THE KARY MULLIS PSY-OP

This article is going to be paid for, for 1 week , then free to read after that.

1. This is a long article at over 125 pages that has taken years of research, more to this point is that whenever I have written longer articles like this with very deep research, Substack tend to Shadowban it, so having it free and open when it first goes out does me no help in just getting exposure (despite having 19k Subscribers).

2. I have quite a few paid for subscribers (thank you!) I am acutely aware that despite many big things going on behind the scenes there is not much you are seemingly seeing for your paid subscription, so early access can feel like it is a bit of a perk.

3. This will be going up as an Ebook on Shadowbanned Library for just a few dollars, if you really can’t wait you can buy the book over there. Here is a Discount code for all Substack subscribers, click there or on the image below or just use code “MULLIS” at the checkout.

I don’t really hate anyone, certainly not in my “real life” away from the Virology Control Studies Project. There are people whom I think are evil, the main characters involved with the machinations of 2020 are an obvious group of candidates, but ultimately what are you going to do about it? There comes a point where harboring hate for people, you will likely never meet, is just wasted energy. I am sure there is also some truth to them harnessing negative energy, at the very least, if you look at it through the eyes of a marketing exercise for the State and Big Pharma- “There is no such thing as bad publicity”. This is how controlled opposition and the beast system operate; they incentivize bad publicity by writing algorithms that benefit clickbait, ragebait, misinformation and cat videos. Anybody that wants to make a name for themselves has to essentially subsume an identity that is to be a purveyor of at least one of the seven deadly sins.

Given this, I tend not pay these fuckers much attention other than poking fun in their general direction, and like to focus on the “factual” underpinnings of their cult scam. However, when it comes to Kary Mullis, I hold a particularly dear part of my psyche dedicated to hating on this odious, self aggrandizing, sellout, fake, fraud, drug addled, arrogant, murderous, lying, shit stain. This was not a grudge that was developed overnight of course, I remain true to my statements above that I don’t tend to wear burdens that belong to other people, no, this was a long drawn out process of the realization of the actual damage done by this fraud, and in my opinion the summation of it would likely be far worse than all of the characters of 2020 put together. You see, what I feel viscerally about this particular character, this pretender, this Broadway villain twiddling his moustache was the fact that Kary was not cast as the Villain, far from it, he was painted as a Saint, a freedom warrior who stood up to the beast system, a brave dissident who was Martyred in 2019, waxed by the all powerful, so they could usher in 2020.

This is what really gets under my skin, as for the real fiat system of exchange I deal with in this life, as part of The Virology Control Studies Project is: Truth. Money is a means to an ends, it is good to have affirmation and the flexibility to carry out experiments with financial backing but ultimately this is just a stepping stone for the actual Fungible Token that is “The Truth” ( Or what seems like the truth to me- insert metaphysical wafflings). The reason why the story of Kary Mullis irks me so much is because it was one giant lie, the claim that he was a dissident against the beast system, the claim that his invention was not intended for “diagnosing disease”, the fact that his invention could be used for anything he claimed, likely the fact that he even invented PCR is a mountain of lies.

It is for that reason that when we take the current theatrics occurring with Anthony Fauci that I extra don’t care. His “no comments” are particularly puerile, of course, the orchestrated 2 minutes of hate are well justified. For when Josh Hawley asks basic questions such as; “what colour tie are you wearing?”, most honest people would at least break legalistic 5th pleading to show that you had a basic amount of humanity in return. But in this episode of The State-The Musical it is a carefully choreographed dance to entice you to froth at the mouth, to boo and hiss, to mock and jeer at the Abanazar villain. Quite simply they have elevated his caricature to Mainstream levels of “Bad Guy” by implying that he is dishonest in not answering basic questions. The “AntiVaxxers” who have called for his Guillotining since 2020 are vindicated and there has been a new vein of recruits, the Statist Conservative Overton Window Lickers can now murmur and grumble in this vague direction; “Poor Form”. It was as easy as that and we see that when we peel back the onion skin of deceit we can agree that everyone’s judge of character is largely determined by their perceived honesty.

That is why if you put these two characters, Mullis and Fauci, in a dock together and put them on trial for who is the biggest most murderous fucking dildo, out of the two of them, I am picking Mullis, hands down every day of the week. For as we have clarified above, when the discernable token for deciding the content of someone’s character is predicated on their honesty, at the very least Fauci has stuck to his guns and taken responsibility for his backing of political murder: He has always remained that he has championed and supported the use of AZT and Vaccines and Remdesivir and the entire arsenal of weapons used to murder people, under the guise of treating non existent pathogens. For in the war of truth you see that actually Fauci, dangerously deluded as he is, at least believes the fundamentals of the shit that he is peddling. He has taken responsibility for that direction of travel and will pay the price for it, his legacy will be blackened on Earth and in history and his soul, whatever happens will be judged based on the damage he has done, which is likely huge.

When we apply the same level of critique to Mr. Mullis however, this base level of honesty is simply not there, which ever angle you seek to discern his character from. He not only claimed to physically create a tool utilized in drugging, maiming and killing millions of people, he did so without the slightest of remorse for claiming this fraudulent piece of technology could do what it said. Even if you choose to believe the cockamamy controlled opposition narrative that he said it shouldn’t/couldn’t be used to “diagnose disease” (that I will prove in this article is weapons grade bullshit) at no point was he ever honest enough to question whether it worked at all. Whether you believe the crappy, hammy acting in the Punch and Judy play fight that he had with Fauci (which I prove in this article was also weapons grade bullshit) or not, his actions were that of to perpetuate the underlying narrative of Viral and DNA existence which wholesale supports drug intervention and vaccines to combat. So, I put it to you, the reader, that at the base level of discernment, Mullis has these glaring contradictions littered throughout his story, that should to anyone of intellectual honesty lead you to see Mullis not less than in the same light as Fauci.

For this is the real crux of the matter, the reason why this persons story irks me so much is that on the scale of global discernment as a true judge of character, Mullis’ name is currently pretty unblemished. From the State and Big Pharma he was heavily decorated in both Scientific accolades with the Nobel Prize, financially rewarded by the prize fund itself as well as heavy State and Pharma investment and he was equally rewarded by the opposition as he was logged into folklore with his terrible acting, playing roll of upstart dissident. So I have always felt a grave sense of injustice when I see his face and story being bandied about on the internet by the aforementioned Click/Rage baiters. His true character has always been protected by an industrial level, ne Big Pharma level of marketing hype and my reason for writing another article about Mr. Mullis is to point out the oddities of the way that his name is championed and whitewashed and ultimately my belief as to why.

As I say, I have already been compelled to write a fairly tame article on the “God of PCR”, picking apart his autobiography. Mentioned in there is that it was never really meant as a character assassination, however once it was released I came under deluge, an all out onslaught from many nameless faceless trolls on Twitter and Substack, ironically much alike when I share information about Vit D, or Ivermectin or indeed the fraud of Germ Theory. This is what inspired me to write a short Addendum at the end of that article as to a couple of the things he was noted for being contradictory to the truth. As time has gone on though, usually when I release articles that I have bothered to go into great detail with, in the most instance the trolls back down as they are directed toward the large pile of evidence. It is a much harder position to back. However after my first article, I would say the trolls have got worse, more frequent and more insistent on regurgitating the propaganda surrounding his name. I have come to the conclusion that I believe that the character of Kary Mullis is a carefully crafted Psychological Operation disseminated by the State and perpetuated in the same vein as things like Ivermectin that dresses up as being Anti-State but actually fulfills every goal and product that the State and Big Pharma wish.

It is for this reason that I want to systematically approach every talking point to do with his “story”, as I have done in every other article to serve as a reference to point to, to save me time on social media threads. But also to expose what I believe to be through pattern recognition a fake boosted persona to perpetuate the Cornerstone of the Big Pharma disease generation for profit treadmill; the Polymerase Chain Reaction .

With scary levels of speed, what I must deduce as automation, whenever I write the three magic letters, PCR, on social media does a nameless faceless person arrive in the mentions, invariably glazing their favorite LSD munching, surfer dude apparition. It doesn’t matter the context- The PCR is fraudulent, the PCR’s physical properties are ridiculous, the PCR is being used to diagnose Cancer and all the other mountain of things related to this assay; I write about it, these people chime in with the same old toot: “ But Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis said that the PCR does not diagnose disease and so they killed him in December 2019.” This may also be followed with; “He went against Fauci and the establishment so he was one of the good guys” and sometimes if the nameless/faceless aforementioned is feeling particularly orderly will they attach the video reference of Mullis sat in front of a red brick wall in an auditorium, waving his hands about, supposedly where the claim “PCR was not meant to diagnose disease, they are misusing it” comes from.

We will approach the video in a little bit, but to prove just how much of a stinking lie this is, we will dive into Mullis’ history with his exact, repeated, continued, from inception to death, insistence on the fact that, viruses exist, cause disease and can be measured and diagnosed using “his” invention. No much more is this patently obvious than in his very own patent; a legally binding document that should list the usages. This is claimed by a couple of very poor actors conning people into this particular Psy-Op like Mike Stone, to be a fleeting “legalistic caveat” that would cover potential uses. However if you don’t crop and cherry pick from this patent it is exceptionally clear that the uses are very specifically defined and they include Viral, Bacterial and more alarmingly Cancer diagnosis. Yes we see here from its inception that this tools projected road of discovery was truly intended for the “Everyone has Cancer” hoax.

“The method herein may also be used to enable detection and/or characterization of specific nucleic acid sequences associated with infectious diseases, genetic disorders or cellular disorders such as cancer, e.g., oncogenes. Amplification is useful when the amount of nucleic acid available for analysis is very small, as, for example, in the prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell anemia using DNA obtained from fetal cells. Amplification is particularly useful if such an analysis is to be done on a small sample using non-radioactive detection techniques which may be inherently insensitive, or where radioactive techniques are being employed but where rapid detection is desirable. For purposes of this invention genetic diseases may include specific deletions and/or mutations in genomic DNA from any organism, such as, e.g., sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, a-thalassemia, A-thalassemia, and the like. Sickle cell anemia can be readily detected via oligomer restriction analysis or a RFLP-like analysis following amplification of the appropriate DNA sequence by the present method. a-Thalassemia can be detected by the absence of a sequence, and 6-thalassemia can be detected by the presence of a polymorphic restriction site closely linked to a mutation which causes the disease. All of these genetic diseases may be detected by amplifying the appropriate sequence and analyzing it by Southern blots without using radioactive probes. In such a process, for example, a small sample of DNA from, e.g., amniotic fluid containing a very low level of the desired sequence is amplified, cut with a restriction enzyme, and analyzed via a Southern blotting technique.“

“Various infectious diseases can be diagnosed by the presence in clinical samples of specific DNA sequences characteristic of the causative microorganism. These include bacteria, such as Salmonella, Chlamydia, and Neisseria; viruses, such as the hepatitis viruses; and parasites, such as the Plasmodium responsible for malaria. U.S. Pat. No. 4,358,535 issued to Falkow describes the use of specific DNA hybridization probes for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. A problem inherent in the Falkow procedure is that a relatively small number of pathogenic organisms may be present in a clinical sample from an infected patient and the DNA extracted from these may constitute only a very small fraction of the total DNA in the sample. Specific amplification of suspected sequences prior to immobilization and hybridization detection of the DNA samples could greatly improve the sensitivity and specificity of these procedures. “

Just for a bit of fun I have included some genuine pages from the patent showing the Gel Electrophoresis blots. I mean this is highly sophisticated stuff people, they have trademarked little blobs on a piece of paper.

Was Mullis in control over the content of the Patent?

These are the foundational public documents; USPTO archives and other repositories mirror them. On control over the content: Mullis had substantial but not exclusive influence. He conceived the core idea in 1983 while at Cetus and immediately involved the company’s chief patent counsel (Al Halluin) after early experimental success. Drafting involved collaboration with patent attorney Janet Hasak once she returned from leave; Mullis explicitly wanted broad claims that would cover derivative technologies without being overly vague or wordy. The patent was assigned to Cetus (standard for employee inventions), and the company directed the strategy of filing before publishing for competitive and international reasons. Other Cetus scientists (Saiki, Erlich, etc.) contributed to reducing the idea to reliable practice and generating the supporting data, especially for the first applications. Mullis later expressed frustration over credit, publication order, and the relatively small personal bonus versus the large sum Cetus later received from selling the rights, but the historical record shows he actively shaped the claims language and scope rather than being a passive inventor.

Did Mullis design PCR to diagnose viral illness?

In my view, the evidence points to no.

PCR was invented as a general method for amplifying specific DNA sequences. The title of the patent itself—“Process for amplifying, detecting, and/or-cloning nucleic acid sequences”—reflects this. Viral diagnosis is only one of many applications discussed. The patent also refers to human genetics, inherited diseases, parasites, bacteria, cloning, sequencing, and other uses.

The paragraph you’ve highlighted says:

“Various infectious diseases can be diagnosed...”

Notice the wording. It does not say PCR was invented for diagnosing infectious diseases. Rather, it says infectious diseases can be diagnosed by detecting characteristic DNA sequences. That’s an example of an application, not a statement of the invention’s primary purpose.

How should this paragraph be interpreted?

I think it’s reasonable to interpret it as saying:

• if a pathogen has a unique nucleic acid sequence,

• and that sequence is present in a clinical sample,

• then PCR could amplify that sequence,

• making existing DNA-probe methods more sensitive.

The next sentences reinforce this interpretation by discussing earlier probe-based diagnostic methods and stating that specific amplification prior to hybridization could greatly improve sensitivity and specificity. In other words, PCR is presented as an enhancement to existing molecular diagnostics rather than as a virus-detection technology in its own right.

How does this fit with Mullis’s later comments?

This is where the discussion often becomes more nuanced.

Years after PCR became widely used, Mullis made public comments expressing skepticism about how PCR results were sometimes interpreted, particularly in relation to HIV and, more generally, about equating the detection of nucleic acid with proof of active disease. He also wrote in Dancing Naked in the Mind Field about PCR’s extraordinary sensitivity and the ease with which tiny amounts of DNA can be amplified if present.

Those later views are not inherently inconsistent with the patent. The patent claims that PCR can amplify specific sequences and can therefore be useful in diagnosis. It does not claim that a positive PCR result alone establishes clinical disease, infectivity, or causation in every context. Those are questions about clinical interpretation and validation, which are separate from the invention of the amplification technique itself.

So my reading is:

• Mullis invented a general molecular amplification technology.

• The patent intentionally claims many potential applications, including infectious disease diagnosis.

• The patent does not support the claim that PCR was invented specifically to diagnose viral illnesses.

• Nor does it support the opposite claim that PCR has no diagnostic application. It clearly identifies infectious disease diagnosis as one intended use among several.

Q: If he was in most control over the patent and the patent said it was designed for viral disease diagnosis how have you reached the conclusion it wasn’t? Especially as you quote his latter autobiography which repeats that he thought the PCR could be used to diagnose viral illness.

That’s a fair question, and I think the distinction comes down to the difference between what PCR was invented to do and what it was intended to be used for.

I don’t think there’s any dispute that the patent explicitly contemplates infectious disease diagnosis. The passage you’ve highlighted is very clear:

“Various infectious diseases can be diagnosed by the presence in clinical samples of specific DNA sequences characteristic of the causative microorganism.”

That isn’t something being read into the patent—it is exactly what it says.

Where I would be a little more cautious is with the phrase “designed for viral disease diagnosis.” The patent doesn’t actually say that. The invention claimed in Claim 1 is a method for amplifying nucleic acid sequences. The body of the patent then explains numerous applications of that method. Infectious disease diagnosis is one of those applications, and it’s given significant attention.

So if you asked me:

“Did Mullis intend PCR to be used for diagnosing infectious diseases?”

I would answer yes. I think the patent itself is good evidence of that.

If you asked:

“Did Mullis invent PCR solely or primarily as a viral diagnostic test?”

I’d answer I don’t think the evidence supports that stronger statement. His own accounts of inventing PCR describe the insight as a general biochemical method for making many copies of a chosen DNA sequence. That generality is reflected throughout the patent, which covers cloning, sequencing, mutation detection, prenatal diagnosis, forensic work, and infectious disease testing.

Regarding Mullis’ control over the patent, I actually think you raise a good point. Although patent attorneys certainly shape the language, I would expect Mullis to have reviewed drafts, corrected technical errors, and agreed with the scientific descriptions. I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the infectious disease sections as something lawyers simply inserted without his approval. The patent is evidence that, in 1987, he accepted PCR as a legitimate tool for diagnosing infections by detecting pathogen nucleic acids.

Where things become more interesting is his later public comments.

From the 1990s onward, Mullis often criticized how PCR results were interpreted, not necessarily the chemistry of PCR itself. He repeatedly stressed that PCR can detect extraordinarily small amounts of nucleic acid and argued that detection alone should not automatically be equated with disease, active infection, or causation. Those criticisms are about clinical inference, not about whether PCR is technically capable of detecting viral genetic material.

So, putting those pieces together, my own reading is:

• The patent shows Mullis believed PCR could be used in infectious disease diagnosis.

• His autobiography appears to be consistent with that view.

• His later interviews largely focus on concerns about overinterpretation of PCR findings, rather than denying that PCR can detect viral nucleic acids.

I don’t see those positions as necessarily contradictory. A scientist can believe, simultaneously, that PCR is an excellent method for detecting viral genetic sequences and that a positive PCR result should not, by itself, be taken as definitive proof of active disease without appropriate clinical context and validation.

Here we see the first real evidence that the story of Kary Mullis is being guarded and crafted by the Establishment. Chat GPT which I view the output of as an Establishment mouthpiece is extremely reluctant to go with the basic fact that yes, Kary Mullis was a deciding partner for the patent of a test that AI wants to make it very clear that he definitely did 100% invent and that in that patent it explicitly says it was designed to diagnose disease. You really have to ask yourself why AI would be regurgitating the controlled narrative that Kary Mullis did not want his tests used to diagnose disease when there is not only no evidence of this in the document AI was trained to look at but indeed the exact opposite in clear wording.

Chat GPT even goes to the lengths of bringing in the red brick wall video reference claiming “From the 1990s onward, Mullis often criticized how PCR results were interpreted, not necessarily the chemistry of PCR itself. He repeatedly stressed that PCR can detect extraordinarily small amounts of nucleic acid and argued that detection alone should not automatically be equated with disease, active infection, or causation”. This you will come to see is a complete honking lie, as at no point does Kary Mullis deviate away from this initial wording in his patent and so once again it raises the very sizable question: Why is the AI Mainstream mouthpiece propagandizing the controlled opposition narrative when EVERY other output of it on the subject of Virology and Immunology is “Safe and Effective”?

Q: Did Kary Mullis write his own autobiography?

Yes. Dancing Naked in the Mind Field was written by Kary Mullis himself.

The book was published in 1998 and is presented as an autobiography, recounting his life, scientific career, the invention of PCR, and his personal views on a wide range of topics. Unlike many celebrity autobiographies, there is no credited co-author or ghostwriter on the book. The title page and publication information list only Kary B. Mullis as the author.

Q: When was his autobiography published?

The first edition of Dancing Naked in the Mind Field was published on August 31, 1998 by Pantheon Books.

Q: What was the exact date of the conference at which Kary Mullis appeared where he was videoed in front of a red brick wall and answered questions about the PCR test?

July 12, 1997 (Santa Monica, California).

This was the “Corporate Greed And AIDS” discussion panel organized by HEAL (Health Education AIDS Liaison). Kary Mullis (Nobel laureate for inventing PCR) appeared alongside others such as Christine Maggiore, Sean Current, and Paul Philpott. In the recorded Q&A (especially toward the end of Part 2 of the widely circulated video), he responds to questions about PCR’s use/misuse in detecting HIV/viral RNA, stating things to the effect that PCR is simply a process for making many copies of something and does not itself indicate illness or that the detected material will harm you; with sufficient sensitivity it can find nearly anything in anybody.

Just so we clear this up before getting started, yes, Kary Mullis was the only author of his autobiography and he released this book after giving his appearance in front of the red brick wall, waffling on about Buddhist Notions.

Before we pull apart Mullis’ red brick wall interview and show that it was contradictory horseshit, let’s for the sake of argument just say that Mullis did make the claim that his test was not designed to diagnose infectious diseases, this not only is in complete contradiction to his patent, but more importantly, under his own duress, in his own words, more than a year later than the red brick wall interview he writes that the application for his PCR would be to “Find infectious diseases by detecting the genes of pathogens”. Right there in black and white (highlighted in yellow for posterity) is the smoking gun and 100% proof, he never deviated away from the thought that yes he designed the PCR test for the purpose of diagnosing Viral disease amongst other nefarious usages such as Cancer diagnosis.

The Nobel Prize is in no uncertain terms an award given to the most subservient cuck sellout to the Big Pharma and State Agenda. It’s as simple as that, not a single one of these charlatans in the history of the prize has benefitted your life, ever, fact. My mind is always drawn to the complete theatre of a Nobel Prize winner in Physics; Peter Higgs. Sitting in CERN, the 10 Billion EURO hole in the ground into which European tax payers money was liquidated, a greying gentleman (suggests wisdom and intelligence) announced to an audience that there was a flashing light on a screen, and because Peter had predicted there would be a light on that screen, in that place, Peter cried and then they gave him a Nobel Prize. They called that light on the screen a Higgs-Boson, instead of a Peter Boson (Because it sounds more official) and then every text book in school had another jargon word to add to the text book of lies. I suppose at least it was only money laundering and not the reason for injecting newborn kids with syringes full of shite.

In the case of our eponymous hero, Mullis he got a little carried away with the Sanctimony as not only did he accept an award for making an invention that was designed to detect a non existent viral infection, he then made a massive fucking whoospie by running his mouth in interview saying that he was working for a Pharmaceutical company developing drugs to be used on kids to protect them against non existent viruses and also pushed back nothing on the notion that people should have a vaccine for HIV other than given his monumentally stupid published theory we will discuss later- that he thought there are too many retroviruses that cause AIDS, so it’d be difficult to make a vaccine for them.

“The biomedical applications of the PCR method are already legion. Now that it is possible to discover very small amounts of foreign DNA in an organism, viral and bacterial infections can be diagnosed without the time-consuming culture of microorganisms from patient samples. PCR is now being used, for example, to discover HIV infections. The method can also be exploited to localise the genetic alterations underlying hereditary diseases. Thus PCR, like site-directed mutagenesis, has a great potential within gene therapy. Without the PCR method, the HUGO project, with its objective of determining every single DNA code in, among other things, the human genetic material, would hardly be realistic. In police investigations PCR can give decisive information since it is now possible to analyse the DNA in a single drop of blood or in a hair found at the scene of a crime.

Another fantastic application is that it is possible to mass-produce DNA from fossil remains. Researchers have, for example, succeeded in producing genetic material from insects that have been extinct for more than 20 million years by using the PCR method on DNA extracted from amber. This possibility has already inspired authors of science fiction. The very popular film “Jurassic Park” is about the fear that arises when researchers using PCR recreate extinct giant reptiles.”

“You’re working with research now in an institute with regard to children’s health, am I correct?

Kary B. Mullis: I have a position at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, but that’s one of the places where research is going on on this idea that I had some time ago about how to design drugs that would engage an already present immune response that a person had. Like, you’re immune to a lot of things already and when you get a new disease, it would be nice to just tap into a present immunity with a pharmaceutical that would take that immune response that you’d already made for one thing and turn it against the pathogen that you’d just been infected with. That sort of like would be the ideal way rather than having to say new pathogen, it’s going to probably take 11 or 12 days for me to get immune to it, my immune system has to figure out if this thing is actually bad or not and then it’s got to figure out how to deal with it and all of that takes a long time and sometimes the pathogen wins, like a really serious case of an influenza, like the kind of thing that happened in 1918. That killed about 30 million people in 18 months.

The Spanish flu.

Kary B. Mullis: Yes, yes, something like that could happen again and it would be nice, we don’t have very many good drugs for any viruses. That one is one that’s always sitting there in our agricultural, you know …

May I ask how far you’ve got into this research?

Kary B. Mullis: Well, we’ve cured a couple of diseases in mice and rats and we’re now going to try the approach in, we’ve got these kind of mice that are minus the enzyme that makes this thing called alphagalapatose, they’re kind of like people in that regard. We don’t make a particular kind of chemical and we’re immune to it. It’s probably something that happened maybe 25 million years ago because chimps and orangutans are the same way. We’re allergic to just anything that makes up a one-three alphagalbon which is probably real common in pests that we started eating somewhere 25 million years ago so we started being immune to it and I’ve got some mice now from somebody in Australia made that have that same thing, so they can be immune to it, so they’re kind of like, otherwise there’d be these experiments on chimps. So we do them in mice and we’re going to try to protect mice against the form of the flu that was prevalent like in 1957, the Asian flu they call it or something like that, or the Hong Kong flu and if it works there, then we’ll go to rather a deadly strain of the flu that’s now circulating in southern China, in Vietnam and Thailand.

This bird flu.

Kary B. Mullis: Yes, you know, the flu always is getting us from like ducks and pigs and chickens and pigs, we keep them as animals, right? And they can have the flu without it hurting them and so the flu just sort of lives and then every now and then, it mutates pretty rapidly because it’s an RNA organism, and every now and then it develops accidentally that it can get into people and then from there, and it’s … one thing has got to that point but it hasn’t gotten to the point where it can go from a person to another person.

May I ask if your research would have any implication on the race that we have now for finding some kind of vaccine for the HIV and AIDS epidemic?

Kary B. Mullis: It would be perfectly useful. It’s not like a vaccine in the sense that it doesn’t make a new response. It takes one that’s already there and using …

But there people who are immune to the virus, the HIV virus.

Kary B. Mullis: I’m one of the few people around that don’t go for the notion that there is a species of retrovirus that is responsible for a set of conditions that is one way in the Western countries and another way in Africa or whatever. It’s a silly idea. The thing that was going around, in my opinion, in North American and Europe, that they first called AIDS with the exception of the part that had to do with Kaposi’s sarcoma, which turned out not to be an infectious disease. It’s caused by the whole genus of retroviruses of which HIV is one and so making a drug that would like be efficient, that would work against, making one of these kind of drugs that I’m talking about, which I’m calling Altermune is the company and they’re Altermune linker drugs, to make that against a whole genus would be, it’s such a heterogeneous bunch of things that I think it would be difficult. That’s why it worked.

I mean, that’s what the whole, I think, that’s the whole – and I’ve published this but nobody pays any attention because there’s a sort of a world wide frenzy of AIDS researchers who are focused on the first HIV sequence that was ever isolated and they’ve just been spinning their wheels for 20 years and they’re not noticing it and aren’t curing the disease but I think it’s sort of that disease is caused by a genus, by the whole of retroviridae and it’s the mechanism for, it’s complicated to be talking about, you know, without a blackboard and everything, but there is a reasonable mechanism that you can postulate and you could say and the reason that we’re now seeing that for the first time, even though retroviruses have been here throughout our whole, you know, we’ve got many copies of Deadmans in our genome so we’ve been around them for a long time, why haven’t they ever caused any diseases? They haven’t caused any diseased because our behavior has never been quite the same. It’s required in this mechanism that I’m postulating, it’s required that you be infected by a whole lot of different strains of, and that’s what does it.”

Q: Mullis’ company Altermune how much funding did it receive?

Based on the publicly available funding history, Altermune received up to US$7 million in seed funding.

Specifically:

• Funding announced: US$7 million

• Investor: Loxbridge Research LLP

• Date announced: 22 September 2011

• Structure: Milestone-based seed funding, meaning the full amount would be released as development milestones were achieved rather than all at once.

There is no public evidence that Altermune raised larger follow-on venture rounds. Startup databases and industry reports list its total disclosed funding as $7 million.

So the concise answer is:

• Total publicly disclosed funding: Up to US$7 million (seed funding).

• Funded by: Loxbridge Research LLP.

Q: What was the primary focus of his company?

The primary focus of Altermune Technologies was developing therapeutics that harness the body’s existing immune system to fight infectious diseases, rather than developing vaccines or gene therapies.

Its core technology was based on what Kary Mullis called chemically programmable immunity. The idea was to create small synthetic molecules (later referred to as Alphamers) that could:

1. Bind to a pathogen (such as a bacterium or virus), and

2. Recruit antibodies that are already naturally present in the human body,

thereby marking the pathogen for destruction by the immune system.

The company’s initial targets included:

• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

• Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile)

• Pseudomonas aeruginosa

• Pandemic influenza

So here Mullis comes clean about his Mouse torture, which he is fine with because “it’s not a monkey”. He drugged a load of mice and rats for a pharmaceutical company he owned called Altermune which received $7million start-up investment funds to develop drugs to combat infectious diseases such as Pandemic Influenza. So let’s just pause here for thought. There are people on the internet, presumably that aren’t bots or paid for their mainstream pharmaceutical propaganda that are trying to claim that Kary Mullis was a hero and if he were alive would have stopped 2020 by speaking out against it… when all along Kary Mullis was working for Big Pharma, drugging and killing lab animals, just like Fauci’s Beagles in the pursuit of more money to combat non existent viruses. If you still believe that Mullis would have done anything other than pimp his own brand of drugs into ventilated victims of his fraudulent test you are a grade A fucking moron… thank you.

The interview gets even worse when he is asked about vaccines for HIV/AIDS. Instead of spitting the question back at her, like any good “AntiVaxxer” would do “Vaccines are abhorrent”…. even “Vaccines are unnecessary” would have been a start…. but no our Pharmaceutical rep… waves his hand and waffles on about the difficulty of vaccinating against every single retrovirus out there which he claims is a cause of AIDS. Maybe if let to splurg some more he would have gone onto to suggest doing just that and taking 100 vaccines one for every fake retrovirus?

To those Controlled Opposition Piss Drinking cult members of No Virus Inc, this video must really sting, here is your Big Pharma rep that you have desperately tried to glaze and big up as being some sort of ally for the No Virus cause yet here he is talking about the seriousness of the Spanish Flu Hoax, the natural animal origins of Bird Flu jumping from animal species and vaccinating against HIV. I mean how you ever thought you could get away with championing such an obvious fraud is pretty remarkable.

Let’s just put aside for the moment that we now know that Mullis is, was and always will be a bonafide Virus, Pandemic, drug and Vaccine pushing Pharmaceutical shill. Let’s leave aside the fact that this interview is taken before the release of his self written autobiography in which he states his invention was to be used for diagnosing Viral disease. Let’s leave aside the Masonic Symbolism of sitting in front of a red brick wall and let’s just fully look at what he says in his characteristic hand waving contradictory bullshit that spews forth whenever he got in front of a microphone.

Q : I want to ask this to carry how do they um misuse PCR to estimate uh all these supposed free viral RNA that may or may not be there

MULLIS: I think misused PCR is not quite, I don’t think you can misuse PCR actually no the results the interpretation of it see if you if you if you can say ,if if they wanted if they could find this virus in you at all and with PCR if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody it starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else right I mean because if you can amplify one single molecule up to a to something that you can really measure which PCR can do then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body okay so that could be thought of as a misuse of it just to claim that it’s meaningful but the real misuse of it is is that you don’t need to test for HIV you don’t need to test for the other 10 000 retroviruses that are unnamed also in the subject see somebody that’s got HIV generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for because they have definitely HIV is a fairly rare virus there’s only one million of us out of 250 300 million people in America that have that virus so you have to get around either your mother had to have it and pass it to you or you have to really be paying a lot of attention to people that do have it as paying only attention to them and get a pretty good chance again if that way it’s hard to get it but it if you have it there’s a good chance you’ve also got a lot of other ones because you’ve been in the in the market from you’ve been it’s been possible for you to get a lot of it’s it’s a to test for that one and say that has any special meaning is what I think is the problem not that PCR has been misused

Q: it’s like it’s not an estimation?

MULLIS: no it’s a real it’s a really quantitative thing it tells you something about nature and about what’s there but it it it allows you to take a very miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important see that that’s not a misuse that’s just sort of a misinterpretation

Q: I’ve read in a paper by Peter Duesburg that even after all the these uh PCR this quantitative PCR that if you just get down to a basic virological count it’s still one in a thousand to one in ten thousand uh HIV and one to one in a thousand one in 500 to one in a thousand T cells.

MULLIS: there’s very little of what they call HIV and what’s been brought out here by Phil Pott and and Enis already the measurement for it is not is not exact at all it’s not it’s not as good as our measurement for things like apples an apple is an apple you know you can get something that’s kind of like if you’ve got enough things that look kind of like an apple and you stick them all together you might think it as an apple but and HIV is like that those tests are all based on things that are invisible and they are the results are inferred in a sense PCR is separate from that it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something but it’s not it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.

Q: so it’s not so even if you believe in HIV it can’t tell the difference between virus particles or active live virus I mean there’s a lot of questions involved.

I have coloured the relevant part of Mullis’ splurg ranging from piss yellow to shit brown just for artistic candour. Let’s approach the piss yellow first: A hugely revealing statement that is most incriminating in the case against his fraudulent invention. He says “if you use it right you can find anything in anyone”. With the PCR the claim is that it measures very specific things i.e the genomes of biological entities by way of matching identical nucleotide sequences with the target sequence. I would say by the laws of logic it should be impossible to find the genetic sequences of 99.9 % of the animal kingdom in any one person. How if the PCR test would work as Kary claimed in his patent would you find the genetics of a Western Desert Taipan and a Tasseled Wobbegong (My favorite fish) or a Screaming Hairy Armadillo? Obviously this is taking what he says at face value but we could even be generous and only talk about microbiology: If it is possible to find Ebola in everyone then either Ebola is not pathogenic or the PCR test is fraudulent. The truth is of course that viruses do not exist AND the PCR test is fraudulent but just for sake of falsification. No, what Kary Mullis is admitting to here is that the PCR test does not test what it claims to test for which is very specific nucleotide sequences hence it is not specific.

This thought is absolutely rammed home by the pissy/shit colours where he admits that the “PCR.. is really a quantitative thing” and “the results are inferred in a sense”. Here we have the grand reveal, the fact that he finally admits that there is no direct evidence supplied by his test, it is all just an inference, an anecdote about something happening… a literal blob-smear on a gel, no more no less. This is combined with the massive whoopsie that he admits that the PCR is a quantitative thing i.e it is just an amount of something that already exists and the ratios and thresholds of that thing rather than it is specific and measuring exact codes and letters. This is what I have said about PCR for some time now and here we have it from the horses mouth.

This brings us to our final shit brown artifact, the 6 words shared in an entire fraudulent career by this complete fuckwit shill, repeated over and over again by clickbait “revenue sharing” scumbag accounts, cashing in on 2020 and bleeding those who stood up against the machinations of the state dry: “ it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick”. If you have not heard the build up to this, or have not understood it, Mullis has already said effectively that the PCR test is fraudulent and that he believes HIV is real and you can catch it (reiterated straight after). But really the context, even if you to ignore the rest of this is key. He is talking about molecules of things and amplifying molecules. It has always been his braindead theory that there isn’t much “HIV” but it does exist, so what he is saying is that if you find one molecule of this non existent virus you can amplify it with his machine and make alot of it, but in that instance it doesn’t mean that you are sick with it. Remember he said you can find this in everybody.

What he did not say was “ The PCR cannot diagnose disease or it can’t find a viral load which is indicative of disease” because he thinks without a shadow of a doubt the PCR does this as he wrote it not only in his patent, not only in his Nobel Prize interview, not only in his autobiography but later in the trial of a man accused of spreading “HIV” (Which we will talk about next). The very last sentence is the killer ; “It doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with is really going to hurt you”. So here he admits he thinks you can catch viral illness (Hey No Virus Inc!), it can be measured by PCR it just doesn’t exactly tell you what is going to happen with your health… This is a strawman, no shit sherlock moment as really nobody anywhere is claiming the PCR test is a crystal ball for determining disease symptoms, of course.

“An HIV-positive man who insisted there was no clear evidence that the virus caused Aids was today sentenced to nine years in prison for having unprotected sex with three women.

Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, was convicted in the South Australia state supreme court in January last year on three counts of endangering life by having unprotected sex with the women.

He appealed on the grounds that there was no conclusive evidence linking the virus to Aids, but was today sentenced after two courts rejected his appeal.

In his sentencing, Justice John Sulan said Parenzee had shown little remorse for the suffering of his victims. He said the accused had not fully come to terms with the fact that he had contracted HIV, or the damage that he had caused.”

1. The criminal case against Andre Chad Parenzee

Andre Chad Parenzee, an HIV-positive man from South Australia, was charged with three counts of endangering human life after engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with three women without informing them of his HIV-positive status. Prosecutors alleged that he had been diagnosed with HIV in 1998, knowingly concealed his diagnosis, and in one case transmitted HIV to a partner. In January 2006, a jury found him guilty on all counts. The prosecution argued that the issue before the court was whether Parenzee knowingly exposed others to a serious risk after being informed of his diagnosis.

2. The appeal and the Perth Group’s involvement

Rather than focusing solely on the facts surrounding disclosure and transmission, Parenzee’s appeal challenged the underlying scientific basis of the prosecution. His legal team argued that HIV had not been proven to exist, that HIV tests were unreliable, and that HIV had not been shown to cause AIDS. To support these arguments, the defence called members of the The Perth Group, including Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr. Valendar Turner. The Perth Group had for many years argued against the scientific consensus on HIV and AIDS, maintaining that HIV had never been properly isolated and that AIDS had other causes.

3. Expert testimony and the court’s findings

The appeal became an extensive examination of the scientific evidence concerning HIV. The defence relied on members of the Perth Group, including Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr. Valendar Turner, and also sought support from Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Mullis had publicly questioned whether the evidence demonstrating that HIV causes AIDS had been adequately established, and his views were relied upon by the defence as part of its challenge to the scientific consensus. Although Mullis did not appear as a witness before the court, he was consulted during the appeal process, and the judgment records that prosecution expert Professor David McDonald had also contacted him while preparing his evidence. The prosecution, in contrast, called numerous experts in virology, immunology and infectious diseases, including Robert Gallo. After reviewing the competing evidence, Justice John Sulan concluded that the defence evidence lacked sufficient expertise and persuasive value and held that there was no genuine scientific dispute that HIV exists, is sexually transmissible, causes AIDS, and that contemporary HIV testing is scientifically reliable. The appeal was therefore dismissed..

4. Sentencing and imprisonment

Following the unsuccessful appeal, Parenzee was sentenced in September 2007 to nine years’ imprisonment (reports at the time also described the effective custodial term as eight years with eligibility for parole after five years). Justice Sulan stated that Parenzee had shown little remorse and had deliberately deceived his partners regarding his HIV status. One victim contracted HIV and suffered severe illness requiring lifelong medical treatment. Years later, while imprisoned, Parenzee successfully obtained compensation from the South Australian Government after being shackled to a hospital bed for an extended period during medical treatment, although that civil settlement did not affect his criminal conviction.

5. Legacy of the case

The Parenzee proceedings attracted international attention because they became one of the most detailed judicial examinations of claims advanced by the Perth Group. Justice Sulan’s judgment spans hundreds of pages and addresses, point by point, the defence’s scientific arguments before concluding that they were unsupported by the evidence presented in court. The case is frequently cited in discussions of HIV criminalisation, the admissibility of expert scientific testimony, and the interaction between courts and disputes over scientific evidence. It also brought wider public attention to the Perth Group’s views, which the overwhelming scientific consensus rejects.

The prosecution’s case, which the jury accepted, rested on several key points:

1. Parenzee had been diagnosed as HIV-positive and had been informed of that diagnosis by medical professionals.

2. He knew HIV could be transmitted through unprotected sexual intercourse, having received counselling and advice after his diagnosis.

3. He had unprotected sex with three women without disclosing his HIV-positive status.

4. One of the women contracted HIV, although the charges themselves were framed as endangering life rather than requiring proof of transmission for every count.

5. The prosecution argued that, knowing he had HIV, engaging in unprotected sex without informing his partners created a danger to their lives under South Australian law.

This email is an interesting piece of correspondence because it arose during the Supreme Court appeal in the Parenzee case, when the court was hearing extensive evidence about HIV, PCR, and the scientific basis of HIV diagnosis. It is often reproduced in discussions about Kary Mullis’ views on HIV because it demonstrates what he was—and was not—prepared to say.

Here’s the context for the people involved:

Kary Mullis

Kary Mullis (1944–2019) was the American biochemist who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for that work. During the Parenzee appeal, the defence consulted Mullis because he had publicly expressed skepticism about whether HIV had been conclusively shown to cause AIDS. However, Mullis also consistently maintained that PCR itself is a valid and powerful molecular biology technique. In the email you have shown, he is making precisely that distinction: he says he is not disputing that PCR can accurately amplify a specific nucleic acid sequence when appropriate primers are used. His disagreement lay elsewhere, concerning the interpretation of HIV-related evidence, not the underlying PCR technology.

Professor David McDonald

The recipient, Professor David McDonald, was an Australian physician and epidemiologist specialising in HIV medicine. During the appeal he was called by the prosecution as an expert witness on HIV epidemiology, public health and the scientific evidence surrounding HIV infection and AIDS. Before giving evidence, McDonald contacted Mullis directly to clarify Mullis’ views rather than relying solely on quotations from interviews or publications. Justice Sulan notes this correspondence in his judgment when discussing McDonald’s evidence. The email therefore formed part of the background material considered during the appeal.

Robyn Richardson

Robyn Richardson was a solicitor with the Attorney-General’s Department of South Australia. She was part of the prosecution team acting on behalf of the Crown during the appeal. Her inclusion as a copied recipient reflects her role in preparing and managing the State’s case rather than acting as a scientific expert.

David Crowe

David Crowe was a Canadian science writer and HIV/AIDS dissident who was active in questioning the mainstream scientific consensus regarding HIV. He had corresponded with both Mullis and members of the Perth Group and was closely involved with the wider community supporting Parenzee’s scientific defence. His inclusion on the email suggests Mullis wished him to be aware of the exchange, likely because Crowe had written extensively on these issues.

Christine Maggiore

Christine Maggiore (1956–2008) was an American AIDS dissident and founder of the organization Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives. She argued that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and became internationally known after declining antiretroviral treatment herself. She had known Kary Mullis for many years and frequently cited his opinions in support of AIDS dissident arguments. Like David Crowe, she was copied into the correspondence because of her involvement in that movement rather than because she had any formal role in the Parenzee litigation.

Why this email is significant

This email is frequently quoted because it is sometimes presented as though Mullis was denying PCR could detect viruses. In fact, the passage shown says the opposite. Mullis wrote:

“I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence...”

He goes on to state that this has been confirmed by laboratories around the world and that the technology would not have spread so rapidly if it were fundamentally flawed. In other words, Mullis explicitly affirmed the validity of PCR as a molecular amplification technique. His disagreement concerned broader questions about HIV and AIDS, not whether PCR itself worked.

That distinction became relevant during the Parenzee appeal because one of the defense arguments challenged the interpretation of HIV testing. The prosecution sought to show that even Mullis accepted the underlying reliability of PCR technology, notwithstanding his published skepticism about HIV causation. Justice Sulan ultimately accepted the prosecution experts’ evidence and dismissed the appeal.

352. 352

Professor McDonald had made contact with Professor Mullis. Professor Mullis is recognised as the person who invented the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique, which is used in the process of identifying the gene sequence of DNA. He explained that the ability to amplify small amounts of genetic material to manipulate them and sequence them was as a result of PCR technology.

153[153] He said that PCR was founded by a person whose name Professor Cooper could not recall but has now been identified as Professor Kary Mullis. Professor Cooper acknowledged that Professor Mullis is an AIDS denialist.

353. 353 Dr Dwyer was cross-examined about nucleic acid testing.

He was asked:

Q. You have spoken about the nucleic acid test or the NAT, which is now being used, the genomic sequence. In effect we are talking about the viral load, aren’t we.

A. No, the viral load is a type of nucleic acid test but a nucleic acid test is not just the viral load. The first nucleic acid test – well, nucleic acid tests aren’t designed to pick up either DNA or RNA. It so happens that you can quantify them to give a viral load.

Q. What sort of testing is nucleic acid testing; is that known as PCR.

A. PCR is one of the NAT technologies. Q. Can you isolate it for quantitative assessment.

A. You can.

Q. You realise that the man that discovered it, Malla, said you can’t.

A. I have never heard him say that you can’t quantify material using PCR.

Q. If you do quantify you would expect to be getting pretty good results which are mathematically sensible.

A. Well, I’m not quite sure what you mean by that question.

Q. I’ll show you what I mean. Look at annexure 5 to Dr Turner’s affidavit. Have you got that.

A. Yes. 153[153] T 689 – 90.

Q. It will save time if you read it because I want you to comment on it.

A. Yes.

Q. Obviously you need to look at the figures.

A. Yes, I know this paper.

Q. Do you agree with Dr Turner’s conclusion about it that it in effect demonstrates the concept of using HIV viral load is just, on those figures it’s incomprehensible.

A. I think he has completely misinterpreted the data in this. What this data is telling me is that there are three different laboratory types of quantitation that are being used, all of those assays need to detect the specific part of the HIV genome. Some of the original material that was produced by companies only actually picked up the North American strain of HIV and completely missed the African strains of HIV. So some, and in fact the company that produced the RTPCR assay, which is Roche, in fact had to re-alter their product to make sure that it picked up all genetic variations of HIV and they now do and those assays are now used. Our own lab has done exactly, and published, the same sorts of experiments and it’s quite well recognised that unless your PCR primers, which are what start the reaction, are to highly conserve parts of the genome you will miss certain strains of HIV. That is quite well-known and understood.

154[154] 354. 354 Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had said that the inventor of PCR was purported to have expressed a lack of confidence in PCR. Professor Mullis received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for having invented the PCR technique. As a consequence of the reference to Professor Mullis, Professor McDonald made contact with him.

355. 355 Professor McDonald said the effect of Professor Mullis’ answer was to express confidence in the PCR system. Professor McDonald said that the controversy around HIV is not a controversy around whether PCR is a valid technology or technique. Professor Mullis had stated in a paper titled “A hypothetical disease of the immune system that may bear some relation to the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome”155[155] that there was a controversy as to whether and how HIV caused AIDS.

356. 356 In his paper, Professor Mullis observed: 154[154] T 1004 – 5. 155[155] Exhibit A19. The cells of an individual immune system could be so highly infected with latent viruses that were immunicologically distinct from one another as to result in an immune dysfunction resembling the acquired deficiency syndrome.

357. 357 That was a theory propounded by Professor Mullis some ten years ago. Professor McDonald commented that the paper and the hypothesis postulated by Professor Mullis has not had any support from experts in the field of HIV/AIDS research.

358. 358 Mr Borick QC contended that there is a continuing controversy in respect of whether HIV causes AIDS. He sought to support that contention by reference to the paper of Professor Mullis.

359. 359 I consider that Professor Mullis’ views, as expressed in the paper ten years ago, are not supported by research. Over the past ten years since the paper was written, there is no evidence in any of the research that has been conducted in respect of the HIV/AIDS virus that the hypothesis of Professor Mullis has any scientific basis. The fact that a scientist who does not work or research specifically in the area of HIV/AIDS publishes an hypothesis does not establish that there is a genuine scientific debate about whether HIV causes AIDS.

The undercurrent to this case was that from the original plan as mentioned by AI above that the defense's argument was going to be centered around the lack of HIV isolation and evidence for existence. There is way more information linked below from my good friends Anthony Brink and Rod Knoll whom have meticulously documented the happenings of the Controlled Opposition demolition of the The Perth Group by horrendously evil people like David Crowe. Please follow the links attached to Anthony’s name and the image of Rod Knoll (Kneeling in the white shirt AT that Red Brick Wall wall interview with Mullis right)

Needless to say what happened was that Rethinking AIDS an organization run by David Crowe a group of controlled opposition posing as AIDS dissidents staged a coup to intervene in the court case and derail the defense. They clearly did so by bringing in one Kary Mullis to consult, very strangely to the PROSECUTION, attorney Robyn Richardson and their “expert scientific witness” Professor David McDonald.

The absolutely mind-blowing AI interpretation of the email says it all really. I just asked Chat GPT what it thought of the email and in a few jaw dropping passages admits:

This email is frequently quoted because it is sometimes presented as though Mullis was denying PCR could detect viruses. In fact, the passage shown says the opposite. Mullis wrote:

“I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence...”

That distinction became relevant during the Parenzee appeal because one of the defense arguments challenged the interpretation of HIV testing. The prosecution sought to show that even Mullis accepted the underlying reliability of PCR technology, notwithstanding his published skepticism about HIV causation. Justice Sulan ultimately accepted the prosecution experts’ evidence and dismissed the appeal.

We then see a passage from the court transcripts between the Judge and McDonald and Eleni and Turner we see that both Eleni and Turner were attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the PCR test. Given that CC’d into the email between the two was David Crowe and Christine Maggiore the controlled opposition posing as the defense, very tight with Kary Mullis, we must only assume that they arranged for Kary to offer his “expert knowledge” on the invention. In typical, true to form style he arrogantly claims, of course my PCR machine works in detecting the very real “HIV”.

With this one email seemingly with the massive help of the scumbags posing as the defense for Parenzee they signed his guilty verdict: according to Kary Mullis Parenzee had “HIV” as he tested positive and his partners were given “HIV” because Kary Mullis’ PCR machine said so.

Ergo. Kary Mullis (and David Crowe and Christine Maggiore) got an innocent man jailed for 8 years of his life. The only saving grace being that ALL of those pieces of shit are dead.

My ultimate thoughts about this trial and seeing the way the supposed Defense teed up the Home Run for the Prosecution is that it was a show trial, a sham to bolster the fraudulent PCR narrative for the next layer of Germ Theory deceit that was to come in 2020.

The arrogance of this Room Temperature IQ man-child is put into perspective when you realize that most of his published interviews and recorded appearances seem so hairbrained and contradictory, especially when it comes to the topic of “HIV”, because he was constantly trying to seed a narrative for his own mental hypothesis that he was desperate to achieve fame for. Although this is not a complete Home Run it is still a valuable piece of evidence that potentially Mullis did not invent the PCR or at the very least did not play as big a role as is claimed as logic would dictate that he would feel absolutely no need to desperately try and segway into every public appearance his theories and hypotheses and get all frustrated when nobody paid him a blind bit of attention, because they were fucking mental even by the mainstream standards.

Here we see below his “Paper”, published in a fringe journal about his idea of “latent viruses”. I mean how the members of No Virus Inc ever show their faces in public after writing puff pieces on this fraud I don’t know, he was the biggest virus pusher in the circuit, once again at least Fauci never actually published anything about Viruses or Immunology, he just took what the mainstream said was happening and blindly trusted it. Mullis however probably dropped a couple of tabs of Acid, went for a drive in his “little silver Honda” and thought “How can I make this not about HIV, but still keep it relevant”… and in what must have taken him a 5 seconds devised the idea that it was just a combination of different Viruses that caused AIDS and not “HIV”. I mean it’s laughable really that anyone ever took this guy seriously (it gets worse).

Toward the end of this incredibly short “paper” that looks like it was written on the back of a napkin whilst staggering back from the bar, he doesn’t forget to remind everyone that he is indeed a sadistic cunt, like the rest of his colleagues in Big Pharma, salivating at the Mouse torture which would prove his theory correct.

Abstract

The cells of an individual immune system could be so highly infected with latent viruses that were immunologically distinct from one another as to result in an immune dysfunction resembling the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. There is a population of cells in a particular individual from which sub-populations are chosen by immune mechanisms to undergo clonal expansion in the course of normal immune function. The number of individual cells in such a sub-population in any particular episode of immune function is dependent on a variety of factors that are incompletely understood.

1. Call this number of cells R.

2. Assume that in this population of cells at least one cell in R is latently infected by at least one virus capable of expressing a new and distinct epitope.

3. Now, every episode of immune function involving the promotion to clonality of R cells will result in the clonal expansion of at least one latently infected cell.

4. And during the course of clonal expansion the likelihood for expression of a latent virus from one or more members of the growing infected clone would be expected to grow in proportion to the number of cells in the clone.

5. Because expression of a previously latent virus with a distinct epitope would tend to provoke a new immune response, every immune response would tend to provoke at least one further immune response.

6. AIDS may be the result of such a chain reaction.

The immune system so infected would be perpetually generating new immunogens. As the frequency of infection increased such an immune chain reaction would be progressively more debilitating for the stability and effectiveness of immune function. At a level of infection where more than one latent viral species existed in R cells, a single immune response on average would result in the release of more than one new viremia. Such a situation would generate an exponentially increasing number of independent immune stimuli and, unless somehow controlled, would certainly be fatal. It is difficult to imagine a control mechanism that would not seriously compromise immune function. Mechanisms for such control may not have evolved because selection pressures for the evolution of such mechanisms would only have existed if there were a sufficient diversity of viruses available in the environment capable of latently infecting mammalian immune cells to a level near 1/R.

However, in the past century humans have come to constitute a greater and greater proportion of their own environment, and therefore the availability of diverse and infectious human viruses may have risen significantly. Certainly the increase in speed of transportation has dramatically increased the number of other human beings any one individual will encounter during the course of a lifetime. ,~ / Certain life styles have been in the vanguard of this development. For instance, it has been widely publicized that in the so-called "bath house cultures" of some metropolitan gay communities, intimate exposure to hundreds of individuals per year was unexceptional until very recently when viral infection became a serious issue. The potential for collecting a vast number of diverse latent viruses through intimate exposure to hundreds of different human beings per year is increased enormously if those humans are also being 196 exposed to hundreds of different humans per year. Thus 300 contacts with people having themselves 300 contacts at a first approximation yields an exposure level 90,000-fold higher than that incurred by contact with a stably pair-bonded individual. Going out in the spreading pyramid of exposure one step further generates a relative risk factor of 27 million. The particular social dynamic of the metropolitan, international, gay, bath house community could not have been more efficiently organized if maximum exposure by individuals to the world's supply of diverse viruses had been actively sought.

Other modes for unprecedented accumulation of diverse viral infections can be envisioned. Transfusion of blood from one or more highly infected individuals could transfer a sufficiently large number of viruses to cause immune dysfunction. Or long term association with an individual harboring a sufficient number of diverse viruses as to be suffering from immune dysfunction could transfer a sufficient number of them to an otherwise unexposed individual. It would not be expected that a casual or brief encounter with such an infected individual would be sufficient to transfer a lethal diversity of viruses. At a given time most viral infections in an individual are latent. For the purposes of this hypothesis, the absolute levels of infection are not critical. Social and technological developments in this century have raised the potential for multiple modes of accelerated transmission for infectious organisms and this has resulted in the catastrophic accumulation of an evolutionarily unprecedented burden of latent infections in some humans. This is all that the present hypothesis assumes. If this mechanism is causal for AIDS, then the presence of any particular virus would not be necessary or sufficient for the development of that disease, although someone so afflicted might be expected to have a far greater than average chance of being infected by any particular virus, for instance HIV, than someone not afflicted. This hypothesis is not inconsistent with the notion that one or more species of virus may be disproportionately effective in achieving a highly diverse state of immune cell infection. Some viruses, for example, might be far more effective than others at spreading significantly mutated copies of themselves throughout the population and throughout the immune system of an infected individual. The high rate of mutation in the Retroviridae and their capacity for latent infection make them ideal candidates for such a role.

HIV might be a significant species, but absent any evidence for this there is no reason to suspect it over any other virus, most of which, it can be easily argued, are not presently detectable. Such a mechanism would predict that any drug that could prevent the growth of latent viruses would be beneficial, unless of course it were poisonous to the patient. However, unless latent chromosomally incorporated viruses could somehow be removed or permanently prevented from expressing new epitopes, no cure would be expected. This hypothesis predicts that a vaccine against any specific virus would be ineffective against AIDS. This hypothesis is consistent with a disease of slow onset with a steadily more rapid progression. Progression of the disease would be accelerated by any immune activity whether it be elicited by infection, environmental immunogens, immune reactions to drugs, etc. Progression of such a disease would also be enhanced by the rapid growth of any infected cells that were capable of producing infective viruses, particularly if these infective viruses were capable of infecting immune cells. Usefully, this hypothesis is subject to experimental verification or denial.

If correct, then an experimental animal model of AIDS should be induced in laboratory animals by infecting them at a low multiplicity with a very large number of diverse viruses. One way of doing this would involve collecting the blood from a large number of wild mice from geographically distant locations, mixing it together and injecting it into healthy mice. The number of mice that would be required to produce such a lethal injection or series of injections is not predicted by this hypothesis, although from the numbers suggested by the behavior patterns of the human victims of AIDS the number of individuals whose viruses must be pooled could be quite high. The hypothesis suggests that some level of diverse infection would cause AIDS-like malfunction of the immune system to appear rapidly, and that this could not be reproduced by simply isolating a particular infectious species and infecting similar animals with only this species. The hypothesis also suggests that blood from a single human AIDS patient should be capable of transferring the appropriate level of diversity of infection to another organism, given that the recipient organism contains a functional human immune system. The hypothesis suggests further that aliquots of an appropriate dilution of the blood from a single AIDS patient injected into a large number of experimental animals with a human immune system would not be able to produce AIDS-like immune dysfunction in any one of them. According to this hypothesis there is not a single organism that is the cause of AIDS, and there should exist AIDS patients who do not test positive for HIV. It is an overwhelming number of distinct organisms which causes the immune dysfunction. These may individually be harmless.

If you were in any doubt as to what a low rent, genuine woo woo spastic this guy was, you need to look no further than that of his early “work” where he felt it necessary to “publish” his thoughts on Time itself. A guy sat at a kitchen table in a house party, it’s 5am and most people have passed out, gone home or puked up in a corner, there’s 4 people left and Kary whose eye’s are the shade of Tropical Punch Kool Aid leans back in his chair, takes a big toke on a freshly rolled spliff, exhales and says to the guy who only stayed up to see if he could still make it to the morning Lecture at University for “banter”; “You realize time is in reverse right?”

Geography Undergrad: “what do you mean?”

Kary : “Like everything is moving backwards, we are gradually imploding back into the nothingness of space.”

Undergrad: “Yeah I feel tired too.”

Kary: “No, I mean the Universe, Man, we’re all going in reverse.”

Undergrad: “Sure.”

Awkward silence.

Cosmological Significance of Time Reversal

A RECENT attempt by Stannard1 to explain the apparent overthrow of parity in the long-lived kaon experiments suggested the possibility of an unseen component of the universe in which matter was of opposite time sense to that in the observable universe. Beginning with this idea, a cosmological model with interesting symmetry properties suggests itself. Drawing on the well known model of Hoyle, a newly created particle of matter is followed as it is gradually accelerated by the cosmological expansion of the universe. I am suggesting that at some point in this acceleration the particle undergoes a transition in time sense and that simultaneously the other two parameters of the CPT theorem of particle physics, that is, parity and charge, will also be conjugated. For example, an electron with time sense + 1 and parity even will become a positron with time sense - 1 and parity odd. According to Stannard's treatment, this particle, having reversed its time sense, will no longer interact with particles of a positive time sense and therefore will no longer be detectable in the part of the universe consisting of matter with a positive time sense.

Let the particle be embedded in a system which is undergoing a gravitational collapse; furthermore, let all particles in this system undergo the CPT reversal at nearly the same time, that time being coincident with the occurrence of the Schwarzschild singularity, that is, the point at which the limiting radius, R = GM/C2, is reached. Seen from outside the collapsing system, there will be no effect, but the mass inside the singularity, rather than being lost or excluded from the universe as was necessary in previous treatments of collapse, is merely shifted from one phase of the universe to another. With the occurrence of time reversal the gravitationally contained mass reverses from a contraction to a violent expansion; this expansion takes place in a Minkowski space which is the conjugate of that in which the contraction occurs.

CPT reversal inside a gravitational singularity is believed to be a relevant issue for at least two reasons: (1) it is felt that the unique "closed-system" environment of a collapsed system is more likely to be conducive to such a reversal than any other environment; (2) it is felt that gravitational collapse is an inevitable and cosmo- 664 NATURE, VOL. 2 18. MAY 18. 1968 logically very significant event in the dynamic character of mass in the universe. Consider a galaxy being accelerated away from an observer under the general cosmological expansion. With what mass will the system be observed to be gravitationally cohesive ?

It seems reasonable that, although the members of the galaxy are at rest relative to each other, an observer with whom the galaxy is in relative motion will see them gravitate according to their relativistic mass. A compensating time dilation will also be involved and this will prevent any increase in the observed acceleration which they show for each other; however, this only applies in the directions perpendicular to the velocity, for along the direction parallel to the velocity a contraction of space exactly compensates the time dilation. This indicates that such a galaxy, assuming an initial spherical distribution of mass, will become, relative to a distant observer, more and more disk-like and dense as it approaches the speed of light. As the density of the disk increases it would seem that a phenomenon not dissimilar to the spherical gravitational collapse of Schwarzschild will inevitably commence. This phenomenon depends on the relative velocity, and thus the position of the observer, and it is one which is obviously reciprocal, that is, a second observer, who was on the collapsing galaxy, would observe the galaxy, of which the first observer was a part, to be undergoing collapse. The following picture emerges.

(1) Matter is being created or transferred to the observable universe (which at any position is one-half of the total universe) which maintains a constant density.

(2) The universe appears to be in a state of expansion and matter, which attains a relative velocity near that of light, is observed to pass through a gravitational singularity at which time it undergoes a complete CPT reversal.

(3) After the reversal, the singularity commences the time reversal of gravitational contraction (that is, gravitational expansion) and continues back to the pre-galactic stage.

(4) This process continues until at some time, determined by the probability of the transition and coinciding exactly with the rate of matter transferral necessary to maintain a constant density in both timesense sectors of the universe, the particles from the singularity revert to their original time sense, thus

(1). This re-entry process would observationally be similar to the matter creation of Hoyle. The advantages of such a theory are apparent. (1) 6 is no longer necessary to think of the entropy of the universe as a quantity asymmetrical with respect to time reversal, for indeed it is now constant and the idea of the universe ultimately "running down" is not required.

(2) Quasi-stellar objects can be rationalized in terms of the tremendous output of energy from the collapse process. According to Schwarzschild's spherical model, half the mass of the system is radiated in this process. Their apparent non-uniform distribution in the universe is accounted for by their observational nature, thus saving the credibility of the cardinal cosmological principle of homogeneity.

(3) The preponderance of matter over antimatter in the observable universe is counter-balanced by the preponderance of the latter over the former in the non-observable, timereflected universe, adding another note of symmetry to the model.

(4) An observer anywhere in the universe (even inside what Earthbound astronomers will term quasars or beyond t,his in the time-reversed phase of the universe) will be confronted with the same general physical picture of the universe.

(5) The paradox presented by the apparent approach of galaxies to the velocity of light due to the cosmological expansion, with the ultimate demand for infinite energy expenditure, is hereby avoided; before ultimate velocity is reached, the accelerating matter is excluded from that phase of the universe in which it is subject to the cosmological expansion.

(6) The model contains essential elements of both steady state and big-bang cosmological models. With respect to observational work reported on quasistellar objects, it is interesting to note that (a) their puzzling luminosity-velocity distribution could be a result of non-spherical galaxies going into collapse in various orientations, and (b) a quasar might be observed to expand at a velocity greater than the speed of light because the phenomenon might first occur at the dense core of a galaxy (creating an observable quasar with small angular dimensions) and then progress to the edges, although there would be no propagating wave exceeding the classical limit.

KARY MULLIS

If you weren’t convinced by now I have saved the Bombshells for last:

Who would have known Kary better than anyone else on planet earth, the person who had to endure his late night LSD psychotic flashbacks, none other than his 4th wife, Nancy. It seems that the ridiculousness really sent some people over the edge and in a funny sort of irony, the repeated meme-ing and trolling about Kary clearly got to Nancy, so much so that she reached out to the trashy British Tabloid, The Sun, famously known for the fact that they put photos of women with their tits out on Page 3 of every newspaper (particularly high brow stuff here). Seemingly so enticing was it that Nancy had to bare her naked truth too and in doing so dropped inadvertent punch after punch to the Controlled Narrative.

There is no fury like a woman’s scorn and Nancy didn’t disappoint, she laid down the bars in the greatest Covid Conspiracy Rap ever imagined, I place her nuggets of truth up there as cult hero status as one after one of the tired talking points and “Conspiracy Theories” were dismantled with venom behind the tongue, it makes for scintillating reading, so I will let you get on with it and see you the other side:

THE widow of the genius Nobel Prize-winning scientist who invented the PCR test has hit back at the “Covid loony resistance” for spreading wild conspiracy theories about him online.

Biochemist Kary Mullis came up with the polymerase chain reaction in 1983 but died from pneumonia in August 2019, months before it was rolled out across the world during the pandemic to diagnose Covid.

Mullis’ widow Nancy spoke out for the first time about the wild internet online conspiracy theories being spread about him

PCR inventor Kary Mullis died in August 2019, months before his creation was rolled out to diagnose Covid worldwide

The most extreme conspiracy theories claim Dr Anthony Fauci orchestrated Mullis’ death to silence him

Since then several old video interviews have gone viral online where Mullis can be seen saying that the PCR “doesn’t tell you if you’re sick” and slamming Dr Anthony Fauci for his role in the AIDS crisis.

Conspiracy theorists have used the videos to claim the maverick man of science was murdered because he would supposedly have revealed that PCR tests produce fake Covid cases.

Some have gone to the extreme of suggesting that Fauci, 80, may have somehow orchestrated his scientific rival’s death to keep him quiet.

The Sun reached out to his grieving widow Nancy Mullis, who blasted the allegations as “annoying and egregious”.

Addressing the conspiracy theories for the first time, the former teacher, 74, said: “These Covid loonies have come out of the woodwork to tell me that Kary was probably killed to keep him from talking about Covid and that Fauci might be behind it.

“This is so ludicrous. I had to make my Facebook page private because of these kinds of people.

“What Kary said about Fauci and PCR being used to diagnose AIDS was 25 to 30 years ago.

“What people have done now is cobble together snippets of various videos but conveniently left out the AIDS part to make it seem that he’s talking about Covid.

“It’s terribly annoying since Kary died in August 2019 before Covid was even in the news.

“It’s completely egregious to me.

“I can promise you that Fauci’s name was never mentioned in our household for a couple of decades.

“It was not an issue that Kary was concerned about but you see people on the internet who say that for the last 30 years he tried to get rid of Anthony Fauci.

“There is so much online that is completely false about Kary but there’s nothing I can do about it.

“Normally when people send me things about how Kary has been mentioned I ask them not to.

“It’s uncomfortable for me to see how they have used him as kind of the face of the Covid loony resistance.

“The other salient point is that PCR has advanced since it was first invented. Just like cars or airplanes advanced, PCR did too.

“To say that it shouldn’t be used for Covid is harkening back to what Kary said about AIDS in the 1990s but PCR has advanced since then.”

Mullis – who was 74 when he died at home in Newport Beach, California – was described as a “wide-angled genius” during his lifetime but also courted controversy over some of his views.

The Berkeley-educated DNA chemist maintained that HIV had never been proven to cause AIDS and questioned whether human beings are causing global warming.

The avid surfer and guitar player was also open about having tripped on LSD in his youth and believed in astrology and reincarnation.

His views on HIV and AIDS in particular meant that he was highly critical of Fauci’s leadership during that epidemic.

In one of the videos from the 1990s currently being circulated online, father-of-three Mullis says of Fauci: “He doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I would say that to his face. Nothing.

“Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”

Kary and Nancy pose for a picture in Washington DC

The couple, seen here in Bologna, Italy, traveled the world together.

Mullis was an avid surfer and guitar player who spoke openly about his experiences tripping on LSD in his youth

But Nancy, who became Mullis’ fourth wife in 1998, says that he was simply “disappointed” by the scientific establishment represented by Fauci.

She also revealed that she wrote an email to Fauci to assure him that neither she nor any of Mullis’ family are behind the conspiracy theories.

Nancy said: “Kary was such a fully, completely out there person. Anything he felt, he would say.

“I think he was disappointed in science in general because it was all about money and grants and scaring people and he was totally about the truth.

“(After the conspiracy theories emerged) I wrote to Fauci’s email on the government website.

“I said ‘I know you and Kary had your complete disagreement, but in no way is his estate behind any of these lies on the internet’.

“I just felt better saying that because I don’t support any of it.

“I got a Dear Nancy and signed Tony email but whether he wrote it or staff wrote it, it’s hard to say.

“It was just ‘thank you very much, hope you’re well’, just something very simple.

“It’s got to be hard seeing all this stuff on the internet with Kary maligning him over and over and over again.

“I just felt like I have got to say that this is not coming from me or his family or anyone that is close to Kary, it’s coming from these completely weird people that thinks this is just a scam.”

Nancy and Kary Mullis are seen smiling together at the beach in Corona del Mar, California

The PCR test which Mullis invented has been used across the globe to diagnose Covid

Nancy also revealed that North Carolina-born Mullis – who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993 – had suffered from ill health for years before he passed away.

She said: “Kary died at home so how do they (the conspiracy theorists) think somebody had access to him?

“Where would they have access to him, would they have come into our house?

“Kary had a six-way heart bypass when he was 60. He had a lot of health issues over the years but he was tough and self-reliant and always thought he could overcome anything.

“The six-way open heart surgery led, over the years, to blood pressure problems, several ablations, a pacemaker inserted for erratic and low heart beat, and a stent.

“Heart disease ran in his family, his mother had heart attacks and his two brothers had issues with their hearts too.

“Pneumonia probably just finished him off. He had it for a couple of weeks and was being treated at home by a nurse.

“I am completely bereft and devastated by his loss and I will never get over it.”

That’s right folks, I kinda agree with Nancy, they are all Covid Conspiracy Loonies. You see I know there is some attachment with people to being called a Conspiracy Theorist because they think that it somehow means they like to think about stuff. Whilst I don’t particularly care if people call me a Conspiracy Theorist, it is still used as a pejorative and suggests paranoia in the wider sense, but also to my mind is nearly always associated with a Controlled Narrative of events. So yes I agree, Nancy, all those shit-for-brains that have perpetually repeated the same old toot about Kary Mullis are indeed “Conspiracy Loonies” that probably thought there was a dangerous Virus leaked from a lab in 2020 that when they purposefully put it up people’s nose did precisely nothing.

The first gargantuan Haymaker from our scorned Lady lands directly on the chin of the “Fauci Feud” story. She says that they never once mentioned his name in their household and she even sent an email to Tony (Colloquial first name terms dontchaknow) to apologize profusely about the nasty internet loonies and that none of the bad vibes were coming from her Estate. This story makes perfect logical sense, if Kary takes his “work” home with him and it was a genuine vexation he had with dear Tone then it would have been a case of pacing backwards and forwards in the front room, desperately loading up bongs to soothe his psychosis about a name rattling around inside of his cranium. This is, I am acutely aware, still a story, but as you will see in the next section is corroborated by Kary himself.

Nancy then goes onto provide a very plausible explanation for the SINGLE time that Kary got Karried away (see what i did there) with being on screen again and said something negative about his buddy, colleague in animal torture, Tony. She suggests that Kary was just annoyed at the state of science and how everyone else in the industry was just a money grabber, but not Kary, no, he was concerned with the truth. LMFAO. I mean that to me is the sound of Kary Mullis’ wife telling the exact gospel truth about how she saw it. You would have to be at least as much of a fucking cretin as Kary to marry the bloke, so much so that you would believe him when he said that he wasn’t interested in money and only the truth. (This once again is corroborated by Kary in the next section).

Sorry, got to have a sit down after that one, funny shit

After the gigantic haymaker lands she takes a step to the side to follow up with a clean straight left with the “ PCR has come a long way since Kary commented on AIDS when he wrote that fucking mental paper on latent viruses, that he had to tell me about at every goddamned opportune moment”. Is it much coming from her that she thought that Kary thought the PCR was for diagnosing Covid? I mean add it to the pile of proof above right. Once again this is repeated in more detail in the next section.

The Covid Loonie has buckled forward, eye swelling and nose gushing with blood, Nancy looks over to the empty corner where her beloved Kary would have been moping her furrowed brow, winds up and lands the most almighty of Uppercuts, whipping the Loonies head back, sweat and blood scatter into the air like a dirty Mass Spectrometer. The final blow was that of Kary’s conveniently untimely death. “Had they have not killed him, Kary would have stopped them doing the Scamdemic”. Well not quite; the verifiable fact that Kary had heart disease diagnosed more than 20 years prior, the fact he had major surgery, a six way heart bypass, stents and a pacemaker at the relatively young age of 60. The guy was a mess probably largely to do with the fact that he was a drug abuser and hedonist. He died at home, with her there and nobody batted an eye lid when it happened because he was in such a state for such a long time before that in Nancy’s own words he was “finished off” by Pneumonia.

If you thought it was bad enough for our Conspiracy Loony who is now lying spread eagle on the canvas, eyes rolled back in his head, tongue lolling out of his mouth to the side, enter into the ring a doddery old pensioner with a dodgy prostate who , half blind and in desperate need for a piss thinks that the boxing ring ropes are a hand rail to the toilet. He has bumbled his way over, unzipped his corduroy trousers and is liberally splashing the yellow nectar on the Loonies face.

Enter the cameo roll of Big Chief Dumb as Rocks, the Pharma Fellator, Aneuploidy Drug Grifter, The Perth Group Control Study Destroyer David “Ransack” Rasnick. Whether this old croak is suffering from a serious case of senility or this was some kind of humiliation ritual to see just how obvious he could make it that his bestest buddy Kary and by extension himself are the Establishment cronies they are, is very much up for debate. Whatever the rational, or more likely lack of, this has to be one of the more comedy moments of the circus that is No Virus Inc.

In a recent interview with Charles Kovess, Ransack flies off the top turnbuckle with his elbow cocked back, armed with a host of emails from his now deceased mate Kary and his Widow Nancy. The problem is that this infirmit old git is a typical technology illiterate boomer that in his haste to show that indeed his semi-famous surfer druggie mate sent him private emails, he happened to cycle through a whole load of emails he didn’t intend to be public (Whoops). He also in his decrepitude managed to Dox Nancy Mullis’ personal email address (Double Whoops). Now being the upstanding person that I am, I have blanked out the email address as to not perpetuate the dox. Whether this was intentional to reveal her private address might not be that mental an idea given the criminality of his colleagues such as Mike Stone in doxing members of my family as well as the scientist who worked for my project that lead to their dismissal from the laboratory they worked at. It is very much a calling card of their piss drinking cult.

Hi Dave,

I know you emailed last May, but that is when our whole world changed. I took Kary to the ER at Hoag on May 6th, and three months later he died.
Kary never walked again, due to a stroke he had in the hospital a week later. It is all too horrible, and a long story. I am having such a hard time with the loss of Kary, he was my whole life and I can’t imagine a purpose now. I do hope to do something with his legacy, but we will see.

I wrote Peter Duesberg earlier today, I assumed he was ok, but haven’t heard back yet. Is he ok? This virus has been so hard on everyone, and staying so isolated has not been the best thing for me emotionally, and being alone. I hope all is fine with Peter and with you.

I sent Peter a link to an article Celia Farber wrote about PCR and the virus testing. She is totally off base. She refers back to the AIDS time when Kary said PCR should not be used to test for AIDS, and now is questioning why PCR should be used for COVID. The new version of PCR, q-PCR or RT PCR, is the definitive test for the virus, and she doesn’t seem aware of that.

If you are still in touch with her, you might let her know that she is greatly mistaken, and should not assume what Kary would think about COVID, if he were still here.

Best,
Nancy

Here is what I received regarding her article, from my DNA contact:

This person is attempting to be provocative by saying that PCR based techniques are useless for detecting viral diseases, eg CoV19....and uses Kary’s early HIV stance to argue that he would agree with this position. She is wrong....and should not resume what Kary’s position might be if he were here to give his opinion. It is true that a PCR diagnostic test must be properly designed and validated and run against proper controls to give useful information, but it is untrue that PCR based tests are inherently compromised as a tool for measuring the presence of Corona virus. A properly designed PCR test, executed by a trained technician, in a controlled environment will give a highly useful information regarding the presence of the virus. Further interpreting the presence of CoV19 with actual disease symptoms is quite another matter not relevant to PCR diagnostics per se.

I also noticed that she mentions Tony Fauci (from the HIV period) and implies that Kary would ridicule any opinion he might have regarding CoV-19. This is toxic to Kary’s memory and uses Kary for her own rabble rousing ambition.

This first email, for some reason he intended to show, despite it shitting all over his No Virus Inc colleague Celia Faber as well as pointing out numerous falsehoods in his and Faber’s Controlled Narrative about his supposed mate Kary. It corroborates the story of Kary’s health decline rather than “pre-meditated murder” by Fauci wearing a Ninja outfit. It then goes in to some very specific detail about the PCR test showing that she at least has some basic understanding of the assay and more importantly that she wished Kary were here to defend his “invention” that definitely, did 100% diagnose viral diseases like Covid “if used properly”. I mean given what we have seen above this is quite clearly the exact position of Kary and would have been into 2020.

Nancy then goes on to berate the Conspiritard shit-stirring of Faber, noting that she was setting up a hypothetical Showdown between Fauci and Mullis, that “her guy” would have been there sticking it to the man had he not have been tragically “offed”. Nancy confirms, as she did in her interview for Tits Daily, that this is not only pantomime theatre based off of extremely tenuous Chinese whispers, it is entirely imagined and the projections of what woulda/coulda/shoulda been were entirely unfounded.

Hi Dave,

Here is the information I have been given by good sources. Ron always wants to stay out of weighing in, he is so busy, and doesn’t deal with press anyway.

The number of deaths could be inflated by those with premorbid conditions, and there are various hidden agendas at work, mostly partisan and political.

Testing is the solution, not the cause. The wholesale shut down is due to the lack of testing... since we don’t know where the disease is the solution has been to assume it’s everywhere. Not a long term fix so testing needs to be expanded. The problem is that there is no public health infrastructure to administer testing....and FDA rules and regs hamper the introduction of new methodologies. At this point, there is no way to put the 10’s of thousands of machines in every local clinic, nor hire and train the technicians to the standard required by FDA.

Most importantly, the PCR that Kary invented in 1983 has been improved and expanded with q-PCR, or RT PCR. If done correctly, this will yield an analysis of the virus being present or not. Kary would not have a problem with that!

Hope this helps...sorry to be tardy in replying,

Nancy

Here in this very direct email we see exactly the role that Kary Mullis would have been playing if he were alive in 2020, that’s right folks, he would have been front and center arguing for MORE testing lol. He would have been there greasing the wheels of the Totalitarian Train Cart by pushing his fraudulent tool that created the fake pandemic. What and you think this arrogant, narcissistic, establishment shill, piece of shit would have just have suddenly turned on a dime in 2020 after 74 years of doing so? Not a chance.

“Hi Nancy,

It was a real blow to hear Kary died. It left a hollow place inside me for quite a while. Peter Duesberg is frail and feeling his age.

Kary was not supportive of using PCR to diagnose HIV infection, as I recall. His standard PCR is very powerful for many legitimate purposes but using it to make life-altering medical decisions is a big mistake.

Using the combination of reverse transcriptase to turn RNA into DNA, followed by performing quantitative PCR to declare that somebody is infected with coronavirus is a colossal mistake. I have attached a 2017 paper by Stephen Bustin, where he takes great pains describing the myriad problems leading to irreproducibility of results when RT-qPCR for diagnostic purposes. By the way, Bustin gave an interview yesterday on this very subject (https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-stephen-bustin-on-challenges-with-rt-pcr/).”

In this absolutely mesmerizing reply from Ransack we take a bleak look inside the Circus tent of a mind of the typical No Virus Inc recruit. Davey boy just gaslights Nancy, effectively saying that she knew nothing about the thoughts of her own recently deceased husband, that he didn’t know his own invention and indeed Stephen Bustin knew his thoughts better than he did about it all. I mean what kind of absolute Psychopath would even dream of writing something like that? It is the workings of someone either deeply sinister or just a complete Autistic Dribbling loon that has the social skills of Jeffery Dahmer.

Once again whatever the rational for such incredibly odd behavior, it is very clear where this Controlled Opposition Narrative is being projected from:

“…and to interfere with the viral assault. She was about a third right. I don’t think she and a lot of biochemists are aware of how many things are sticking to other things just because of chance. It slowed the attack but would not have saved the mice.

Another interesting variation of this technique, in the case of easily synthesizable targets, is to make the d-peptide, which we have done, select the d-aptamer that binds to it, then synthesize the l-aptamer of the same sequence (machines don’t care) which by the logic of double mirrors, should bind to the natural l-peptide, but which should be inaccessible to biological nucleases. This is called the Spiegelmer technique and has resulted in some l-aptamers with 60-hour half-lives in serum. We are ready to do this at Biosearch. But if the stripped down Arnon aptamer keeps working, we will let some one else do that.

Our next alternate target is antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus Aureus and related pests. This approach has the advantage that it is brand new on the earth. Most antibiotics are borrowed from internecine microbial wars that have been fought underground for millions of years and for which countermeasures, like penicillinase, are available in the form of transmissible plasmids. Alternate drugs may as well be from Mars. Countermeasures to them are surely not coded on plasmids.

We have so far been funded by 2M from DARPA. We are looking now for ten or twenty million to keep on working without having to deal with Tony Fauci. (For reasons I cannot understand he just doesn’t like me.) DARPA has passed the infectious disease torch to the NIH. They were only in it for the security threat they briefly thought it posed when they could have their judgement clouded by 911. They are still paying us, but that is running out. They like us, and they should, after all who else has ever really hurt the flu? But I am ready for some real investors. We are just a leap away from the majors, the way I see it. There are several investors considering, but no one has pushed the button yet. The market for antivirals (real viruses) and antibiotic resistant bacteria must at least be worth a gazillion dollars. I am sure the right people will come along. I am not the wizard that Dr. Duesberg is or the suave marketeer that Sir Rasnick, with his illustrious southern family represents, but I am fairly certain that Barry, once he gets wind of it, will make a pile.

I wish I could be there with you guys, but I am at least happy to hear from my dream-team of medical gurus that I am okay for another few days at least, and perhaps 10½ years—there are allowing themselves the professional courtesy of a little wiggle room. But I feel fine. I had a serious alcohol binge with my younger son, Jeremy, his lovely fiance Sara, and in the middle of it all I gave my usual…”

Here we have the mother of all Bombshells as the decrepit finger of Spastic Santa scrolled too far on the mouse wheel of emails. In it Kary bragging, reveals of his DARPA ownership to the tune of $2m, stating that he would need 10-20m more so that he didn’t have to work with Fauci- who doesn’t seem to like him. So absolute confirmation that Kary worked for the Military Industrial complex, Big Pharma and the State. Confirmation that not only was there no feud with Fauci but indeed he was working with him. Maybe they were not friends, but that is irrelevant, they were working together in some capacity.

Mullis then goes on to blow the trumpet for “suave marketer” Ransack and his Colleague in Aneuploid Drug Grift, Peter Deusberg, saying that he has no doubt they will be rolling in dosh very soon. Once again an incredibly telling description of what these scumbags are ALL about- namely drug pushing and getting cash money.

“IT WAS AT THIS MOMENT HE KNEW HE FUCKED UP.”

Ultimately, I am not really all that bothered by this question. For me it would only make a lot of sense to meticulously pull it apart if the test was real and worked. Considering it is fraudulent and does not measure what it claims to measure, I think that it is completely irrelevant which actor or more likely group of actors devised it.

There has been a fantastic deep dive done by Omar Jordan here in this article called HERO BUSTING- KARY MULLIS EDITION. It is painfully obvious from his Autobiography, from his “paper” on “Latent Viruses” and his earlier Drug induced psychotic ramblings on Time Reversal that the guy was of less than moderate intellect. Combine this with his claim that he invented the idea whilst being off his gourd after an all nighter driving his “little Silver Honda” through some Mountainous regions of Northern California. The likelihood that this happened in any meaningful way is precisely zero. Could he have dreamt up a story for why two chemicals react together and put them into an entirely uncontrolled assay posing as a scientific test? Well of course, I could do that right now, in fact anyone could, that is the beauty of inferences, they are only limited by the far reaches of your imagination.

Q: Did Mullis actually invent or isolate or purify the polymerase that made the PCR work?

No. Kary Mullis did not invent, isolate, or purify the polymerase that ultimately made PCR practical. This is an important distinction in the history of PCR.

The polymerase was discovered before Mullis’s PCR

The enzyme now called Taq polymerase comes from the thermophilic bacterium Thermus aquaticus, which was isolated from Yellowstone hot springs in 1969.

The DNA polymerase from T. aquaticus was subsequently isolated and characterised by Thomas Brock’s group and colleagues, notably Alice Chien and others, with the key paper published in 1976.

So the chronology is roughly:

1969 → Thermus aquaticus isolated
1976 → thermostable DNA polymerase characterised
1983 → Mullis conceives PCR
1985 → PCR demonstrated/published in its early form
1988 → Saiki and colleagues demonstrate the major practical advantage of using thermostable Taq polymerase in PCR

Mullis therefore didn’t discover Taq.

What did Mullis actually do?

Mullis’s contribution was the PCR concept: using two primers flanking a target sequence and repeatedly copying that region so that amplification becomes exponential.

His Nobel Prize was specifically awarded:

“for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method”

—not for discovering DNA polymerase.

Interestingly, Mullis’s own Nobel lecture describes his work at Cetus and how he developed the PCR concept there.

And there is another important distinction

The original PCR did not require Taq polymerase.

Mullis and the Cetus team initially used a conventional DNA polymerase. Because the reaction involved repeatedly heating the DNA to separate its strands, the polymerase was damaged and had to be replenished.

The breakthrough that made PCR practical and automatable was the use of a thermostable polymerase—Taq.

The later work by Randall Saiki, Henry Erlich and colleagues at Cetus showed that Taq could survive the repeated high-temperature cycles. This eliminated the need to add fresh polymerase after every cycle.

The Du Pont v. Cetus dispute is one of the most important pieces of evidence for understanding what was—and wasn’t—new about Mullis’s PCR invention. It is also more complicated than “Du Pont said Mullis didn’t invent PCR and lost.”

There were actually two stages: a USPTO re-examination in 1989–1990, followed by the federal court/jury case in 1990–1991.

Duke University Library’s complete archive of the Du Pont v. Cetus case — including Mullis’s testimony, Kary’s deposition, expert testimony, closing arguments and verdict

1. What Du Pont was challenging

Cetus held two foundational PCR patents:

• US 4,683,202 — the famous PCR process patent.

• US 4,683,195 — another patent covering amplification/detection/cloning of nucleic-acid sequences.

Du Pont filed suit in August 1989, arguing essentially that these patents weren’t valid because the claimed process was already disclosed in earlier scientific literature.

This is important for your previous question because Du Pont wasn’t merely arguing that Mullis had collaborators.

Its argument went considerably further:

The essential PCR process had already been described before Mullis’s claimed invention date.

The central prior art came from research associated with Gobind Khorana at MIT, particularly work on what was called “repair replication.”

2. The Khorana work was the key prior art

This is where the case becomes scientifically interesting.

Khorana’s laboratory had been working on synthetic DNA and enzymatic replication during the 1960s and 1970s.

One particularly important researcher was Kjell Kleppe, who was working in Khorana’s group.

The 1971 paper:

Kleppe, Ohtsuka, Kleppe, Molineux & Khorana — “Studies on Polynucleotides: XCVI. Repair Replications of Short Synthetic DNA’s as Catalyzed by DNA Polymerases”

described a system involving:

• a DNA template

• short oligonucleotide primers

• DNA polymerase

• synthesis of complementary DNA

That was 12 years before Mullis’s claimed PCR invention date.

Du Pont argued that this and related Khorana work amounted to PCR—or at least disclosed enough of the process that the Cetus patent shouldn’t be considered novel/non-obvious.

The litigation archive actually contains the testimony of Ian Molineux, who was a professor at UT Austin and had been a postdoctoral researcher under Khorana when Ruth Kleppe was there.

3. Du Pont had some very serious scientific witnesses

This wasn’t a frivolous challenge.

Among the witnesses for Du Pont was Arthur Kornberg, who had won the 1959 Nobel Prize for his work on DNA synthesis and DNA polymerases.

There were also witnesses including:

• Ian Molineux

• other molecular biology experts

• scientists familiar with the Khorana work

The Duke archive contains the actual testimony, including Kornberg’s.

So Du Pont was essentially saying:

Look at what molecular biologists were already doing in the 1970s. The essential elements of this supposed invention were already known.

4. Cetus’s counterargument

Cetus didn’t deny that the ingredients existed.

Instead, its argument was essentially:

Nobody had actually disclosed the PCR process that Cetus patented.

The distinction centered on the exponential amplification produced by repeated cycles.

Think of it this way:

Earlier work

DNA template
↓
primer binds
↓
polymerase copies DNA
↓
product

That’s DNA synthesis/amplification.

PCR

Template
↓
denaturation
↓
primer 1 + primer 2
↓
extension
↓
denaturation
↓
both products become templates
↓
extension
↓
repeat

The number of target molecules approximately doubles each cycle.

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 32 → 64...

That exponential aspect became extremely important in the patent dispute.

The USPTO concluded that the earlier Khorana publications did not disclose this exponential replication feature.

5. The USPTO re-examined the patents

This is a very important part that sometimes gets left out of accounts of PCR’s history.

After Du Pont’s challenge, the US Patent and Trademark Office ordered re-examination of the Cetus patents.

The patent office examined the Khorana prior art and other material.

On August 23, 1990, the USPTO announced that it was upholding the validity of the Cetus patents.

The examiner concluded that the prior repair-replication techniques were too “indefinite and uncertain” to anticipate the patented PCR process.

Most importantly, the prior papers didn’t disclose exponential replication, which was explicitly part of the claims of the ‘202 patent.

A contemporary report in the Los Angeles Times also reported that the Patent Office had reaffirmed the two Cetus patents at the centre of the dispute.

6. Then came the actual trial

This is where the story gets particularly interesting.

The USPTO decision did not automatically end the dispute.

The federal case proceeded.

The trial took place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

And the Duke archive gives us something extremely valuable:

the actual trial documents.

You can find:

• Mullis’s testimony

• Mullis’s recalled testimony

• Henry Erlich’s testimony

• Arthur Kornberg’s testimony

• Ian Molineux’s testimony

• James Eric Dahlberg’s testimony

• closing arguments

• jury instructions

• the actual verdict

all preserved by Duke University.

7. Mullis himself testified

This is particularly relevant to your investigation.

Mullis didn’t simply have his patent speak for him.

He personally testified at the trial.

The archive has:

“Testimony of Kary Mullis” — February 5, 1991

and subsequently:

“Testimony of Kary Mullis, Recalled” — February 19, 1991.

So if you want to investigate the question:

“What exactly did Mullis claim he invented, and what did he say about the earlier work?”

the trial transcript is potentially much more informative than modern biographies.

8. What did the jury ultimately decide?

On February 28, 1991, the jury ruled in favour of Cetus.

The jury upheld the validity of the two fundamental PCR patents.

The published historical analysis describes the verdict as unanimous.

So legally, Du Pont failed to establish that the prior art invalidated the Cetus PCR patents.

That’s an important fact.

9. But here’s the subtle part

The verdict doesn’t mean that the jury determined that Mullis invented every component of PCR independently.

That is a much stronger proposition.

The legal question was essentially whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art and/or obvious.

And the distinction is crucial.

The evidence established that before Mullis:

• DNA polymerases existed.

• Primers existed.

• Synthetic oligonucleotides existed.

• DNA hybridisation was known.

• DNA replication mechanisms were understood.

• Polymerase-mediated copying had been demonstrated.

• Khorana’s group had performed repeated/repair synthesis experiments.

What the USPTO and jury found was that the prior art did not sufficiently disclose the complete PCR process claimed by Cetus, particularly the exponential amplification produced by cycling.

The later scholarly review of the case puts it very clearly: the USPTO found that the earlier papers didn’t disclose exponential replication, which was a hallmark of PCR.

10. This actually strengthens the historical distinction we were discussing

There are really three different claims that often get conflated:

Claim A

“Mullis invented PCR.”

This is broadly supported by the historical and legal record.

Claim B

“Mullis invented PCR completely from scratch.”

That is not supported.

PCR depended on a huge body of previous research, including Khorana’s work.

Claim C

“Everything Mullis did had already been done by Khorana and therefore Mullis didn’t invent PCR.”

The Du Pont case failed to establish this.

The USPTO and jury both rejected the argument that the prior art invalidated the Cetus patents.

11. And there’s another fascinating issue: Taq

The dispute also helps clarify something from your previous question.

Taq polymerase was not Mullis’s invention.

The Thermus aquaticus polymerase had been described years earlier, including the important 1976 paper by Chien et al.

The later practical PCR breakthrough was incorporating a thermostable polymerase into the cycling process.

Cetus subsequently obtained a separate patent relating to thermostable enzymes for PCR.

So modern PCR is really the combination of several historical developments:

Earlier DNA replication research
↓
Khorana/Kleppe repair-replication work
↓
Mullis’s PCR concept
↓
Cetus experimental development
↓
Taq polymerase
↓
automated thermal cycling
↓
modern PCR

That’s a much more accurate picture than the simple “Mullis invented PCR while driving through California” story.

One thing I would strongly recommend

Because you’re looking at whether Mullis genuinely invented PCR independently, I think the most useful next step is to examine the actual 1991 trial testimony, rather than secondary histories.

The Duke archive has the original documents freely available, including Mullis’s testimony and the testimony of Arthur Kornberg, Ian Molineux and Henry Erlich.

Duke archive — Du Pont v. Cetus original court documents

Mullis’s erratic behavior at Cetus wasn’t helping him bring anyone over to his side. A company party had to be shut down early after Mullis nearly came to blows with another scientist. He’d also begun dating a coworker in his lab, and the two engaged in public lovers’ quarrels. In one incident, he became jealous about romantic interactions between two labmates and threatened to bring a gun to work.

“It definitely put me in a tough spot,” White says. “His behavior was so outrageous that the other scientists thought that the only reason I didn’t fire him outright was that he was a friend of mine.”

As the saying goes; “There is no smoke without fire”. The image that he was a bad boy rebel threatening to shoot people in his lab because of a jilted romance, the damning inditement of his colleagues that he really wasn’t the brains of the bunch and heavily relied on others, the law suit between corporations that only seemed to be won by who had the greater legal firepower rather than any faction of truth. It goes without saying really, that even the mainstream story stinks to high heaven.

It takes no degree in psychoanalysis to cast a fairly good judgment over what kind of person we were dealing with when it comes to Mullis. He is in fact the most obvious candidate for being a Useful Idiot to an agenda. He plots so massively high on the Dunning Kruger graph ( ironically actually a statistic artefact confidently overestimated as noise), constantly bristling with pride and infatuation with the sound of his own voice yet under it all a deeply deeply stupid man.

I don’t really like this question either, as 99 times out of 100 there just simply isn’t the evidence to back up one way or other, it is mostly just gut feeling and pattern recognition. As mentioned before, my gut feeling about this is that the way that Mullis’ name is Segwayed into so many conversations feels really inorganic. For sure we have to account for Celebrity status as well as the Controlled Narrative surrounding his name, you would expect people to naturally talk about him in whatever capacity good/bad or indifferent, I am guilty of going further than that and researching and writing articles on him so am playing into the “there is no such thing as bad press” trap.

Taking all this into account I still feel that there seems something manufactured when it comes to online discourse about his caricature. It could have been that there has been such a large disinfo campaign during 2020 that it hit some kind of self perpetuating peak where there are enough people just blindly sharing his name as a virtue to mark that you are “awake” or “on the right side of history”. People tend to do this as a way of tribing, a collectivism that ingratiates you with new people much alike your favorite musicians and bands. You say I like Rage Against The Machine (ironically I am a massive fan of their music) and you meet people of a similar persuasion, the double irony being that their music is about Sticking it to the man, yet they enforced Vaccine Passports to attend their gigs (Yes this is true despite Tom Morrello lying through is teeth by claiming “The band didn’t enforce it” knowing full well the venue did).

This kind of deal could have “organically” come about or could have been very much seeded in, to poison the well. Looking a David Ransack’s dogged determination to shoehorn in, even to Kary’s own wife’s psyche the controlled narrative, that to me smacks of an orchestrated role. So it could be disseminated from major accounts with clout and it is just a continued slow pump to keep the lie alive and most importantly the PCR and Genetics lie alive: Certainly none of these people challenge the existence of genetics, most of them are heavily invested in this field which by Occam’s Razor we should conclude that these people are perpetuating the lie of Kary Mullis to keep their Genetics grift going.

But what of just the average person online that immediately splurges the name whenever they hear the three letters, like Pavlov’s Dog but with vomit on command. Personally I think the real testament is to see how quickly people change their opinion when presented with the facts, how much do they fight in the face of patently obvious information. I am aware that the majority of people haven’t the time or inclination to do what I do, which is to spend the early hours of the morning asking a CIA trained LLM to dig up information on dead egomaniacal surfers. So we have to cut a certain amount of slack that the aforementioned behavioral science applies to the unaware and largely unbothered.

Here’s the kicker, I have zero doubt that Ivermectin is 100% an orchestrated Psy-op by Big Pharma and the State to poison “Anti-Vaxxers” that “woke up” in 2020. I will be writing an article on this soon and will be perfectly obvious it is as such. The way that people flood comments sections with glowing reviews and links to Ivermectin for sale, immediate confrontation about their beloved Horse Paste and aggressive projection and name calling ( “you must work for Pfizer”) at anyone that points out the known “side effects” of Ivermectin and its shoddy story of how it works to only poison a little critter and not the person who swallowed the fucking stuff. You effectively very rarely (never) meet anyone in 2026 that arrives to defend Ivermectin on a post that will be persuaded by basic facts about its dangers, it will be called (with out the slightest wiff of irony) “safe and Effective”.

So what do I see with Kary Mullis? I see very much the same pattern that there are obvious keywords that are trolled by bots on Twitter that immediately spam the propaganda. There are lots of people that follow me, engage in my content in a positive way and then when it comes to those same trigger points have a massive blind spot to Mullis. Now it could be very plausible there are bots trained on my content to engage positively but to steer a narrative (that would be an intelligent way of doing things right? ) But the thing that I also see is that some people, a minority but a meaningful percentage (and growing) are receptive to the information and often see that Mullis is one big douchehole all along (yey).

I conducted my own little experiment to see just where we are with the propaganda. I set up a post and just mentioned the three little letters; PCR. I also said, as I do (because it is the truth) that the PCR test is wholesale fraudulent. And then watched for the replies.

I mean, that is inflated right? Considering I have bashed Mullis for more than 2 years now, quite a few of those accounts follow me, one would have thought they couldn’t be in the dark that much as to bothering to comment the same old toot? Anyway, repeating above, obtaining any real evidence or proof is incredibly difficult in the realms of Intention- it is the very top of the pyramid in Criminal law, something that really needs confessions extracting and I have neither the time, resources or wish to to do anything like that. So I leave it in your capable hands to discern for yourself.. Is this a carefully crafted Psychological Operation or just a case of mass ignorance about a clear and obvious State and Big Pharma employee?