This A-HOLE had the gall to write the following in a “personal message” where he was shilling for shekels (in the form of PAID subscriptions to his substack):

“PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH.

That’s what I’ve been delivering to you every day for 25 years.”

If so, then why did he NOT tell people the “whole truth”? Why was he a LIMITED HANGOUT CON OP until his dying day??

Lost in all of this undeserved canonization are some simple facts. I don’t expect everyone who was NOT there and who did NOT participate at all in our old “AIDS” dissident movement to grasp everything that happened with respect to all of the participants and all of the nuances, but it is eternally frustrating for me that many of my contemporaries from our old movement aggressively overlook this simple yet obvious fact:

OUR OLD AIDS DISSIDENT MOVEMENT FAILED MISERABLY!

This fact is true no matter how many people from back in our movement ignore it and no matter how many people from TODAY’S “alt health” community continue blissfully ignoring it. This is also why I cringe every single time I see our old “AIDS” dissident movement invoked today whether it’s a lying scumbag from our old movement doing it or some johnny-come-lately who clearly has NO FUCKING CLUE what he or she is talking about!

Figuring out WHY our old “AIDS” dissident movement failed and WHO is RESPONSIBLE for that catastrophic failure should be of paramount importance to ANY present-day novirus activist who is actually HONEST and who actually gives a SHIT about what they’re doing nowadays. One of the BIG problems with attempting that is the fact that there are NO trustworthy voices from back in our day who I would really trust to tell the absolute TRUTH about the events and people who were a part of our old “AIDS” dissident movement!

READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN! There are NO trustworthy voices from back in our day who I would really trust to tell the absolute TRUTH about the events and people who were a part of our old “AIDS” dissident movement!

One BIG clue as to who MIGHT be trustworthy is if that person has embraced or promoted the Controls Studies Project that Jamie Andrews is running. This is NOT 100% reliable, though, since some present-day “alt health” personalities who have interviewed Jamie and promoted his project ARE STILL LIMITED HANGOUT A-HOLES. However, if the person is NOT mentioning Jamie or his project IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT, then they are NOT AT ALL RELIABLE!

In the meantime, I implore all of you to PLEASE REFRAIN FROM INVOKING THE AIDS DISSIDENT MOVEMENT! You will probably get many things WRONG, and it really WON’T help your present-day arguments much at all if you refer to our old “AIDS” dissident movement. This is because, again, just like the NEWS FLASH they used to announce on the “Weekend Update” sketches during the early years of the “Saturday Night Live” TV show:

“This JUST IN: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is STILL DEAD”…

….So, too, is this obvious yet often forgotten fact:

“Our dear old, long-deceased ‘AIDS’ dissident movement is STILL DEAD”!

A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM LONGTIME DISSIDENT ROD KNOLL:

(I already published this message over a month ago as a NOTE. If you are not already checking my activity here on substack, you SHOULD. I won’t be posting many new articles here, but I DO post many notes and comments every month. My notes are available at THIS LINK .)

First I would like to take this occasion to debut yet another stellar phrase I’ve invented! LOL! I’m the one who coined the phrase “NO VIRUS INC” which refers to the broader community of influencers and “entrepreneurs” who are espousing “NO VIRUS” theories in the present-day 2020s dissident environment who are earning $ (some of them quite a LOT of $ -see below) while doing so! Later, I also coined the term “NO VIRUS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” to refer specifically to those LARGE '“NO VIRUS” entrepreneurs who are operating HUGE merchandise operations.

Now, I’m coining the phrase “GDS”. I believe there may be many types of “derangement syndromes”. In addition to “TDS” (“Trump Derangement Syndrome”), we truly DO have a “‘Genetics’ Derangement Syndrome” or “‘Genes’ Derangement Syndrome” (whichever one works best for you all and/or “catches on”). This is in reference to anyone who is still clinging to the notion that there are these sub-microscopic entities called “genes” which possess all levels and types of “powers”. It also conveniently refers to the horrible people I discuss in my note below.

A WARNING to everyone: there are several delusions that are now being spread here on substack pertaining to the people and events in our dear old now deceased “AIDS” dissident movement. These delusions include but are not limited to the following:

CLAIM: Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick and Kary Mullis were all heroes to our dissident movement.

FACT: These 3 were quite the OPPOSITE. All three of these a-holes were GENE-SOAKED liars (Rasnick is still alive and STILL A GENE PUSHER) who did everything in their power to maintain not only the FRAUD of the missing “virus” “HIV” but also to maintain the FRAUD of GENETICS. They were ALL suffering from the aforementioned “GDS” or “Genetics Derangement Syndrome”!

CLAIM: Celia Farber is a trustworthy source for recounting the history of our old “AIDS” dissident movement.

FACT: Farber has done everything she can to defend her daddy figures Duesberg and Mullis despite having VERY LITTLE knowledge of all these scientific issues that she has been ATTEMPTING to “cover” as a “journalist” all these DECADES.

CLAIM: So-called “HIV” has 3 so-called “genes” according to Rasnick

FACT: Various orthodox researchers have claimed that “HIV” has VARIOUS numbers of so-called “genes”, but of course there is NO PROOF that “HIV” has ANY so-called “genes” since there is NO proof that there are “genes” of ANY variety anywhere to be contained in ANYONE or ANYTHING.

SEE:

The Virology Controls Studies Project

The DNA Hoax

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology…

Read more

2 years ago · 273 likes · 148 comments · Jamie Andrews

(Part one of three parts) and

https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/

CLAIM: David Rasnick is a trusted and reliable source for speaking on scientific issues of our old “AIDS” dissident movement.

FACT: Rasnick was one of the WORST people who helped to SINK our old “AIDS” dissident movement. He always did everything in his power to SUPPRESS the Perth Group and Stefan Lanka and ANY attempt to bring the problems surrounding the “isolation” of “HIV” to a wider audience. See: https://tig.org.za/RA.htm

Rasnick’s later efforts and claims about “HIV” not being “isolated” ring hollow when one KNOWS THE REAL HISTORY of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED in our old dissident movement and WHO was responsible for helping to SINK US. Rasnick was free to make such statements about “HIV” NOT being isolated only AFTER the last of his BUSINESS VENTURES with PETER DUESBERG had dried up so he no longer had to defend Duesberg on the “virus” issue!

CLAIM: “AZT” is a purported “terminator” of so-called “DNA chains”

FACT: there are NO “chains” of “DNA” or “DNA” in any OTHER formations since there is NO FREAKIN’ “DNA” in the first place! SEE AGAIN:

The Virology Controls Studies Project

The DNA Hoax

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology…

Read more

2 years ago · 273 likes · 148 comments · Jamie Andrews

(Part one of three parts) and

https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/

“AZT” inflicts damage way too QUICKLY on cell lines in vitro for the method of action to be terminating of any so-called “chains” of “DNA”. The action “AZT” uses is most likely OXIDATIVE in nature, but neither DUESBERG nor any of his THUGS ever pointed that out! SEE: http://www.tig.org.za/Is_AZT_a_DNA_chain_terminator.htm

In a similar fashion, it has been demonstrated that NITRITE INHALANTS also inflict their damage through OXIDATIVE mechanisms. This is yet another point that NO ONE in Duesberg’s cabal ever points out because doing so would place too much focus on the “REDOX THEORY” of PERTH GROUP LEADER Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos. SEE: https://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/EPEMedHyp1992.pdf and https://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/EPEMedHyp1988.pdf

NOTE: This is by no means a complete list of all the delusions that are still being spread about our old “AIDS” dissident movement and who all the players were back then and what they all DID and said back then. I hope, though, that people are starting to see through these delusions, to draw their own conclusions about these events and these people from our old dissident movement, and I also hope that more people are learning who can really be trusted to tell the truth about all these things….

…and whose opinions should be IGNORED!

I hope to share more soon….Please STAY tuned….

Much like finding an old unreleased (or RARE) recording from The Beatles or Elvis, I recovered this old document that the Perth Group wrote and have decided- against my better judgment- to post it here for all to see again. This document was not the first time the Perth Group offered their thoughts on these issues nor was it the last, but it does offer some important insights. It has NEVER been seen in this format, and it has been unavailable at all publicly since 2016!

SOME BACKGROUND:

This document came about because the Perth Group were asked to answer questions put to them by members of an old, now-defunct internet FORUM during our old “AIDS” dissident movement. The thing is, though, I STARTED that forum (in its previous incarnation). You see, I USED to be the LEAD administrator of that venue! That is, I led that forum until I was KICKED OUT by underling admins whom I ENLISTED to help moderate the forum that I actually STARTED! The underlings who I INVITED to be co-moderators with me became increasingly upset with me when I began repeatedly and vehemently expressing on my own forum my increasing disdain for Peter Duesberg and his cabal who surrounded and supported him.

So they kicked ME out! LOL! (See again THIS LINK for a primer on our “civil war” that we had in our old “AIDS” dissident movement.)

BUT I DIGRESS!

Less than 2 years later, the new leaders of their stolen and renamed forum felt compelled to reach out to the Perth Group and ask them some questions which they eagerly wanted the Perth Group to answer. LOL! I admit I had to chuckle a little bit at that development! The Perth Group kindly asked ME if I would mind if they would answer the questions and agree to have their answers posted on the new forum. Eleni extended this courtesy to me because she KNEW about the history I had with these low-wattage bandits at this forum.

In response to their kind check-in that Eleni sent to me, I DID originally recommend to the Perth Group that they REFRAIN from participating in this exchange. My reason for urging the Perth Group NOT to do this was not at all partisan. By that time (late 2011), I was already sick and tired -nay EXHAUSTED- from all the stupidity I was having to endure from fellow lay people in our dear old “AIDS” dissident movement! I did NOT think much good would or could come as a result of this “Q & A with The Perth Group” thread as it was called! Instead, I urged the Perth Group to continue to pursue their work they were already doing at a more scientific level i.e., professional researchers and clinicians, and to IGNORE the lay public.

The stated goal of Perth Group leader Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos was to get PUBLISHED in peer-reviewed journals. They weren’t always successful at that, but she and her group definitely did achieve publication many times. This goal was even reiterated by Eleni herself in final public comments she recorded on a still-unreleased audio clip in December, 2021 just a few months before she passed away.

The Perth Group were NEVER under ANY obligation to offer ANY advice or recommendations to ANY member of the lay public! It was not their JOB to do this! It took me a while to figure this out as well. In fact, it really isn’t MY job either, to sit and hold the hands of stupid lay people who are trying to navigate this highly technical information often while possessing a very LIMITED understanding of ALL the issues at play! Frustratingly, this is often accompanied by poor reading comprehension skills! The problems such people have with grasping these issues are BEYOND MY PURVIEW!

At any rate, as they were wont to do, the Perth Group IGNORED my advice on strategy despite having asked me for it! (as they were also wont to do!). LOL! They went ahead and DID THIS “Q & A” document! And I even helped the Perth Group to proofread this document as I had done for MANY of their previous papers. This document has NEVER been posted ANYWHERE in THIS format as a single autonomous document. The geniuses who stole the forum from me thought it would be a good idea to have each single freakin’ question comprise one single freakin’ post on the forum! As such, this document was originally formatted and posted as a long THREAD of 4 PAGES of posts that forum readers had to navigate!

PERSECUTING PERTH

To this day, there still appears to be some lingering confusion about what the Perth Group said or “failed” to say or what they “recommended” or “failed” to “recommend” about various topics, such as ARVs and other issues that were understandably of pivotal concern for those who were diagnosed “HIV positive”. This document may answer some of those questions, but typically, in my experience, stubbornness and arrogance often accompany ignorance! So I suspect that at least for some people, confusion and anger (towards the Perth Group and towards ME) might probably continue for all eternity!

This document pasted below was written in late 2011 and posted online on the now-defunct forum in early 2012. The Perth Group also released another document around that same time (late 2011). When the Perth Group wrote THIS STATEMENT , it was written specifically in an effort to clarify their views to ESTABLISHMENT types, i.e., so-called “HIV experts”, physicians and researchers and NOT written as an appeal to lay people, stupid or otherwise. However, the Perth Group posted it on THEIR web site where all can see it. As one can plainly see, the Perth Group made NO actual “recommendations” with respect to treatments in EITHER document from 2011, including the one which I’ve copied below. It should be noted that the Perth Group were actually very conservative (with a small “c”) in BOTH of the 2011 documents where they discussed alternative treatments. In fact, the Perth Group actually expressed MANY caveats about such treatments, particularly so-called “antioxidants” and “supplements”.

I also distinctly remember a phone conversation that I had with Eleni in which she criticized Vitamin D supplements. She called Vitamin D carcinogenic. Then, after I asked her a few more questions about the mainstream claims of Vitamin D, Eleni paused for emphasis, and then she told me “Rodney, you do not ever have to worry about having enough Vitamin D!”

Eleni wrote much of this 2011 document just like she did all of the “Perth Group” documents, actually. Eleni comments in the document below about the charge of so-called “CD4 cells” and the REDOX state. These issues ARE STILL RELEVANT TODAY, as modern-day virus challengers are meticulously carrying Eleni’s work into the 21st century and expanding upon it brilliantly! SEE THIS POST.

In my experience, though, these subtleties often tend to get LOST IN TRANSLATION among a general audience. Sadly, as I had predicted back then, I don’t think EITHER document from 2011 had enough of any positive (pun always intended) effect on the forum’s concerned “HIV positive” leaders and members some of whom were the “questioners” who actually asked questions contained in this document I’ve copied and pasted below.

DEVASTATED DUESBERG DESPERADOS

You see, after they kicked me out of my own forum and stole it from me, the dimwitted bandits renamed their stolen forum and fashioned it into an online “kum-ba-yah” type “support group” for ALL dissident viewpoints (and NOT just the Perth Group’s most scientifically accurate approaches).

However, unfortunately for some of the “positive diagnosed” leaders and their rank and file members, their forum soon became DEVASTATED by DEATHS and “defections” among their members. The latter happened when some “positive diagnosed” people on the forum DEFECTED from the dissident movement to start taking the mainstream treatments. This tragic process was starting to happen and in fact was already actually underway among the readership on their new forum before the Perth Group’s “Q & A” document was posted there.

It should be emphasized that, in addition to this 2011 “Q & A” document which was never posted on their web site, the Perth Group felt compelled to waste their time during their last decade in public life repeatedly offering these “explanations” and “clarifications” of their views. They started with THIS 2006 DOCUMENT and offered more critical clarifications HERE and HERE and again HERE.

Years later (2016), the Perth Group offered what was to become their final version of an update to some of the issues they covered in this “Q & A” document and earlier “clarifications” in THIS 2016 DOCUMENT. This document is actually a “user friendly” explanation of the “Redox Theory” which was Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos’ main overarching theory of cellular function and structure. At least that is what the Perth Group called the document. Apparently, though, it is NOT “user friendly” enough for SOME dissidents!

This “user friendly” explanation was incorporated into all of the supplementary articles that accompanied “HIV - A Virus Like No Other”, the Perth Group’s comprehensive swan song magnum opus (and final manuscript on “HIV”). In the main manuscript of “HIV - A Virus Like No Other”, the Perth Group ALSO greatly expanded their analyses of the so-called “anti-retroviral” drugs. However, the epilogue of this story is that, by this time (~2016), the stolen and renamed forum was just a shell of its former self. By then, ALL 3 of the “positive-diagnosed” co-moderator morons who I invited to join the forum (and who subsequently STOLE IT from me) had started taking the ORTHODOX PHARMA “anti-HIV” meds!

Despite my fears that once again I may be tossing “pearls before swine”, I reluctantly offer here and now the “Q & A With The Perth Group” document from 2011 for all to see:

(THE PERTH GROUP’S ANSWERS ARE IN BOLD)

ANSWERS FROM THE PERTH GROUP

NOVEMBER 2011

ISOLATION, PURIFICATION, PHOTOGRAPHS

1. Distinction between purification and isolation
   Purification: get particles that are clear of any other debris.
   Isolation: get identifiable particles.
   Is that the distinction between purification and isolation in a nutshell? Purification implies isolation but isolation does not necessarily imply purification?

The dictionary definitions of these words are:

PURIFICATION: To take a substance out of another substance(s) that contains it.

ISOLATION: To separate a substance from all others. Free a substance from its combinations.

Which means purification and isolation have the same meaning.

When it comes to purification of virus particles there is no semantic problem because virologists use the word according to its dictionary definition. However isolation is a different matter. Virologists do not use the word according to its dictionary meaning, that is, separating a collection of infectious particles from everything else that is not those particles. As retrovirologist Robin Weiss says in the ENV video, the term “isolation” is “jargon” and “imprecise”. To an outsider not in the know, which includes most AIDS experts and most doctors, isolation comes across separating the object (virus) from everything else and thus axiomatic proof that the virus must exist. What virologists actually mean by isolation is they have detected one or more phenomenon in a cell culture which convinces them a virus is present. But to detect something that specifies a virus first you must have something which is 100% specific for that virus. For example, an enzyme or other protein or a nucleic acid. Because these are constituents of all biological material, in order to obtain such specific entities the virus particles must be separated from the rest of the culture. Which means the virus particles must be purified. The need for purification is inescapable. As documented by the experts themselves in the ENV video and commentary. So when you hear virologists say they have evidence of reverse transcription and call it “HIV isolation” you know this cannot be scientifically correct because they have never shown that “HIV” has a specific reverse transcribing protein because the virus particles have never been purified. Similarly, when they add an antibody to a culture and detect a reaction and call that “HIV” isolation it is equally incorrect because without virus isolation there is no way to prove the existence of viral proteins (antigens) and the specificity of the antibody/antigen reactions. Several sections of the ENV commentary and endnotes discuss “isolation”.

2. Comment on certain photographs of HIV, at Wikipedia, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HI...2bbb_lores.jpg
   ("No such pictures were published" 35:00). How should we be able to spot fraudulent photographs? What kind of photograph would constitute proof: would it have to be one taken in conjunction with a properly executed isolation (ie centrifuged to 1.16 g/ml banding level)? Re Montagnier's comments (from 26:26) to the effect that you also need to know the density, RT activity: I would add morphology, though that can presumably be determined from the EM photograph.
   

We do not think this picture is fraudulent. However, no kind of picture, even if it is an image of the 1.16 g/ml band, constitutes proof that a particle, no matter how viral-like it may seem, is an infectious particle and hence a virus. The most one can say from an EM is that particles are virus-like and then if and only if the particles have the correct morphological characteristics. As far as this EM is concerned we cannot even tell if the particles have the correct size (diameter) because the EM does not include a size-bar. Size is a highly significant taxonomic property as Gelderblom asserts in the video. For example, you cannot have a particle whose diameter is twice that of a retrovirus particle and still call it “HIV”, as per the Bess particles in the video. In addition we are not told the origin of the particles in the lores.jpg. For example, they may have originated in a monkey.

3. I understand the centrifuge method of purifying viruses, but how to prove that it is pathogenic and indeed the virus we are looking for?

The only way to prove “HIV” is pathogenic is to purify the virus particles and inject them into an animal. That is, to have an animal model. This is exactly what Montagnier said in 1985 but even today no such a model exists. However there is a mouse model that bears a remarkable resemblance to AIDS in humans which unfortunately has been ignored.(1)Perhaps this is because it is a non-infectious model. Not only is there no infectious animal model, as far back as 1986 when Gallo added unpurified “HIV” to cell cultures he was unable to obtain a cytopathic (cell killing) effect.

4. Is centrifugation still being used to purify/isolate viruses?

Yes but not as part of routine clinical practice.

ANTIBODY TESTS

5. Are antibody tests the only way the industry tests for the presence of viruses? For example, how do they know if someone has the flu and, more precisely, what strain of the flu the person has? When the swine flu "epidemic" hit last year (or was it two years ago), they didn't bother testing for very long and I get the impression that the "diagnosis" is extremely haphazard: if the "flu du jour" is swine flu and someone comes down with a bad flu, then s/he has swine flu.

No. Antibody tests are not the only way of detecting the presence of a virus. But they are widely used because they are technically less demanding to perform and much cheaper than other tests such as PCR and especially isolation. Basically the laboratory buys antibody test kits and follows the manufacturer’s directions. There are many skilled serologists who do this every day in many laboratories around the world. But antibody test kits need viral antigens (to test for the presence of antibodies) and these must be taken from the virus of interest and so first you have to prove there is a virus and then purify the virus in order to obtain its proteins. Then you must prove the specificity of the reaction using the virus as a gold standard. Nowadays scientists also use nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) as diagnostic reagents and the same requirement applies. Like viral proteins (antigens) the ultimate origin of a viral DNA or RNA has to be from purified virus particles. This is also asserted by the many HIV experts we cite in “In a nutshell” at the conclusion of the ENV commentary.(2)

Repeating Professor Dominic Dwyer

“Well, in the diagnostic sort of situation what that really is looking for is looking for presence of those conserved bits of genetic material that you know to be the pathogen, be it HIV or flu or whatever, you then use that technology to see whether those sequences or those bits are present in something else, in another clinical sample, for example. And that really now has become, you know, the main method of diagnosis of many pathogens in a laboratory now…I mean with genetic testing – I guess the upside of course is you can do it on everybody, it’s pretty cheap, it’s extremely reliable and robust, the downside is that you have to know the genetic structure to begin with, you have to have the genetic sequence of what you are after. So when a new virus emerges, like SARS, you can’t necessarily use, reliably, nucleic acid testing until you get the sequence of that new virus for the first time. So then in fact you are in a first identifier, you are required to use these more traditional methods of virus culture and microscopy and so on”. That is, evidence for virus purification.

6. A number of people [including one of our moderators] who have received an HIV positive antibody test result went on to develop AIDS symptoms. Some of these people have had no other indication of ill health than the positive test result. Now, this might be explained by the fact that antibody production as measured by the tests is in itself a sign that something may be amiss in the body. However, these people try a number of remedies that turn out to be unsatisfactory. Their health declines further and they finally try ARV therapy and their health (or symptoms) improves. But if the remedies are targeted against a (possibly) non-existent virus, why would they work?

It’s very important to draw a distinction between serology tests and therapeutics. There is no doubt, at least in the risk groups, that having a positive antibody test is not something one would want by choice. If the antibodies are not retroviral a positive test still has to have a cause and whatever that may be it is likely to be a factor in what subsequently happens to that person’s health. And we must not imagine the mere fact of knowing you are HIV positive is something that can be trivialised.3 See also www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750786?src=mp&spon=45 (You can sign up if this link asks for a login).

All drugs have multiple pharmacological actions and if you see beneficial effects it’s referred to as “the drug effect” (favorable implied). If it’s not a beneficial effect the term is militated as “ side effect” or “unwanted effect” or toxic effect. They’re all effects. The drug doesn’t know what you desire. It just follows the rules of chemistry. So it’s not in the least surprising that the “specific” RT and protease inhibitors have effects on diseases which are not due to putative “anti-HIV” effects. It turns out that no matter how intelligently a drug is designed, proving drug efficacy still remains an empirical exercise. That is why it is necessary to resort to time consuming and costly clinical trials. The drug is given to a large group of individuals, hopefully as part of a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial, and the outcomes measured. If drug X results in an improvement in health and well-being and longevity in HIV positive men who have tried “a number of remedies that turn out to be unsatisfactory”, that should be cause for rejoicing. But the good news does not prove a retrovirus HIV exists or that such a virus causes a positive antibody test or low T4 cells or AIDS. You ask why should such drugs work? We ask why not? Proteases are a broad class of enzymes that degrade proteins and are present everywhere. Google “protease wiki” to learn of the extent. Do ARVs have the wit to ignore every protease except the “HIV” protease? And this is only one possible reason why they may have an effect. Their effects both good and bad may involve hundreds of unknowns. In our AZT paper we wrote:

“In addition, there is in vitro evidence that AZT, as well as another nucleoside analogue (ddG), 'can exert a potent antiviral activity against HBV [hepatitis B virus]', as judged by suppression of the replication of hepatitis B virus in 'hep g2-derived hepatoblastoma cells' (107). According to its manufacturers, AZT had 'an ID50 of 1.4 to 2.7 microgram/ml against the Epstein-Barr virus, the clinical significance of which is not known at this time'(25).”(REFERENCES HERE)

7. This question has to do with what a virus is.
   
   In the interview (see video above) after around 18:11, Baltimore says "lots of it [reverse transcription] is just repeated elements that are there as what we generally consider to be parasitic DNA, DNA which is selfish, in there because it is able to copy itself and reintegrate itself in other places - and this is something that goes on all the time ... and it builds up"...
   
   I have seen photographs of exosomes that look exactly like their so-called HIV budding from a cell. Exosomes can shuttle mRNA from one cell to another. Incidentally, exosomes are vesicles and Montagnier says (39:00) that vesicles also band at the 1.16 g/ml density gradient.
   

There is an extensive body of scientific knowledge on exosomes. They are particles which vary in size (30-100nm), they band at the sucrose density of (1.13-1.19 g/ml), they have a bi-lipid envelope (like retrovirus particles) and have protein and RNA constituents. And you’re right. They can look like retroviruses. However, with “HIV” particles there are even bigger problems because (i) there are so many different morphologies (a “zoo”) seen on EM in “HIV” cell cultures. This is described in detail in section 8 in our response to Robin Weiss;4 (ii) even today the experts don’t agree on the morphology of “HIV”; (iii) it is not only exosomes that may mimic “HIV”. Other types of particles may look like retroviruses and band at 1.16 gm/ml.

8. Given the difficulties in nailing down HIV as a pathological virus, or even as an existing one, are there such problems with other viruses? Are the lines as blurred as would be implied by their resemblance to exosomes and the Baltimore & Montagnier quotes? Are exosomes typed (or could they be), like viruses (ie type C, D, lentiviruses – do these have their analogues among exosomes?)

We can only talk about the very limited number of viruses we have studied. However, a cursory look at an atlas of virus taxonomy shows there are many virus particles which do not look like exosomes. We do not know if exosomes are “typed”, that is, classified into various morphological groups.

9. Janine Roberts (Fear of the Invisible) even suggested that what we call viruses may actually be an endogenous mechanism by which the body adapts to some stress, rather than some exogenous pathogen. In effect, could current HIV theory be putting the cart before the horse.

Janine Roberts is not the first person to say this.

Peyton Rous, the father of retrovirology and discoverer of the chicken tumour retrovirus named after him (Rous sarcoma virus), the most studied retrovirus up till the AIDS era, said this in 1911: "The first tendency will be to regard the self-perpetuating agent active in this sarcoma of the fowl as a minute parasitic organism. Analogy with several infectious diseases of man and the lower animals, caused by ultramicroscopic organisms, gives support to this view of the findings, and at present work is being directed to its experimental verification. But an agency of another sort is not out of the question. It is conceivable that a chemical stimulant, elaborated by the neoplastic cells, might cause the tumour in another host and bring about in consequence a further production of the same stimulant". Apparently Rous did not believe he had discovered a virus even after the invention of the electron microscope made it possible to see such particles. We have also specifically addressed this issue in a response to Peter Duesberg.⁽5 ⁾

In 1928 Boycott wrote: “As to its origin, all the evidence seems to concur in indicating that the Rous virus arises de novo in each tumour...we have to admit the possibility that, as in the Rous sarcoma, the viruses which we associate with certain diseases are not their original causes though they may be the means by which they are propagated and carried on”.

Twenty years later Darlington wrote: “There is no doubt therefore that the cancer determinants [viruses] arise as mutant particles in the cytoplasm”, caused by “aggregation” which, according to us, is the result of cellular oxidation.

In the 1970s Robin Weiss did not exclude the possibility that retroviruses are the result not the cause of cancer.

In 2006, addressing the relationship between “HIV” and AIDS, we submitted a letter to Lancet arguing that AIDS causes “HIV”.⁽ 6⁾

10. Another possibility is: can one man’s exosome be another’s virus?

No. They may look the same, may have proteins and nucleic acids but they have totally different properties.

11. Has your research led you to similar questions and can you shed light on this?

We have studied “HIV”, “SIV”, “FLV” and “Friend/deHarven leukaemia virus” and in our view the data do not prove their existence.

12. How has it been established that HIV is unstable and that its knobs easily come off. “Protein envelope easily comes off” (Barré-Sinoussi). Does the purification via high speed centrifuge damage the particles, thus making their morphology impossible to determine? (36:50).

A good question. “HIV” particles do not need to go through high speed centrifugation to lose their knobs. The only time particles have knobs is during the process of budding. There is no proof the released particles have knobs. See ENV commentary pages 26-27.

13. Can viruses that have lost their protein envelope or knobs regain them?

No.

14. Can a viruses' type (ie C, D, lentivirus) be determined from its complete genome?

If you have already proven the existence of an infectious particle which has a unique genome then yes.

ELECTROPHORESIS

15. Electrophoresis separates proteins in a gel according to their molecular weights (p. 19). Can it also make viruses move through the gel, thereby isolating them in a manner that might be gentler than centrifugation? (What is the effective approximate molecular weight of a retrovirus?)

We don’t know of any evidence but we doubt it. Viruses are very large relative to molecules.

16. Re the banding patterns on page 21: have banding patterns for various diseases been studied and do these diseases have characteristic patterns? Or, alternatively, do certain symptoms have characteristic banding patterns? This would be very useful for refined antibody testing, which you support (point 3 here).

Montagnier’s profile consists only of proteins that reacted with antibodies. Not the full complement of proteins. See ENV commentary endnote 45. We are aware that scientists are now making use of protein arrays to profile certain diseases but as far as we know these are not restricted to those that react with particular antibodies. Please note that protein microarrays are proving the extent that antibodies, including monoclonal antibodies, are not specific.⁽ 7⁾ See ENV commentary endote 19.

THE ARVs

17. (Comment) From your October paper, point 4: For example, if the French scientist Jean Umber is correct, protease inhibitors are reducing agents and thus may act as anti-oxidants. There is also evidence that both reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors have multiple pharmacological actions including “Apoptosis Enhancers, Antibacterials, Antifungals, Antimalarials, AntiSARS and Anti-Influenza Agents” and “antitumor”

We attach the Mastrolorenzo paper where the above quote can be found.

18. This is an important point requiring further study on our part. But in passing, just as the HIV tests appear to have been rigged, something similar might apply to the medicines: since purification/isolation has not been achieved, the medicines have almost certainly been developed against symptoms rather than an evanescent virus. And with the success, in certain cases, of medicines purportedly targeted at HIV, people perceive this as proof of the HIV.

We certainly agree that the criteria for a positive HIV antibody test have been adjusted over the years to fit the profiles of AIDS patients in the developed countries. The “tuning” of HIV antibody tests is discussed in our Mother-To-Chid Monograph, pages 1-7. Also see Dr. Elizabeth Dax’s testimony at the Parenzee hearing.⁽ 8⁾ We have no idea what has happened to the first generation of HIV positive gay men diagnosed (and many treated with large doses of AZT) on the basis of a single p24 or gp41 (or both) band on the Western blot. By today’s criteria they would not be diagnosed HIV positive.

In developing countries this matter is much more complicated where, for example, the majority of “HIV-free” individuals infected with the leprosy mycobacterium, as well as their healthy contacts, have antibody profiles which would be deemed HIV positive in most places in the world. Significantly tuberculosis, the main AIDS indicator disease in developing countries, is caused by a mycobacterium which shares many antigen features with the leprosy bacterium.

According to Canadian researchers, "In TB as well as in lepromatous leprosy, an immunosuppressive state will frequently develop in the host. This state is characterised by T lymphopenia with a decreased number of T helper cells and an inverted T-helper/T-suppressor cell ratio ...immunosuppression induced by the infection with M. tuberculosis can persist for life, even when TB is not progressive".⁽9⁾ Yet these patients do not have high frequencies of KS, PCP or other AIDS indicator diseases. In a paper published in 1984 the authors reported that in Haitians living in the US “tuberculosis usually precedes the diagnosis of the syndrome [AIDS] by 1 to 17 months...and responds well to antituberculosis drug therapy”.⁽10⁾ Yet HIV is said to be the cause of the immune deficiency and TB (AIDS).

Again in Africa, in 1985 Gallo and his colleagues⁽11⁾ tested stored blood collected in 1972/73 from 75 healthy, six-year-old children living in the West Nile district of Uganda. Two thirds were found to be HIV antibody positive on the most "specific" test, the Western blot. The only way these children could have picked up HIV was from their mothers who, in turn, were infected by their husbands. However, in 1972 Uganda was HIV and AIDS free and, since even today very few “HIV-infected” children survive into adulthood, especially without treatment, one must conclude that whatever "HIV" antibodies are, they cannot be the result of infection with a lethal, AIDS causing retrovirus. As we showed in our paper on AIDS in Africa⁽ 12⁾ and our rejected commentary⁽13⁾ on the 1994 Mulder Lancet paper, many Africans with non-lethal, common “non-AIDS” diseases also have a positive “HIV” antibody test.

We have not undertaken a detailed analysis of ARV treatments except for AZT monotherapy. We do not believe that ARVs have been “rigged” or “developed against symptoms”. Those engaging in pharmaceutical research accept the existence of “HIV” and develop and test drugs in light of their conviction. If a drug looks promising as an “anti-HIV” agent one way or another it will be tested in humans and if the results appear beneficial it will be introduced into clinical practice. However, that does not mean the benefits are due to an “anti-HIV” effect, as illustrated in the Mastrolorenzo paper ⁽14⁾. It is also a fact that most of the ARV treatments have been trialled in gay men and the results in this group are not automatically transferrable to other groups. As May et al report in a paper published Lancet 2006:

“The discrepancy between the clear improvement we recorded for virological response and the apparently worsening rates of clinical progression might be related to the change in the demographic characteristics of study participants, with an increasing number of patients from areas with a high incidence of tuberculosis. For example, in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study there was a steady increase in the number of patients from sub-Saharan Africa. These patients were younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to have been infected heterosexually than other study participants. Also, they had lower CD4 cell counts at presentation, and the most frequent AIDS-defining event was tuberculosis. Similar trends have been seen in other European countries and in North America”.⁽15⁾

Of considerable annoyance to the PG the new owners of Current Medical Research and Opinion (Informa Healthcare) claimed they “lost” the online version of our 1999 peer-reviewed review paper⁽ 16⁾ on the pharmacology of AZT when they purchased the journal from its previous owner. We asked the editorial staff to reinstate this paper, sending them our original copy. This they have chosen not to do. Neither will they return our repeated requests to do so. AZT is still the most used “anti-HIV” drug but, as we argue in our paper, given the existence of “HIV” it is not possible for AZT to inhibit the replication of HIV. This information should be available for all but Informa Healthcare has decided otherwise. Perhaps you or one of your correspondents would be prepared to take up this issue.

19. What is the definition of AIDS that TPG uses?

We do not use any AIDS definition and we have not made up our own. The fact is that over the years there have been several definitions but with the exception of the CDC 1982 and the WHO 1985 Bangui definitions (which according to the HIV experts are not used anymore anywhere), all definitions include the following: a decrease in T4 cells + one or more of approximately 30 indicator diseases + “HIV”, that is, a positive antibody test. Note: Since 1993 the CDC AIDS definitions (used only in the USA) AIDS no longer requires the presence of an indicator disease. A T4 cell count <200 cells/uL plus a positive antibody test = AIDS. In other words “HIV” is now the common denominator in all definitions. No HIV = no AIDS.

20. My query largely involves the specificity of the PG's alternative explanation and lack of specificity in what they consider to be "AIDS." First, I would like them to tell us what they consider "AIDS." For example, if someone has a Th1 to Th2 immune system "shift," and experiences "immunodeficiency" symptoms, is that an "AIDS" case, regardless of any other issues (such as the person not having been exposed to excessive oxidative stress)?

Th1 to Th2 immune system shift has never been part of the AIDS definition. Furthermore, the Th1 to Th2 shift and vice versa is regulated by the redox state. For your interest, at the beginning of the AIDS era we predicted the decrease in T4 cells is not due to cell killing by “HIV” or any other agent but by a change in their charge, that is, an alteration in cellular redox. As a consequence of this the CD4 antibodies used to count the cells will no longer bind to the cell surface and this is what explains their apparent decrease. This prediction was confirmed by the HIV experts although they call it “down regulation” of the CD4 molecule. We also predicted that changes in cellular redox lead to a transformation of CD4 cells into CD8 cells (“phenotypic change”) while the sum of CD4 + CD8 remains more or less constant. This is exactly what is found in AIDS patients. A decrease in CD4 and increase in CD8.

21. Next, I am interested in knowing if they realize that in the early days of "AIDS," there seemed to be a few different manifestations of it (the book, "One Boy At War," a first hand account, for example, documents this perception). One involved thrush, low CD4s, and fatigue, whereas the other involved lymphadenopathy, elevated sedimentation rates, fevers, and night sweats. Then there were the KS cases, which didn't necessarily involve any of those other things. Moreover, even before these phenomena, there was "gay bowel syndrome," for example:
    
    Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1976 Mar-Apr;6(2):184-92.
    "Gay Bowel Syndrome: The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases."
    Kazal HL, Sohn N, Carrasco JI, Robilotti JG, Delaney WE (1976).
    
    Abstract: "The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10% of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum. Of 21 patients with biopsy diagnosis of nonspecific proctitis, 8 had a specific infection which was detected by other means,--5 cases of shigellosis and one case each of gonorrheal proctitis, amebiasis and lymphogranuloma venereum. In evaluating proctologic problems in the gay male... Concurrent infections with 2 or more pathogens should be anticipated. Chlamydia trachomatis, an important cause of nonspecific urethritis in the general population, is high on the list of possible causes of the nonspecific proctitis present in 31 of the 260 patients."
    
    In the book, "When AIDS Began," a public health expert in NYC in the 70s is quoted as saying that people were dying of this back then (I think that's an exact quote but I'm not certain). The point is that GBS seems to fit the PG's idea about "AIDS" better than the phenomena of the 1980s, considering the KS cases and the apparent different diseases that eventually got classified as "AIDS." Thus, my question is, have the PG considered the variety in the symptoms and the apparently different syndromes? And how do they view the GBS cases of the 1970s?

Yes we recognise there are AIDS prodromes such as AIDS related complex (ARC) and the persistent lymphadenopathy (PGL) syndrome and gay bowel syndrome (GBS). But these are not part of the AIDS definition and the reason is simple. One of the very first MAC studies found these conditions were highly prevalent in both HIV positive and HIV negative gay men. We wrote about this in one of our special edition Genetica papers.⁽ 17⁾ Once scientists accepted the existence of HIV and its causative role in AIDS they had no choice but to exclude these conditions from the AIDS definition. Otherwise they would have been faced with large numbers of “HIV-free” AIDS cases.

22. Third, have they considered a more "multifactorial" explanation? As I posted a couple days ago here, a number of new, potentially immunosuppressive factors arose in the 1960s or a bit later, including:
    
    1. Bactrim/Septra begins to be used.
    2. Highly oxidizable oils used in the diet in much greater amounts.
    3. Many more people infected with real viruses like CMV and EBV.
    4. "Sexual revolution," leading to excessive antigenic exposure among certain demographic groups.
    5. Sharp rise in "recreational drug" use.
    6. Sharp rise in corticosteriod use (prescribed by doctors).
    7. Sharp rise in strenuous physical activity (leading to jogging craze, which I think was 1970s).
    8. Sharp rise in "supplement"' usage.
    9. Household products being used that contained benzene.

    My question here is, do you dismiss the multifactorial idea or are you claiming that all the factors produce oxidative stress and are thus covered under the OS umbrella? If so, shouldn't you make it clear that anal exposure to semen is just one factor?

Perhaps you are not entirely familiar with our work. In a 1994 commentary by Jon Cohen one reads: “Although Duesberg’s is the first name that comes to mind when HIV skeptics are mentioned, he was not the first to question the HIV/AIDS connection, as he acknowledges: “I’m generously now credited by lots of people for hypotheses which I’m embarrassed to admit are not my own,” says Duesberg. But unlike his predecessors, “Duesberg carries visible credentials,” as Robert Gallo...puts it”.¹⁶⁽ 18⁾

We are among the people who did not and still do not carry “visible credentials”.

How can we “dismiss the multi-factorial idea”, when we were the first to put forward such an idea?⁽19⁾⁽ 20⁾⁽ 21⁾⁽ 22⁾ With the exception of points 7-9 with which we agree, our theory includes everything else. We must point out that Michael Callen, John Lauritsen and other gay men proposed a role of drugs in the development of AIDS in gay men even before we did. The difference between them and us is that they addressed their role only in gay men while we included the other risk groups and more importantly we provided a unifying mechanism.⁽²⁰⁾ There were also many scientists who considered one or another of the points 1-6. However, once “HIV” was declared the cause of AIDS everything else was promptly forgotten.

Anyone claiming we have considered semen is the only cause of AIDS in gay men is misinformed. In fact we have never said semen per se is a cause of AIDS but the quantity of semen to which a gay man (and a heterosexual woman) is exposed over a period of time. This is what the epidemiological data repeatedly show including that reported in the best planned and conducted and longest running studies, the MAC studies. As we have pointed out to David Crowe time and time again, the pathological effects of semen can be compared to that of the sun in relation to skin cancer. The problem is not the sun itself but the cumulative dose of solar radiation. This in turn depends on one’s latitude and how much time one spends in the sunshine. Compare Australia to Britain for example. The toxicity of semen has been in print in the scientific literature for over a century. Some of these data are cited in our paper on Kaposi’s sarcoma.⁽²²⁾

23. Lastly, I will close by citing a few studies on the possible immunosuppressive effects of strenuous exercise, in order to demonstrate that a strong claim can be made just for this one factor alone:
    
    "A trauma-like elevation of plasma cytokines in humans in response to treadmill running."
    Abstract: 1. Elevated levels of cytokines, especially interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1ra, can be measured in the plasma of athletes after exhaustive long term exercise.
    2. The present study investigates the kinetics of several cytokines and chemokines in ten male athletes before, during and after 2.5 h of treadmill running at 75% of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2,max). Blood was sampled before, every half-hour during running and every hour in the following 6 h recovery period.
    3. The plasma concentration of IL-6 increased after 30 min of running, and peaked at the end of running with a 25-fold increase compared with the pre-exercise value. IL-1ra increased only after running, and peaked after 2 h of rest with an 18-fold increase compared with the pre-exercise value. No changes were found in the concentrations of IL-1β, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)α, IL-15 and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1β, and the concentrations of IL-8 and MIP-1α were below detection limits.
    4. The results suggest that very early events in exercise trigger the release of IL-6, and that the cytokine response to exercise has similarities to that observed after trauma.
    http://jp.physoc.org/content/513/3/889.full

We agree with you. Repeated strenuous exercise leads to cellular oxidation.

24. What message does TPG have for those people who are affected with both a positive HIV antibody test result, and with poor health? I belong to this group. I have long had questions about the orthodoxy's attempts to explain how an exogenous retrovirus destroys my immune system. I do not and have not yet had any of the classic AIDS-defining illnesses, such as PCP or KS, but I do have a 13 year history of declining CD4 counts, and in the last year a viral load that is soaring exponentially. I also have a laundry list of diagnosed heath problems, including multiple auto-immune disorders.
    
    Many people come to the AIDS dissidence community seeking alternatives to the conventional, allopathic medical system that only knows to prescribe ARV cocktails, and to measure clinical results with imprecise or poorly understood laboratory markers of CD4 counts and PCR "viral load". I have rejected that course of treatment as being unsustainable, with unacceptable risks of adverse drug reactions, though I reserve the right to change my mind about taking ARVs at any point in the future.
    
    My approach since 2007 can basically be summed up as trying to simply "be healthy" by paying attention to what I put into my body and how I live. That includes choices about sexual behavior, diet, stress reduction, elimination of environmental stressers and toxins, and much, much more. I have also pursued some so-called alternatives to try to restore/rebalance my immune system, such as high dose intravenous vitamin C and low dose naltrexone. I am also convinced that Affected people can benefit from some supplements, particularly antioxidants, and glutathione-boosting substances, such as NAC and selenium. Despite these efforts, I feel that my overall health continues to decline, and the orthodox clinical markers that I have tracked do happen to correlate with that.
    
    I admire the scientific work of The Perth Group, and I hope we in the dissident community can find new and better ways to share your insights and findings to help others avoid finding themselves in the place I now find myself. I'm just curious, as clinicians yourselves, if you think there is a message for helping people recover from AID(S), or if we should consider it a chronic, lifetime condition that can possibly be slowed, but not reversed?

Thank you for your kind words regarding our work. At present no member of the Perth Group is a practising physician and at no time has anyone of us cared for AIDS patients. In Australia AIDS patients are attended by infectious disease specialists and immunologists. As already pointed out, we have not undertaken a detailed examination of the evidence regarding combination ARV treatments. In other words we are more or less ignorant about the orthodox treatment of AIDS. However, since in our view:

1. there is no proof for the existence of HIV, any beneficial effects of ARVs must be due to “non-anti-HIV” effects. If they work, how they work is of secondary importance;

2. (i) the T4 cells are not killed but their properties including their antibody binding abilities are altered as the result of oxidation.

   (ii) The cause of the indicator diseases is not “HIV” but the altered “terrain”, induced by oxidation.

In regard to treatment we consistently state that general attention to one’s health is most important. This includes a list of all the things one should do as well as what one should avoid. It is also vital that patients are assessed by competent physicians skilled in diagnosis and treatment and the diseases present are treated as they would be in the absence of “HIV”. Since all HIV positive and AIDS patients are oxidised it follows their health can be improved by normalising the redox. Unfortunately this is much easier said than done.

When treating cellular oxidation one must bear in mind the following:

1. Anything taken in excess is harmful - including therapeutic compounds which include anti-oxidants.

2. The redox state of the patient is measurable and must be regularly monitored just as one would for example with a patient’s weight or blood pressure.

3. To measure redox one requires the services of a competent laboratory using the right test. The results of these measurements dictate how the doses of anti-oxidants are adjusted.

4. Orthodox physicians are not aware of the importance of redox in AIDS.

5. The approach to alternative treatments by many practitioners is unscientific. Many times the treatments have opposite effects, for example, the simultaneous use of ozone and anti-oxidants.

6. The most favoured anti-oxidant is vitamin C. However although vitamin C is an anti-oxidant relative to metals, it is an oxidant relative to sulphydryl (-SH) groups which are the main determinant of cellular redox. Hence, depending on the conditions and dose, vitamin C may act as either a reducing or an oxidising substance. The evidence is that in high doses vitamin C is oxidising.

7. Many people are advised to take co-enzyme Q10. However, Q10 comes in two forms. ubiquinone (oxidised) and ubiquinol (reduced). Yet both are prescribed as anti-oxidants.

8. Anyone taking NAC needs to appreciate that the presence of metallic compounds (for example zinc) or oxygen will cause oxidation. The cysteine in NAC (its –SH group) is rapidly oxidised to cystine (-SH replaced with S-S). Thus a mixture of NAC with other compounds in the form of tablets or capsules may undergo oxidation and hence the NAC loses much if not all of its anti-oxidant property. As does NAC by itself in tablet form exposed to air.

9. In regard to selenium, it appears to us that commercially available preparations do more harm than good.

In our view too many people use too many supplements. Generally speaking, unless there is laboratory or clinical evidence for a deficiency in vitamins or anti-oxidants, all these substances should be obtained from food. As Hipprocrates said “Let food be thy medicine, thy medicine shall be thy food”.

END OF “Q & A WITH THE PERTH GROUP” DOCUMENT

Rod Knoll’s NEW AND EXPANDED DISSIDENT BIO

REFERENCES

HAH! I fuckin' TOLD YOU SO! HERE is an interview with Kary Mullis' widow. I met her and got to hang out with her for a day when I worked on that seminar that her husband gave way back in 1997 for the "AIDS" dissident organization I was "working for" at that time.

In this interview from 2021, however, Nancy Cosgrove Mullis seems quite literally to be BEGGING for forgiveness from the friggin' ESTABLISHMENT and even apologizing to fucking FAUCI of all PEOPLE! She refers to people who claim that her husband Kary Mullis was killed as "COVID LOONIES"!! It contains many DAMNING quotes from the woman who was CLOSEST to Mullis! She REALLY hates the dissidents!

If anything, this interview is FURTHER evidence of Kary Mullis’ CLOSE TIES to the establishment! I will add more to this post if I deem it necessary…Also, please see my previous analyses of Kary Mullis HERE and HERE .

WARNING: The following audio clip contains *HARSH LANGUAGE*! I am a freakin’ POTTY MOUTH, so don’t say I did not WARN YOU!

The conversation in the following audio clip BEGINS AT AROUND the 1:33 time mark. Here is this audio clip:

If you’re also on Twitter, you’re in luck! I have found more original links to SOME old recordings of “spaces” that I did on Twitter/X last year (2023)! I recently deleted other posts that contained copies of these recordings because those links were recently deleted by another substack author. These links are from the original “spaces” and contain the original recordings.

HERE ARE THE RECORDINGS OF THE TWITTER SPACES AND THEIR LINKS:

1. The first discussion is a LONG recording, and I entered this discussion around the 6:00 timestamp. Go to THIS LINK and skip ahead to the 6:00 timestamp. I don’t think that much discussion occurred before that timestamp.

2. The second discussion occurred a week later, and I entered that discussion around the 44:20 timestamp. Go to THIS LINK and skip ahead to the 44:20 timestamp or listen to the entire recording if you wish.

3. The third discussion happened on September 1, 2023. I entered that discussion around the 57:40 timestamp. Go to THIS LINK and skip ahead to the 57:40 timestamp or listen to the entire recording if you wish.

END OF UPDATE

I did a podcast back in early December, 2023 with Jamie Andrews of the “Virology Controls Studies Project”. The LINKS to this almost forgotten podcast are:

1. RUMBLE

2. BITCHUTE

During this podcast, I was, as usual, “infected” and “plagued” for REAL by AUDIO ISSUES! I apologize for that! I am so sorry these audio problems happened! See again THIS POST for links to OTHER podcasts I did which had BETTER sound quality.

Nevertheless, I wanted to post this podcast because some of the podcasts I did last year (2023) have been deleted! This podcast occurred RIGHT BEFORE (literally about 24 hours before!) my life circumstances changed dramatically. As a result of this, I was never able to do the second episode that I promised to do, and I have had to scale DOWN considerably on ALL of my activities in the #novirus movement.

I am hoping to start back into a more active status in the not-too-distant future!

Please STAY TUNED…and god willing… there will be MORE TO FOLLOW….

In the meantime, PLEASE CHECK OUT JAMIE ANDREWS’ SUBSTACK AT:

The Virology Controls Studies Project

All content will be free to access but any donations/paid subscriptions very much appreciated to keep me writing

By Jamie Andrews

I have already provided some analyses of Dr. Kary Mullis’ participation in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. See THIS OLDER POST. You should also review THIS DOCUMENT at your earliest convenience. NO review of Kary Mullis would be complete without it. That document does erroneously state that Mullis “testified” in the Parenzee case, but that wasn’t quite true (see below). As can clearly be seen from Mullis’ OWN CV on his web site, Kary Mullis made a habit of participating in court cases as an expert witness. This case, however, was a little different. I DISCUSS some of these issues surrounding Kary Mullis in a podcast from December, 2023 which I’ve just posted at THIS LINK .

Up until recently, I did not think that Kary Mullis got involved at all in the “civil war” that occurred in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. At least, I do not recall any contributions he made during that time period (between 2008 and 2012). I don’t remember any e-mails from Mullis, and there were no statements of support that I saw from Mullis for either faction involved in our battle within the movement.

Mullis by and large went AWOL from our “AIDS” dissident movement. In fact, Mullis left the “AIDS” dissident movement at the end of the millennium and shortly after his book was published, curiously enough. He never really returned to the dissident spotlight after that. Mullis gave several more public talks in this century, but he gave none that I could remember which were under the auspices of any “AIDS” dissident group. However, Mullis DID continue to answer inquiries and specifically e-mails from people who asked him about issues surrounding “HIV” and “AIDS”.

One such exchange of correspondences occurred in early 2007 when Mullis received an e-mail from a Professor Peter McDonald who is an orthodox “AIDS” researcher in Australia. McDonald was one of several orthodox researchers who served as “expert witnesses” for the prosecution in the “Parenzee Case”. This case is explained in great detail HERE. It is important to note that the Perth Group of dissenting “AIDS” researchers were the expert witnesses for the DEFENSE in that court case, i.e., the side that OPPOSED McDonald’s.

The leader of the Perth Group, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos made some statement in her direct testimony in the Parenzee Case to the effect that she believed that Kary Mullis had “no confidence in the technology” of PCR and/or that Mullis believed PCR was “erroneous and misleading”. At least, that was Prof. McDonald’s interpretation of what Eleni P-E stated. Prof. McDonald may not have been aware of Kary Mullis’ dalliances with our old “AIDS” dissident movement. As such, when McDonald reached out to Mullis for “comment” on Eleni’s testimony, McDonald was most likely hoping that Mullis might help out HIM, the orthodox expert witness.

Unfortunately, THAT is precisely what Kary Mullis DID!

In a reply to McDonald that included a generic hypothetical scenario whereby “A nucleic acid segment very similar in size and terminal base could easily, in a cursory examination, be mistaken for the sequence in question…”, Mullis nevertheless confirmed for McDonald, the “effectiveness” of PCR by stating:

“I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two ‘primer target sequences’ comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way.”

…..YIKES!!!……

In his reply to McDonald, Mullis even included the following “advice to the courts system of Australia”: “I would plead that they realize that the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR.”

…ummm…yeah….thanks but

NO THANKS, DR. MULLIS!

Mullis should have STUCK to his ESTABLISHMENT efforts. He seemed more comfortable in the establishment, anyway. In making these statements, Mullis contradicted the testimony of Perth Group leader Eleni P-E. It is doubtful that, by this time (2007), Mullis had never heard of Eleni or the Perth Group. In other words, Mullis HAD to have known who Eleni was and who the Perth Group were. Furthermore, Prof. McDonald SPECIFICALLY named Eleni (and fellow Perth Group member Dr. Val Turner) in his initial e-mail to Mullis. So, Mullis also HAD to have known that the Perth Group were the expert witnesses for the defense in this case.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the right thing and reaching out to his “fellow” dissident scientists in Perth, Mullis decided it was prudent for him to forward McDonald’s e-mail to a *LAY PERSON*, Christine Maggiore, an internationally known “AIDS” dissident and my former “boss”, so to speak. Like Mullis, Maggiore was also a fellow supporter of Peter Duesberg, a fellow Californian and a longtime acquaintance of Mullis.

It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Maggiore not to have known the following:

1. Who the Perth Group were and

2. That the Perth Group (Eleni and Dr. Turner) were already serving as expert witnesses for the defense in the Parenzee case.

Maggiore, who was often vehemently opposed to ANY mention of the problems surrounding the so-called isolation of “HIV”, did not do the right thing, either. Obviously, Maggiore should have reached out to the Perth Group to tell them that one of the prosecution experts has reached out to Mullis and asked him to verify statements that Eleni made in her testimony. Instead, what Maggiore DID do was reach out to David Crowe, who was another lay person and cell phone salesman from Canada!

Crowe was also co-hosting a “podcast” with Maggiore at that time and, of course, he was also running the Rethinking AIDS organization (though someone else was serving as a proxy “president” of RA at that time). Crowe had specifically resuscitated RA two years earlier with the sole purpose of essentially forming a CULT around Dr. Peter Duesberg. It is undeniable that David Crowe helped to sink our dear old “AIDS” dissident movement. The details are still available HERE.

One of the primary ways in which David Crowe helped to sink our “AIDS” dissident movement was to interfere in the Parenzee case. By the time Prof. McDonald reached out to Mullis in early 2007, Crowe had already started interfering in the Parenzee case. Maggiore was most likely aware of Crowe’s interference in the Parenzee case, and this is undoubtedly why Maggiore forwarded Mullis’ e-mail to Crowe after Mullis reached out to her.

Suffice it to say, David Crowe did NOT do the right thing, either, in this incident. Proof of Crowe’s involvement in this incident came from Crowe himself in a post he made to the Facebook page for “Rethinking AIDS” right after Mullis’ death (and less than a year before his own death). Writing on Facebook, Crowe boasted that he and Maggiore:

“filled in Mullis on the context of the surprising email. This should have been enough to impeach the so called expert witness, but I suppose the fix was already in.” !!

SEE: THIS LINK

….ummmm….yeah…the fix was already in, Crowe, that’s for sure. “The fix” that YOU freakin’ CREATED when you INTERFERED in the case!

By the time Prof. McDonald’s e-mail completed its whirlwind round trip around the Pacific Ocean, there were at least three opportunities that these Duesberg partisans, Mullis, Maggiore and Crowe, the three STOOGES involved in bungling this incident within the Parenzee Case, had to do the right thing. Unfortunately, none of them did! That is,

NONE OF THEM REACHED OUT TO THE PERTH GROUP!!

Mullis’ response to McDonald was met with many thanks from McDonald who responded to Mullis in a tone that sounds clearly satisfied. Writing about Mullis’ views expressed in his e-mail to McDonald, Prof. McDonald wrote:

“Your views were helpful in terms of confirming the validity of PCR in which you were being quoted as ‘having no confidence in the technology’.”

The e-mails exchanged between Mullis and McDonald were made public BY CROWE HIMSELF WITHIN DAYS after McDonald’s reply to Mullis! They are still available on web.archive at THIS LINK. Of course, what are missing are the private e-mails between Mullis and Maggiore and e-mails between Maggiore, Mullis and Crowe. THOSE e-mails are still private.

This exchange of e-mails was no insignificant incident. In fact, the Judge Sulan MENTIONED these correspondences in his decision! See paragraphs # 354 and #355 at THIS LINK (scroll down to page 84 of the PDF file, page 82 in the document):

“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.

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…”

As I said, Mullis made a habit of participating in court cases as an expert witness himself. Perhaps most notoriously, Mullis was an expert witness for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial. One has to wonder how Dr. Mullis might have felt if another expert witness whom HE regarded as a friend had interfered in one of HIS cases with statements that contradicted some of HIS testimony?

The Perth Group regarded Kary Mullis as a “fellow” dissident, and they assumed Mullis was supportive of the Perth Group’s efforts.

Sadly, it seems the Perth Group were WRONG about that!

In light of other recent developments surrounding Dr. Anthony Fauci and his congressional testimony in July, 2026, it may be a good idea to remind readers about Dr. Kary Mullis and his critical comments he made about Fauci. These were STAGED comments that Mullis made way back in the 1990s. Mullis said these thing ostensibly to endear himself to us old “AIDS” dissidents. In reality, Mullis was practically just as establishment as Fauci. See my original text below for information about Mullis and his very ESTABLISHMENT background.

See also new information below about Mullis and his company’s multi-million dollar funding from a U.S DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AGENCY!

And if you still think that Kary Mullis was murdered, please see this article on Mullis’ death at THIS LINK .

I have found ONE original recording I did- a “review” of Kary Mullis- from circa August/September of 2023. that I have managed to RECOVER! This was another “chat” that I had with a friend from the present-day “novirus” movement.

WARNING: The following audio clip contains *HARSH LANGUAGE*! I am a freakin’ POTTY MOUTH, so don’t say I did not WARN YOU!

The conversation in the following audio clip BEGINS AT AROUND the 1:33 time mark. Feel free to continue reading the text below after you have listened to the audio clip. Here is this audio clip:

UPDATE CONTINUED:

NO review of Kary Mullis would be complete without THIS DOCUMENT. In fact, you should review it at your earliest convenience.. That document does erroneously state that Mullis “testified” in the Parenzee case, but that wasn’t quite true. As can clearly be seen from Mullis’ OWN CV on his web site, Kary Mullis made a habit of participating in court cases as an expert witness. The Parenzee case, however, was a little different. For more information on that, I have written a new post about Mullis with additional information about him and his efforts in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. Please see THIS LINK. I DISCUSS some of these issues surrounding Kary Mullis in a podcast from December, 2023 which I’ve just posted at THIS LINK

I also feel the need to remind everyone that, UNLIKE others who are in the current dissident or so-called “novirus” movements, I am NOT making ANY money from ANY of my activities on these issues! That INCLUDES this substack which is FREE for ALL readers.

There are a couple MORE UPDATES I have added to the text of my original post below. So, please continue reading if you want to see them. :-) And please feel free to check back here often since I do updates on my posts on a regular basis….

Unfortunately, this post has become a necessity. I don’t enjoy doing this to people who continue to be in many cases widely regarded as heroes. However, at the same time, I’m not going to sit back and let people who should know better continue to MISINTERPRET the history of -and quotes said by key leaders from- our old “AIDS” dissident movement!

This article is devoted to my analyses and opinions on the late Dr. Kary Mullis and his efforts in our “AIDS” dissident movement.

I really should point out that, despite his "dissident" bravado, Mullis always dutifully gave the "AIDS" establishment everything they needed to continue the "HIV" fraud! He did so by always allowing for the existence of the phantom "HIV". Along those lines, I also forgot to mention that Mullis' one and ONLY orthodox paper on so-called "HIV" was actually the original paper that was published describing the first use of PCR for "HIV"! It is available at this link here.

(In this paper, Mullis and colleagues interestingly noted their observation "that some samples scored positive with only one of the two primer pairs" they used for purportedly “detecting” so-called "HIV”!)

Mullis' OWN application for the PATENT for the PCR which was discussed in the audio recording above is at this link HERE

PLEASE NOTE: THE IMAGE BELOW IS FROM MULLIS’ CORPORATE (CETUS) PATENT BUT THE LANGUAGE SURROUNDING INFECTIOUS DISEASES/AGENTS IS THE SAME IN MULLIS’ OWN PATENT!!

FWIW: I also met the late Dr. Kary Mullis, a FEW TIMES, in fact. I realize that just having met Mullis does not necessarily qualify me to comment on his actions or his scientific work. After all Mullis probably met and interacted with many cocktail waitresses in his life, but that doesn’t make THEM any more qualified to speak about what Mullis did as a so-called “scientist” and PRETEND “dissident”.

However, as I noted in my recorded comments linked above, I also helped to PRODUCE a 1997 seminar during which Mullis performed what has perhaps become his greatest and now most notable sleight of hand when he made some comments at that 1997 seminar which have been misinterpreted by 21st century idiots. These claims that Mullis purportedly stated that PCR “cannot be used to diagnose” disease or viral infections specifically (the misinterpretations vary depending on the idiots doing the misinterpreting) are not supported by Mullis own written works. First, on page 20 of the link above, Mullis states in his own patent application: "The method herein may also be used to enable detection and/or characterization of specific nucleic acid sequences associated with infectious diseases"

and on page 21 at the link above:

"The combination of specific DNA amplification by the present method and the use of stably labeled probes could provide the convenience and sensitivity required to make the Falkow and Ward procedures useful in a routine clinical setting." (Falkow and Ward are referring to other procedures for diagnosing infectious diseases)

and also on page 21:

"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 (for diagnosing infectious diseases)"

Furthermore, something that even I have neglected to emphasize in ALL of my numerous and repeated (neigh now fucking DAILY, it seems) rebuttals to this Mullis nonsense is concerning the two "seropositive" diagnosed people who were seated *RIGHT BESIDE MULLIS* that day on the dais at that 1997 seminar which I helped to produce. One is DEAD. I’m referring to my old boss Christine Maggiore. (In the photo above, Maggiore is directly above me in the jeans jacket.) Maggiore was pregnant at the time of that seminar. More importantly, Maggiore was ALWAYS a STALWART supporter of DUESBERG. Maggiore FREAKIN' DIED in 2008!

The other supposedly “seropositive-diagnosed” panel member -the gay guy- FLIPPED sides and very PUBLICLY DEFECTED to the orthodoxy WITHIN TWO YEARS! He threw a hissy fit and spoke to "POZ" magazine about his defection from the "AIDS" dissident movement in 1999!! Intriguingly, this guy joined the Army right out of high school. You might be wondering what’s so intriguing about that? Well, when he was IN the Army, he worked for ……wait for it…..ARMY INTELLIGENCE! He was apparently recruited (?) right out of high school, and he served in Army Intelligence for about a year as a TEENAGER. He has also stated (as he did that day at the 1997 seminar) that he was OPENLY gay while serving in the Army…..WAY BACK in 1982-83!

Back to Mullis and “his” PCR: There are some sources from the establishment which delve into the origins of the PCR and its early days. First, there is THIS ONE.

The book "Making PCR" by Paul Rabinow which I mentioned and which is cited in the article at the link above is also another source from a mainstream perspective that still contains some interesting information. As I said in the space, Mullis went AWOL from the "AIDS" dissident movement just as his book was getting published (circa 1998 and after) , so, I still insist that Mullis may have had ulterior motives for inserting himself into our dissident movement in the FIRST place (see this link here).

Speaking OF THAT 1998 book that Mullis wrote, in it Mullis himself affirms once again for the whole world to see that PCR “would be valuable in diagnosing genetic diseases by looking into a person's genes. It would find infectious diseases by detecting the genes of pathogens that were difficult or impossible to culture…" (page 105). In other words, Mullis still believed the same things he stated in his patent application from 10 years earlier, i.e., that PCR CAN BE USED FOR DIAGNOSTICS, even for “infectious diseases”.

As I mentioned during the space, Mullis spent the last decade or so of his life working on yet another VERY ORTHODOX concept that he also CLAIMED to have “discovered”. I am referring to the unproven concept of "re-targeting" antibodies of all things…!!…Mullis started a new biotech company to research this concept, and he and his company were the recipients of $2 MILLION in funding from the U.S. DARPA AGENCY! Mullis and his team managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about this. It is at this link here.

Furthermore, Mullis' team was also working on an application of this concept for the Flu! In fact, Mullis' OWN statements about a particular "Flu virus" which were made MUCH more RECENTLY than ANY of his "dissident-leaning" statements really show Mullis' true colors as a fellow believer in viruses:

"...Mullis’ vision includes H5M1, which is likely to prove disastrous. 'The flu has been living with humans for a long time. And it looks like about every once or twice every century, there is an epidemic. If there is going to be a worldwide epidemic of H5M1, it’s just a matter of time – and this time is likely to be worse than last time,' is Mullis’ grim prediction" (from this link here).

...YIKES!!!....

Additional links as follows:

• My bio is always available here

• Another SHARP ANALYSIS of Kary Mullis (by Jamie Andrews)

• The PCR, Gene Sequencing and Genetics Fraud - Jamie Andrews

• PCR and Real Time RT-PCR Under Critical Review - By Tam

• DNA Discovery, Extraction and Structure. A Critical Review - By Tam

Please read everything above with an OPEN MIND, and please feel free to spread this post! THANK YOU!