*UPDATED*: Was Mullis More Machiavellian Than I Originally Thought?
I have already provided some analyses of Dr. Kary Mullis’ participation in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. See THIS POST and THIS POST from DPL’s substack. Also, listen to THIS SPACE I did on Twitter/X (the space starts at ~ the 1:33 timestamp). 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.
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.
There was only one incident of which I was made aware in which Mullis expressed his distaste for one of the “AIDS” dissidents who was pleading for a critical examination of the issue of the lack of isolation of “HIV”. That occurred when Mullis met Dr. Stefan Lanka in 1997 in South America at an alternative conference. After one of Lanka’s presentations, I was told that Mullis referred to Dr. Lanka as a “giant half-wit”. (Most likely Mullis said this behind Lanka’s back.)
Mullis by and large went AWOL from our “AIDS” dissident movement within two years of saying this about Stefan Lanka. 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 made several more public talks in this century, but 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.”
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.”
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:
Who the Perth Group were and
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. South African attorney Anthony Brink has chronicled in painstaking detail how 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!