Kary Mullis說明為何以PCR檢測AIDS及SARS-CoV-2不可靠。

California microbiologist Dr. Curry Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993 for his development of one of the most widely used current techniques in molecular biology today, the PCR or Polymer Chain Reaction. This revolutionary technique allows scientists to take a sample containing a very minute amount of DNA and replicate that DNA sequence until there are many copies. One of the first applications of PCR was to analyze human tissue for the presence of HIV. PCR is commonly used in medical and biological research labs for the detection of virus culture in infectious persons. The people that are AIDS researchers now are getting neurotic if you ask them any questions. There was a time when I first started asking questions. All I wanted was where are the papers, just tell me the papers that you read that since you that HIV was the cause of AIDS. I need to reference those papers. I was working on a test for HIV with PCR. I need to write a little report to the NIH to say here is the progress we made. The first line of it was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. I thought that was true before I got involved. I said, what's the reference for that quote? I looked for it for about two or three years and I never could find it. And by the end of two years, I'd ask everybody at every meeting that I'd gone to that talked about AIDS. I'd ask, you know, I'd look through every computer database. There is no reference. There is nobody who should get credit for that statement. And that's a pretty weird situation in science where getting credit for a discovery is the most important thing in your life as a scientist. It's silly to hear people saying, you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS? You don't believe that? I mean, it's just a word, but it's a very, very important distinction, I think, and it's become a very emotional kind of thing because people actually, they get personally committed to what really is a body of evidence that can be analyzed by lots of people. And at this point, there's so much of it out there, nobody can really analyze all of it. But nobody can write a review of it that says HIV causes AIDS because of this. You know, if a postdoc were to write a review of their literature that showed without much doubt that HIV was the cause of AIDS, that guy would be famous. Now, there's 100,000 guys out there who've had the opportunity. Ten years has passed. We've been waiting for this star postdoctoral fellow to distinguish himself forever and get a lifelong grant from Tony Fauci, but he hasn't shown up. No one has bothered to write a definitive review. Any journal would take it. That right there proves that HIV does not cause AIDS. Just because Bob Gallo gets up, takes his sunglasses off and says, gentlemen, we discovered the cause of AIDS. That's all we have. New York Times article, CDC report, that's all we have. That's not enough. That's not enough to, you know, that is not sufficient to, like, publish even a meager little scientific paper somewhere. That isn't enough for scientists to believe some inconsequential fact about some star 50 light years away, you know. That's certainly not enough to treat, at the cost of billions of dollars a year and at the cost of a lot of lives and anguish and just destroyed, you know, lives have just been totally ruined by this thing on the basis of some flimsy little statement made by a guy who's known to be a crook in lots of other ways. He lied about a whole lot of other stuff. Why do we trust him there? He was a witness in a courtroom. We wouldn't trust his testimony. We've caught him in too many lies. You don't trust him anymore. Scientists are supposed to have some evidence that leads them tentatively to some conclusion or to some action. They're supposed to be able to show that to other scientists. Any interested person, in fact, who's willing to understand what it is that was used as evidence should be able to say, yeah, I agree with that. That makes sense using rules of inference that we've used since Aristotle. What they look for is surrogate markers and you heard that term battered about. Surrogate markers means, well, it doesn't seem to do anything for the disease, but it does every now and then do something for the level of CD4 cells that we measure or does something for this or that. Not that anybody really knows whether you want more or less CD4 cells at any particular time in your life. A lot of diseases cause CD4 to go up. A lot of diseases cause it to go down. Nobody's even sure if a CD4 cell is always a CD4 cell. It's just a marker on the cell at the time that they do this little counting procedure which is to stick a fluorescent tag on there and say the ones that light up have CD4 on the outside. And we don't really know what those cells do. The immune system is increasingly complicated. And the immunologists' brains are not nearly complicated enough to deal with it. We have these little, you know, there are theories all over the place, but no real competitive immunologist would tell you that CD4 levels was a sufficient, a surrogate marker for anything until we know more about it. But that's what they're using. That's what the FDA's saying, yeah. You don't have to show that it helps them. These protein inhibitors, same thing. Don't have to show that it helps the patient. You don't have to show a single life saved. All you have to do is show some little clinical indicator has changed in a way that somebody is hoping is going to make you better. The chances of you getting a human virus today are a hell of a lot higher than they were, say, 10,000 years ago. And it goes up in a funny way. Let's just say that there are an infinite number of retroviruses in the world because they're changing so fast you couldn't really count them. And as more and more people are in your life, you have more and more chances of getting retroviruses. Now, they all might be harmful. The chances are good that they are because they're just barely alive. But if you hang out with 1,000 people a year in a way that would maybe allow you to get some or most of their retroviruses, and they hang out with 1,000 people a year, you're hanging out with a fourth of the human race. You're getting all the retroviruses from all over the planet. Now, it might be that none of those things by themselves is going to hurt you. But we know that some of them do grow in your immune cells. And they come in. They come in at very low multiplicity. You don't make an immune response every time you get a retrovirus inside of you somewhere. But if you have a cell in your immune system that has a retrovirus in it and you promote that to clonality because it's going to be a part of an immune response, that cell, then the retrovirus will definitely escape. It will flower, in a sense. And it will then have to be dealt with by the immune system because there'll be enough of it showing in the blood that the immune system will go for it. Well, now, if you've got enough harm but different retroviruses in your immune cells such that every time you mount a new immune response, which means you probably take about 500 different immune cells and make a million copies out of each one of them, if you've got enough retroviruses such that one of those 500 is going to have a retrovirus in it that you've never made an immune response to before, you're going to have to make an immune response to it this time because if you make a million copies of the cell, it's sure the retrovirus is certain to flower, to, like, make infectious bodies, right? Then you have to make another immune response, right? It's called a chain reaction. Here we have a bunch of people that are definitely sick for some reason. It's likely that their behavior was so radically different than the behavior that had gone. It was an experimental kind of behavior in a way. It's not unlikely that they would have some kind of problems, some health problems. People stop sleeping and eating. People start using all kinds of substances instead of food, and they're associating with the world's getting more and more densely populated and they're spreading more and more diseases around. It's not totally shocking that those people should come down with some diseases that'll kill them. So we don't need to post that there was an infection going on since nobody actually did show that there was. Here comes Gallo and Maltinier and the NIH saying, that's right, it's something else. It's something you didn't have. You're not responsible for it. You're just the beginning of it. We're all going to get it. And they like that so much because they said, we can go right ahead and do what we're doing. We just have to do a few little things differently and we'll be okay. They cling to that. And they think if you suggest that it's their activity, that the way they live their life, that you're a homophobe or something, you're some kind of an idiot. There's something wrong with you. There's some of them that aren't that stupid. But there's a lot of them that are religiously associated with the notion, they believe in the notion that it is an infectious thing that will eventually sweep across the planet and kill everybody. PCR came along right about the same time that HIV did. And it was at CIDIS that people started looking with PCR for HIV. That was the only way to see it, except for culture, which was a long, protracted procedure, which a lot of times didn't turn out right. The cultures, the whole method, cell biology is a bunch of magic half the time. And those cultures, the people that say they can do quantitative estimates of HIV from cultures are just fooling themselves. The number of cases reported went up occasionally, expensively, because the number of tests that was done went up exponentially. How many doctors knew about HIV in 1983? Two. How many knew about it in 1985? Say 500. How many knew about it in 1986? 40,000. So that's where the curve came from. How much money did we make off of HIV this year? And they could have plotted that, and it would have looked the same. And they could have said, it's an epidemic, because we're making more and more money off of it every year. If it's just caused by needs, or it's just caused by homosexual activities, you're not going to really get a long, sustained public outcry against it, and nobody's going to want to spend $6 billion a year. They're going to say, well, we really don't like those people anyhow. Great. I can't think of a better solution to the homosexual problem than a disease that will kill them all. I mean, there would be congressmen that would talk about that quietly, not on television. So the CDC had to say, we can't say that. We've got to say it's got to be heterosexually transmitted. There's no proof that it's transmitted at all at that point. So why not just say, it's heterosexually transmitted too, because that made it a plague. And the CDC needed one. The CDC hadn't had a good plague since polio. Their funding was probably going to be cut back if they didn't come up with one. The guy that was the head of the CDC in fact wrote memos that had been obtained where he describes this as hot stuff. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. The scientists, like you say, they are considered the final arbiters of what's good for the planet or what's bad for the planet. And they haven't got the slightest idea. Instead of wearing white robes, they wear white lab coats. Instead of bringing you the word of God, they bring you the word of the EPA or whatever. And they don't have to understand what it is that they are making you do, in fact. And people, you know, I think they fall naturally into it because there is a need in humanity for something like a religion. Something that makes you feel a part of some larger kind of group. Something that you think, in spite of your worthy little life, makes you a part of something good, something big. And when beliefs get tangled up with facts, matters of fact become matters of religious kind of significance. Where if somebody gets mad at you for asking him a question in a scientific meeting or says, we're never going to have Carrie Mullis at the European Union of whatever kind of scientists. They put it in nature because he came in there and had the audacity to tell people that it might not be that bad to have sex. That AIDS might not be something you get from sex. That I don't see any evidence for it is all I said. I don't see any evidence for it. Why? You can't tell young people that. Today there are many scientists and physicians working within the conventional institutions who have similar viewpoints to those of the dissidents. Well, why don't they come out? Why don't they speak their minds? Is it possible that they take a look at what has happened when you do question the HIV equals AIDS equals death hypothesis? They've been suppressed. Dr. Peter Duesberg noted scientists was the main person in the line of fire. Peter is a very scholarly person in addition to being brilliant too. He's very careful. He doesn't say anything that he can't support. And also one of the most brilliant people and surely the most brilliant virologist. Peter Duesberg at the University of California Berkeley campus is seen as someone who is now dangerous. His funding has been cut off. Graduate students are encouraged not to take his courses. And I think his administrative duties have included being in charge of the department picnic. My funding, for example, from the National Institute of Health will not be renewed as of this year. And I may be out of business then. Also my colleagues have essentially communicated me. I'm not invited to meetings or hardly ever to meetings anymore. Not ever to one on AIDS. I'm not allowed to publish in the same journals anymore as I used to. Even as a member of the National Academy I cannot publish in the National Academy my views that drugs may be the cause of AIDS. And I have plenty of evidence to support it, to document my claim, which might be very relevant to the health of millions of Americans and people on this planet. Yet I'm not interrupted because I'm essentially considered to be an outcast or an odd man or somebody with controversial views. You know, I think we're on the wrong track here. You know, it's just like in political scandals. Follow the money trail. Figure out who's getting paid for this. Who's getting the money for those Western blocs. There's your person who's going to always come down on the side of, yeah, you've got a confirmation Western bloc, they call it. They don't even do them in England anymore. No, not since 1992. It's totally,,. And ask a doctor how it works. The doctor who prescribes this has got to have a Western bloc to confirm this ELISA positive figure. How does that work, doctor, sir? What are they now measuring about me that's different from what they measure with the ELISA test? He wouldn't know. He's not got any idea. I'll bet you there's scarcely 50 physicians in this country that know what a Western bloc really is. They know when to order it. And they know they get a kickback on it probably. AZT is an anti-retroviral drug that became the first drug approved for the treatment of AIDS and HIV infection in 1987. It was originally intended to treat cancer, but it failed to show efficiency and had unacceptably high side-effect profiles. However, the unavailability at that time for alternatives to treat AIDS affected the risk-benefit ratio greatly. The antiviral drugs are chemotherapies. They're all based on chemotherapies that have been developed 30 years ago, long before AIDS was known to kill human cells. Chemotherapies restricted to a few months and hope the cancer dies before you die. If you started taking any other chemotherapeutic agent for the rest of your life, it would be that agent probably that killed you. You know, when you give chemotherapy to somebody with cancer, you give them a round of it for maybe 14 days or a few days. Hopefully you're not going to kill the patient. You're going to kill the cancer. The patient's going to survive. But you don't keep giving it to him until he dies, because he certainly will. The way to get rid of AIDS is to stop funding it. Just stop everything that's called AIDS research. If somebody tries to get a grant for AIDS research, we don't do it anymore. We don't have AIDS. If you want to study pneumocystis carinii, we'll maybe look at your paper and see if you've got something to say about that. any one of those diseases by itself, try to cure it, we'll talk about that. The thing that I learned back in 1968 when I first published a paper by myself in Nature in a field that I had no expertise in at all, there are no old, wise men up there at the top of science, which I really did. Until 1968, I would have thought, you know, if you try to publish a dummy paper in a journal like Nature, it won't get published. If you try to publish a good paper in there, like I later tried to publish PCR, the invention of PCR in the same journal, and they didn't take it. It's up there. There isn't an up there there. The Academy of Science is just a bunch of idiots just like everybody else. The editors of journals, austere journals even, they're just busy with their little lives and stuff. There are no old, wise men up on the top, making sure that we don't do something really dumb.