Dr. Kary Mullis sounds like he is talking about the COVID-19 Vaxdemic instead of the fake HIV/AIDS Pandemic in some old interviews from the 1990s

Dr. Kary Mullis won the The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993 for inventing the PCR test.

Dr. Mullis passed away in August 2019, right before the COVID-19 Vaxdemic kicked off. He was an outspoken critic of Anthony Fauci. One can easily guess what he would be saying today about the association with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 if he were alive today, in my opinion.

Mullis said that the drug AZT killed AIDS patients, not HIV. He said there were numerous causes for the large number of disease symptoms associated with AIDS, but that HIV was not one of them.

He said that the scientific community had ignored a test proposal with a hypothesis that would prove or disprove whether HIV cause AIDS or not. His remarks on hypothesis and proof reminded me of the types of things I've been saying about my test model proposals. Simple, empirical methods that prove the truth one way or another. That type of thing is avoided by the plague by the medical establishment.

He said that those in the medical establishment responsible for all the AIDS research and false associations should be treated just like another murderer of the day, Timothy McVeigh. I concur.

I made a transcript of some things he said about the false association that the medical establishment made between HIV and AIDS. It's really worth a read.

1997. Santa Monica. Question: "I want to ask this to Dr. Kary. How do they misuse PCR to estimate all these supposed free-viral RNAs that may or may or may not be there?"

Dr. Mullis: “I think misuse PCR is quite... I don’t think you can misuse PCR. Now, the results, the interpretations of it.. see, if they could find this virus in you at all... And the PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you sort of believe in the "Buddhist notion" sort of that everything is contained in everything else. Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body, OK? So that can be thought of as a misuse of it, to claim that it’s meaningful.”

"But the real misuse of it is, you don' t need to test for HIV, you don't need to test for the over 10,000 retroviruses that are unnamed, also in the subject. And somebody that's got HIV, generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for, because .... HIV's a fairly rare virus. There's only one in a million of us out of 250-300 million people in America that have that virus. So you have to get around... either your mother had to have it and pass it to you, or you have to really be paying a lot of attention to people that do have it and only to them and you get a pretty good chance of getting it that way. It's hard to get it. But if you have it, there's a good chance you've also got a lot of other ones. Because you've been in the market for... it's possible for you to get a lot of other.. to test for that one and say that it has any special meaning is what I think is the problem. Not that PCR's being misused."

"It's not an estimation. It's a really quantitative thing. It tells me something about nature, and about what's there. But it allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything, and make it measurable, and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important. See, that's not really a misuse, it's a misinterpretation."

"There are people dying simply because of AZT. That's proven in studies, big studies. Like the Concord? study. The conclusion of the Concord Study was this stuff is not good for you. 35.. I don't know how many people who have died because of "AIDS" have actually died of AZT. Because it certainly would wreck your immune system if you take that stuff for a few years. It's like if you started taking any other chemotherapeutic agent for the rest of your life it would be that agent probably that killed you. I mean when you give chemotherapy to someone 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. But you don't keep giving it to them until he dies, because he certainly will. And AZT is just like those things. It's a little more lethal than most of the anticancer things that people take for that. Everybody knows that those things, you wouldn't want to just keep taking them until they died."

"Why do we have to think about all the details that they keep mercilessly bringing up? Why do we have to think about the whole genome of this little organism that has not yet been shown by anybody definitively, or even really probably, to cause a disease? What is it about humanity that wants to go through all the details and stuff... Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking and listen, he really doesn't know anything about anything, and I'd say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine. And he should not be in a position like he's in."

"If Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he can easily do it, because he's been asked. And I've had a lot of people - President of the University of South Carolina asked Fauci if he'd come down there and debate me on stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance my - because I felt like well these guys are going to listen to me, but I need somebody else down here who's going to tell them the other side. He didn't want to do it. He didn't want to talk about it."

"Just pull the average physician away from his position someplace.... sit down and have dinner with him and talk to him about this kind of a situation and see how much he really knows. Like does he know what a "western" does? Does he know what a western blot actually does? And how is it different from the Elisa test? Does he understand how the test is operating? Does he understand anything about the statistics associated? No, he doesn't. And he doesn't give a damn either. What he knows about is that when he has a patient, he charges them a certain amount of money for any treatment that he does. For any little prescription that he writes. And he likes to have a lot of patients. And County Health Department knows that due to the ? White Act, for every county, $2500 from the Federal Government. The County Health Department is actually pressuring doctors by their little subtle ways, they're not coming over and beating them, but don't miss an AIDS case. You report it to us. If it's a positive test on HIV you report it to us because it's $2500 in our pocket every year."

"There are many reasons why they're doing it, but one of them is not that doctors are intelligent people. The doctors have been dumb. The people who have taken the drug have been idiots also. I mean they really are idiots. Go to some doctor. If he gives you a drug, because you're not feeling bad sometimes, you start taking it and start feeling worse, you start feeling bad for the first time, keep on taking it because otherwis you're gonna get sick. It's not like you can't find out about AZT you know. You can find out."

"One thing that makes me different is, I don't have to answer to anybody for money. See I don't work for some organization like Tony Fauci has to be the head of. ... They couldn't touch me, because they weren't paying me. They can laugh at me. They can write stupid little articles in Nature but they'll learn to feel foolish eventually about having done that. ... One of these days these idiots are going to have to face the music. ... You can see the insanity."

Q: "Does it bother you that there is censorship in scientific literature and even in the major media?"

"Yeah, right after I got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry man, I can remember writing a short 4-page hypothesis about what might in fact be a probable cause of AIDS. A hypothesis that was a useful one, because it suggested that disproves it or proves it. You know that's what a hypothesis is for. It's to sort of suggest experiments that will try to disprove the hypothesis, or if you can't disprove it, you start slowly accepting it. And so Lancent, Nature, Science, those people said 'we don't need the hypothesis directed at understanding what might be causing AIDS. We already know."

"And I called back the editors and I said now wait a minute. You got like, in Lancent they've got a section called medical hypothesis. That's a type of an article that you can submit. I said this is a hypothesis. This is a good hypothesis. Not only can it easily be proven with rats or mice, but in fact, if it turns out that this shows that this does cause AIDS, you'll have a model system. An animal model system which could be worth billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. ... But not anybody would touch it."

"The number of cases reported went up epidemically, you know exponentially, because the number of tests that were done went up exponentially. The first time I ever saw one of these CDC graphs that showed the thing going off the page, you know I went up after that and I said how did you disentangle.. I mean did you divide the number you've got here by the number of tests that were done? I mean, can we believe that this line that you've drawn here about number of positive tests reported - is that really indicative of the spread of this virus? Is the virus- is there being more of it? Or are there more tests? If you divide by the number of tests you do, you don't get any kind of a curve going up. 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? Forty thousand. So that's where the curve came from. They could have just said, how much money did we make of HIV this year, and they could have plotted that, and it would have looked the same."

"You can't expect the sheep to respect the best and brightest. They don't know the difference, really. I like humans, don't get me wrong, but basically the vast majority of them do not possess the ability who is and who isn't a really good scientist."

"The difference between (a belief) and science was established clearly, at least in England, in the 17th century by the Royal society. ... They probably don't remember this, the same bunch of assholes who won't accept my papers anymore. But they said there's a big difference between empirical science. Empirical scientist is something that can be done in front of other people. You can show it on a stage. I can do my experiment in front of anybody who was interested. We should all agree on the results. We don't have to worry about why."

"Nobody has actually purified HIV. There's no little bottle of HIV anywhere on the planet that's just got HIV in it. They've got cell lines that they think that it's growing in. There are a lot of people that think it's not even there at all. I wouldn't doubt that it's there, I think anything you can imagine is there somewhere. Whether it's there or not is not the question. The question is does it do anything with regard to this set of diseases that we now call AIDS. It's a tangled web of madness, by calling all those things AIDS."

"It's a real bizarre thing to have 100,000 people paid to do something that strange. To take a whole bunch of diseases, to lump them all into this one big thing... I mean, pretty soon there won't be anything that's not AIDS."

"The way to get rid of AIDS, is to stop funding it. Just stop everything that's called AIDS research."

"Why did they think it was just some virus that this guy Montagnier pulled out of a lymph node? When he could have pulled anything out of that lymph node? He probably had a hundred different things in there that he could have identified. Just pulled out.... you know why did anybody fall for that? .... The CDC wanted, you know they did want to have a plague, and it looked like a nice possibility, and they went for it."

"This particular whatever it is, you can't call it a hoax, you can't call it a conspiracy. It's something that's so bizarre, that to try to explain it to somebody... it's almost like they can't possibly believe how bad it is."

"The entire AIDS establishment is absolutely guilty of some hideous sins, and everybody's been fooled. Everybody on the planet have been fooled by a handful of greedy people without any scruples and no brains. That's hard to believe. It's like no, it can't be. My mother wouldn't go for it. I said mother I've studied this really well and I'm telling you, there ain't no epidemic mom. There isn't an epidemic. There isn't anything out there that's causing people to die that's called HIV. There's just not. "No Kary I read it everywhere I look." And I go mother, the entire medical establishment is wrong, and I'm right. "No you couldn't possibly be right Kary. They wouldn't do that. They couldn't possibly be wrong. Every radio station you listen to. Every television station. Everywhere you turn there's somebody telling you that there is an epidemic of some organism that is fatal and that you get it from sex."

"You know, there's a hundred thousand of them right. There's probably about half of those people that are just too dumb to know what they've done. They other half of them are too dishonest. They have not the heart, or reason, or the testicles to say you know what, we screwed up really bad. And I think we've got too many scientists anyhow. We might just take those guys out on the border and drop another bomb out there. Just get rid of them."

I'm making the Vaxdemic articles free, but if you would like to leave a tip, please buy me a coffee.

Charles Wright