visna, as we already know, and bovine leukemia virus. So all of these mitigate against the virus coming from monkeys and spreading in Africa.
There's another way to get at this problem. If you say, for instance, that there are between 40-75 million Africans infected, and we know that 2x = 40 million, then we had to have approximately 2 [to] 20, or 20 year doubling time for the virus to have spread in Africa. It's now 1988, that would have meant that the virus had to originate in Africa in 1968, and of course by mid-1970s, or early 1970s, there would have been people dying from AIDS in Africa. And of course that's not the case. The retrospective analysis of blood shows that AIDS didn't exist in Africa until the mid-70s, or later.
If you look at the United States where the AIDS virus appeared was in New York in 1978, San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1980. It appeared in young, white, male, homosexuals who were between the ages of 20-40 who were promiscuous. It did not appear in black, heterosexual, French-speaking, immigrants from Africa or Haiti.
Now, simultaneous with its appearance was the conduction of a hepatitis-B vaccine study in New York in 1978 and in San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1980 among young, white, male, homosexuals who were between the ages of 20-40. Later published in the 80s, in Morbidity, Mortality Weekly was that six of the first ten AIDS cases in San Francisco came directly out of the cohort study of 1980. Published in 1986 by Clad Stevens was a graph that showed in 1984, approximately 45% of those in her original study were HIV positive; in other words, had become infected for AIDS in 1984.
So you must ask yourself, "Is there some kind of a relationship between the Hepatitis B Vaccine Study of the United States and the subsequent outbreak of AIDS in exactly the same population groups at exactly the same time? I personally believe that there is, but I can't answer exactly what that relationship is.
Now, is AIDS a sexually transmitted disease? It's said, "Sex and Drugs." Now, we're told that over and over, "Sex and drugs," "Sex and drugs." Well, let's look at what a sexually transmitted disease is. I say AIDS is a blood-borne infectious disease. I don't think of AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease, but you must define what you mean by "sexually transmitted disease." If you mean any virus that could be transferred during intercourse, then I guess AIDS would be. But of course, that would include Polio, Mono, Smallpox, Chickenpox, Measles, Mumps, and practically every virus known to man because sexual intercourse is intimate contact, and nearly all of those could be transferred by sexual intercourse. But if you look at what sexually transmitted diseases is, I say the following: If you go in and you say, "Well, Doctor, I'm going to have a blood transfusion, do you think I'm going to get trichomoniasis from that blood transfusion?" And you'd say, "No, you don't get trichomoniasis." "Well, isn't that a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS?" You say, "Yeah, it is, but it's not in the blood." "Well, do you think I'll get herpes from a blood transfusion?" "No." "How about syphilis?" Well, it's possible you could get syphilis from a blood transfusion because syphilis has a blood-borne phase.
Now, if you look at what sexually transmissible diseases are, they grow in the venereal tract. They are present in high Titers. They don't live outside the body for a long period of time -- "long life" here. And they are primarily transferred by sex. Now, which of these criteria does AIDS meet? Does AIDS grow in the venereal tract, specifically, like trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes? No. That's wrong. It grows throughout the body and the lymphocytic system, and destroys the thymus.
Is it present in High Titers? There is no AIDS virus ever been identified in semen, it has only been cultured from semen. The only place that AIDS virus was identified by sedimentation, by ultra-centrifugation, was in saliva, not from semen. Now, that isn't to say that AIDS can't be cultured from cells of semen, it says that AIDS does not exist as a free virus in semen. So it's NOT present in High Titers. So we're wrong on 2. Two of four so far.
Does AIDS live outside the body for a long period of time? You know, a few minutes? We've been told that, but the French published two years ago that if you put AIDS in a petri dish and place it on a windowsill in France, that it lives there for approximately 10-14 days. You come back, add saline, and you can culture the virus. So AIDS lives for 10-14 days outside the body. So it doesn't meet criteria no. 3 for what I call a sexually transmissible disease.
And is AIDS primarily transferred by sex? Well, they like for us to believe that, but I don't believe there's any evidence that this virus is primarily transferred by sex. I believe the virus is a blood-borne infectious agent. How the virus is actually being transferred, I don't know.
[Dr. William Thornton] Well, the AIDS virus, according to Dr. Strecker, does not fit any of the criteria for a sexually transmitted disease. However, this doesn't mean you can't get the disease during sex. You can. For example, the common cold was not a sexually transmitted or venereal disease, either. But could you get it during sexual intercourse? Yes you could. But it really has nothing to do with sexual intercourse itself. It's the intimate contact, or close contact, that spreads the AIDS virus according to Dr. Strecker. You see, no one really knows how the virus is transmitted, not even the so-called AIDS experts. Because the virus was apparently introduced in homosexuals in this country, it was homosexuals who passed it during intimate contact, thus it became a homosexual disease. Again, a misleading and distorted conclusion.
In light of these revelations by Dr. Strecker, what about the use of condoms. Well, condoms are effective in preventing certain venereal diseases, but because AIDS is not a venereal disease, the condom's effectiveness in preventing AIDS transmission remains questionable. In addition, the AIDS virus is so small, it can pass through the naturally occurring holes in condoms. Using a condom may be better than nothing, but the degree of protection from AIDS transmission has not been fully researched. Dr. Strecker will explain this further in his presentation.
• Part 6
[Dr. Robert Strecker] If we look at "Confronting AIDS," which is the textbook published by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, it is not known whether the virus is transferred as free virus or a cell-associated virus, or in both forms. Now what is that saying?
That's saying the following: That when it comes to how the virus, the AIDS virus, is being transferred from one person to another, like from one homosexual to another, or from a heterosexual man to a heterosexual woman -- this is a man, and this is a woman -- they can't tell us whether the virus is being transferred as free viral particle or as viral particle inside of a cell. Now, that's like General Patton saying that he can't tell the difference between a tank that's assembled and one that's in a factory. There's a tremendous difference. So when you get down to actually how this virus is being transferred, there is very little, if any, data published that tells us how it's being transferred from one person to another.
They like to tell us that it's just a sexually transmissible disease, but they don't tell us anything about how the virus is getting across the membranes of either the man or the woman. And of course, depending on how it's getting across, has a great deal to do with how really dangerous it is for the long run. So I call that the "Myth of Sexually Transmissible Disease."
Now condoms. This is another great topic. In a recent Los Angeles Times article was entitled, "Koop Warns on Risk of AIDS in Condom Use," [by Allan Parachini, Sept. 22, 1987].
[Dr. William Thornton]
"According to Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, long a highly visible advocate of condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS, warned that prophylactics have extraordinarily high failure rates among homosexuals and offer them no assurance of safe sex."
Later, Koop states:
"I don't like to acknowledge mistakes, and I don't want to use the word mistake in reference to that report."
"Koop said that since the initial report was written he has been 'surprised' to find a near-complete lack of research on condom failure rates and causes."
"Only one study (in progress) ... has ever been designed to explore the various issues of condom breakage and leakage rates as they relate to AIDS."
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Now, I use the following illustration -- this is a condom, and this is a naturally occurring hole in the condom, which is approximately 1.5 microns in diameter, which is 1-10 times larger than the size of the AIDS virus. This will represent, for the moment, a penis, and this represents the subsequent ejaculation that is occurring from that condom on that penis.
Now, what about the question of mosquito transmission of this virus? AIDS virus is a known, close relative to two other animal retroviruses named equine infectious anemia virus, and caprine arthritis encephalitis virus. This one affects horses, and this one affects goats. That's not to say that the AIDS virus didn't come from, say, bovine leukemia virus in sheep, but what we're talking about is that this end product, the AIDS virus, is also a great deal like these viruses.
Now, equine infectious anemia virus, which in the south is known as "swamp fever," swamp fever is a known vector-borne virus, and has been known to be vector-borne since about 1920 or so. That means it's borne by blood-sucking insects. It's transferred by blood-sucking insects.
Caprine arthritis encephalitis virus; the father of the AIDS virus, bovine leukemia virus; visna virus, the sheep brain-rot virus is what I call the mother of the AIDS virus; bovine sensation virus -- all of the near relatives of the AIDS virus, most of them are, or at least indications are that they are vector-borne, or potentially transferred from animal to animal by blood-sucking insects. So the burden of proof is on those who say that the AIDS virus is NOT mosquito transmitted. If you actually believe that the AIDS virus is NOT transferred by mosquitoes, then you have to say, if that's really true, then why didn't we use the technique that the mosquito uses for transfusing blood, because if a mosquito somehow arbitrarily filters out the AIDS virus, then why don't we filter blood through that same kind of mechanism, and no one would get an AIDS virus from a blood transfusion. The burden of proof is on those who say the virus is NOT transferred by mosquitoes rather than on those who say that it is.
The experiment I'd like to see run which no one has volunteered for of all these so-called "AIDS experts" who tell us the virus isn't transferred by mosquitoes, is to let a box full of mosquitoes feed on AIDS-infected blood, bite the researchers on the wrist, and let's see how many of them get AIDS. Of course, they haven't published that experiment yet, have they?
The "Mosquito" of the Blood-Borne AIDS pandemic
Now, what about vaccine development? Will there be a vaccine? I personally think that the development of a vaccine for the AIDS virus is if not impossible, next to it. I say that for two reasons. The first is that I believe that the AIDS virus rose by recombination, or mixing, of bovine leukemia virus and visna virus. That actual fact is that the genes of the AIDS virus contain approximately 9,000 base pairs, each base pair has four choices, which means there are 9,000 x 9,000 x 9,000 x 9,000 different AIDS viruses. That means that instead of being a single virus, there's a field effect, what I call "a field effect" of viruses. There's a whole menagerie of viruses. And that, of course, explains why every AIDS virus that has been isolated to date is different. That's of course except for Dr. Gallo's and Dr. Montagnier's, which I guess have been proven to be the same, but that's a different story.
But for the moment, let's look at the fact that the AIDS viruses were all different. They talk about AIDS as if it was a stable virus, like smallpox, which is the same today as it was 100 years ago, more or less. Or chickenpox. Or measles. Or mumps. But the actual fact is that every AIDS virus isolated from every patient, more or less, has been different.
The reason is because the virus is chameleon-like, as we already talked about, and interacts with the tissue that it's growing in. And if it's growing in you, it interacts with you and it comes out different than what went in.
In a sense, if it goes in as an AIDS1, what comes out is not necessarily AIDS1, but maybe AIDS2, which is a little bit different. It looks a little like you. It's chameleon-like. That explains why, besides the fact that it's the basic nature of these viruses to recombine, is the fact that every AIDS virus isolated to date is different.
Just to sideline here a little bit, let's look at this question of vaccine and the natural recombinant nature, which is why the first point, that there won't be a vaccine: (9,000)4. If you look at AIDS the disease, the virus itself, without addressing the recombinant nature, the retroviruses as a rule of thumb are known to spontaneously mutate about 1%/year.
This means that if today the virus is this, that one year from now the virus would be different at approximately 1% of 9,000, which would be 90 points.
Now, interestingly enough, one of the theories of the so-called "AIDS experts," if you believe this, one must conclude -- at least, I would say that one must conclude -- that the world is flat. Now, why do I say that? We say that because these so-called "AIDS experts" tell us that the Portuguese took this virus to Japan out of Africa, and spread it there in the 1500s or so.
Now, how can you conclude then that the world is flat? I say that for the following reasons: If we look at Portugal -- nobody in Portugal has AIDS, or is reported to have AIDS or any of the other so-called "human retroviruses," which means that none of those sailors ever got back home, so they must have fallen off of the end of the world.
Two, if you look at this virus and you say today -- if this is a map of the world, and we look at the viruses isolated from Haiti, Africa and Japan -- if these viruses were put into those countries in the 1500s by Portuguese sailors, and they spontaneously mutate 1%/year, it's presently 1988, which means that there should be 488% difference. But the actual fact is, in the case of HTLV-I isolates from Japan, Africa and Haiti, those isolates are virtually identical. Which means that they could only have been put into those areas in recent times if my mathematics is correct.
Now, two. The real reason that I feel that there will NOT be a vaccine developed for AIDS is the following: (1) is the recombinant nature, (2) AIDS, HIV, and other retroviruses address the central issue of processing. In other words, if you go back to the original article written in 1972 in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, there it said, "Let's see if we can make a virus that selectively destroys the cell that's responsible for processing the virus.
Of course, that's what AIDS is, and in a sense, that's what macrophages are. It is the microphages' job to process this virus, and present it to the T4-lymphocyte for development of immunity. But what happens is is that the macrophage can't kill the virus, it grows inside the macrophage, the macrophage may actually be injecting it into other cells throughout the body, which leads to death of T4-lymphocytes and perhaps other cells such as brain cells. The central defect in AIDS, in my opinion, lies not necessarily in the lymphocytic system, the lymphocytes, but in the macrophage system, the cell that's responsible for processing the virus. You can think of it sort of like a macrophage is like a rendering plant, or a meat-packing plant, which brings in the whole cow, chops it up, and sends it out packaged. The macrophage's job is to process the virus, and send it out in a form that the body can use to develop immunity.
Now, what happens if you get infected with the AIDS virus, and you have an antibody directed against that virus -- this is the antibody -- and here's the virus. Now, those former conjugate, if you have a vaccination against AIDS -- that is the actual purpose of a vaccine, to produce these antibodies directed against the AIDS virus.
If you're vaccinated against AIDS, you have these conjugates formed, that enables the macrophage to ingest those antibody antigens more easily.
So this whole complex is then ingested inside the macrophage. This is the macrophage. The macrophage then chews up the antibody, the virus grows inside the cell, and you die quicker than if you had not been vaccinated. This is, in my opinion, the central reason why vaccinations against AIDS may not only be detrimental but prove to be ultimately impossible.
[Dr. William Thornton] Dr. Strecker has presented two clear and rational reasons why an AIDS vaccine can never be developed. First, the astronomical number of mutations of the virus means a specific vaccine for a specific virus cannot be made. And second, the way in which the virus is processed in the human body would make an AIDS infection even more rapidly fatal when treated with a vaccine. This is tragically disappointing to the many proponents of a vaccine cure. But it is equally tragic to blindly pursue a vaccine cure that cannot work, thereby delaying research of alternative methods which may hold the answer to this devastating plague.
• Part 7
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Now, is the AIDS virus something that's going to die out naturally? There have been recent reports that heterosexuals needn't worry, it's just a sexually transmitted disease, and it's not very transmissible, and that there's no evidence that it's spreading into the heterosexual population, although the numbers in Africa are 75 million or more heterosexuals infected according to the WHO, the number of worldwide AIDS cases appears to be doubling every year, according to the WHO, The World Health Organization, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Now, if you address the question of the eradicability of the virus, in other words, "What makes a virus eradicable? Is it possible to get this virus out of humans once it's running there?"
In 1977, Frank Fenner wrote an article about the eradication of smallpox. ["The Eradication of Smallpox," by Frank Fenner] It was published in the Progress Medical Virology. Frank Fenner, was at the time at the Center for Resource Environmental Studies, the Australian National University in Canberra. He's a world-renowned virologist, and he wrote the following:
He said, under "Prerequisites for Eradicability," in other words, "What is required to get the disease out of humans?",
"One can virtually rule out the possibility of worldwide eradication of an infectious disease if any, ANY of the following criteria are obtained. 1. The agent grows in wild animals or birds."
So, it has an animal reservoir. Now, if you believe that AIDS came from monkeys, which I don't, or if you believe it came from sheep and cattle, which I do, either one, there's an obvious animal reservoir. So that would preclude eradicability.
"2. The agent persists in an infected human being for years and there are recrudescences."
So the AIDS virus existing over 14 years or longer, and having a slow viral progression obviously makes number 2 a second factor for noneradicability.
"3. The disease has multiple seriological types."
In other words, there are many variants to the AIDS virus. We've already discussed that and shown that there are approximately (9000)4 different AIDS viruses possible, which makes the third criteria for eradicability voided.
"4. The necessary degree of social cooperation cannot be obtained as with the human venereal diseases."
In other words, if the disease is a sexually transmissible disease, or venereal disease, then you cannot eradicate it from humans once it's running because you cannot obtain the degree of social cooperation necessary for eradication.
So, not only does AIDS violate one of these four criteria, it violates all four. So once we have AIDS running in humans, it appears to be that it's going to be here for a very long period of time, along with all of its relatives -- HTLV-I, II, IV, V, and I.L.L. So we have a tremendous problem facing us, not just a problem of the AIDS virus alone.
Now, what kinds of treatment -- is there any hope at all? Uh, this paints a pretty grim picture, but it's my personal feeling that there is some hope presently, but there's actually maybe a cure for these diseases, and I'll explain that in a minute. But what's available at the present time? At the present time there's a drug known as A.Z.T., azidothymidine, which is actually like junk food for viruses. What it does is that the virus preferentially uses this for making itself, leads to a defect in virus production, azidothymidine is like junk food for viruses, and the virus dies out in the body. But the problem is, this drug also makes the body die out. So it's like junk food for humans in a sense. That is not very satisfactory. There are many other products that are being worked on.
Some people think that there will be a vaccine development, and of course, we all hope that's true, but as explained previously, I think that's impossible for two reasons. There are alternative doctors who believe that such things as high-dose vitamin C, zinc, selenium, and other chemicals besides or in addition to A.Z.T. are useful in prolonging life. But the bottom line of that is, my own personal experience has been I have yet to see a single person who was documented with AIDS, the disease, who has been cured, convincingly cured. I do not believe that I have seen a single person yet who actually meets those criteria, although we hear a lot about it.
But there is, I think, a technique that may exist and has been broached by Baylor recently which holds the cure for not only this disease but perhaps many other virus diseases. The principal of this cure is very simple. The principal is, just like you have a crystal glass, and you irradiate it with the proper audio tone, if you're holding that glass and you sing the proper note, the glass shatters but your hand doesn't fall apart.
[Dr. William Thornton] This demonstration shows how high frequency radio waves can shatter crystal, and viruses are crystalline structures.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Now, in 1925 to 1945 or so, who I feel was perhaps the greatest inventor of all time, Raymond Roy Rife, or Roy Rife, it's said that he could take viruses, which are little crystals, irradiate them with the proper radio wave, and cause their disruption without disrupting human tissue. Most doctors say, "Well, that's of course nonsense." And you say, "Well, doctor, you don't think we can destroy viruses with light, or shake them to death?" And they say, "No." And then you say, "Well, doctor, what kind of techniques do you use in your laboratory to kill viruses when they are blown out your hoods where you are experimenting?" And what they use is ultraviolet lights, UV light. That is nothing more than electromagnetic radiation of the proper wavelength. So, it's a proven fact beyond anybody's misrepresentation that electromagnetic radiation of the proper form can kill viruses.
Now, recently published in some medical journals and published in several newspapers, was a report out of Baylor University which had done the following: They had taken blood which was contaminated with herpes virus, with cytomegalovirus, and with AIDS virus, and they had irradiated the blood with laser light, and shown that they could kill the virus without killing the cells. So the cells were still viable, but the viruses had been destroyed. And of course that broaches the very topic of electromagnetic cure of viral diseases. And it's my feeling that this is where the actual cure for the AIDS virus will come. It's theoretically possible that someday we may actually have a machine which could identify based upon the readings determined what kind of virus you were infected with, and then treat the human being with a radio wave which will destroy the virus contained not only in his blood but in his entire body. If that in fact proves to be the case, I think that is the way that AIDS, and other so-called "human retroviruses" which, in my opinion, are nothing more than animal retroviruses now running in humans, can be not only cured but eradicated from the world throughout.
Now, why was Rife able to do these sort of magical things that he says he could do? Um, he may have been able to actually see the viruses. Rife was a master machinist. And he says that he invented a microscope with which he could actually view viruses in the living state. He says that the microscope had a magnification of 70,000 - 100,000 times in living tissue. Now, I don't know if Rife actually invented this machine, and could view viruses in the living tissue, but I know that these machines actually exist. None of them are presently in working order, but if they in fact exist, and if in fact what Rife said is correct that he could view viruses in the living state, of course he may have been able then to determine what he called "the mortal oscillatory rate", which was the frequency at which he would irradiate the virus or other bacteria to kill it. He called it the M.O.R., "mortal oscillatory rate." And he says that in viewing them, he would irradiate these viruses with basically monochromatic light, which we today would think of as laser light, the virus would light up in a sense, it would absorb energy and emit energy, he could see them, and then by increasing the amplitude of the energy into the virus, that he could cause a virus to disrupt. In a sense, you can think about it just like the example given before of the crystal destroyed by the audio tone, or you could think of it like your house being shaken down during an earthquake.
Now, in summary then, what have we got here? I've given you today the fact that the virus, I think, the AIDS virus pandemic was not only present today, but predicted as far back as 1966 by McFarland Burnett and by Clemenson who said, "You better get ready for walking down the street and getting hit with a virus that causes leukemia or something else, just as we have.
The fact that the virus may have been produced by crossing bovine leukemia virus and visna virus to produce bovine visna virus and adapted to grow in humans by growth in human tissue.
The fact that the WHO in 1972 wrote an article that said: "Let's make a T-cell destroying virus." So they crossed the T-trophic virus with the great destroyer of visna, to make a T-cell destroyer.
And the, is it just coincidence, that the AIDS pandemic in Africa occurs at the same vaccination centers where the WHO was conducting its smallpox eradication programs?
Uh, what are the myths of AIDS? AIDS is a homosexual disease is obviously a myth. That it's going to have a very short incubation period. That it came from African green monkeys. That it's going to die out in heterosexuals. That it's no problem. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. All of these things I call the myth information of AIDS, and I covered all that.
And then the final is what can we expect to cure this virus, not only in the near future, but perhaps for all time? And I think that the cure for AIDS will lie in the reconstruction, or redevelopment of electromagnetic, or electrophysiological techniques which will allow for identification, and perhaps for then obliteration of viruses either in blood extraportally circulated, and treated extraportally, or actually irradiated as man with a radio wave, carrier wave passing through him and destroying the virus inside the human being.
• Part 8QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
[Les Nachman] Dr. Strecker: I have watched and listened to your presentation frankly in awe. And it occurs to me that if only a small portion of what you've been saying is true, that we as Americans have been frankly, led down the primrose path by those in power who have been giving us information regarding the AIDS epidemic. What you've actually said is that the AIDS epidemic not only did NOT come from the green African monkey, as we've been told, but in fact was, the epidemic itself was started in the 70s in Africa, and coincided almost directly with a smallpox vaccination program that was sponsored by the World Health Organization. And if that's true, the implications of that, of course, are astounding.
You're also asserting that this disease is NOT a venereal disease, may or may not be transmitted sexually, possibly can be transmitted outside the body by carriers such as mosquitoes, the virus itself doesn't correspond to anything we know about venereal diseases, the French have isolated this virus and it can live outside the body -- another thing we're told couldn't be possible.
We're hearing so much about condoms today being a good preventative of this disease, and you've literally shot holes in that theory. All of these things are astounding. Why in the world would our government, the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health, lead us down this garden path? What's behind all of this?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Um, well, I think the answer, the SIMPLE answer to that is, of course, first off, if you knew that you had constructed the virus or had somehow been responsible for its construction or spread, would you tell anybody? I think it's clear that no, you wouldn't want anybody to know that you had anything to do with it. And of course, then the people who are responsible, are not going to want anybody to know that they were responsible. So I think it would be naive to expect that someone would come out and say, "Hey, I made AIDS, and spread it."
[Les Nachman] Yet you read us documents where the disease was predicted, that we're sooner or later going to run into an epidemic like this, and then you read a document where it was proposed, "Why don't we try and do something like this?", and then we have the smallpox inoculation program, and correspondingly in those very same five areas the AIDS epidemic breaks out.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] That's correct.
[Les Nachman] And then in America, where everyone is lambasting homosexuals, as this being a homosexual disease, you've told us that there was a Hepatitis-B vaccine program --
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Again, the epidemiology of the AIDS outbreak in the United States, in my opinion, exactly corresponds to the Hepatitis-B vaccine program. It corresponds not only in the exact age group, the same homosexuals, the same cities, and the same timeframe: 1978 in New York, and then 1980 basically in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
[Les Nachman] So how can our government be telling us that this is a homosexual disease when the disease apparently broke out as a result of this inoculation program, Hepatitis-B program?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Because in fact that's what it looked like from the beginning. So, I mean, that is the easy assumption, that it is a homosexual disease, because it's growing and running and spreading in homosexuals. But that has absolutely no logical validity in concluding that the homosexuals were responsible for the disease.
Let us get back to whence we deviated. Patronage was abolished in that mysterious Institution which has not been named. Alas, the reverse of Wrong is not necessarily Right! A system was substituted, which was (by some, I believe, not all) honestly designed to get rid of old and intolerable evils. Patronage went: and popular election came in. Then, in place of old evils gone, a host of new evils came in: some of them quite as bad as any of the old: some of them (strange to say), on being closely looked into, proving to be just the old back again. The degrading circumstances attending a contested Parliamentary Election, or the Election of Town Councillors in a small community, or the Election of a School Board where illiterate candidates blow their own trumpets: all came in, and that in a case where it was specially unfit that they should be. Some once hopeful people have pretty well lost heart, seeing how human nature works. Some have sadly recalled a cynical and awful saying of Frederick the Great. All that the most sanguine venture to say is, that when a Revolution has taken place, you must wait some years before you can tell how the new machinery is to work. Things may right themselves. And though sorrowful and humiliating scandals are made widely known by the Press: scandals over which good men can but grieve; it ought to be remembered more generally than it is, that under the present system (as under the old) half-a-dozen quiet and judicious selections are made without attracting notice, for every one where there is a discreditable fight. There are places, unhappily, in which Patronage has not been abolished: it has simply been transferred from educated men, whose position, after all is said, did generally bring some sense of responsibility, and some sense of honour, to the vulgar wire-pullers or bullies of some little community; mortals who tyranise over their dependents as badly (it could not be worse) as certain nobles and their factors did before the Ballot became law: mortals actuated by the meanest and most selfish motives, and capable of tricks far too dirty for any ordinary squire to touch with his little finger. I really have not heart to speak further of things I know. But I know things which humble one to the earth: which might make one despair of the republic. All one can say is, that most of the people, according to the light they have, do at least want to get the best man: which many patrons never did. The people may be terribly mistaken: terribly misled by those who play upon their ignorance and prejudice: very incompetent (many of them) to sit in judgment on the qualifications of scholars: very much inclined, when they get sick of strife and division, to rely on the counsel of certain men on whom nobody will rely who knows them, their tricks, their ignorance, their ends. But the people's end is good, though they do not know the way to reach it. And their intelligence is growing: has grown. Surely the day will come when they will judge, and judge wisely, for themselves: without heeding the local demagogue, without consulting the central dodger. They will learn how to eliminate unfit candidates: how to weigh written testimonials: how to estimate vulgar claptrap: how to behave with decency in sacred places: how and in what degree to be guided by their natural leaders, who are assuredly not the noisiest nor the most forward. The announcement will not be made that No gentleman need apply: nor that Candidates had better travel third-class.
-- Of the Opposition, by A. K. H. B. [Andrew Kennedy Hutchinson Boyd], Fraser's Magazine, Volume 24, From July to December, 1881
[Les Nachman] I have about 20 more questions, but there are other people here. Go ahead.
[Sharon Stine] Well, after watching your presentation, is there any hope for us?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Well, yeah.
[Sharon Stine] You're talking about how it's doubling and doubling.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Actually, right. We're talking about how the virus spreads; what the rejections are. If Frank Fenner was correct in the article that he said, "What makes a virus eradicable?", the AIDS and other human retroviruses probably violate most if not all the criteria that makes these diseases eradicable. In other words, they can never be eliminated from humans once they are running in humans short of the redevelopment or new construction of the Rife techniques which might allow for widescale treatment of entire areas simultaneously, if in fact what Rife said is correct. And that was that you could treat a human being by a radio wave that would kill a virus in that human. If it requires personal dialysis-like equipment, which would be to hook the human up, take the blood out, irradiate it, and extraportally like they dialyze blood to cure kidney failure, then that is going to be a very costly, slow process. It could be effective, but it's not the way we're going to save Africa. If that is in fact the way that AIDS and these other viral diseases prove to be cured, then I think that there's no doubt that Africa is extinct as a continent. And perhaps Asia is well down the same road since they have large portions of their population already infected with HTLV-I, human T-cell leukemia virus.
[Dr. John Adams] On a practical matter, if I have a child who is in elementary school, and in that school there is another child infected with AIDS, according to the information you have presented, it would behoove me to make sure my child has no contact with the sick child. Would you agree?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] That's a very difficult question to answer. I think that if you say casual contact merely means simply greeting someone or very superficial contact with a person, then the risk of contracting AIDS from that kind of contact are very low. But if casual contact means where a person might be bitten by an AIDS-infected person, and breach of skin, and perhaps contact of blood with saliva that could be infectious, then that might be a problem.
[Dr. William Thornton] Uh, if we talk about a person's ability to contract the disease, are we talking again about this dose-dependency factor? Could you explain that a little bit?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Right. Again, the question -- it goes back to how is the virus actually getting from one person to another person? And still, I don't find any literature or data that actually tells us how a person, 1, male or female, has infected another person, 2, male or female. In other words, whether it is homosexual to homosexual, homosexual to bisexual, homosexual to heterosexual, or heterosexual to heterosexual, there's really no data that says how the virus is getting from the first person into the second person, short of direct transfusion of blood or blood product. The question is, "How many viruses have to be present before the person is infectious; how are they being transduced across from one person to another; and at what phase during the first person, if he has AIDS, say if I had AIDS, at what course, or what phase, during my AIDS life am I really infectious? Is it more infectious in the beginning, or during the middle of the course, or at the end of the course? Those questions, so far as I could tell, have never been answered.
[Les Nachman] So, if I were to take an AIDS test, and test positive with HIV, what would you say? That I had a good chance of contracting AIDS?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I'd say that you have a very good chance of dying prematurely due to that infection. And I think that chance is 100%. I think that 100% of those who get infected with the putative AIDS virus, HIV, human T-cell lymphotrophic virus III, will die prematurely before they would had they not been infected.
[Les Nachman] From an immune system breakdown.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Not necessarily. There are other diseases that could kill you without ever developing AIDS. For instance, a great number of AIDS patients develop AIDS dementia, which is an impairment of mental function. It's motor impairment, cognitive impairment, and neurological impairment due to the virus acting on the brain. You can die of that virus acting on your brain before you actually ever develop any of the criteria that might say, "Well this is AIDS."
[Les Nachman] Is that the brain rot you were talking about?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah, in a sense that's the brain rot. Like visna, the mother of what I call the AIDS virus. So now that the definition has been expanded only recently, well, some of those patients with AIDS dementia may well be included, so in AIDS, the definition. But there are other diseases like that that could kill you before you actually ever developed AIDS the disease. You see, there's a big difference, at least in definition and practical terms, between having AIDS infection and having AIDS the disease. Many people so far have AIDS infection, but only 50,000 or so have developed AIDS the disease. And half of those are dead. I think that 100% of those who develop AIDS infection will die prematurely.
• Part 9
[Dr. John Adams] In essence, you're saying that those many hundreds of, not only physicians, but scientific researchers who have been entrusted with looking into this matter are, in a sense, totally lacking in integrity. Or is that my interpretation?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] [Laughing] Well, I'm not sure I can say that they're totally lacking in integrity.
[Dr. John Adams] Are you saying that they're just not too smart?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] No, I'm not saying that either.
[Dr. John Adams] Well, what are you saying then?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I'm saying that it is not in their interest necessarily to always tell you the truth.
[Les Nachman] Well, that's a lack of integrity!
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah. Well, there are certain instances here where I think it's clear that they've been lying. For instance, to say that there's only one AIDS virus, well, that's really not right. There's a field effect. There are millions of different AIDS viruses. Every AIDS virus isolated to date is different.
Again, if you made this virus, or were responsible for its spread, or had something to do with its spread, are you going to tell anybody? I think the answer is obviously no.
[Dr. John Adams] Well, I agree with that. I mean, that assumes though that there are either a very small number of individuals running the show, or that you're a very extraordinary person. There's no one else saying this.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Well, that's not correct! There are many other people saying it. Actually, it's been discussed worldwide. It's only been recently that this question has been discussed in this country. Dr. John Seale of the Royal Society of Medicine, has said that the virus appeared to be manmade, in a sense, long before we did, but he couldn't exactly construct how that may have occurred. We sort of gave him maybe the information on how the viruses could have been recombined to produce a new AIDS-like virus. Uh, Jakob Seagal, an East German biologist who said that the virus was constructed at Fort Detrick in a biological warfare project.
Again, if the virus is its own constructing agent, then the virus could have arisen in any laboratory at any time, more or less since the development of human tissue culture which arose in 1951 with the death of Henrietta Lack. Every laboratory in the world is suspect. And of course, that makes all the scientists very nervous because because they say, "Well, it surely didn't come out of my laboratory."
[Dr. John Adams] So, in essence, you're talking about a chernobyl of molecular biology, in a sense?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Exactly correct. Actually, if you look at the predictions in testimony before Congress, the actual predictions was that a Chernobyl accident, or a 3-mile-Island accident was predicted by a physicist to be something like 1x(10)-18.
[Dr. John Adams] The chance that it would happen?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] That it would happen. Right. Whereas the chance of a biological accident of this nature was 1x(10)-14, or basically 10,000 times more likely to occur than either a Chernobyl or 3-Mile-Island.
[Dr. William Thornton] Dr. Strecker, how can you account for the spread of the AIDS virus in such a monumental amount of cases in countries like Brazil, or other parts of Latin America, or Haiti?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Right. Again, I think the Haitian explanation is quite simple. If you look in the May 11th, Monday May 11, 1987 article in the front page of the London Times, what's documented there is that at the time of the smallpox vaccination campaign of the World Health Organization in Africa in the mid-70s, 15,000 Haitians were in that program in Africa. They were there working. So it's easy to see how Haitians may have been contaminated, and then move back to Haiti. That could explain the outbreak of AIDS in Haiti.
[Les Nachman] Did they participate in the smallpox program?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yes, they did. 15,000 Haitians were in the smallpox campaign.
[Les Nachman] Well, this is incredible! If, in fact, the outbreak of AIDS corresponded with this smallpox vaccination situation in the mid-70s in Africa. Everybody knows about that. The WHO did it. They should know the results. If in fact the Haitians were part of that and then went back to Haiti and of course did what comes naturally, and then Haitians seem to get it. If in fact that homosexual outbreak in America is tied into the Hepatitis-B vaccine program initiated by, was that NIH?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] No, it was New York City Blood Bank was in charge.
[Les Nachman] Don't these same things occur to the people who did it? I mean, why are you the only one that is making note of this. It's so obvious.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I'm not the only one.
[Les Nachman] If it looks like a rose, and smells like a rose, it's pretty much a rose. I mean, they've worked to correct situations based on flimsier evidence than this. So even if they didn't do it intentionally, which I think that the fact that they are avoiding dealing with this incredible coincidence is tantamount to criminal act also, wouldn't you say?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Well, again, I'm not the only one who has maintained that the virus may have come out of a laboratory.
[Les Nachman] But you're the only one sitting here today. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Why are you the only one broadcasting -- well, who else is broadcasting this? Certainly not the government! It should be obvious to them what's obvious to us sitting here.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] But again, if in fact you see that the people -- like, let's look at the WHO, the World Health Organization. If in fact the smallpox campaign in Africa was responsible for the outbreak of AIDS, that's the last thing they are ever going to admit to. So why would you expect them to come forward?
[Les Nachman] Because the world's going to die! I mean, everybody's going to die! That's why! I mean, they are humans, too. How are they going to protect themselves?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] They can't.
[Les Nachman] I mean, according to your time schedule, in 20 years, or less, six years, everyone in America is infected. And then in 14-20 years we're all dead.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] That's possible.
[Les Nachman] And then that's the end of everything.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Right.
[Les Nachman] Well that should get people upset!
[Dr. Robert Strecker] It should!
[Les Nachman] It's sure getting me upset right now! I mean, what you're saying is so incredible, and we're sitting here very casually and cavalierly discussing it! But you're talking about the end of the world here.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I'm not the only one talking about the end of the world. Dr. Hazeltine from Harvard has said before Congress, that the AIDS virus alone, not taking into account HTLV-I, II, III, IV, V, and I.L.L., he said the AIDS virus by itself is species threatening. In other words, it has the ability to exterminate mankind. That's in the Congressional Record.
[Les Nachman] Obviously, we're on some kind of a countdown here if somebody doesn't face up to it, or they don't develop a vaccine, or some kind of help for it.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I have always maintained that there should be a multi-prong approach, a crash Apollo-type approach which would include not only traditional therapies, like the development of A.Z.T. and other drugs, but development of alternative therapies, in a sense, alternative like laser therapies, the Rife techniques, and anything else that appears practical. Because as far as I can see, mankind is headed for extinction unless this virus is controlled.
[Dr. William Thornton] In Latin America, and Asia, the disease seems to be spreading.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah, in Latin America, particularly Brazil, the story goes that in Brazil, Brazil bought a lot of the blood it was transfusing in the 70s from Africa. And so that would explain how Brazil might have incurred a tremendous AIDS problem. The other problem is, of course, that there were IARC, or WHO vaccine programs conducted in Brazil.
[Les Nachman] You know, I'd like to get back to this question of culpability here. You said -- you didn't suggest, you said -- that it was, was it the Navy that paraded a steamship up and down the --
[Dr. Robert Strecker] No, it was the Department of -- well, I don't know if it was -- it was a Navy vessel, but --
[Les Nachman] A navy vessel actually sprayed --
[Dr. Robert Strecker] -- serratia marcescens bacteria into San Francisco --
[Les Nachman] -- and not telling the San Franciscans or anybody else?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah!
[Les Nachman] Infected everybody, and according to you, 5,000 units?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] No, that wasn't according to me, that was according to the researcher who conducted the study. Right. The researcher who conducted the study reported, and that is written in Paxman and Harris, "A Higher Form of Killing," which is a review of biological warfare in this country, the researcher who conducted the study concluded that an average San Francisco resident inhaled 5,000 serratia marcescens bacteria during that project, which demonstrated that San Francisco was subject to a biological warfare attack.
[Les Nachman] Well, anybody else got something to say?
[Sharon Stine] I was going to say, is this an experiment that's gone out of hand?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Sure. That's possible. Except that in a sense, we are the experiment. The whole world has become the experiment. And every person on this planet is now the experiment.
[Sharon Stine] Well, I think, rather than going back and trying to file criminal charges or anything like that, shouldn't we just leave that, and just go on and try to --
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Well, sure, there are lots of people who say, "Well, it's not important where the virus came from, you know. Let's just fix it!" There's the story of the African, you know, who woke up one night with a lion in his bedroom, he chased it out, he didn't look for the open window where the lion came in, he crawled back in bed, went to sleep, and a tiger came in and ate him. So you know, I don't believe that you can say that it's not important where these things came from. It's extremely important.
• Part 10
[Les Nachman] During the middle ages, bubonic plague destroyed two-thirds of Europe, or whatever the percentage is, but a large percentage. It really was two-thirds, or three-quarters. And physicians, or so-called "physicians," such as they were at that time, refused to treat patients. If the AIDS epidemic increases along the proportions we've been discussing here today, where do you see the moral position of the physician who refuses to treat an AIDS patient? Although a lot of them are refusing right now.
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Right. Right.
[Les Nachman] Would you want to comment on that?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah. First off is my own --
[Les Nachman] Do you treat AIDS patients?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I do. I have 30-60 AIDS patients.
[Les Nachman] You have 30-60 AIDS patients?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] Yeah. Yeah. And we treat them, and I think we do very well in treating them. And I give them all kinds of options in addition to A.Z.T. I don't exclude necessarily alternative therapies. Anything that might help them, I advise that they use. And that includes A.Z.T. But what each person will decide for himself is a difficult question. And each person has his own values, and makes his own decisions.
[Les Nachman] Dr. Strecker, this is apparently the last question we'll be able to ask because of time considerations. And I would like to propose this, or suggest this to you, and see what you have to say. There are a lot of people going to be watching this tape, hopefully, if it's a successful videotape. People who are neither homosexuals, neither from Africa, neither drug users or anything else, whose only exposure to information about AIDS comes from the media or from the government or so-called "experts." And they really haven't been too concerned about this. But after watching this tape, they might very well become very concerned about this. And you have people that are trying to live normal lives. They are raising children. And a child, after all, in my opinion, is actually, among other things, a sign of faith that two people bestow upon humanity. They say, "I'm bringing forth this child in the hopes and expectations that that child will live as good or as decent a life or better than they have had. With the prospect of what you're saying coming true in any part, what would you say to that person, or those people, or that couple watching this program? How would you leave this?
[Dr. Robert Strecker] I would think that they have to continue on in their living as if what we predict, in a sense, is not necessarily the final outcome. That isn't to say that it can't happen, but what I mean to say is that we have to work to make it not happen. Each person has to become involved individually. This virus threatens the existence of every one on this planet. You have to become involved and determine for yourself whether or not what we're telling you is true or false.
It doesn't take a rocket physicist to look out there and say, "Hey, there's a whole bunch of new diseases which all of a sudden seem to have popped up, and so people have to become involved and find out exactly what's going on. They should not just accept everything they are being told by the so-called "AIDS experts" in government as absolute fact. You have to decide for yourself whether what we've told you is true or false, and then become involved with your neighbors, your friends, your representatives, your senators, and your president. And if you do that, then hopefully we'll get to a solution.
And I think there is a solution. I've already illustrated what I think the solution to this problem is. But I think that this country -- the whole world -- has to address it in a crash program of many-pronged approach.
[Dr. William Thornton] As time passes, you will see more and more of Dr. Strecker's warnings and predictions come true. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no happy ending to this story. Assuming the government does not interfere with Dr. Strecker's work, there may be, just maybe some hope for us. Dr. Strecker and others that share his concerns are committing all their time, all their efforts, and all their resources to finding a solution. And that includes exploring any conceivable alternative that might stop this disease, instead of waiting for the drug companies to produce a miracle vaccine. Now, nobody is asking you for money. You've already contributed to this cause by purchasing this tape. But there are things you can do. To begin with, tell everyone that you know about Dr. Strecker and his findings. Tell the politicians you elected that you're not satisfied with what you're being told. Tell them it doesn't make any sense to entrust the cure for this disease to the same people who may have started it in the first place, the same people who haven't found a cure for cancer after 40 years of trying. Mankind doesn't have another 40 years. Tell them that God gave you the gift of life, and now that gift is being threatened. Tell them that you want to live; that you want your children to live. Tell them now before there's no one left.
Produced by: Les Nachman
Directed by: Steve Creger
Production Manager: William Thornton
This project is dedicated to the many innocent victims of AIDS who have died, and to those millions more whose lives may yet be sacrificed on the altar of irresponsible scientific experimentation.