I don't claim any special knowledge of HIV/AIDS, nor of medicine, nor of the life sciences in general. So I don't know how accurate your "facts" are. So I'm not going to try to argue with you about whether your suggestions are "right" or "wrong." (I know nothing about the Strecker Memorandum except what you say here, so I really don't know if it's ever been convincingly refuted or not, for instance.)

In my review, I will just try to point out places where your writing, your logical development of your ideas, etc., could stand some improvement to make your meaning clearer. That sort of thing.

* Recently questions have been raised to the accepted origins of this deadly pandemic. *

You shouldn't say "raised to" in this context. That makes it sound as if someone has been asking "the accepted origins" to please answer the following questions, which doesn't really make sense. I'd suggest: "Recently questions have been raised concerning the accepted origins of this deadly pandemic."

* Newspapers did not print ads advertising the video The Strecker Memorandum has not been refuted; its merely been swept under the proverbial rug and ignored by a majority of the scientific community. *

You need a period after "advertising the video." There are other times in this essay when you also seem to have omitted necessary periods at the ends of sentences; I suggest you do more proofreading to catch those times. And you should say "it's merely been" -- using "it's" with an apostrophe, as a contraction of "it has."

* Everyday Americans have been given only the accepted side of the story as presented by the mainstream scientific community. *

One thing: that's not entirely true. I think I'm a fairly "everyday" American and I have long been aware, in part from references in newspapers and magazines and other news media, that there ARE other theories floating around about the origin and nature of HIV/AIDS, aside from the most accepted or "conventional wisdom" version. You make it sound as if the big media companies in the USA have a sacred rule of NEVER even mentioning any "alternative theories" about any aspect of AIDS, and that is simply not accurate in my experience. They may not take those "alternative theories" very seriously, but they don't refuse to mention their existence!

* In 1972, the World Health Organization conducted a massive small-pox vaccination in Sub-Saharan Africa. On May 11, 1987, The London Times carried a cover story written by Science Editor Pierce Wright suggesting the World Health Organization's smallpox vaccine program was connected to the outbreak of AIDS in Africa. Another example of tainted vaccine, was the contamination of the Hepatitis B vaccination in 1978, which was then distributed to homosexual, and only homosexual, candidates. The question of whether these were intentional or unintentional contaminations still remains unanswered. *

Wait, wait. In reference to something that happened in 1978, you say "another example of tainted vaccine," but you have not established that there was a "first example" of tainted vaccine. According to your own summary, in 1987 one person wrote a story "suggesting" there was a connection between AIDS and a 1972 smallpox vaccination campaign. "Suggesting" is completely different from "proving." I could easily "suggest" that the moon is made of green cheese; but would my "suggestion" be the same thing as "evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese? You don't say that he proved the 1972 smallpox vaccine had been tainted with anything. You don't say that anyone else agreed with his evidence (if he had any evidence to offer, and you don't say he did or didn't). If you feel that he had strong, persuasive "evidence" of the use of tainted vaccine, you should say so, very plainly, to set the record straight before you start talking about "another example of tainted vaccine."

With regard to your "another example," the Hepatitis B vaccine you mention: you say it was "tainted" and "contaminated," and you say it was only distributed to homosexuals, but you *don't* say what sort of "taint" we are talking about there! For instance, you don't say, "It has been proved by doctors that this vaccine was tainted with HIV and that thousands of people became infected with HIV by being injected with this vaccine. Perhaps that was what you meant, but I can't tell for sure because you never said so. For all we know after reading that paragraph, you could mean the vaccine was "tainted" with green food coloring or some other silly thing!

* Was the HIV retrovirus engineered and distributed purposefully? The Bulletin of the World Health Organization provides a disturbing piece of evidence. In 1972 it was suggested that, “a systematic evaluation of the effects of viruses on immune functions should be undertaken.” Later, “The effects of virus infection on different types (e.g. Macrophages, T and B lymphocytes) should be studied in greater detail (257-274).” *

I simply don't follow your logic there. You say that long before AIDS became famous, someone in the WHO was talking about the idea of studying what viruses do to immune systems. How on earth is that a "disturbing piece of evidence" that anyone deliberately created HIV/AIDS? Back in the 1990s, Tom Clancy wrote a novel in which an airplane pilot deliberately crashed an airliner into the Capitol Dome in Washington, D.C., in an effort to hurt the USA as badly as possible. Years later, on September 11, 2001, some people really crashed airliners into other famous buildings in an effort to hurt the USA as badly as possible. Does this mean that Clancy's book is "a disturbing piece of evidence" that he was secretly part of the plot to destroy those buildings on 9/11? Or does it only mean that he was smart enough to think people ought to pay more attention to that scary possibility, just in case?

* The United Nations, along with the World Health Organization and many other societies, want to stabilize the human population. *

That's confusingly written. You make it sound as if the UN and the WHO are totally separate things; two independent outfits that just happen to agree on certain subjects. But the WHO is actually one agency within the larger structure of the United Nations. Also, the vague reference to "many other societies" is unclear. What sort of "societies" are we talking about? The word "society" can mean several different things.

* It is difficult for any human being to believe that any organization, benevolent or malevolent, would engineer a depopulation program through biological warfare. *

For what it's worth, I DON'T find it difficult to believe that some people would do that if they thought it would serve their own agendas, whatever those agendas might be. After all, I know perfectly well that it's a historical fact that cruder forms of biological warfare have been used deliberately by various people, at various times, throughout recorded history. And I've seen it tried in fiction (novels, movies, etc.) dozens of times. Possibly hundreds of times. So the general suggestion that other humans could do this again with modern scientific techniques is not a "strange new idea."

Woah, that's so weird. I love how this could be like on the news tomorrow or something. But I think that if it could be proven undoubtly, nothing would be said about it and so many people would reject the idea although it's something that could (and possibly did) happen (because they wouldn't want to believe that people would actually do that, although scientists do inject animals with HIV and Hitler was around recently and everything...).