Bioweapons II: 

        The Silent Assassins







      Expert Says Sen. Leahy Concerns Are Legitimate: Sees West Nile Virus Outbreaks As “Bioterrorism”

          Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!

        The Lies of Rachel Carson by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards



             MEDIUM RARE

              By Jim Rarey

              January 12, 2002


               (Part one of three)



The following is the result of an in-depth investigation into the current anthrax scare, the anthrax vaccine and the decoding of the human genome.

While this writer was among the first to question the ownership, motives and associations of the only U.S. manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine (Bioport), credit must be given to other researchers who have broadened the field of inquiry. Two in particular have opened up the proverbial "can of worms" involved in the scientific progress of biological weapons.

Dr. Leonard Horowitz and Patricia Doyle, Ph.D. have zeroed in on a little publicized but powerful entity named Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI). This relatively unknown (by the public) organization has its tentacles spread into virtually every field of current scientific endeavor, in partnership with the federal and state governments and the military.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. First some background. What are "GOCO’s?"

At the end of the Second World War, the federal government found itself with several secret laboratories involved mainly in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons research and development. A decision was made to utilize the labs, not only for further weapons research, but also for "peaceful" inventions and discoveries benefiting private industry and commerce.

A method was devised to keep the labs under government ownership but allow maximum participation of private interests. Thus "GOCO’s" (Government owned contractor operated) facilities were born. This procedure provides a means to fund projects with taxpayers dollars and transfers of the resulting technology to selected private interests.

Various government agencies and the military (Department of Defense) select organizations (through a Byzantine bidding process) to control and operate the government owned facilities. There are currently at least nineteen government owned national laboratories (that we know of) being operated by private contractors. All but one of the contractors is a "non-profit" organization or combination of two or more.

The one exception is the Sandia lab, which devolved from the WWII atomic bomb Manhattan Project. The first contractor operator, invited by President Harry Truman, was AT&T. It managed the lab until October, 1993 in the first year of the Clinton Administration, when the contract was awarded to Martin Marietta Corp. in Georgia (now Lockheed Martin). Undoubtedly the influence of "Mr. Defense" Georgia Senator Sam Nunn had something to do with that award. (Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia would not become Speaker of the House until two years later.) However, the government got a "real deal" since Lockheed/Martin Marietta has not charged a fee for its management of the lab. (Cui bono?)

Back to BMI (Battelle Memorial Institute) with headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. The institute was the brainchild of industrialist Gordon Battelle whose multi-millionaire father (John Battelle) had established a coal and steel empire in that state. A bequest of one million dollars in Gordon’s will set up the institute in 1923. Named to the first board of directors was then President of the United States, Warren G. Harding, a close associate of Gordon’s father John. Harding also died later that year.

The mission of the Institute, described in the trust is "the encouragement of creative and research work and the making of discoveries and inventions." The trust also required that a share of the institute’s net earnings (20%) be given to charitable institutions, needy enterprises or persons. In practice, the "needy" institutions seem to be other research organizations (some indirectly related to BMI).

From its humble beginnings with one lab and 20 employees BMI has grown to encompass over 10,000 employees (including 7,500 scientists and engineers), six major technology centers and eight specialized facilities. It has offices in 71 U.S. cities and four in foreign countries including Russia and the Ukraine. BMI also has nine subsidiaries.

The BMI trust was set up as a "non-profit" organization under the laws of the State of Ohio. However, according to BMI’s associate general counsel in congressional testimony, BMI does not qualify as non-profit under IRS guidelines and is not tax exempt. (His testimony was given in an apparently successful request that BMI and other "non-profit" contract operators of government facilities be exempted from collection of civil damages for "incidents" with nuclear, chemical or biological materials causing damage or harm to people or the environment.)

BMI’s fiscal 2000 revenue was nearly one billion dollars, mostly from government contracts and grants. During that year BMI had 6,783 projects in progress for 1,565 "clients." The institute manages or "co-manages" four top secret facilities for the Department of Energy (DOE).

The names of the nominal operators of many government facilities do not tell one who is really running the show. One of the favorite stratagems is for the real manager to join in a partnership with a university or a third entity is created as a joint venture with a university or other company.

The DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York is operated by Brookhaven Science Associates a corporation consisting solely of Battelle and Stoney Brook University.

BMI is co-manager of DOE’s Oak Ridge laboratory with the University of Tennessee. Battelle and other prime contractors have no problem getting universities to "partner" with them in managing laboratory facilities. Entering into such agreements with the favored contractors virtually guarantees a steady flow of government research grants, the lifeblood of many major universities.

Battelle has partnering agreements, in addition to the Univ. of Tennessee, with the entire California State university system and the same in Oregon. While details of the partnering agreements are not made known to the public, occasionally a local newspaper will dig up an interesting provision. One of the provisions in an agreement signed last spring between Battelle and Ohio University for joint gene research allows BMI to transfer any facet of the project to its own laboratories at BMI’s discretion. The import of a provision like that will become apparent in part three of this report.

In addition to the management of entire facilities, BMI supports (manages) an incredible variety of programs for various agencies. It supports programs in at least 18 military installations including bioweapons programs at Ft. Detrick in Maryland and the Army’s Dugway facility in Utah. It was recently disclosed that BMI also supports an anthrax program for the CIA.

In part two of this analysis BMI’s deep involvement in anthrax programs, both weapons and vaccines, will be discussed. Part three will explore BMI’s involvement and the implications of the decoding and deconstruction of the human genome as well as the murders and mysterious deaths apparently connected to it.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at

Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received.



              MEDIUM RARE

              By Jim Rarey

              January 11, 2002


               (Part two of three)

              Battelle and Anthrax


The anthrax controversy began years before the mailing of the deadly toxin in October of last year. The issue was about an untested vaccine that nearly a half million U.S. service men and women were forced to take during and after the Gulf War.

A laboratory owned and operated by the State of Michigan produced the vaccine. The vaccine was a much more potent version of one that had been used successfully for several decades to protect against cutaneous (skin) anthrax in veterinarians and others workers who came into close contact with animals and animal products.

The vaccine has never been proved to be effective against inhalation (pulmonary) anthrax and has not been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the vaccine has resulted in the partial or total disability of a large number of the inoculated troops and a few deaths, the government (Dept. of Defense and Center for Disease Control) continues to insist the vaccine is safe and effective.

For decades, cultivation of anthrax as a military weapon has been ongoing. The major countries involved were the USSR (now Russia), The United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. The South African program under the direction of Wouter Basson also developed anthrax for use in the assassination of individuals.

In the U.S. the major research and development of "weaponized" anthrax was said to have been performed at the army’s Fort Detrick installation. However, we have recently learned that effort received substantial "support" from Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI). (See part one for a detailed description of BMI.)

At this point, the reader should be introduced to several individuals who have played important roles in the development of anthrax weapons and/or vaccines.

Two of the individuals the government relies on heavily for expert advice are William C. Patrick and Ken Alibek.

Patrick was the director of the operation at Fort Detrick and now has his own private consulting firm on defenses against chemical and biological weapons. He still has close ties to the Dept. of Defense (DOD), the intelligence community including the CIA and BMI. Patrick says he taught army (and BMI) scientists how to aerosolize (weaponize) anthrax powder at the army’s facility at Dugway, Utah.

Curiously, more than two years ago Patrick was commissioned by BMI to prepare a scenario where weaponized anthrax was delivered through the mail. Whether deliberately or not, Patrick’s report underestimated the concentration of the hypothesized anthrax spores by a factor of twenty to one. His report was based on a concentration of 50,000 billion spores per gram The U.S. weaponized anthrax, for which Patrick holds five secret patents, had a concentration of one trillion spores per gram. No other country’s program has reached higher than 500 billion per gram.

Ken Alibek (the Americanized version of his Russian name) was deputy chief of the USSR’s bio-weapon program. In 1992 he "defected" to the U.S. The CIA asked William Patrick to "debrief" Alibek who was then welcomed with open arms by the intelligence community and other government agencies. Alibek was an employee of BMI for several years before he was set up with his own consulting company as a subsidiary of the notorious Hadron Corp. (a thinly veiled front for the CIA and other government agencies). Another deputy chief of the Soviet program had defected three years earlier to the U.K. where he was ensconced at Porton Down. Porton Down is the U.K’s counterpart of Ft. Detrick in bio-weapons development and now vaccines. Then a consultant, he died suddenly and mysteriously (said to be from a stroke) three weeks after the first mailed anthrax last October.

Another player is Dr. Robert Myers. Myers was the head scientist at the Michigan lab making the anthrax vaccine. When the lab was sold to a private company (Bioport) Myers became the chief scientist and part owner of Bioport. Myers is one of the prime movers in the army’s mandatory anthrax vaccine inoculation program (AVIP) along with BMI who is said to be managing the program for DOD.

Myers also has ties to South Africa’s anthrax weapons program. He was a friend of scientist Larry Ford who worked with South Africa’s Wouter Basson in developing assassination weapons using deadly germs. Myers was also an investor in Ford’s company (Biofem). The ostensible goal of Ford’s company was to produce a birth control device for women that would also protect against aids. Ford and his partner set up a network of shell companies through which money was laundered to keep Biofem afloat. The original source of that money has never been revealed. The company never came up with a product and had no sales.

Ford is said to have committed suicide with his shotgun although police had supposedly confiscated all of his firearms three days earlier. Ford was a suspect in the attempted murder of his partner in Biofem.

Since the anthrax mailings last October, Patrick and Alibek have been widely quoted in the media, sometimes in direct contradiction to there own earlier statements. Their opinions on the possible source of the anthrax have ranged from a sophisticated laboratory to a "loner" with some knowledge and rudimentary equipment. The opinions seem to depend on which scenario government officials are pushing at the time.

However, other scientists have determined that the mailed anthrax has to have come originally from one of five known locations which had access to one trillion spore per gram anthrax developed by Patrick. It might have been narrowed down even further had not the University of Iowa and Iowa State University destroyed their collections of the various iterations of the "Ames" strain. The universities said they had permission from the FBI and CDC (some say they were directed) to destroy the collections.

The anthrax vaccine situation is just as muddled. Bioport has not been able to ship any vaccine because the FDA found multiple problems in the production of the vaccine. Another inspection by the FDA was made last month and Bioport claims to have corrected all the problems of sterility, contamination, etc. However, the increased potency issue is being avoided like the plague (pun intended) by all the parties involved.

In the meantime, BMI has entered into a contract with Bioport to develop a new anthrax vaccine. BMI also signed an agreement with the CDC to test the new vaccine when produced. Evidently the CDC has adopted the Bill Clinton concept of conflict of interest which is trying to watch simultaneously two lovely ladies walking in opposite directions.

The Aerosol Engineering and Biological Defense facility of BMI does FDA testing for licensing of drugs and vaccines assessing safety and efficacy of medical counter measures against chemical and biological agents.

BMI also has managed the Chemical and Biological Defense Information Analysis Center (CBIAC) for the Department of Defense (DOD) since its inception in August 1986. The CBIAC is a full service department of DOD.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is set to try another controversial treatment for anthrax attacks. An unnamed spokesman said the CDC wants to extract blood from vaccinated soldiers and stockpile a protein (immune globulin) obtained from the blood. The theory is that the protein could neutralize the deadly toxin produced by the anthrax bacterium.

That theory might stem from discoveries made during the production of weaponized anthrax. It was found that more virulent strains of anthrax were obtained from the blood that had been through the immune system. Successive tests were run on a series of monkeys with each subsequent strain of anthrax more deadly than the one originally introduced into the monkeys’ systems.

At Fort Detrick, the phenomenon was further tested using blood from two lab workers who had died from anthrax. This was kept secret, even from relatives of the victims, until revealed by Baltimore Sun reporter Don Shane in a series of articles last year on Fort Detrick and anthrax.

The CDC has another problem. The prestigious Jawaharalal Nehru University in New Delhi, India has developed a new concept anthrax vaccine that has passed initial testing. It requires fewer doses, no booster shots, has virtually none of the side effects of the vaccines produced by the U.S. and Britain. It will be available within six months at a fraction of the cost of U.S. and British vaccines. So far there has been no reaction from U.S. officials.

India also has a generic version of Cipro (ciprofloxacin), the drug recommended by CDC for anthrax treatment. The Indian government offered to supply the U.S. with 20 million tablets which was turned down citing the Bayer patent on Cipro which doesn’t expire until Dec. 31, 2003. This despite the fact that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson used the threat of buying generic drugs, bypassing Bayer’s patent, to get a reduction in price from over $3.00 per tablet to $.95. India is offering the drug at a fraction of even that lower Bayer price. India even offered a free gift of a million dollars worth of the drug to tide the CDC over its temporary shortage. That offer was also turned down.

In the third and final installment of this report, the potential for beneficial and opposite uses of the decoding of the human genome will be examined.


Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at

Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received



By Jim Rarey

January 12, 2002


(Part three of three)




Two years ago, an expert panel of the British Medical Association (BMA) warned, "Genetically engineered biological weapons capable of targeting particular ethnic groups could become a reality within 10 years. Viruses and other micro-organisms tailored to detect the differences in the DNA of races could offer warmakers and terrorists of the future a new means to carry out ethnic cleansing."

The panel also declared that, while only a theoretical possibility now, this capability adds urgency to the need to add verification procedures to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention signed by 140 nations including the U.S., U.K. and Russia.

To that end, a conference of the signatories was held last year to discuss and implement verification procedures. Near the end of the conference, the U.S. representative raised several new objections resulting in postponing any action for a year.

Aside from the naiveté in believing a signature on a treaty or convention is going to shut down weapons development programs, the panel may have grossly underestimated the time frame in which the weapons could become reality.

The two key elements in developing such weapons are the decoding of the human genome (DNA) and advances in "gene therapy" (altering of genes). Both disciplines are advancing at an accelerated pace and the targeting capability may already be a reality.

Billions of taxpayer dollars and private funds are being pumped into research and development in the two areas. While the findings have tremendous potential in conquering various diseases, they also can be used for nefarious purposes. Various universities and non-profit entities are receiving grants to carry on studies.

Two approaches can be used in deploying the technology as weapons. Super germs can be developed that are resistant to known treatments along with development of vaccines that would protect only certain groups with similar DNA properties from the germs. Alternatively, toxins could be developed that attack only certain DNA groups.

To the casual observer it might seem, with all the entities involved in the research and development programs, that coordination of all the findings and results would be difficult to coordinate at best. As we have shown in part two of this analysis with regard to anthrax vaccine, the effort is quite controlled with Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) exerting maximum influence as surrogate for the federal government. The same is true for the development of other vaccines.

BMI has "partnered" with a large, but unknown number of universities and other organizations in the field of DNA research. Such research requires the availability of significant funding for expensive equipment and highly paid scientists. BMI appears to have some influence in awarding of grants and its "partners" seem able to raise the large amounts of money necessary to continue the research.

Most of the visible government grants in the field flow through the Department of Energy (DOE) which is overseeing the human genome project. BMI is the operator or "co-operator" of four of the five national laboratories under the DOE. As such, BMI manages the collection and collation of data on the human genome into one database comprising the most comprehensive information available in the field.

Those who would pervert and convert the available information for the development of weapons have a problem. Many if not most of the scientists involved in the field are working for the betterment of mankind in conquering diseases. If they were to become aware of efforts to pervert the research, they might raise objections and expose those responsible. (Some may already have reached that point.) This might be the explanation of the recent mysterious deaths and murders of top scientists in the field. Then again it might just be the concept of "compartmentalization" where few are to be privy to the total picture.

Since the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, no less than seven or eight top microbiologists have been murdered or died under suspicious circumstances.

Dr. Benito Que, a cell biologist working on infectious diseases at the University of Miami was found beaten to death outside of his laboratory. Authorities say a mugging is suspected.

Dr. Robert M. Schwartz, a well-known DNA sequencing researcher was found murdered in his secluded Loudoun County home in Virginia. Police have arrested a teenager and two unidentified adults in the case.

Set Van Nguyen, a skilled microbiologist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Center in Australia died in a low temperature storage area where biological samples were kept. The cause was said to be a leak of liquid nitrogen from the cooling system. It is probably just a coincidence that Nguyen has the same last name as the quiet, 61-year-old Vietnamese immigrant who died in New York from anthrax. She is the only anthrax case where the source of the anthrax has not been determined.

Already mentioned (but not by name) was the soviet defector who died, reportedly of a stroke, in Britain. Three weeks earlier just after the Sept. 11 WTC and Pentagon attacks, Vladimir Pasechnik had communicated with British officials about his knowledge on anthrax as a weapon.

An Israeli journalist has raised concern about the loss of Israeli scientists involved in genetic and DNA research. Two have been assassinated, supposedly by terrorists. Some other prominent scientists were lost when the chartered plane they were on was shot down over the Black Sea, reportedly by an arrant missile from a Ukranian training exercise.

Perhaps the most disturbing death is that of Harvard scientist Don C. Wiley. Wiley was one of America’s preeminent researchers into infectious diseases and HIV in particular. After years of meticulous research, Wiley had just scored a breakthrough by identifying the properties of the HIV virus that make it infectious and how it avoids destruction by the antigens in the human immune system.

In theory, the discovery has application to other viruses that cause diseases. Viruses, as opposed to bacteria, seem to be immune to treatment by antibiotics.

The dark side of the discovery, as Wiley himself discussed, is that the same information could be used to change relatively benign viruses into killers.

Wiley disappeared from his rental car in the middle of a bridge over the Mississippi River when leaving after a dinner of the St. Jude Children’s Research Advisory Associates.

A couple of weeks later, his body was found far downstream in the river. Although an autopsy was to be performed, no results have been made public despite the passage of several weeks.

A number of scientists, journalists and others are concerned about the direction this technology may take, however few are talking about it publicly. This writer believes more, not less light should be put on the subject.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at

Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received.



By Jim Rarey

January 23, 2002



It appears that Bioport, the sole manufacturer of anthrax vaccine in the U.S., has cleared the first of three hurdles toward resuming shipments of its vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced approval of Bioport’s revamped production facilities.

The FDA has not allowed shipments of the vaccine by Bioport since 1998 when it bought the laboratory from the State of Michigan. The FDA found numerous problems in Bioport’s production facilities including contamination, fluctuations in potency, inadequate record keeping, mislabeling of product, and intractable problems in the bottling of the product.

At the suggestion of the FDA, when it became apparent Bioport’s bottling process would not be approved, Bioport (in early 2001) entered into a contract with Hollister-Stier Laboratories (HSL) of Spokane, Washington to bottle the vaccine.

Hollister-Stier claims to be the world’s largest producer of medicines for allergies holding a 20% market share of those products.

There evidently was a prior association between the two companies. In the fall of 2000 the FDA (in a single communication) announced the revocation of the licenses of Bioport and Hollister-Stier to manufacture "Polyvalent Bacterial Vaccines" (at Hollister-Stier) and specific vaccines at Bioport for pertussis (generally known as whooping cough), diphtheria and tetanus which fall into the Polyvalent Bacterial Vaccine category.

The FDA has a curious procedure where it notifies a company of intent to revoke a license and then allows the company to request the revocation thus letting the company claim surrendering of the license was voluntary. This procedure was followed with both companies.

Before the anthrax vaccine can be shipped, Hollister-Stier must also receive FDA approval for its operation and the vaccine must be tested and pass FDA scrutiny for purity, potency and sterility.

The company was founded in 1921 by chemist Guy Hollister and Robert E. Stier, M.D., partly as a result of the two developing a vaccine for Mrs. Hollister’s "summer cold" which they discovered was an allergy to grasses in the area. The company prospered and became a major force in allergy research and treatment.

In 1958 Cutter Laboratories bought the company, which in turn was absorbed by the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG in 1974. For the next twenty-five years the company operated as part of Bayer.

Bayer is the manufacturer of the drug Cipro, which until October of last year was the only drug recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for the treatment of anthrax. Bayer has made millions of dollars on the drug, partly because it was paying five makers of generic equivalents 25 to 30 million dollars each per year to not ask for FDA approval.

In June of 1999 Hollister-Stier was cut loose from Bayer and once again became an independent company, so their website says. During the next year, $7.5 million was spent upgrading the facility.

So who controls Hollister-Stier? If you subscribe to the second golden rule, (he who has the gold makes the rules) you need to know from what source the company gets it funding. That’s not an easy task.

In June of 2000, Hollister-Stier formalized a "strategic alliance" with Biogenetic Ventures, Inc. a newly formed Spokane –based company that invests in the development and commercialization of emerging scientific research. Under the agreement, Biogenetic Ventures will provide funding for research and product development, plus expertise to license and acquire intellectual property. Hollister-Stier will secure regulatory approvals, e.g. from the FDA and provide for the manufacture, marketing and distribution of new products.

Evidently, although not disclosed in the announcement, Biogenetic Ventures will own the technology on new products and either license it back to or share royalties with Hollister-Stier as it does in another strategic alliance announced at the same time (the third in three months).

Biogenetic Ventures was founded two years ago by Peter Allison specifically to provide venture capital for high-tech and biotech firms. Allison says he has developed extensive relationships with venture capital firms in all of the high-tech corridors of the United States through a company he claims to have founded named Buffalo Capital. (More about this company later.)

But Biogenetic Ventures evidently does not provide the money itself. It funnels all prospects through another company founded by Allison, Allison Johnson Venture Partners, Inc. (AJVP). This company is a partnership between Allison and Ron Johnson, a former staff accountant with Lockheed Corp. who founded the Silicon Valley Consulting Group in 1991 and sits on the boards of several high-tech companies and universities.

The Allison/Johnson partnership describes its mission on its website, "AJVP maintains a comprehensive inventory of investors, including high net worth individuals, venture funds, institutional investors and corporate partners who actively seek investing opportunities. When our client companies are properly prepared and positioned, we reach into this community to raise the financing required to realize the objectives of the corporation."

Also on its website is a description of a comprehensive seven-step screening process to which it subjects potential clients seeking funding. It is not known if Biogenetic Ventures is the only company referring potential clients to AJVP.

At this point the money trail reaches a dead end. It is not known what mechanism is used to funnel funds to clients through AJVP and its affiliates. Other than Allison’s reference to Buffalo Capital, no "investors" are identified.

Even the involvement of Buffalo Capital is questionable. An extensive search of databases with several search engines failed to turn up any association of Allison’s name with Buffalo Capital other than the one on his website and stories based on that information. Oh, there are plenty of references to Buffalo Capital, most of them dealing with enforcement actions against the company.

According to the information available on the Internet including court records and news accounts, Buffalo Capital was founded by John Hampton Hickman III. The mysterious Hickman was described in the venerable Marquis Who’s Who as, "an entrepreneurial industrialist, investment banker and educator. Buffalo Capital Corp. was called his personal holding company.

Buffalo Capital’s investments were, as described by Allison, in high-tech and biotech companies. Hickman had numerous subsidiaries including seven named Buffalo Capital I through VII.

In 1994 Hickman appeared in Vancouver, British Columbia and proceeded to ingratiate himself into the social elite controlling the Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE). He managed to get himself appointed as Chairman of a struggling software firm, Motion Works, by promising to raise $10 million to keep the firm afloat. When he proceeded to hire friends and relatives at handsome salaries and awarded himself a large salary and stock options, several directors petitioned the VSE to investigate Hickman.

The VSE, which was rife with corruption at that time, took no action until it received anonymously information on a scam Hickman had pulled in the United States.

There is a fascinating story about the VSE corruption including Mafia involvement in drug transactions, money laundering, securities fraud, murder and suicide in connection with the stock exchange. It can be found at the May edition of the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business at

(Note: the URL is case sensitive.)

In the United States Hickman, who was a trustee of a Florida utility’s pension fund, had transferred over $700,000 out of the pension fund into his Buffalo Capital Corporation. A bankruptcy judge had lodged a judgment for $3.8 million (the amount embezzled plus triple damages) against Hickman, three of his Buffalo Capital companies and four trusts in Hickman’s name.

When this information surfaced in Vancouver, Hickman and his family employees resigned from Motion Works. The creditor under the bankruptcy judgment obtained an injunction freezing Hickman’s assets in both the U.S. and Canada.

Although Hickman had not contested the bankruptcy award, he chose to fight against the freeze of his assets. He was scheduled to give a deposition detailing his assets and their locations but before that could take place, he was found dead in his car in the garage, apparently a suicide from carbon monoxide poisoning.

In May of 1999, the same month that Peter Allison incorporated Biogenetic Ventures in Washington State, Buffalo Capital changed its name to M&A West Inc. (MAWI). It obtained listing in the over the counter exchange (OTC) and on the Boston Stock Exchange.

However the name change did little to stem the company’s troubles. After losing a couple of trademark infringement suits, the investing community was stunned when the SEC charged MAWI with providing false and fraudulent financial statements to obtain listing on the exchanges. MAWI was delisted from the Boston exchange and had to restate its earnings for several accounting periods.

In January 2001 the CEO and CFO of MAWI resigned. Patrick R. Greene was named interim CEO. Greene has had his own problems. An online publishing company ( Greene founded was accused by the SEC of issuing a fraudulent press release that caused PinkMonkey’s common stock to rise 950%. Greene agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty.

Perhaps the death knell sounded for MAWI nee Buffalo Capital in August of last year when a Northern California grand jury returned an 82 count criminal indictment against two principals in a MAWI subsidiary. The pair is accused of running a classic "pump and dump" scam involving false press releases and financial statements to hype various stocks. The scam involved MAWI and two subsidiaries, Virtual and Digital Bridge, Inc. The indictment alleges the pair, and others, netted over $15 million from the scam while investors lost more than $100 million.

But what does all of this have to do with the bottler of the anthrax vaccine, Hollister Stier? Perhaps nothing. There is no evidence, other than Peter Allison’s claims that he has had anything to do with a company named Buffalo Capital Corp. However, given the sordid reputation of Buffalo Capital, it beggars belief that Allison would choose to associate himself with that name unless he was involved.

At any rate, Hollister Stier is receiving money from an unknown investor or investors unless Allison chooses to reveal the identities. That comes pretty close to the definition of money laundering.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at

Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received.




Tetrahedron, LLC Health Science Communications for People Around the World 229 Gypsy Bay Road • Sagle, ID 83860 208-265-2575 • (FAX) 208-265-2775 ;  E-mail: 


Release: No.44-DIA/4 Date Mailed: Sept. 16, 2002 For Immediate Release Contact: Elaine Zacky—208/265-2575; 800/336-9266

Expert Says Sen. Leahy Concerns Are Legitimate: Sees West Nile Virus Outbreaks As “Bioterrorism”

Sandpoint, ID —Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for an investigation into the possibility that recent West Nile Virus outbreaks were initiated by bioterrorists. Suspects include Iraqi terrorists who apparently received their initial stocks of the West Nile Virus from the United States, according to public health officials, as recorded in the Congressional Record.

Among experts providing Congressional testimony in support of Sen. Leahy’s thesis is, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard graduate and independent investigator whose thirteenth book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, predated the 9-11 attacks by three months. The book focuses on the West Nile Virus as part of a biological weapons arsenal shipped to Iraq during the 1980s.

Dr. Horowitz testified before the Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill on April 18 of this year regarding evidence he compiled showing that vaccine makers for the West Nile Virus and anthrax were suspects in the outbreaks and mailings. Supportive evidence includes records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, submitted to Congress, showing that a pharmaceutical industry and bioweapons supplier—the American Type Culture Collection in Maryland—shipped Iraqi laboratories more than nineteen shipments of anthrax and two containers of the West Nile Virus, during the 1980s. Dr. Horowitz believes that the recent outbreaks and anthrax mailings, including the ones to Senators Leahy and Majority Leader Tom Dashle, are part of a “fear-rousing bioterrorist agenda” solely benefiting a consortium of mostly foreign-owned vaccine, drug, and chemical companies historically linked to such activities.

“An excellent example,” Dr. Horowitz said, “is the Michigan-based Bioport company. This infamous producer of America’s anthrax vaccine, vigorously sanctioned in the past by Congress and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their untrustworthyness, is directed by a wealthy Saudi industrialist with purported ties to the bin Laden family or their investments.” Bioport’s operating plans were discovered by American forces when they took control of an Osama bin Laden encampment in Afghanistan.

News reports about West Nile Virus (WNV) spreading across America have also missed obvious links to the global biological weapons trade. Dr. Horowitz, who urgently alerted the FBI concerning what he viewed was a “developing anthrax mailings scam” a week before it was announced in the press, shared views supportive to Senator Leahy’s during an nationally televised interview on FOX News last month (See August 23rd segment at ). During a meeting with Senator Daschle’s staff on April 17, and again the following day before the Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Dr. Horowitz alerted officials regarding a possible profit motive for recent epidemics, outbreaks, and anthrax attacks. His written testimony (Available at: s_epidemic_autism.html ) reflected on Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson’s unprecedented half-billion dollars worth of anthrax and smallpox vaccine purchases, made shortly after the anthrax mailings. Dr. Horowitz noted with suspicion that these exact purchases fulfilled the request made by the chief anthrax vaccine developer at Bioport, Dr. Robert C. Myers, as entered into the Congressional Record in 1999. The mailings, he believes, provided the perfect “wag-the-dog” impetus for the government expenditures.

Senator Leahy referred to an October 1999 issue of The New Yorker that disclosed that the West Nile Virus arrived in New York (other reports specify Rockefeller University labs) closely following the germ’s isolation in 1937. It was shipped to New York by virologists working in northwest Uganda—precisely where the Ebola virus, known to be the world’s best biological weapon, is believed to have originated.

This area of central Africa is also known as the “heart of the African AIDS belt.” Classified government documents unearthed by Dr. Horowitz during a three year investigation, along with eyewitness testimonies published by the doctor, evidence this area’s use in American military medical experiments from the 1950s through the 1970s. This research, he believes, is linked to the origin of HIV/AIDS according to a scientific report published in May 2001, in the esteemed journal of Medical Hypothesis. The paper summarized the evidence compiled by Dr. Horowitz for his national best-selling book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron, 1998; 1-888-508-4787).

The man-made origin of AIDS theory was recently investigated, and rebuked, by the Congress’ investigating arm, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Dr. Horowitz was among a handful of experts interviewed by GAO officials during their inquiry into the possibility that HIV, or its precursor, was constructed by biological weapons contractors during a “Special Virus Cancer Program” beginning in the 1960s. Their brief report of expert testimonies, including his, dramatically differed from his recorded statements. He plans to file a legal complaint later this year.

Likewise concerned about the official suppression of truth in this area, Senator Leahy’s office released excerpts from previous news and congressional committee reports saying public health officials had too hastily downplayed the possibility the spreading West Nile virus, like the anthrax mailings, might be the work of bioterrorists. The Judiciary Committee Chairman countered by saying, “In the times in which we live, questions about our vulnerabilities are unavoidable, and finding all the answers we can is more important than ever.” Leahy concluded, ``I have no way of knowing what the answers are, but some legitimate questions have been asked, especially before September 11 last year, and no doubt they are being asked anew by the agencies that are working on this.''

In The New Yorker article Sen. Leahy referred to, a book by an alleged Iraqi defector, was discussed. The author suggested Saddam Hussein might have developed the ATCC supplied West Nile Virus to use as a biological weapon against the United States. The article also cited the work of a Russian defector and anthrax expert, Dr. Ken Alibek, who independent investigators, including Dr. Horowitz, have urged the FBI to interrogate regarding his possible complicity in the anthrax mailings. Besides being a contractor for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Battelle Memorial Institute, and Hadron Advanced Biosystems—a bioweapons defense contractor, Dr. Alibekov (his real name) does sophisticated anthrax work. All three entities maintain close industry ties to Bioport, and according to national news reports, the CIA and Battelle have been under suspicion in the anthrax mailings. Dr. Alibek, now President of Hadron, oversees millions of dollars in bioweapons defense and pharmaceutical industry contracts, including an $800,000 federal grant to develop anthrax protection technology. The grant was awarded at the precise time the anthrax letters were being mailed to Senators Leahy and Daschle. Both Democratic majority leaders are staunch critics of the pharmaceutical and defense industries.

Among the committee investigations Leahy criticized was that issued by the Republican minority staff of the Senate Government Affairs Committee in July 2000. It said ``law enforcement, public health, and intelligence officials have investigated the possibility that West Nile virus resulted from a bioterrorist attack but believe that this is very unlikely.''

“‘Very unlikely’? Hogwash!” Dr. Horowitz returned. “This possibility best explains the mountain of advancing evidence in both the anthrax mailings and sudden emergence of the West Nile Virus.” The award winning public health authority believes Senator Leahy’s concerns are extremely valid and politically urgent. “I applaud the senator for working to protect the public’s health, not lull legislators and people to sleep with baseless assertions that deflect critical analysis away from where it should be—on the military–pharmaceutical complex that supplied Saddam Hussein with his bioweapons.”

-end -

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS: For an interview or article on this area of Dr. Horowitz’s research, please call Elaine Zacky at 1-800-336-9266. For more on Dr. Alibekov, see the lead article at: . To read what Dr. Horowitz wrote more than two years ago about the West Nile Virus, that foreshadowed Sen. Leahy’s concerns, read his book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, or summary report: “The CIA and the West Nile Virus: What New Viruses, Vaccines and Lethal Sprayings Have in Common” available at: ). On a side note, more than 1,000 copies of Death in the Air have been donated to members of the U.S. Congress to date along with America’s leading public libraries. Dr. Horowitz’s publisher, Tetrahedron, LLC, will continue this policy as long as possible to facilitate ongoing investigations, constructive political debate, and U.S. national security.




Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!

By Marjorie Mazel Hecht

What DDT Can Do Banned to Kill People

The Silent Spring Fraud

POPs Convention Is Genocide Full text of Editorial from Summer 2002 issue


The 1972 U.S. ban on DDT is responsible for a genocide 10 times larger than that for which we sent Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg. It is also responsible for a menticide which has already condemned one entire generation to a dark age of anti-science ignorance, and is now infecting a new one.

The lies and hysteria spread to defend the DDT ban are typical of the irrationalist, anti-science wave which has virtually destroyed rational forms of discourse in our society. If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda.

Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria.

The DDT ban does not only affect tropical nations. In the wake of the DDT ban, the United States stopped its mosquito control programs, cutting the budgets for mosquito control and monitoring. Exactly as scientists had warned 25 years ago, we are now facing increases of mosquito-borne killer diseases—West Nile fever and dengue, to name the most prominent.

Christopher Sloan What DDT Can Do Malaria is a preventable mosquito-borne disease. It can be controlled by spraying a tiny amount of DDT on the walls of houses twice a year. DDT is cheaper than other pesticides, more effective, and not harmful to human beings or animals.

Even where mosquito populations have developed resistance to DDT, it is more effective (and less problematic) than alternative chemicals. The reason is that mosquitoes are repelled by the DDT on house walls and do not stay around to bite and infect the inhabitants. This effect is known as “excito-repellency,” and has been shown to be a dominant way that DDT controls malaria-bearing mosquitoes, in addition to killing them on contact.1 Studies have demonstrated this for all major species of malaria-bearing mosquitoes.

It costs only $1.44 per year to spray one house with DDT. The more toxic substitutes cost as much as 10 to 20 times more and require more frequent applications, making spraying programs prohibitively expensive. In addition, replacement pesticides have to be applied more frequently and are more toxic.

Banned to Kill People DDT came into use during World War II, and in a very short time saved more lives and prevented more diseases than any other man-made chemical in history. Millions of troops and civilians, in particular war refugees, were saved from typhus because one DDT dusting killed the body lice that spread that dread disease.

Why was DDT banned, 30 years after its World War II introduction and spectacular success in saving lives? The reason was stated bluntly by Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, who wrote in a biographical essay in 1990, “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” King was particularly concerned that DDT had dramatically cut the death rates in the developing sector, and thus increased population growth.

As King correctly observed, the incidence of malaria, and its death rates, were vastly reduced by DDT spraying. To take one example: Sri Lanka (Ceylon) had 2.8 million cases of malaria and more than 12,500 deaths in 1946, before the use of DDT. In 1963, after a large-scale spraying campaign, the number of cases fell to 17, and the number of deaths fell to 1. But five years after the stop of spraying, in 1969, the number of deaths had climbed to 113, and the number of cases to 500,000. Today, malaria rates have soared in countries that stopped spraying. In South Africa, the malaria incidence increased by 1,000 percent in the late 1990s.

The Silent Spring Fraud The campaign to ban DDT got its start with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson’s popular book was a fraud. She played on people’s emotions, and to do so, she selected and falsified data from scientific studies, as entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards has documented in his analysis of the original scientific studies that Carson cited.2

As a result of the propaganda and lies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened scientific hearings and appointed a Hearing Examiner, Edmund Sweeney, to run them. Every major scientific organization in the world supported DDT use, submitted testimony, as did the environmentalist opposition. The hearings went on for seven months, and generated 9,000 pages of testimony. Hearing Examiner Sweeney then ruled that DDT should not be banned, based on the scientific evidence: “DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man [and] these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms,” Sweeney concluded.

Two months later, without even reading the testimony or attending the hearings, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus overruled the EPA hearing officer and banned DDT. He later admitted that he made the decision for “political” reasons. “Science, along with economics, has a role to play . .. .. [but] the ultimate decision remains political,” Ruckelshaus said.

The U.S. decision had a rapid effect in the developing sector, where the State Department made U.S. aid contingent on countries not using any pesticide that was banned in the United States. The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support for DDT spraying programs, and instead increased funding for birth control programs.

Other Western nations—Sweden and Norway, for example—also pressured recipient nations to stop the use of DDT. Belize abandoned DDT in 1999, because Mexico, under pressure from the United States and NAFTA, had stopped the manufacture of DDT, which was Belize’s source. Purchases of replacement insecticides would take up nearly 90 percent of Belize’s malaria control budget. Mozambique stopped the use of DDT, “because 80 percent of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT,” reported the British Medical Journal (March 11, 2000).

The World Bank and the World Health Organization, meanwhile, responded to the rise in malaria incidence with a well-publicized “Roll Back Malaria” program, begun in 1989, which involves no insect control measures, only bed nets, personnel training, and drug therapies—a prescription for failure.

POPs Convention Is Genocide In 1995, despite the official documentation of increases in malaria cases and malaria deaths, the United Nations Environment Program began an effort to make the ban on DDT worldwide. UNEP proposed to institute “legally binding” international controls banning what are called “persistent organic pollutants” or POPs, including DDT. Ratification of the POPs Convention, finalized in 2001, is now pending in the U.S. Senate, where it has the support of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, including committee chairman James Jeffords (Ind.-Vt.) and committee member Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.). President Bush has already endorsed the U.S. signing on to the POPs Convention.

The evidence of DDT’s effectiveness is dramatic. In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that had stopped spraying houses with DDT after 1993: Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. In Ecuador, however, which increased its use of DDT after 1993, the malaria rate was rapidly reduced by 60 percent.

But DDT spraying is not a magic bullet cure-all. Eliminating mosquito-borne diseases here and around the world requires in-depth public health infrastructure and trained personnel—as were in place in the 1950s and 1960s, when DDT began to rid the world of malaria. And mosquito-borne illness is not the only scourge now threatening us. A growing AIDS pandemic, and the return of tuberculosis and other killer diseases, now also menace growing parts of the world’s population, particularly in those areas where human immune systems are challenged by malnutrition and poorly developed (or nonexistent) water and sanitation systems.

To solve this worsening problem as a whole—a disgrace in face of the scientific achievements the world has made—we must reverse the entire course of the past 30 years’ policymaking and return to a society based on production, scientific progress, and rationality. The onrushing world depression crisis, demands a new FDR-style approach to economic reconstruction in the United States. The recognized spokesman for such a reform of our economic and monetary policies is the very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche.

The United States should not ratify the POPs Convention with its phase-out of DDT and other valuable chemicals. On the contrary, this nation should bring back DDT now, under the provisions of existing U.S. law that allow the use of DDT in health emergencies. If the continuing mass murder of millions of people is not an emergency, what is?

Notes _____________________________________

1. A summary of this work can be found in an article by Donald R. Roberts, et al., Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1997), pp. 295-302.

2. J. Gordon Edwards, “The Lies of Rachel Carson,” 21st Century, Summer 1992.

Edwards, a professor emeritus at San Jose State University in California, drank a spoonful of DDT in front of his entomology classes at the beginning of each school year, to make the point that DDT is not harmful to human beings. Now 83, and still fighting for the truth about DDT, Edwards is an avid mountain climber.

Read The Lies of Rachel Carson by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

Purchase Special DDT collection: 4 21st Century articles

Reproduced gratefully from:

21st Century Science & Technology



The Lies of Rachel Carson by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

(Full text, without tables and illustrations, from the Summer 1992 21st Century)

A well-known entomologist documents some of the misstatements in Carson’s Silent Spring, the 1962 book that poisoned public opinion against DDT and other pesticides.


Entomologist J. Gordon Edwards In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring, I was delighted. I belonged to several environmental-type organizations, had no feelings of respect for industry or big business, had one of my own books published by the Sierra Club, and I had written articles for The Indiana Waltonian, Audubon Magazine, and other environmental magazines. At the time, I had been engaged in field work at the University of Wyoming research station in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for three summers and I worked as biological coordinator for the National Park Service in Glacier National Park. I eagerly read the condensed version of Silent Spring in the New Yorker magazine and bought a copy of the book as soon as I could find it in the stores. As I read the first several chapters I noticed many statements that I realized were false; however, one can overlook such things when they are produced by one’s cohorts, and I did just that.

As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad.

Dedication: A Lie

Birds Vs. Human Deaths

I then took notice of her bibliography and realized that it was filled with references from very unscientific sources. Also, each reference was cited separately each time it appeared in the book, thus producing an impressive array of “references” even though not many different sources were actually cited. I began to lose confidence in Rachel Carson, even though I thought that as an environmentalist I really should continue to support her.

I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. When leading scientists began to publish harsh criticisms of her methods and her allegations, it slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans.

As a result, I went back to the beginning of the book and read it all again, but this time my eyes were open and I was not lulled into believing that her motives were noble and that her statements could be supported by logic and by scientific fact. I wrote my comments down in rough draft style, and gathered together the scientific articles that refuted what Carson had reported the articles indicated. It was a most frustrating experience.

Finally, I began to join the detractors of Silent Spring, and when hearings were held to determine the fate of DDT in various states of this nation, I paid my own way to some of them so that I could testify against the efforts to ban that life-saving insecticide. It was gratifying to find that great numbers of scientists and health officials whom I had always held in high esteem were also testifying at those hearings, in defense of DDT and in opposition to the rising tide of antipesticide propaganda in environmental publications and in the media.

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dedication: A Lie Dedication. In the front of the book, Carson dedicates Silent Spring as follows: “To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’”

This appears to indicate that the great man opposed the use of insecticides. However, in his autobiography Schweitzer writes, on page 262: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.” Upon reading his book, it is clear that Schweitzer was worried about nuclear warfare, not about the hazards from DDT!

Page 16. Carson says that before World War II, while developing agents of chemical warfare, it was found that some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were lethal to insects. “The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents of death for man.” Carson thus seeks to tie insecticides to chemical warfare. However, DDT was never tested as an “agent of death for man.” It was always known to be nonhazardous to humans! Her implication is despicable.

Page 16. Carson says the pre-war insecticides were simple inorganic insecticides but her examples include pyrethrum and rotenone, which are complex organic chemicals.

Page 17. Carson says arsenic is a carcinogen (identified from chimney soot) and mentions a great many horrible ways in which it is violently poisonous to vertebrates. She then says (page 18): “Modern insecticides are still more deadly,” and she makes a special mention of DDT as an example.

This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.” The World Health Organization stated that DDT had “killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” A leading British scientist pointed out that “If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust.”

It is a travesty, therefore, if Rachel Carson’s all-out attack on DDT results in any programs lauding her efforts to ban DDT and other life-saving chemicals!

Page 18. Referring to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides (like DDT) and organophosphates (like malathion), Carson says they are all “built on a basis of carbon atoms, which are also the indispensable building blocks of the living world, and thus classed as ‘organic.’ To understand them we must see how they are made, and how they lend themselves to the modifications which make them agents of death.”

Surely it is unfair of Carson to imply that all insecticides are “agents of death” for animals other than insects.

Page 21. After referring to untruthful allegations that persons ingesting as little as one tenth of a part per million (ppm) of DDT will then store “about 10 to 15 ppm,” Carson states that “such substances are so potent that a minute quantity can bring about vast changes in the body.” (She does not consider the metabolism and breakdown of DDT in humans and other vertebrates, and their excretion in urine, and so on, which prevents the alleged “biological magnification” up food chains from actually occurring.) Carson then states: “In animal experiments, 3 parts per million [of DDT] has been found to inhibit an essential enzyme in heart muscle; only 5 parts per million has brought about necrosis or disintegration of liver cells. ...” This implies that considerable harm to one’s health might result from traces of DDT in the diet, but there has been no medical indication that her statements are true.

On page 22, Carson adds, “... we know that the average person is storing potentially harmful amounts.” This is totally false!

Page 23. Carson says, “the Food and Drug Administration forbids the presence of insecticide residues in milk shipped in interstate commerce.” This is not true, either! The permissible level was 0.5 ppm in milk being shipped interstate.

Page 24. Carson says: “One victim who accidentally spilled a 25 percent industrial solution [of chlordane] on the skin developed symptoms of poisoning within 40 minutes and died before medical help could be obtained. No reliance can be placed on receiving advance warning which might allow treatment to be had in time.”

The actual details regarding this accident were readily available at the time, but Carson evidently chose to distort them. The accident occurred in 1949 in the chemical formulation plant, when a worker spilled a large quantity down the front of her body. The liquid contained 25 pounds of chlordane, 39 pounds of solvent, and 10 pounds of emulsifier (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 13, 1955). Carson’s reference to this as a “25 percent solution” spilled on the skin certainly underplays the severity of that drenching, which was the only account known of such a deadly contamination during the history of chlordane formulation.

Page 28. Carson refers to the origin of organophosphate insecticides like parathion (the insecticide that EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus recommended as the substitute for DDT). She states that the insecticidal properties of organophosphates were “discovered by a German chemist, Gerhard Schrader, in the late 1930s” and that “Some became the deadly nerve gases. Others, of closely allied structure, became insecticides.”

Actually, the insecticides of that nature were not discovered until after World War II (15 years later than Carson implied) and the similarity of insecticides to the dreaded nerve gases was greatly exaggerated by Carson. Carson’s attempt to spread terror about beneficial insecticides becomes even more vicious:

Pages 36-37. Carson says: “Among the herbicides are some that are classed as ‘mutagens,’ or agents capable of modifying the genes, the materials of heredity. We are rightly appalled by the genetic effects of radiation; how then can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment?”

Carson’s comparison between “radiation” and common herbicides is despicable, for there is a tremendous difference between their mutagenic potentials.

Page 40. Carson claims that “an appalling deluge of chemical pollution is daily poured into the nation’s waterways,” that “Most of them are so stable that they cannot be broken down by ordinary processes,” and that “Often they cannot even be identified.”

These are obviously overstatements designed to worry the reader by using frightening words and intimating that nobody knows what death-dealing chemicals are in the average person’s drinking water. Of course, if they can be detected, they can be identified. The amount of pollutants entering the drinking water of the country was repeatedly analyzed by experts and was found to be below levels that might cause human illness in homes. Carson’s scare-mongering statements would fit more appropriately in the pages of today’s supermarket tabloids.

Pages 50-51. Carson writes that: “Arsenic, the environmental substance most clearly established as causing cancer in man, is involved in two historic cases in which polluted water supplies caused widespread occurrence of cancer.”

I have seen no proof that arsenic causes cancer in humans, and it is known to occur naturally in most kinds of shellfish and other marine life. And, if she were really concerned about public health, Carson should have rejoiced to see that relatively harmless insecticides like DDT were capable of replacing arsenicals and other poisonous inorganic materials!

Page 78. Referring to “weeds” (which are such foes of healthy crops that they must be decimated before the crops can mature and be harvested, Carson states: “Presumably the weed is taking something from the soil; perhaps it is also contributing something to it.”

She is obviously correct about weeds taking something from the soil as every gardener knows by sad experience, but it takes a tremendous stretch of the imagination to suggest that weeds are desirable in fields of crops!

Carson then refers to a city park in Holland where the soil around the roses was heavily infested by nematodes. Planting marigolds among the roses resulted in the death of the nematodes, she claims, and the roses then flourished. No reference was cited. Based on this unsubstantiated story, Carson concludes that “other plants that we ruthlessly eradicate may be performing a function that is necessary to the health of the soil.”

So, soil with nematodes was just unhealthy anyway, but fields where weeds have crowded out the food crops had healthier soil even before crops were planted? Everyone who personally grows desirable plants will surely disagree with her!

Page 80. Carson says: “Crabgrass exists only in an unhealthy lawn. It is a symptom, not a disease in itself.” When the soil is healthy and fertile it is an environment in which crabgrass cannot grow, she says, because other grasses will prevent it from surviving.

Persons who have had crabgrass invade their beautiful lawn will quite rightly object to this wild unsubstantiated statement.

“Astonishing amounts of crabgrass killers” are placed on lawns each year, including mercury, arsenic, and chlordane, she says, relishing the stupidity of nurserymen who have a lifetime of experience. She then cites examples where they “apply 60 pounds of technical chlordane to the acre if they follow directions. If they use another of the many available products, they are applying 175 pounds of metallic arsenic to the acre [highly questionable]. The toll of dead birds is distressing. ... How lethal these lawns may be for human beings is unknown.”

Page 85. Carson says we are “adding... a new kind of havoc—the direct killing of birds, mammals, fishes, and indeed practically every form of wildlife by chemical insecticides indiscriminately sprayed on the land.”

Is it possible that Carson was unaware of the great increases in mammals and game birds harvested by hunters during the years of greatest use of the modern insecticides to which she objects? Is it possible that she was unaware of the tremendous increases in most kinds of North American birds, as documented year after year by participants in the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts? (That abundance was proven by the numbers of birds counted, per observer, on those counts.) The major things that limited numbers of fish during the ”DDT years” was the increasing competition among hordes of fishermen, the damming of multitudes of streams, and the sewage produced by our burgeoning population of healthy, well-fed American people.

Instead of recognizing and appreciating these documented increases of wildlife, Carson says bitterly (page 85): “[Nothing must get in the way of the man with the spray gun. ... The incidental victims of his crusade against insects count as nothing; if robins, pheasants, raccoons, cats, or even livestock happen to inhabit the same bit of earth as the target insects and to be hit by the rain of insect-killing poisons no one must protest.”

Page 87. Carson bemoans the efforts to control the Japanese beetles in Detroit in 1959, saying, “Little need was shown for this drastic and dangerous action.” She then says that a naturalist in Michigan, who she claimed was very well informed, stated that the Japanese beetle had been present in Detroit for more than 30 years. (No entomologist had ever seen one there.) Carson’s naturalist also said that the beetles had not increased there during all that time.

Perhaps she misquoted the naturalist, or perhaps he was just lying, or maybe he simply did not recognize the local Strigoderma beetles that faintly resemble Japanese beetles. Certainly it is impossible that the voracious Japanese beetles were actually present there for 30 years, remaining hidden from all entomologists and home-owners! Everywhere those beetles have invaded they quickly multiplied to a pest status within a few years, causing tremendous damage to flowers, fruits, and (as larvae) destroying the roots of grasses and other plants. Even Rachel Carson should not expect us to believe that in Detroit they displayed entirely different behavior. ...

Page 88. Regarding those Japanese beetles, Carson said that the midwestern states “have launched an attack worthy of the most deadly enemy instead of only a moderately destructive insect.” Thousands of residents of the eastern United States laughed at that ridiculous statement because they had personally experienced the devastation caused by the beetles and their larvae. Incredibly, Carson insisted (page 96) that the Japanese beetle by 1945 “had become a pest of only minor importance. ...”

Page 97. Carson discusses the use of spores of “milky disease” placed in the soil to kill the beetle larvae, and expresses tremendous confidence in the ability of that bacterium to eradicate them there. As to why they did not fight the epidemic in Michigan by simply using these spores, she explains that it was considered too expensive.

Carson reveals with pleasure the fact that they infect at least 40 other species of beetles, but expresses no concern for environmental harm caused by such a broad-spectrum killer of native insects. To the contrary, on page 99 she attacks the use of pesticides because they “... are not selective poisons; they do not single out the one species of which we desire to be rid.” Evidently she felt that it was all right for bacteria to be broad spectrum poisons, but that pesticides must affect only a single target.

Birds Vs. Human Deaths Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”

Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”

Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.

Page 106. In Lansing, Michigan, a spray program began in l954 against the bark beetles that were transmitting Dutch Elm disease. Carson states “[With local programs for gypsy moth and mosquito control also under way, the rain of chemicals increased to a downpour.” She expresses no concern for the survival of the magnificent elm trees, the dying oak trees, or the torment of people who lived near hordes of blood-sucking mosquitoes, but has tremendous pity for a few birds that had disappeared from the sprayed areas. These positions brought her very little support from the residents.

Carson praises Michigan State University ornithologist George Wallace, who had theorized that robins on the campus were dying because they had eaten earthworms containing DDT from the soil. Many other areas sprayed with DDT did not have dying robins, but Carson studiously avoids mentioning that. Wallace also did not mention the high levels of mercury on the ground and in the earthworms (from soil fungicide treatments on the Michigan campus), even though the symptoms displayed by the dying robins were those attributable to mercury poisoning. Instead, Wallace (and Carson) sought to blame only DDT for the deaths.

The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content” and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.

In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages on unfounded allegations about DDT and various kinds of birds.

Page 109. Carson alleges that because of the spray programs, “Heavy mortality has occurred among about 90 species of birds, including those most familiar to suburbanites and amateur naturalists. ... All the various types of birds are affected—ground feeders, treetop feeders, bark feeders, predators.”

Carson provides no references to confirm that allegation. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, in fact, continued to reveal that more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest “DDT years,” including those types that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. When marshes were sprayed with DDT to control the mosquitoes, a common result was a population explosion of birds inhabiting the marshes. The increases evidently occurred because of a reduction in bird diseases that were formerly transmitted by local blood-sucking insects, greater abundance of available food (less plant destruction by insects), and increased quantities of hepatic enzymes produced by the birds as a result of ingesting DDT (these enzymes destroy cancer-causing aflatoxins in birds and other vertebrates).

The flocks of birds—such as red-winged blackbirds—that were produced by the millions in marshes that had been sprayed with DDT caused tremendous damage to grain crops in Ohio and elsewhere. Such destruction was not desirable, and if Carson had complained about that nobody could have criticized her for it. Instead, she attempted to convince the readers that spraying the marshes caused the death of the birds nesting there, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Page 111. Carson says: “All of the treetop feeders, the birds that glean their insect food from the leaves, have disappeared from heavily sprayed areas. ...”

Insecticides temporarily eliminate some insects from sprayed areas, and before others can move in the insectivorous birds cannot find much food there. Carson said the birds had disappeared, and not that they had been killed. She later even admitted that their scarcity could be caused by “lack of insects because of spray.”

Page 118. Carson writes: “Like the robin, another American bird seems to be on the verge of extinction. This is the national symbol, the eagle.”

In that very same year, 1962, the leading ornithologist in North America also mentioned the status of the robin. That authority was Roger Tory Peterson, who asked in his Life magazine Nature library book, The Birds, “What is North America’s number one bird?” He then pointed out that it was the robin! The Audubon Christmas Bird Count in 1941 (before DDT) was 19,616 robins (only 8.41 seen per observer)—see Table 1. Compare that with the 1960 count of 928,639 robins (or 104.01 per observer). The total was 12 times more robins seen per observer after all those years of DDT and other “modern pesticide” usage. Carson had to avoid all references to such surveys or her thesis would have been disproved by the evidence.

Page 119.: Carson spends two pages discussing the Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, counts of migrating raptorial birds. Table 2 summarizes the actual total counts of raptors made there during the years before and during the greatest usage of DDT in North America. Obviously, very few of them decreased in numbers during those years. The numbers of migrating hawks (and eagles) increased from 9,29l in 1946 to 16,163 in 1963, but with considerable fluctuation in intervening years.

Page 120. Carson explains the lack of young birds by saying: “... [The reproductive capacity of the birds has been so lowered by some environmental agent that there are now almost no annual additions of young to maintain the race. Exactly this sort of situation has been produced artificially in other birds by various experimenters, notably Dr. James DeWitt of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments on the effects of a series of insecticides on quail and pheasants have established the fact that exposure to DDT or related chemicals, even when doing no observable harm to the parent birds, may seriously affect reproduction. ... For example, quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched” [emphasis added].

Carson gives no indication of how many might be considered as “few eggs hatching.” Perhaps she thought that her readers would never see the rather obscure journal in which DeWitt’s results were published in 1956, the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Otherwise, she surely would not have so badly misrepresented DeWitt’s results! The dosage he fed the quail was 100 parts per million in all their food every day, which was roughly 3,000 times the daily DDT intake of humans during the years of the greatest DDT use!

The quail did not just hatch “a few” of their eggs, as DeWitt’s data clearly reveal (Table 3). As the published data from DeWitt’s experiments show, the “controls” (those quail with no DDT) hatched 83.9 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed quail hatched 75 to 80 percent of theirs. I would not call an 80 percent hatch “few,” especially when the controls hatched only 83.9 percent of their eggs.

Carson either did not read DeWitt’s article, or she deliberately lied about the results of DeWitt’s experiments on pheasants, which were published on the same page. The “controls” hatched only 57.4 percent of their eggs, while the DDT-fed pheasants, (dosed with 50 ppm of DDT in all of their food during the entire year) hatched 80.6 percent of theirs. After two weeks, the DDT chicks had 100 percent survival, while the control chicks only had 94.8 percent survival, and after 8 weeks the DDT chicks had 93.3 percent survival while the control chicks only had 89.7 percent survival. It was false reporting such as this that caused so many leading scientists in the United States to take Rachel Carson to task.

Page 122. Carson says various birds have been storing up the DDT in the tissues of their bodies. “And like the grebes, the pheasants, the quail, and the robins, they are less and less able to produce young and to preserve the continuity of their race.”

According to DeWitt’s work, which Carson cited as her source, the birds that were fed exceedingly high levels of DDT every day hatched nearly as many of their eggs (in quail) to 27 percent more of their eggs (in pheasants). The great increases in the numbers of robins were documented in the comments above, in reference to page 118. Carson’s claim, therefore, that those three kinds of birds are less and less able to produce young is remarkably false—and insulting to the reader.

Page 125. Carson writes: “‘Pheasant sickness’ became a well-known phenomenon: birds ‘seek water, become paralyzed and are found on the ditch banks and rice checks quivering,’ according to one observer” [emphasis added]. “One observer” is not very credible as a source of scientific information. Is this the best source a science writer like Rachel Carson could supply?

Carson cited Robert L. Rudd and Richard E. Genelly, in an article in The Condor magazine, as the source for the information that follows: “The ‘sickness’ comes in the spring, at the time the rice fields are seeded.” This statement is misleading. The sickness may have come in the spring, but it was not in the rice fields. Instead, it was in outdoor pens where the birds were held captive, and all of their food contained rice “treated at the rate of one and one-half pounds of DDT per 100 pounds.” Rudd and Genelly state in The Condor (March 1955): “This value is equivalent to 15,000 parts per million DDT in the diet.”

This amount represents the highest dosage of DDT I have ever heard of in any experimental animal, and I cannot understand why they would use such an extreme concentration. This means that 15 percent of every bite of food was “poison.”

And what were the results of this remarkable feeding experiment? As reported in Condor, page 418, four of the birds died “after four or five days” with severe tremors. One died on the tenth day, but never showed any symptoms prior to death. The remaining seven pheasants survived and five of them showed no symptoms. One of the survivors had “slight tremors” and the other had “slight incoordination.” This is a remarkable lack of poisoning, considering the astronomical amount of DDT in their food! I could only surmise that the survivors must have eaten very little of the poisoned food. (Rudd did not measure the amounts ingested, but simply placed the food in the pen.)

Carson writes that “the concentration of DDT used [in the fields] is many times the amount that will kill an adult pheasant.” In his article, Rudd concluded that it was “clear that DDT-treated grain is or can be lethal to grain-eating birds,” but he also stated, “This mortality may be entirely eliminated by applying chemical and seed separately” (emphasis added). It appears that Carson’s misleading report of Rudd’s conclusion was designed to deceive the reader regarding DDT hazards in the environment.

The text continues in this vein for another 172 pages, with chapter heads such as “Rivers of Death,” ”The Human Price,” “The Rumblings of an Avalanche,” and “Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias.” I trust that this partial analysis of Carson’s deceptions, false statements, horrible innuendoes, and ridiculous allegations in the first 125 pages of Silent Spring will indicate why so many scientists expressed opposition, antagonism, and perhaps even a little rage after reading Carson’s diatribe. No matter how deceitful her prose, however, the influence of Carson’s Silent Spring has been very great and it continues 30 years later to shape environmentalist propaganda and fund-raising as well as U.S. policy.

J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 43 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.

Reproduced gratefully from:

21st Century Science & Technology




Return to top of page
















Revised: November 05, 2014 .   Communication:   JerryHaff1963(at)     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the
Last modified: November 05, 2014  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].