I've been following this issue for years. I have concluded that most of the same people who villainize him for "believing in viruses" and being unclear about the nature and consequences of his own invention remind me of the pearl-clutching progressives and 'liberals' who despise America's founders for owning slaves when they would have certainly thought nothing of it had they lived in those times. Or railing against Nazis without understanding that, statistically, most all of them would be members of the party if they lived in that milieu. Mullis invented a useful tool, and warned colleagues sometimes to the point of tears NOT to use it for diagnostic purposes. His death is suspicious. Cut him some slack. I vote Hero.
I agree, Gerald. In my opinion, Mullis was definitely more "hero" than "villain." I think his words are powerful and are a major thorn in the establishment narrative. Hence, the attempts to distort and misrepresent what he said.
“As seductive as molecular biology has become, it is important not to equate it with virology. DNA, RNA and proteins are large molecules composed of repeated subunits (polymers). Viruses are infectious particles made of nucleic acid, proteins and other molecules. As Vincent Racaniello teaches his students “A virus is not the same as a virus [nucleic acid] sequence. If you isolate a 200 nucleotide sequence from a specimen that does not mean that the virus is present”. 180 In fact this matter was specifically addressed in the Parenzee leave for appeal hearing 181 when the Prosecutor presented a paper entitled “Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch’s Postulates” as evidence that genetic methods can be used to prove a virus exists. During cross-examination one of us (EPE) read to the court what the authors stated in their paper: “…with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear” (emphasis ours). Ultimately, the HIV experts, including Gallo testified, that to identify the viral genome the virus particles must be purified. http://theperthgroup.com/OTHER/ENVCommentary.pdf#page=37 ”
In summary, Mullis made the point, “PCR allows a scientist to turn a minute scrap of stuff into a helluva lot of stuff”. However, PCR does not tell you the provenance of that stuff. For those wishing to know more about this chronically neglected problem, please consider Eleni Papadopulos’ magnum opus, The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved”.
Addressing AI and virology in 2025 Racaniello says: “The point is they were able to identify many new RNA viruses that hadn’t been found before −161,000 putative RNA virus species, which is huge. Now, this is an example of how AI is transforming virology. They say putative, because they have just a sequence, right?. They don’t have virus so they don’t know if the virus actually exists…because just having a sequence doesn’t prove that there is a virus around”.
181. The Parenzee Case. In 2006/2007 Andre Chad Parenzee made an application for leave to appeal to his earlier conviction for endangering the lives of three women following “unprotected sexual intercourse…when he knew he was infected with the virus HIV”. (R v PARENZEE [2007] Supreme Court of South Australia.
182. Fredericks DN, Relman DA. Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates. Clin Microbiol Rev 1996. 9:18-33.
Your essay was enjoyable for insight into an interesting character. His willingness to buck convention was admirable. I agree on his importance for exposing the PCR fraud and your rationale for writing this piece. True thinkers learn and evolve. I like to think he would be our ally today.
I like to think that, even though Kary might not have been ready to accept the lack of scientific evidence for "viruses," "antibodies," germ "theory," etc., he would have been open to listening to the argument. I agree that he would have been an ally in this fight, regardless of whether he continued to accept the existence of "viruses" or not, and I think that his beliefs may have eventually evolved along the same lines as Dr. Mike Yeadon. It's too bad, and rather convenient for the establishment, that Kary is no longer available to discuss these topics.
"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."
I was thinking the same for chemotherapy. My mother died with cancer, yet chemo was what killed her. It's so pathetic when these sheep parrot the government and say, "Trust the science!™"
WHAT SCIENCE? Everything perceived authority figures claim that we need to trust the science™ for, is a fraud.
I'm sorry to hear about your mother, Holo Hoax. If I remember correctly, AZT was originally developed for cancer but it was ironically considered too toxic for cancer patients. They then convinced people to take it for HIV and their deaths were attributed to AIDS rather than AZT. It is definitely fraud on top of fraud.
Thanks Mike. Yes exactly! Through my own past research, I had come to the same conclusion about AZT being the true killer. I knew AIDS was a fraud, yet I never assumed that these frauds were so rampant throughout medical "science" at that time. Besides that, It wasn't something I was into researching back then. That led me to dig deeper and surprisingly, that took me to Peter Duesberg's book as well, as I have my own digital copy too! No such thing as coincidences..
Hhmmm, I recall a weasel clown-like humanoid . . . Oh yes, now I recall . . . I think his surname was Faurset or Faulty (spelling may be incorrect) that pushed AZT (Zidovudine) that was originally developed for cancer onto defenceless AIDS victims.
Many AIDS victims occurred due to/caused by receiving contaminated blood products.
Whilst other AIDS victims occurred due to immunodeficiency caused by hard drugs and poor nutrition.
Yes Mike Stone wrote, . . . "definitely fraud on top of fraud."
I say fraud on top of fraud stealing peoples dollars while they are slowly murdered. Oh dear, that sounds vaguely familiar during the past 5 years!
It's still bit mystery that neither Mullis nor Duesberg extended their conclusions about the status of HIV biomarkers not being proven causative agents of disease to the wider question of: "Have any of the other RNA or DNA biomarkers attributed to "viruses" been proven to be causative or contagious agents of disease?".
You raise valid criticisms of both men. They were certainly operating within the pseudoscientific paradigm and didn’t take their inquiries or challenges far enough. I try not to speculate, but perhaps they were balancing the desire to speak out with the need to maintain their reputations within their fields. It's unfortunate that they did not push even further with their challenges.
I don't find as I continue to read more and more that there are disease agents per se giving us something by their very existence. It seems most likely the outcome of huge variations in individual immune body health and responses. Hence the continued push for more and more DNA harvesting and analysis. Like Mullis, now I find myself asking questions to which there are no simple answers and even no experimental data.
I am a naturopathic doctor and my practice began in Southern California in 1978. My clientele mainly consisted of upper middle class patients, 15% of which were wealthy gay men. I was seeing these men as patients in my sports medicine clinic when the HIV/AIDS game began in the early 1980's. Although many of these men had numerous sexual partners, those that did not use immunosuppressive drugs like amyl nitrate, crack cocaine, became severe alcoholics, or eat poorly, never developed the clinical manifestation of the Fauci AIDS paradigm. Those that did use these immunosuppressive drugs to excess did develop these symptoms. Sadly, many of these men were given the DNA destructive poison called AZT, and even those taking lower doses of AZT eventually died. Mullis might have been a brilliant man, but he never realized or stated that no pathologic viruses have ever been proven to exist, instead the medical system used a basically worthless PCR test that simply presents a computer model of disease, and should have never been used to confirm any virus to be a real entity. So no HIV, no SARS COV 2, no Covid, no rabies, no anything claimed to be caused by a virus. Veterinarians kill more innocent dogs and cats from vaccinations and commercial pet food recommendations than any actual disease process kills them. Most if not all female dogs giving birth to sick puppies that die soon after weaning has been completed, were vaccinated soon before pregnancy had occurred, so again, there is no Parvo virus killing dogs. Your research into this paper Mike Stone was truly first class. Thank you for sharing this and reminding me of my clinical practice during the HIV/AIDS fraud years. Post edited on 2-22-25 to correct factual errors.
You are welcome, John. While it is unfortunate that Kary never fully realized the fraud of virology, he definitely did not promote PCR as a diagnostic test for "infectious" disease. I like to think that, perhaps with the right guidance, he may have come around on the fraud of virology in the same way Dr. Mike Yeadon did. However, Kary may have been too indoctrinated into the lie to see through it fully, or his financial incentives and prior accolades/awards may have kept him from speaking up for fear of losing them. Regardless of the speculation as to why he never fully cane around, what he left us with in terms of the HIV hoax and PCR is powerful.
Like all anti-heroes, some people hate him, some people love him, some find him unreliable, some find him hilarious.
As a change of pace, Mullis appeared on a documentary about astronomer Halton Arp. Turns out that cosmology is not really a science. Has a real galaxy ever been isolated and purified bruh? ;-D
I can't find the link to the video. These days some videos are being scrubbed from video sites, for whatever reason.
Mullis doesn't say much, about 3 minutes of footage in total. He explains that obviously the Universe has no edges or limits, and there are no other universes, if memory serves.
Just how easy it is to get things wrong in any Science, and how long-lived are the errors. Like Behaviorism, an error that never dies, or the huge topic of statistical inference, which permeates everything.
It can be an activity which adheres to scientific method or an arbitrary category of knowledge. They are not the same.
You do not need to prove that something exists if you can observe its existence. Isolation is required for verification of what it does or leads to in experiments.
With regard to galaxy or galaxies, they are just stories about local optical effects in the sky.
Cosmology is just an arbitrary category of knowledge. Such a category can be about unicorns too.
I have no doubt as to Mullis' integrity as a scientist and as a human being where he saw first-hand, the abuse of PCR in the AIDS heyday, the process being utilised to erroneously determine "viral load" - it was a crock then and conveniently without Mullis around during the advent of the Covid shitshow, there was no authoritative voice to reel in the pinnacle of PCR abuse when it was announced as being the gold standard for the diagnosing of SARS Cov 2 infection...
Supposing one did buy the germ (viral) theory of disease - even by their own standards, whether relying on Koch's Postulates or the Rivers' Criteria, nobody anywhere ever had actually purified or isolated a virus - so the one they claimed "was the probable cause of AIDS" - scant wonder that Mullis couldn't find a definitive paper on the subject - it didn't (and still doesn't) exist.
What blows my mind even more is the overt - in-yer-face fraud perpetrated by Luc Montagnier, that fellow who couldn't point Kary Mullis to his own research, which, bizarrely garnered him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his "discovery" of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Here's the first clue of his duplicitous nature - he was a virologist.... Say no more.
Howcome this obvious virological genius who had found the virus and presumably had some research on which he'd base his Nobel accreditation in time to come, couldn't give Mullis a straight answer - I mean, for fuck sake - he was the one who had discovered the damn thing - or had he...?
More stink in the State Of Denmark.
Mullis' belief in viruses notwithstanding, I think he demonstrated amply, time and again through his life that he was not in lockstep with any of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and he certainly didn't support the idea of PCR being the definitive diagnostic tool for anything. His scathing opinions of Gallo & Fauci are legion, and entirely valid. I mean, let's be honest here, if they haven't isolated and purified a virus, what fragment of the genetic material are they amplifying in the first place?
And with covid, the genetic sequencing was computer-generated for the sake of expediency and accuracy, we are told. When, in fact, we all know, they had to create some shit from somewhere so they had something to amplify and claim they had found the "cause" of Covid.
The smoke and mirrors is without end and it all started when Pasteur gained the public ear in the same way Robert Gallo and Margaret Heckler (April 1984) summarily announced they had found the probable cause of AIDS at a press-conference and.....(insert drumroll).... they miraculously already had a test that could diagnose it to a very high degree of accuracy...
What they didn't say was that Gallo's research was pulled apart by the scientific community and that the test wasn't actually for virus - it was for antibodies supposedly specific to the virus. So in absence of the actual virus (criminal), here were the antibodies that would fight the virus just ready to rumble (the cops) - so infection by association not by identification. You can't make this shit up - but they did. And it was bought, hook, line and sinker.
Ergo, they had to hang their fraudulent hats on PCR - that actually did something meaningful - but it was analytical not diagnostic in nature - but hey, the facts haven't ever stopped them before.
And to crown it all, the test inserts state quite categorically that it isn't a specific test and it does not prove the presence or absence of HIV. And by way of confirmation of that assertion, the test was so non-specific that there were circa 70 or so common conditions that lit up false-positives including flu, TB, cholera, hepatitis, malaria and even pregnancy...
The whole thing is a crock of shit and everyone knows it.
But hey, this is precisely how fake pandemics are concocted.
Celia Farber (a good friend of mine, and probably the spearpoint of the investigative dissident journalists during the AIDS era) interviewed Mullis on a couple of occasions - here's a link to the one she did, as chronicled in, the now defunct, Spin magazine. This link is a copy of the interview transcribed on the Virus Myth website. https://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfmullis.htm
It's worth a read, as is her book : Serious Adverse Events (an uncensored history of AIDS).
She's also fully skeptical of virology per-se, given her profound degree of research into this topic.
From what I can find, they are using RT-qPCR to determine Avian Flu in the chicken farms. Is that what you are finding on how they determine which chicken farms to cull, which seems like most of the big egg laying farms at this point?
Yes, I agree completely Art. They are definitely using fraudulent PCR results to claim entire flocks "infected" that are then culled. I wrote about and discussed this travesty here:
Thank you, Mike Stone. I was unaware of the debate regarding PCR to diagnose an infectious disease until someone recently left a comment at my blog, which led me to your informative and thorough publication. Everything hidden is being revealed. Some people's minds are more open than others. Planet Mind Control - A New Documentary trailer https://www.instagram.com/p/DGqhY0wzdB6/
Still by accepting the virus paradigm, that's enough to give the virologists and their minions the AMMUNITION to sink us. Without the virus there's no pandemic and without the pandemic there's no vaccination.
Analysis and Counterarguments to A Midwestern Doctor's Blog Post on Virus Debunkers
Examining A Midwestern Doctor’s Case Against Virus Skepticism
While I do think it is unfortunate that Kary clung to his belief in "viruses," his criticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and PCR's use as a diagnostic test for "infectious" disease is, IMO, powerful ammunition against the mainstream paradigm. We can use these quotes from Mullis that strengthen our argument while discarding those that do not.
I wonder if, were he alive today, he would have come around to the no-virus camp like Dr. Yeadon or stubbornly stuck to the position that A Midwestern Doctor continues to adhere to.
What got me started in my series of Substack blogs criticizing him was that he stated the virus debunkers (obviously including you) were ALL acting in "bad faith."
It seems to me if there was ever PROOF of a single virus, this debate is lost.
All we can say is there is no proof at the moment. It is completely unscientific to state there will never be such proof.
However, whether viruses exist or not, there has never been a pandemic, and whether there has ever been a pandemic or not, there is no need for a vaccine.
To refute B and/or C does NOT rely on proving A. It's irrelevant.
What the debate accomplishes is division within the community.
I'm not suggesting the debate about viral existence is stopped - far from it.
But it shouldn't be the foundation for getting rid of vaccines - some of which are supposed to target bacteria and parasites and they are now talking bollocks about targeting cancer with them.
In my opinion, for what it's worth, the focus should be on vaccines - not viruses.
Even if the virus debate is won, it doesn't destroy the concept of vaccines.
The idea that the virus debate is irrelevant to the fight against vaccines is fundamentally flawed. The very existence of vaccines is predicated on the belief that pathogenic viruses exist, spread, and cause disease. If that foundation is dismantled, then vaccines are exposed not just as dangerous, but as entirely unnecessary.
The argument that we should focus on vaccines instead of viruses ignores the reality that virology is what props up the entire vaccine industry. Governments, pharmaceutical companies, and health agencies have built their entire public health framework around the claim that viruses are real, that they cause pandemics, and that vaccines are the only way to control them. If that claim collapses, so does their entire justification for mass vaccination.
Moreover, the notion that proving the existence of a single virus would “win the debate” is a false premise. Even if one were proven to exist, that wouldn’t validate the entire field of virology, nor would it prove that vaccination is effective or necessary. The body’s natural immune system is more than capable of dealing with illness, and vaccines—riddled with toxic adjuvants—interfere with that process in ways that often do more harm than good.
The virus debate does not create division—it exposes the foundational fraud that justifies forced injections, medical tyranny, and the erosion of bodily autonomy. Without the virus paradigm, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and fear-based control mechanisms lose all legitimacy.
So no, the virus debate should not be sidelined in favor of focusing solely on vaccines. If we ignore the root of the issue, we allow the establishment to continue justifying their vaccine agenda under false pretenses. The virus debate is not a distraction—it is the very battle that must be won.
You say the virus debate shouldn’t be sidelined, yet you argue that proving viruses don’t exist won’t stop fabricated pandemics or vaccine mandates. But if the entire justification for vaccines rests on the existence of viruses, then exposing the flaw at the root of virology is essential. No virus, no need for a vaccine.
As for vaccines targeting bacteria, parasites, or even cancer—these efforts should be scrutinized just as closely. The industry may indeed be preparing for a future where the virus narrative collapses, but that doesn’t make these new vaccine justifications any more legitimate. The fundamental issue isn’t just vaccines—it’s the fraudulent science used to justify them in the first place.
Great read. In addition to the complaints you addressed, I’m also increasingly hearing from certain writers that he’s a fraud and PCR in toto is a fraud. Mostly it’s backed up by ad hominem. “Stupid, stoned surfer could never do anything worthwhile.”
I tend to think PCR has its uses and is used fraudulently by criminals, and that’s where our attention should be focused.
I think your own critique of the use of PCR for diagnosing the presence of any disease is sufficient in itself with or without Mullis's corroberation. Because ultimately the problem is a logical one. No doctorate or Nobel prize needed to evaluate logical validity. If Mullis had claimed PCR was valid for diagnosing disease he would have been guilty of a non sequitur and Mike Stone would be all over it.
Thank you, BuddhistRothbardian. I agree that there are far better critiques of PCR available today. However, given his authority on his own invention, Kary Mullis serves as a great resource for those who may not yet be ready to question the entire paradigm but are beginning to head in that direction. His examples certainly helped me in my journey, so I can see how they could help others as well.
If Mullis were alive today, I would absolutely challenge him on his claims regarding DNA, "viruses," "antibodies," and more. Unfortunately, he did not take his challenges far enough and seemed unaware of his own logical flaws and contradictions. While his wife insists his death months before the "pandemic" was not suspicious, its timing was undeniably convenient for the establishment, as it meant he could no longer be questioned or challenged. We can only work with what he left behind.
I really appreciate this article, especially as it follows my reading of a deeply unpleasant attack on Mullis as a scientist and as a person.
I won't enable the asshole who wrote it by identifying him, but the dismissive contempt which permeated the whole diatribe was quite noxious and I am grateful you balance the attempted damage in a sane and reasonable manner.
Regarding the sudden and convenient death of Mullis and the iterations of his surviving wife, this was also played on by the venomous writer. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Mullis was killed in front of his wife, with threats to her, and her surviving loved ones. This would certainly turn her into an overtly obsequious apologist for Fauci et al, would it not?
It's easy to induce a fatal heart attack in a captive.
Thank you, Ralph. I have been sitting on writing an article defending Mullis for awhile now. If I remember correctly, I first became aware of these attacks against him in 2021. I should have done an article back then, but the attacks seemed to go quiet for awhile and I felt that there were more important pieces to write. However, the article from the person you refer to definitely moved me to write this piece so that people will know the truth rather than be fooled by a complete misrepresentation of Mullis's position. I hope it helps anyone who may have been confused.
I've been following this issue for years. I have concluded that most of the same people who villainize him for "believing in viruses" and being unclear about the nature and consequences of his own invention remind me of the pearl-clutching progressives and 'liberals' who despise America's founders for owning slaves when they would have certainly thought nothing of it had they lived in those times. Or railing against Nazis without understanding that, statistically, most all of them would be members of the party if they lived in that milieu. Mullis invented a useful tool, and warned colleagues sometimes to the point of tears NOT to use it for diagnostic purposes. His death is suspicious. Cut him some slack. I vote Hero.
I agree, Gerald. In my opinion, Mullis was definitely more "hero" than "villain." I think his words are powerful and are a major thorn in the establishment narrative. Hence, the attempts to distort and misrepresent what he said.
Per his request, I am posting a comment that I received via e-mail from Val Turner of the Perth Group.
The following is taken from The Perth Group unpublished manuscript “HIV-A virus like no other” (search for Racaniello at http://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf).
“As seductive as molecular biology has become, it is important not to equate it with virology. DNA, RNA and proteins are large molecules composed of repeated subunits (polymers). Viruses are infectious particles made of nucleic acid, proteins and other molecules. As Vincent Racaniello teaches his students “A virus is not the same as a virus [nucleic acid] sequence. If you isolate a 200 nucleotide sequence from a specimen that does not mean that the virus is present”. 180 In fact this matter was specifically addressed in the Parenzee leave for appeal hearing 181 when the Prosecutor presented a paper entitled “Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch’s Postulates” as evidence that genetic methods can be used to prove a virus exists. During cross-examination one of us (EPE) read to the court what the authors stated in their paper: “…with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear” (emphasis ours). Ultimately, the HIV experts, including Gallo testified, that to identify the viral genome the virus particles must be purified. http://theperthgroup.com/OTHER/ENVCommentary.pdf#page=37 ”
In summary, Mullis made the point, “PCR allows a scientist to turn a minute scrap of stuff into a helluva lot of stuff”. However, PCR does not tell you the provenance of that stuff. For those wishing to know more about this chronically neglected problem, please consider Eleni Papadopulos’ magnum opus, The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved”.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/PapadopolousReallyAchieved1996.pdf
REFERENCES
180. This video virology lecture is no longer available. Racaniello V. What is a virus? 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C0r_-1DufM However it is at the WayBack Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C0r_-1DufM
In 2025 Racaniello says the same thing in the latest iteration of the same lecture. https://youtu.be/3pX0x3mC4Io?t=3131
Addressing AI and virology in 2025 Racaniello says: “The point is they were able to identify many new RNA viruses that hadn’t been found before −161,000 putative RNA virus species, which is huge. Now, this is an example of how AI is transforming virology. They say putative, because they have just a sequence, right?. They don’t have virus so they don’t know if the virus actually exists…because just having a sequence doesn’t prove that there is a virus around”.
181. The Parenzee Case. In 2006/2007 Andre Chad Parenzee made an application for leave to appeal to his earlier conviction for endangering the lives of three women following “unprotected sexual intercourse…when he knew he was infected with the virus HIV”. (R v PARENZEE [2007] Supreme Court of South Australia.
https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=8353). http://www.tig.org.za/Transcript_Perth_Group_evidence.htm
182. Fredericks DN, Relman DA. Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates. Clin Microbiol Rev 1996. 9:18-33.
Your essay was enjoyable for insight into an interesting character. His willingness to buck convention was admirable. I agree on his importance for exposing the PCR fraud and your rationale for writing this piece. True thinkers learn and evolve. I like to think he would be our ally today.
Thank you. 🙂
I like to think that, even though Kary might not have been ready to accept the lack of scientific evidence for "viruses," "antibodies," germ "theory," etc., he would have been open to listening to the argument. I agree that he would have been an ally in this fight, regardless of whether he continued to accept the existence of "viruses" or not, and I think that his beliefs may have eventually evolved along the same lines as Dr. Mike Yeadon. It's too bad, and rather convenient for the establishment, that Kary is no longer available to discuss these topics.
"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."
I was thinking the same for chemotherapy. My mother died with cancer, yet chemo was what killed her. It's so pathetic when these sheep parrot the government and say, "Trust the science!™"
WHAT SCIENCE? Everything perceived authority figures claim that we need to trust the science™ for, is a fraud.
I'm sorry to hear about your mother, Holo Hoax. If I remember correctly, AZT was originally developed for cancer but it was ironically considered too toxic for cancer patients. They then convinced people to take it for HIV and their deaths were attributed to AIDS rather than AZT. It is definitely fraud on top of fraud.
Thanks Mike. Yes exactly! Through my own past research, I had come to the same conclusion about AZT being the true killer. I knew AIDS was a fraud, yet I never assumed that these frauds were so rampant throughout medical "science" at that time. Besides that, It wasn't something I was into researching back then. That led me to dig deeper and surprisingly, that took me to Peter Duesberg's book as well, as I have my own digital copy too! No such thing as coincidences..
Another great book is The Medical Mafia by Ghislaine Lanctot https://archive.org/details/TheMedicalMafia
Great article as usual! Have a good day.
Thank you! Have a great day as well. 🙂
Hhmmm, I recall a weasel clown-like humanoid . . . Oh yes, now I recall . . . I think his surname was Faurset or Faulty (spelling may be incorrect) that pushed AZT (Zidovudine) that was originally developed for cancer onto defenceless AIDS victims.
Many AIDS victims occurred due to/caused by receiving contaminated blood products.
Whilst other AIDS victims occurred due to immunodeficiency caused by hard drugs and poor nutrition.
Yes Mike Stone wrote, . . . "definitely fraud on top of fraud."
I say fraud on top of fraud stealing peoples dollars while they are slowly murdered. Oh dear, that sounds vaguely familiar during the past 5 years!
Fauci. He pushed AZT.
It's still bit mystery that neither Mullis nor Duesberg extended their conclusions about the status of HIV biomarkers not being proven causative agents of disease to the wider question of: "Have any of the other RNA or DNA biomarkers attributed to "viruses" been proven to be causative or contagious agents of disease?".
Hi Pete,
You raise valid criticisms of both men. They were certainly operating within the pseudoscientific paradigm and didn’t take their inquiries or challenges far enough. I try not to speculate, but perhaps they were balancing the desire to speak out with the need to maintain their reputations within their fields. It's unfortunate that they did not push even further with their challenges.
I don't find as I continue to read more and more that there are disease agents per se giving us something by their very existence. It seems most likely the outcome of huge variations in individual immune body health and responses. Hence the continued push for more and more DNA harvesting and analysis. Like Mullis, now I find myself asking questions to which there are no simple answers and even no experimental data.
The thing is that alleged immune system has never been proven to exist. The same goes to DNA and nucleotides.
But DNA or DNA, or nucleotides are proven to exist?
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
I am a naturopathic doctor and my practice began in Southern California in 1978. My clientele mainly consisted of upper middle class patients, 15% of which were wealthy gay men. I was seeing these men as patients in my sports medicine clinic when the HIV/AIDS game began in the early 1980's. Although many of these men had numerous sexual partners, those that did not use immunosuppressive drugs like amyl nitrate, crack cocaine, became severe alcoholics, or eat poorly, never developed the clinical manifestation of the Fauci AIDS paradigm. Those that did use these immunosuppressive drugs to excess did develop these symptoms. Sadly, many of these men were given the DNA destructive poison called AZT, and even those taking lower doses of AZT eventually died. Mullis might have been a brilliant man, but he never realized or stated that no pathologic viruses have ever been proven to exist, instead the medical system used a basically worthless PCR test that simply presents a computer model of disease, and should have never been used to confirm any virus to be a real entity. So no HIV, no SARS COV 2, no Covid, no rabies, no anything claimed to be caused by a virus. Veterinarians kill more innocent dogs and cats from vaccinations and commercial pet food recommendations than any actual disease process kills them. Most if not all female dogs giving birth to sick puppies that die soon after weaning has been completed, were vaccinated soon before pregnancy had occurred, so again, there is no Parvo virus killing dogs. Your research into this paper Mike Stone was truly first class. Thank you for sharing this and reminding me of my clinical practice during the HIV/AIDS fraud years. Post edited on 2-22-25 to correct factual errors.
You are welcome, John. While it is unfortunate that Kary never fully realized the fraud of virology, he definitely did not promote PCR as a diagnostic test for "infectious" disease. I like to think that, perhaps with the right guidance, he may have come around on the fraud of virology in the same way Dr. Mike Yeadon did. However, Kary may have been too indoctrinated into the lie to see through it fully, or his financial incentives and prior accolades/awards may have kept him from speaking up for fear of losing them. Regardless of the speculation as to why he never fully cane around, what he left us with in terms of the HIV hoax and PCR is powerful.
" . . . Kary never fully realized the fraud of virology,"
Strongly Agree!
Great post!
I think Mullis was a Quixotic hero.
A subtype of anti-hero, if you will.
Like all anti-heroes, some people hate him, some people love him, some find him unreliable, some find him hilarious.
As a change of pace, Mullis appeared on a documentary about astronomer Halton Arp. Turns out that cosmology is not really a science. Has a real galaxy ever been isolated and purified bruh? ;-D
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851217/
I can't find the link to the video. These days some videos are being scrubbed from video sites, for whatever reason.
Mullis doesn't say much, about 3 minutes of footage in total. He explains that obviously the Universe has no edges or limits, and there are no other universes, if memory serves.
Just how easy it is to get things wrong in any Science, and how long-lived are the errors. Like Behaviorism, an error that never dies, or the huge topic of statistical inference, which permeates everything.
Thanks, Agent! While writing this article, the "anti-hero" label kept popping into my head. I think it is definitely appropriate in this instance. 🙂
"Science" has more than one meaning.
It can be an activity which adheres to scientific method or an arbitrary category of knowledge. They are not the same.
You do not need to prove that something exists if you can observe its existence. Isolation is required for verification of what it does or leads to in experiments.
With regard to galaxy or galaxies, they are just stories about local optical effects in the sky.
Cosmology is just an arbitrary category of knowledge. Such a category can be about unicorns too.
I have no doubt as to Mullis' integrity as a scientist and as a human being where he saw first-hand, the abuse of PCR in the AIDS heyday, the process being utilised to erroneously determine "viral load" - it was a crock then and conveniently without Mullis around during the advent of the Covid shitshow, there was no authoritative voice to reel in the pinnacle of PCR abuse when it was announced as being the gold standard for the diagnosing of SARS Cov 2 infection...
Supposing one did buy the germ (viral) theory of disease - even by their own standards, whether relying on Koch's Postulates or the Rivers' Criteria, nobody anywhere ever had actually purified or isolated a virus - so the one they claimed "was the probable cause of AIDS" - scant wonder that Mullis couldn't find a definitive paper on the subject - it didn't (and still doesn't) exist.
What blows my mind even more is the overt - in-yer-face fraud perpetrated by Luc Montagnier, that fellow who couldn't point Kary Mullis to his own research, which, bizarrely garnered him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his "discovery" of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Here's the first clue of his duplicitous nature - he was a virologist.... Say no more.
Howcome this obvious virological genius who had found the virus and presumably had some research on which he'd base his Nobel accreditation in time to come, couldn't give Mullis a straight answer - I mean, for fuck sake - he was the one who had discovered the damn thing - or had he...?
More stink in the State Of Denmark.
Mullis' belief in viruses notwithstanding, I think he demonstrated amply, time and again through his life that he was not in lockstep with any of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and he certainly didn't support the idea of PCR being the definitive diagnostic tool for anything. His scathing opinions of Gallo & Fauci are legion, and entirely valid. I mean, let's be honest here, if they haven't isolated and purified a virus, what fragment of the genetic material are they amplifying in the first place?
And with covid, the genetic sequencing was computer-generated for the sake of expediency and accuracy, we are told. When, in fact, we all know, they had to create some shit from somewhere so they had something to amplify and claim they had found the "cause" of Covid.
The smoke and mirrors is without end and it all started when Pasteur gained the public ear in the same way Robert Gallo and Margaret Heckler (April 1984) summarily announced they had found the probable cause of AIDS at a press-conference and.....(insert drumroll).... they miraculously already had a test that could diagnose it to a very high degree of accuracy...
What they didn't say was that Gallo's research was pulled apart by the scientific community and that the test wasn't actually for virus - it was for antibodies supposedly specific to the virus. So in absence of the actual virus (criminal), here were the antibodies that would fight the virus just ready to rumble (the cops) - so infection by association not by identification. You can't make this shit up - but they did. And it was bought, hook, line and sinker.
Ergo, they had to hang their fraudulent hats on PCR - that actually did something meaningful - but it was analytical not diagnostic in nature - but hey, the facts haven't ever stopped them before.
And to crown it all, the test inserts state quite categorically that it isn't a specific test and it does not prove the presence or absence of HIV. And by way of confirmation of that assertion, the test was so non-specific that there were circa 70 or so common conditions that lit up false-positives including flu, TB, cholera, hepatitis, malaria and even pregnancy...
The whole thing is a crock of shit and everyone knows it.
But hey, this is precisely how fake pandemics are concocted.
Celia Farber (a good friend of mine, and probably the spearpoint of the investigative dissident journalists during the AIDS era) interviewed Mullis on a couple of occasions - here's a link to the one she did, as chronicled in, the now defunct, Spin magazine. This link is a copy of the interview transcribed on the Virus Myth website. https://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfmullis.htm
It's worth a read, as is her book : Serious Adverse Events (an uncensored history of AIDS).
She's also fully skeptical of virology per-se, given her profound degree of research into this topic.
Here's her substack link: https://celiafarber.substack.com/
PS - keep up the great work
From what I can find, they are using RT-qPCR to determine Avian Flu in the chicken farms. Is that what you are finding on how they determine which chicken farms to cull, which seems like most of the big egg laying farms at this point?
Yes, I agree completely Art. They are definitely using fraudulent PCR results to claim entire flocks "infected" that are then culled. I wrote about and discussed this travesty here:
https://viroliegy.com/category/avian-flu/
The cull is political.
No. A Cult called Eugenics Affiliation. Research Billy Goat Gruff's background especially the parents.
The cull was made into politicies through monetary enslavement/gains and blackmail.
Look up "politics".
It's political.
Thank you, Mike Stone. I was unaware of the debate regarding PCR to diagnose an infectious disease until someone recently left a comment at my blog, which led me to your informative and thorough publication. Everything hidden is being revealed. Some people's minds are more open than others. Planet Mind Control - A New Documentary trailer https://www.instagram.com/p/DGqhY0wzdB6/
You are very welcome, Doreen. 🙂
Just: 🏆
Excellent piece. He was one of my sources of inspiration for my article Nobel Prizes and Mischief Makers in UncoverDC several years ago.
Thank you, SK. 🙂
Still by accepting the virus paradigm, that's enough to give the virologists and their minions the AMMUNITION to sink us. Without the virus there's no pandemic and without the pandemic there's no vaccination.
Analysis and Counterarguments to A Midwestern Doctor's Blog Post on Virus Debunkers
Examining A Midwestern Doctor’s Case Against Virus Skepticism
https://turfseer.substack.com/p/analysis-and-counterarguments-to
While I do think it is unfortunate that Kary clung to his belief in "viruses," his criticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and PCR's use as a diagnostic test for "infectious" disease is, IMO, powerful ammunition against the mainstream paradigm. We can use these quotes from Mullis that strengthen our argument while discarding those that do not.
I wonder if, were he alive today, he would have come around to the no-virus camp like Dr. Yeadon or stubbornly stuck to the position that A Midwestern Doctor continues to adhere to.
What got me started in my series of Substack blogs criticizing him was that he stated the virus debunkers (obviously including you) were ALL acting in "bad faith."
Here's one: Analysis and Critique of Nuanced Ideas and Simplistic Truths in the Context of COVID-19 by A Midwestern Doctor. The Good Doctor’s Tactical Diversion. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/analysis-and-critique-of-nuanced
I'd like to add a nuance to the debate:
The argument seems to go;
A) No such thing as a virus
B) Ergo, there can't be a pandemic
C) Ergo, no need for a vaccine
It seems to me if there was ever PROOF of a single virus, this debate is lost.
All we can say is there is no proof at the moment. It is completely unscientific to state there will never be such proof.
However, whether viruses exist or not, there has never been a pandemic, and whether there has ever been a pandemic or not, there is no need for a vaccine.
To refute B and/or C does NOT rely on proving A. It's irrelevant.
What the debate accomplishes is division within the community.
I'm not suggesting the debate about viral existence is stopped - far from it.
But it shouldn't be the foundation for getting rid of vaccines - some of which are supposed to target bacteria and parasites and they are now talking bollocks about targeting cancer with them.
In my opinion, for what it's worth, the focus should be on vaccines - not viruses.
Even if the virus debate is won, it doesn't destroy the concept of vaccines.
The idea that the virus debate is irrelevant to the fight against vaccines is fundamentally flawed. The very existence of vaccines is predicated on the belief that pathogenic viruses exist, spread, and cause disease. If that foundation is dismantled, then vaccines are exposed not just as dangerous, but as entirely unnecessary.
The argument that we should focus on vaccines instead of viruses ignores the reality that virology is what props up the entire vaccine industry. Governments, pharmaceutical companies, and health agencies have built their entire public health framework around the claim that viruses are real, that they cause pandemics, and that vaccines are the only way to control them. If that claim collapses, so does their entire justification for mass vaccination.
Moreover, the notion that proving the existence of a single virus would “win the debate” is a false premise. Even if one were proven to exist, that wouldn’t validate the entire field of virology, nor would it prove that vaccination is effective or necessary. The body’s natural immune system is more than capable of dealing with illness, and vaccines—riddled with toxic adjuvants—interfere with that process in ways that often do more harm than good.
The virus debate does not create division—it exposes the foundational fraud that justifies forced injections, medical tyranny, and the erosion of bodily autonomy. Without the virus paradigm, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and fear-based control mechanisms lose all legitimacy.
So no, the virus debate should not be sidelined in favor of focusing solely on vaccines. If we ignore the root of the issue, we allow the establishment to continue justifying their vaccine agenda under false pretenses. The virus debate is not a distraction—it is the very battle that must be won.
I specifically didn't say the virus debate should be sidelined.
I also specifically pointed out the fact vaccines also allegedly target real bacteria and real parasites - not just alleged viruses. And now cancer.
Maybe they know they'll lose the virus debate and are preparing for the future - ever think about this?
To say there is no division created in the middle of this discussion is a bit odd.
"Proving" viruses do not exist will NOT stop fabricated plandemics or vaccine production/madation into the future. IMHO.
You say the virus debate shouldn’t be sidelined, yet you argue that proving viruses don’t exist won’t stop fabricated pandemics or vaccine mandates. But if the entire justification for vaccines rests on the existence of viruses, then exposing the flaw at the root of virology is essential. No virus, no need for a vaccine.
As for vaccines targeting bacteria, parasites, or even cancer—these efforts should be scrutinized just as closely. The industry may indeed be preparing for a future where the virus narrative collapses, but that doesn’t make these new vaccine justifications any more legitimate. The fundamental issue isn’t just vaccines—it’s the fraudulent science used to justify them in the first place.
Great read. In addition to the complaints you addressed, I’m also increasingly hearing from certain writers that he’s a fraud and PCR in toto is a fraud. Mostly it’s backed up by ad hominem. “Stupid, stoned surfer could never do anything worthwhile.”
I tend to think PCR has its uses and is used fraudulently by criminals, and that’s where our attention should be focused.
I think your own critique of the use of PCR for diagnosing the presence of any disease is sufficient in itself with or without Mullis's corroberation. Because ultimately the problem is a logical one. No doctorate or Nobel prize needed to evaluate logical validity. If Mullis had claimed PCR was valid for diagnosing disease he would have been guilty of a non sequitur and Mike Stone would be all over it.
Thank you, BuddhistRothbardian. I agree that there are far better critiques of PCR available today. However, given his authority on his own invention, Kary Mullis serves as a great resource for those who may not yet be ready to question the entire paradigm but are beginning to head in that direction. His examples certainly helped me in my journey, so I can see how they could help others as well.
If Mullis were alive today, I would absolutely challenge him on his claims regarding DNA, "viruses," "antibodies," and more. Unfortunately, he did not take his challenges far enough and seemed unaware of his own logical flaws and contradictions. While his wife insists his death months before the "pandemic" was not suspicious, its timing was undeniably convenient for the establishment, as it meant he could no longer be questioned or challenged. We can only work with what he left behind.
I really appreciate this article, especially as it follows my reading of a deeply unpleasant attack on Mullis as a scientist and as a person.
I won't enable the asshole who wrote it by identifying him, but the dismissive contempt which permeated the whole diatribe was quite noxious and I am grateful you balance the attempted damage in a sane and reasonable manner.
Regarding the sudden and convenient death of Mullis and the iterations of his surviving wife, this was also played on by the venomous writer. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Mullis was killed in front of his wife, with threats to her, and her surviving loved ones. This would certainly turn her into an overtly obsequious apologist for Fauci et al, would it not?
It's easy to induce a fatal heart attack in a captive.
Thank you, Ralph. I have been sitting on writing an article defending Mullis for awhile now. If I remember correctly, I first became aware of these attacks against him in 2021. I should have done an article back then, but the attacks seemed to go quiet for awhile and I felt that there were more important pieces to write. However, the article from the person you refer to definitely moved me to write this piece so that people will know the truth rather than be fooled by a complete misrepresentation of Mullis's position. I hope it helps anyone who may have been confused.
I hope so too.
There are too many deviants on Substack to keep on top of all the lies. I wish I had more time to do more.
Even some of those who do seemingly good work get deeply and personally unpleasant if you dare question their narrative.
Thank you again for the balance.
how I can diwnload your ' Introduction to VirLieogy'?