At last it has been admitted that the government pays network television to include propaganda promoting the War On (Some) Drugs in the scripts of popular shows. Only fools were surprised. On all of these networks we have since heard some very tepid "slippery slope" type criticism presented as op-ed. We have heard no shame. We have heard no promise to stop. Most importantly, we have not heard any discussion of what other propaganda has been secretly, and not so secretly, embedded in our viewing. To believe TV, the world is overrun with thieves, rapists and psychotic cop-killers and the only reason they haven't broken into your house, raped you, murdered you and stolen your TV yet is because somewhere some young, good looking cop was willing to "bend" the rules a little. Yeah, right. TV is infested with a variety of insidious propaganda campaigns. Let's take a look at another one. It too is "drug-related." In the late 1920s and early 1930s Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbles perfected a propaganda technique that was to prove to be so effective that it has been adopted across the globe. Goebbles used a very few, very simple, symbols and a very few, very short, slogans which were repeated and repeated until they had been drummed so deep into the collective subconscious of the German people that they were willing to throw caution, reason, and recent experience to the winds and go to war on two fronts against the very same overwhelmingly superior enemies who had kicked their butts the last time. A simple head count would have dissuaded most rational minds. Germans are not by nature an irrational people. But Goebbels' incessant propaganda had bludgeoned their minds numb. How many times does a phrase need to be repeated before it is true? The short answer is that no matter how many times you tell a lie, no matter how big a lie it is, it is still not true. Unfortunately this self evident truth has apparently not yet sunk in to our own collective subconscious. How many times have you turned on the TV and heard the phrase, "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS"? It's not as common as it used to be. For a while, during the late Eighties and early Nineties it was hard to watch TV for an hour without hearing this phase repeated. And who, pray tell, is it that says that HIV is the cause of AIDS? Is it the scientific community expressing consensus? No, it is the United States government. Remember them? They're the guys who told us the Spanish blew up the Maine, the North Vietnamese shot first in Tonkin Gulf and the President "never had sex with that woman." More to the point, they're the guys who brought us Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and fed plutonium to disabled children to see what it would do to them. Let's look at this oft repeated statement scientifically. After all, it might be true. But then again the HIV hypothesis fails to meet the scientific standard, Koch's Postulates. Some people with HIV don't get AIDS. Some people with AIDS don't have HIV. Ergo, by definition, HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS. HIV may very well not cause AIDS at all. Some people with AIDS do test positive for HIV. This does not demonstrate causation. This demonstrates some degree of correlation, nothing more. Consider, for example, the men buried on Boot Hill. They are buried there because they died with their boots on. Did they die because of the boots? I don't think so. Correlation, keep it in mind as you evaluate the proclamations of the government regarding HIV. This is not to say that HIV causes no disease. Let's be perfectly clear about this. It is entirely possible that in some AIDS cases HIV may play some role. More than that has yet to be demonstrated by science. It has only been declared so by the Center for Disease Control. This happened at a time and in a way that the director of the CDC made a great deal of money due to that declaration being taken for fact by the public at large. The HIV hypothesis has been the focus of a propaganda campaign the likes of which rival the Cold War and the War On (Some) Drugs. Unless a method of direct causation is adequately demonstrated the HIV hypothesis is that and nothing more. It is definitely not a proven theorem. Some AIDS dissidents call the HIV hypothesis the "HIV Myth." I don't go quite that far. Certainly a number of myths have grown up around HIV. But as far as I'm concerned, the degree of correlation is strong enough to warrant further research. There may very well be something we can accurately call "HIV Disease." It may even present as immune system breakdown. But despite the avalanche of propaganda, the truth of the matter is we simply don't know for sure. So I'm going to reserve my judgment on the possibility until we do. As for AIDS itself, no single cause explains it. That, combined with atrociously unscientific reporting procedures makes it extremely difficult for the objective, non brainwashed, researcher to get a handle on it. If a patient tests positive for HIV the case is written up as an AIDS statistic no matter what (s)he is actually ailing from. What's worse, in parts of the Third World where accurate testing is cost prohibitive, anyone with over a hundred symptoms officially designated by the World Health Organization is written up as an AIDS statistic. If, for example, you are starving, and you drag your emaciated frame to what passes for a hospital, only to die there, you can be written up as an AIDS statistic. Why? Emaciation is one of the WHO's official symptoms for AIDS. So it's really hard to tell what is going on. To let repetitive propaganda convince you otherwise is unscientific. What then is the phenomenon we know as AIDS? Is it the result, as not a few speculate, of some chemical-biological warfare weapon development experiment that just got "out of hand?" Or worse, is it a weapon being used against us? What a great way of bankrupting an enemy country's medical care system. Or worse yet, is it a tool of husbandry in the hands of those to whom we are simply livestock? Or consider how useful it could be to certain groups if it were applied to social engineering. And what a dandy population control tool it would make. What a marvelous cover, and scapegoat for genocide. Then there's the all the money that's to be made selling cures. Both motive, means and multiple corpses are present, yet we have only the government's word that AIDS should be investigated as a medical case and not as a case of mass murder. It is rare indeed that murder is committed and no lies are told about it. One way to catch liars in the act, is to note their contradictions. The US government contradicts itself about AIDS. One branch of the government, the Center for Disease Control, tells us that the cause of AIDS is a virus, HIV. On Dec. 5, 1987 a different branch of the government, the Patent Office, issued to Salvatore Catapano, Patent No. 4,711,876 for an AIDS treatment based on typhoid vaccine. This treatment which has been shown to be effective could have no possible effect on HIV, because typhoid vaccine does not effect viruses. Catapano had learned that before the advent of penicillin in the early 1940's, the vaccine had been used to treat another disease, syphilis. Catapano says (1.) that in many cases the illnesses are identical to syphilis ailments he treated during his four decades as a medical technologist in the Navy and for the U.S. Public Health Service. Either the government is lying, or it is confused. If it is confused, it is also lying, because it tells us that it is not confused. The government has a long, thick, rich history of lying, as well of experimenting on the populace and telling us about it until fifty years later, if at all. It also has a long, rich history of genocide. In a very real sense, it was an act of genocide, and not an act of rebellion that gave birth to our nation state. Genocide is the American way. It's how we got here. Ask any Native American. Biological warfare was part of that genocide. It's as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. At least one of its perpetrators has been honored by having a town named after him. Amherst, Mass. is named for a man who gave Indians blankets contaminated with smallpox during the 1754-67 French and Indian War. Then there's the documentable certainty that research into race specific biological weapons has been going on since at least 1951 when Navy personnel deliberately contaminated (2.) ten wooden crates with Serratia marcescens, Basillus globigii, and Aspergillus fumagatus before they were shipped from a supply depot in Pennsylvania to the navy base in Norfolk, Virginia. This test was designed to establish how easily bacteriological weapons might be disseminated among the people employed to handle the boxes. Of the three infectious bacteria, Aspergillus fumigatis had been specifically chosen because African-American workers at the base would be particularly susceptible to it. The epedimial evidence fails to fully support the thesis that HIV causes AIDS or anything. If AIDS is what we are told it is far more people would have been effected by now. It's been two decades. Why have other promiscuous subcultures not been stricken to the degree that gay men have? Consider hippies, punk rockers, jocks, bikers or swingers, to name a few. Each of these groups is known, among other things, for their high rate of promiscuity. Each group contains a minority of members who are bisexual and others who shoot up. If AIDS is what we are told it was it would have spread the way we were told it would spread and they would be dying like flies by now. They are not. Why not? More importantly, why are the overwhelming majority of AIDS victims heterosexual Africans and African Americans? Could the majority of AIDS cases be the result of race based bio-war? Given our history, it would be unwise to dismiss the possibility out of hand. Clearly, we have been mislead. We must then consider other possibilities than the dominant, government enforced paradigm. It could be possible, for example, that Dr. Peter Duesburg is part right, and HIV is just one of four hundred similar critters that inhabit T-Cells causing no harm whatsoever. On the other hand, Duesburg is quit obviously dead wrong about drug abuse, as the majority of drug abusers never get AIDS and the majority of AIDS patients never abused drugs. Some people believe that HIV, actually is the "virus that causes AIDS" and was intentionally created through the modern magic of gene splicing. One end of the virus does indeed look a lot like one end of a visna virus, and the other end does indeed look a lot like the other end of a bovine leukemia virus. This could be merely coincidence. Coincidence does indeed play a role in human events. However, the size of this role is often unduly exaggerated by those unwilling to face the implications of a conspiracy and by those to whom the very admission of a conspiracy's existence could be a fatal error. If HIV was created, but it does not cause AIDS, what is it doing in the blood of so many PWAs? Could it be a marker, causing no harm but used to track individuals in a population? Considering that to our rulers we are livestock, nothing more, it would be unwise to assume that we are not tagged for purposes of tracking. Is it paranoid to also consider that perhaps, like all well husbanded herds, we are occasionally culled? AIDS need not be caused by a single agent to be caused by biological warfare. It is not even necessary for all AIDS cases to be caused by biological warfare in order for those that are, to be. Some cases of "AIDS" appear to be caused by certain types of environmental pollution, including the steadily rising background radiation. Overuse and misuse of antibiotics have contributed heavily to overall immune response problems in the general population. In some sub populations this effect is even more evident. But bio-war cannot be ignored in any objective inquiry into the etiology of AIDS. We must consider, for example, the aerosol distribution of bio-war agents such as brucellosis, a technique perfected by Rosebury at Camp Detrick, during WWII. It could easily have come in through ventilation ducts in bars and bath houses. As far as we know, aerosol distribution of biological agents through ventilation ducts was first tested in the ducts of the Pentagon building in 1950. The New York City subway system was also contaminated as part of a series of tests conducted by the Chemical Corps Special Operations Division in 1966. Aerosol distribution of bio-war agents were tested on the San Francisco Bay Area (3.) between September 20 and 26, 1950. Bio-war agent "simulants," Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii, were distributed by air from two ships just outside the Golden Gate. Every single person in the Bay Area was contaminated. One man died. Though not usually fatal, inhaled Brucellosis can present as immune system breakdown. While easily treated if recognized for what it is, it is unlikely to be suspected (and tested for) in patients who have had no contact with live cattle. This is particularly true if the patient tests positive for HIV. If the patient tests positive for HIV no further testing is considered necessary before a "diagnosis" is reached. Has genetic engineering (4.) produced a more virulent strain of brucellosis? Given the history of bio-war research, we would be foolish not to consider the possibility. One government agency, the CIA, has admitted to using a simulated whore house and real live whores to study (5.) effects of one of its other chemical weapons, LSD, on unwitting johns. They had the whores dose the johns, and then watched and filmed through two way mirrors. This happened in San Francisco's North Beach, in the fifties. North Beach is a twenty minute walk from Folsom St., where the seventies saw the burgeoning of dozens of sex clubs, many mirrored and ventilated. The CIA claims to not do this sort of thing any more. I see no real reason to believe them. They are highly motivated to lie about things like this. They were never widely known for their veracity in the first place. Any number of bio-war agents could have been introduced into those ventilation systems. Aerosol distribution of bio-war agents has been studied (6.) by our government since at least the early days of WWII. There are other chemical and biological weapons in our government's arsenal, many others. The list has grown considerably since colonial Americans first gave away those small pox infected blankets to the rightful owners of the continent. J. H. Rothschild, once Commanding General of the U. S. Army Chemical Corps Research and Development Command, wrote this in his 1964 text Tomorrow's Weapons. His list of disease agents useful as biological weapons included anthrax, blastomycosis, botulism, brucellosis, cholera, coccidiodomycosis, crypttococosis, dengue fever, bacillary dystentery, encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, glanders, influenza, melioidosis, bubonic plague, psittacosis, Q fever, Rift Valley fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, salmonella gastroenteritis, smallpox, tularemia, tyhoid fever, typhus, yellow fever. Senator R. D. McCarthy, in his 1969 text The Ultimate Folly, added chikungunya fever to this list, while a 1984 article in Science magazine included Lassa fever, Ebola fever, Marburg disease, and hemorrhagic fevers. Ultimately, any organism capable of producing disease is of interest to BW researchers. More than they are biological, biological weapons are weapons. Weapons are almost always used in combinations. One does not storm a beach with small arms. One storms a beach with landing craft, small arms, and naval artillery. The possibility that AIDS results from a combination of co-factors becomes ever more suspect when viewed in light of the possibility of Chemical Biological Warfare. This is particularly true given the tremendous amount of research that has been done on binary chemical (7.) weapons. Binary weapons are composed of two parts, each harmless by itself that for a deadly weapon when combined. The bio-war research community clearly has done a great deal of thinking along these lines. The lack of certain substances (8.) can kill you as dead as the presence of others. Consider, if you will, the curious case of aqueous penicillin. Before the discovery of penicillin, the treatment for syphilis was another I. G. Farben product, an arsenic compound called neoarsphenamine, better known by its generic name, salvarsan. This stuff wasn't all that effective, but it was all we had. The treatment was painful and often took up to a year. If you were lucky, it killed the spirochetes before it killed you. It was so valuable that during WWI, before America was sucked into combat by Britain's cynical sacrifice of the Lusitania, a German cargo submarine ran the British blockade to smuggle the stuff to America. Americans paid handsomely. In 1932, when syphilis was still endemic, the Public Health Service began a hideous experiment on a cohort of four hundred African American sharecroppers in and around Tuskegee Alabama. Keep in mind that the CDC is a division of the PHS. Some of these "patients" (unwitting human guinea pigs is more to the truth; victims, I call them) had been treated with salvarsan. Some had not. Once the the experiment began, all treatment was stopped. These men were then tracked for the next forty years. The bulk of the data collection and "patient" management work involved was done by a African American nurse named Eunice Rivers. One by one the men died, and were dissected. As a result, medical science knows everything there is to know about the effects of untreated and under treated syphilis in the "untermenchen." Mengele would have been proud. A decade and a half into the experiment, a cure for syphilis was discovered. This was aqueous penicillin. It was never made available to the subjects of the Tuskegee Study. This unquestionably resulted in unnecessary and unpleasant deaths and misery. The lack of certain substances can kill you as dead as the presence of others. In 1972, the experiment was stopped after a horrified bureaucrat at the PHS spilled the beans to reporter named Jean Heller, and Heller blew the whistle. That this took forty years to come about tells us much about bureaucrats. True to their goal of pursuing the subjects until the last one had died, PHS officers were still conducting the experiment when Heller broke the story on July 25, 1972, in the Washington Star. Ironically, another ghost out of a public servant's medical past appeared simultaneously. The Tuskegee Study had to compete for headlines with the sensational disclosure that Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, Senator McGovern's running mate, in the election that gave us Watergate, had a medical history of bouts with depression requiring hospitalization and shock therapy. Coincidence? Perhaps. A high ranking official in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare confessed privately to Heller that he was relieved when the Tuskegee Study and the Eagleton affair hit the front pages of the nation's newspapers on the same day. "He kept us beneath the fold," the official sighed. One can well imagine the effect the story (9.) might have had that volatile summer, particularly in our overwhelmingly African American nation's capital, had it not been overshadowed. Those of us who believe our news is manipulated, and we are manipulated by it, are not surprised. The rest of you are sadly deluded. Three years later, the official AMA protocol for the treatment of syphilis was changed. The way organized medicine works is if you don't do it the AMA way, you don't get to do it at all. They'll yank your ticket. Three years after the Tuskegee Study came to an abrupt halt, the AMA way of treating syphilis changed. Perhaps they had learned enough. Perhaps they realized that they just weren't going to learn any more. Sometimes, you just have to go with what you got, because that's all there's going to be. Prior to 1975, syphilis was treated with a regimen of aqueous penicillin shots spaced twelve hours apart for a period of time determined by the amount of time since your last clean blood test. Subsequent to 1975, the approved treatment became a shot of benzethine penicillin, every two weeks. The main difference between aqueous penicillin and benzethine penicillin is that benzethine penicillin is not water soluble and so stays in the blood a great deal longer. The supposed rational for the change was that use of benzethine penicillin meant fewer office visits were necessary. There is another difference between these two forms of penicillin, and that difference is central to my thesis here. Benzethine penicillin does not pass through the blood brain barrier in the amount necessary to get the job done right. Aqueous penicillin does. If you are treated for syphilis with benzethine penicillin, it kills the little critters that swim in your blood, but not the ones in your brain, or in your vitreous humor. You can pass a Wasserman test. The dark field illumination microscope necessary to detect spirochetes does not show them in your blood. The doctor thinks they're gone. He tells you you're cured and he believes it to be the truth. After all, the AMA told him so. And of course you believe him, because he's a doctor. But you're not cured. The spirochetes are still in your brain. There they can fester, to eventually break out, four or five years later to cause tertiary syphilis, the third, and most insidious stage of the disease. Keep in mind that with no treatment at all, about a third of all syphilis cases present no symptoms what ever. But if they do, watch out. It can get very, very nasty. Tertiary syphilis is a curious disease. It presents in a wide variety of ways, sometimes in one way, sometimes in another. Before the discovery of trepomena palladium, it was exceedingly difficult to diagnose, even for those with the proper training. It did not come to be called "the Great Imitator" without reason. In those days, when syphilis was truly endemic, one page in three of the dermatology text books read by medical students was about syphilis. Syphilis was studied to the extreme. It was the cancer of its day. Cancer was relatively rare then, no where near the plague it is today. But that's another tale. Not only does its great variance of form makes tertiary syphilis extremely difficult for even a trained physician to spot, but we no longer train them. This has resulted in a serious problem. Today, we have gone through nearly four generations of doctors who have never been trained to recognize tertiary syphilis. The rational is that with the advent of penicillin, primary syphilis has been conquered, and tertiary syphilis is no longer a problem. Would that it weren't. Sometimes tertiary syphilis presents as central nervous system damage. Spasms, awkward gait, even dementia result. This form is not so difficult for the trained eye to recognize. Sometimes, great ulcers appear on the skin that refuse to heal. This too, is a dead give away to the trained eye. Sometimes tertiary syphilis presents in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from what we today call AIDS. The immune system breaks down and opportunistic infections set in. This is much more difficult to recognize. Lack of training complicates the matter greatly. So does the HIV hypothesis. If you show up at the doctor's office with tertiary syphilis presenting as immune system breakdown, you're in deep trouble. Odds are that the doctor, especially if he is young, has never seen what he knew to be tertiary syphilis. He doesn't look for it. He doesn't even consider the possibility. He believes that syphilis has been conquered. It's not his fault. He only knows what he's been taught. He knows "AIDS" when he sees it, particularly if you "fit the profile." He administers an HIV test, because that's what the AMA tells him to do and if he doesn't toe the AMA line, he'll be out of business fairly quickly. They leave him no choice. Besides, he believes them. He has been trained to believe them, just as you have been trained to believe him. Should the test prove positive, your diagnosis is AIDS. He looks no further. He turns, of course, to the official AMA protocol for direction as to your treatment. The AMA says give them AZT, itself a deadly poison and a powerful immune suppressant in its own right. Of course this scenario doesn't explain all AIDS cases, no single cause does. But it does at least raise serious questions about some, especially the first wave, the ones that happened just long enough enough after the benzethine penicillin regimen was instituted to bring tertiary syphilis on to the list of possible suspects. We must be suspicious. Science demands it. So does everything we know about the history of propaganda campaigns based on the constant repetition of a simple phrase. So too, it would now appear, does the way we find it woven into the plots of movies and TV shows. When was the last time you heard the HIV hypothesis questioned on TV at all, let alone in the context of dialog or plot? Was it on ER? I don't think so. How about The Practice or Ally McBeal? Not this week. Not for a long time. Like John Judge always says, Goebbels would have given his saluting arm for a modern TV network. * * * * * (1.) Catapano is not alone in his analysis. Dr. Stephen Caiazza spoke in Miami on 3/13/88. Bob Mitchell brought his tape recorder. "I am of the belief, belief shared by increasingly by others, that the so-called AIDS virus, HIV, HTLV-III, pick your own name, is not the cause of the disease . . . Let me give you a little history about how I got started on the AIDS-syphilis connection. Between 1982, when I began practicing, and 1986, I treated my AIDS patients in very standard, traditional, conservative way (sic) that any good doctor would manage these patients. And with the best care I could offer them, with as much time as I possibly could give to these unfortunate people, between 1982-1986 I lost somewhere in excess of 200 patients, which I believe, if you do a simple little bit of arithmetic calculation, averages out to approximately one a week. Now a year ago, I began treating all my AIDS and ARC patients only for syphilis, whether or not I could prove by conventional criteria that these patients had syphilis. And I have been treating them in a very aggressive manner -- I'm gonna go into that shortly -- for a very long period of time. I am not using any antivirals, and in that year's period of time, I have lost one patient." -- Syphilis As AIDS by Robert Ben Mitchell, ISBN 0934411-35-2, p 102 (2.) See: A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman, ISBN 0-8090-5471-X, p. 156-157 (3.) ibid, p. 156 (4.) "From time to time, various scenarios having to do with biological warfare surface, and these are written off. In the mid 1960s, MIT professor Salvador Luria raised a few eyebrows when he expressed concern, not optimism, about the 'dangers that genetic surgery, once it becomes feasible, can create if misapplied.' Luria pointed out that fruit flies could be infected with a virus which then changes their metabolisms so they suddenly become over sensitized to carbon dioxide. CO2 becomes a lethal poison for them. In the same way, Luria suggests, human populations could be seeded with viruses, making them susceptible to introduced chemicals which, ordinarily, would have no effect, but would quickly become lethal. Indicating that as of 1987, 127 sites around the U. S. were doing CBW research, including universities, foundations, and private corporations, a Science report (Feb. 27, 1987) stated: 'The Department of Defense is applying recombinant DNA techniques (genetic engineering) in research and in the production of a range of pathogens and toxins, including botulism, anthrax, and yellow fever.' In a speech given at a NY Lenox Hill Hospital AIDS symposium, on April 10, 1983, US Representative Ted Weiss, like Salvador Luria of MIT, raised a few eyebrows when he offered this piece of advice: ' . . . as far fetched as it may seem, given the attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality by some segments of society, the possible utilization of biological weapons must seriously be explored.' Presumably, Weiss was serious about recommending an investigation . . ." -- AIDS Inc. by Jon Rappoport, 1988, ISBN 0-941523, p 237 (5.) This was called Operation Midnight Climax. It was conducted by George Hunter White, a “tough, old fashioned” narcotics officer under the direction of mind control maven Dr. Sidney Gottlieb as part of the MK-ULTRA suite of projects. The story can be found in Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellion by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain, ISBN 0-394-55013-7, which should be read in its entirety by anyone wishing to understand the true nature of government. (6.) For a disturbing, though obviously redacted, first hand account of this research read Peace or Pestilence: Biological Warfare And How To Avoid It by Theodor Rosebury, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1949 Sorry I can’t give you an ISBN for this one. ISBN didn’t exist then. The book is out of print and hard to find, but I highly recommend it. No serious study of biowar can be truly complete without Rosebury’s account of his tenure at Ft. Detrick. (7.) "From time to time, various scenarios having to do with biological warfare surface, and these are written off. In the mid 1960s, MIT professor Salvador Luria raised a few eyebrows when he expressed concern, not optimism, about the 'dangers that genetic surgery, once it becomes feasible, can create if misapplied.' Luria pointed out that fruit flies could be infected with a virus which then changes their metabolisms so they suddenly become over sensitized to carbon dioxide. CO2 becomes a lethal poison for them. In the same way, Luria suggests, human populations could be seeded with viruses, making them susceptible to introduced chemicals which, ordinarily, would have no effect, but would quickly become lethal. Indicating that as of 1987, 127 sites around the U. S. were doing CBW research, including universities, foundations, and private corporations, a report (Feb. 27, 1987) stated: 'The Department of Defense is applying recombinant DNA techniques (genetic engineering) in research and in the production of a range of pathogens and toxins, including botulism, anthrax, and yellow fever.' In a speech given at a NY Lenox Hill Hospital AIDS symposium, on April 10, 1983, US Representative Ted Weiss, like Salvador Luria of MIT, raised a few eyebrows when he offered this piece of advice: ' . . . as far fetched as it may seem, given the attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality by some segments of society, the possible utilization of biological weapons must seriously be explored.' Presumably, Weiss was serious about recommending an investigation . . ." -- AIDS Inc. by Jon Rappoport, 1988, ISBN 0-941523, p 237 (8.) See: http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/atabrine.html (9.) For the rest of the story read: Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment -- a tragedy of race and medicine by James H. Jones ISBN 0-02-916670-5 (10.)