Kary Mullis: Martyr or Menace?

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Disclaimer: The descriptions of what PCR is supposedly capable of in this article do not reflect my personal views on the technology. My intent is to provide an accurate representation of Kary Mullis’s perspective as the inventor of PCR. By referencing his own words, I aim to clarify how he envisioned its use and limitations, without endorsing or disputing those claims personally.

In 2017, I began my journey that ultimately led to uncovering the lies of virology. At the time, I was lost and searching for answers. The catalyst was the shock of a fraudulent HIV/AIDS diagnosis given to a loved one. Desperate to make sense of it and to support my loved one through the devastation of what felt like a scarlet letter, I turned to the internet for information. I needed to understand how an HIV diagnosis—one that didn’t align with my loved one’s timeline or history—could have happened. Little did I know, this search for answers would challenge and ultimately dismantle everything I believed about “pathogens” and disease.

Initially, I encountered the usual mainstream claims: HIV tests were said to be 99.9% accurate. But I wasn’t content to accept the approved narrative at face value. I needed to understand how such certainty was determined, especially when I knew the diagnosis of my loved one was false. My search eventually led me to a website called VirusMyth.com. It was there that a seed of doubt in virology was planted—one that would grow to change my life forever.

Eager to learn more, I delved into the works of those challenging the mainstream view. The voices of the Perth Group, Dr. Stefan Lanka, David Crowe, Dr. Roberto Giraldo, and others profoundly shaped my views—not only on the accuracy of HIV tests but also on whether HIV itself existed or caused a syndrome called AIDS. Yet, one voice stood out amongst the rest: Kary Mullis, the man credited with discovering polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, which had become central to the HIV diagnostic process.

I remember being astonished that the inventor of the very technology used to “confirm” positive HIV “antibody” tests not only challenged the entire HIV/AIDS dogma but also believed his invention should never be used as the sole means to diagnose “infectious” diseases. Kary Mullis’s account of his awakening resonated deeply with me. He described his desperate search for a single scientific paper—or even a collection of them—that could definitively prove HIV as the “probable cause of AIDS.” His fruitless quest, including a direct confrontation with HIV “co-discoverer” Luc Montagnier, is detailed in the foreword to prominent retrovirologist and HIV/AIDS skeptic Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus.

“In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they had hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, Dr Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, Dr Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.”

Mullis’s words deeply resonated with me, particularly his approach to uncovering the truth. Kary wasn’t a virologist or an “expert” in the HIV/AIDS narrative, but that didn’t deter him from investigating and going straight to the source. Using simple logic, Mullis meticulously searched for the foundational evidence supporting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis—even confronting Montagnier directly. Yet, he discovered that no one could provide the necessary scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis.

“I think it's simple logic. It doesn't require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. The fact is that if there were evidence that HIV causes AIDS-if anyone who was in fact a specialist in that area could write a review of the literature, in which a number of scientific studies were cited that either singly or as a group could support the hypothesis that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS-somebody would have written it. There's no paper, nor is there a review mentioning a number of papers that all taken together would support that statement.”

https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/ramullis.htm

The above quote from Mullis, taken from a 1994 Rethinking AIDS interview, had such a profound impact on me that I included it on the opening page of ViroLIEgy.com. It continues to serve as a guiding light in how I approach my own research to this day. Needless to say, Kary Mullis was instrumental in my awakening, and I’ve shared his words with many in the hope that they, too, might find value in his insights.

As “Covid” hysteria spread worldwide and PCR testing became central to the so-called “pandemic,” Kary Mullis naturally emerged as a pivotal figure in the information war. His warnings against using PCR solely as a diagnostic tool resurfaced, with memes and messages challenging the mainstream narrative. Mullis’s skepticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and his outspoken criticisms of Anthony Fauci—a key figure in both “crises”—became rallying cries for those questioning the official story. Many saw him as a hero who would have exposed the misuse of his invention to fuel panic over an unproven hypothesis. His sudden and suspiciously-timed death in August 2019, just months before the “pandemic,” further elevated his legacy as a rebellious voice silenced by the pharmaceutical cartel.

While many see Mullis as an unsung hero, others view him as a hidden villain designed to obscure the truth. Frustrated by the rise of Mullis as a martyr, these individuals seek to reframe him as a menace. They point to his unwavering belief in PCR, his acceptance of “viruses” and “antibodies,” his ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and his Nobel Prize win as reasons to discredit him. Critics have gone to great lengths to dismiss and smear him as a gatekeeper blocking access to the real truth, penning lengthy essays that lean on dubious connections to sow doubt and distrust. Perhaps the central argument from these individuals is that Mullis’s words have been misinterpreted, asserting that he actually supported using PCR as a sole diagnostic tool for “infectious” disease rather than opposing it, making him the monster responsible for current and future “pandemics.”

Two competing narratives surround Mullis—his role as a seeker of truth and his beliefs about the use of his invention. Whether he is the hero some revere or the villain others portray may always be open to interpretation. However, we can address what appears to be the central question that has fueled doubts about him: Did Kary Mullis truly believe PCR could be used as the sole method to diagnose “infectious” disease, as it was during the “Covid crisis?” Is he responsible for the misuse of his invention as a diagnostic tool to fabricate cases in order to declare “pandemics?” And will clarifying his views help resolve the confusion about him and sway opinions one way or the other? Let’s find out.