Kary Mullis, de uitvinder van de PCR-test, die helaas aan de basis ligt van de huidige coronahysterie, was eigenlijk wel een bijzonder interessant figuur. Mullis was onder andere een criticus van de HIV-AIDS-hypothese, van de global warming hysterie alsook van huidig coronatsaar Anthony Fauci. Hij had zo ook één ander te zeggen over zijn eigen PCR-test en hoe deze werd misbruikt in de AIDS-epidemie.
Mullis moet zich met het huidig misbruik dat van de test wordt gemaakt, zich omdraaien in zijn graf. Mullis overleedt immers in augustus van 2019, enkele maanden dus voor de uitbraak van de pandemie waar zijn test zo'n belangrijke rol in speelt.
Dit zijn de notities uit zijn semi-autobiografie.

• Mullis over zijn PCR-test:
  IN THE EARLY years of PCR, no one could figure out why certain methods of doing it turned out to be better than others. As I first envisioned PCR, each cycle would cause the amount of target DNA to double. The first cycle would provide twice as much, the second cycle four times as much, the third cycle eight times. But often by the tenth cycle, it would not completely double. It would increase by a factor of 1.8, then 1.5, and 1.3. Something was running out or something was being made that interfered with the process. It meant that calculations based on a consistent doubling could be way off. Like compound interest with a variable rate. 
  I created an entirely new system for comparing substances, the details of which would be of considerable interest to only a small group of people. But it was by using this system that I was finally able to figure out why people doing PCR were getting inconsistent results. When I compared the number of molecules in each of my ingredients, it became obvious that in many cases there simply weren’t enough enzyme molecules to react with the DNA molecules that had to be processed.
  Nobody had realized that the limiting factor in doing PCR is simply the number of molecules of the enzyme, because they had no way of knowing how many molecules of enzyme they were using.
  When I started experimenting with PCR, I never knew how many molecules of enzyme I had in my solution. Enzyme amounts are expressed in units of activity, how many molecules of something it will turn into something else, under a standard set of conditions per unit of time. Only after I converted each of the ingredients needed to do PCR to a simple system of counting molecules did the problem, and the solution, become obvious. Keep the number of things the enzyme is going to interact with smaller than the number of molecules of the enzyme. Simplicity is embarrassing when you have to work for months to achieve it.
• Mullis was zeer kritisch voor het wetenschappelijk "establisment":
  How can we bring the spirit of checks and balances into the massive arms of an enormous bunch of faceless bastards working, or sometimes just enriching themselves, doing God knows how many technical tasks? When Congress passes a law that is not in keeping with the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court usually understands what is up and overrules it. When the National Institutes of Health makes an announcement through one of its many spokespeople, who checks out the credibility of that statement? Checks and balances are hard to come by in a scientific establishment that is supported from outside by a populace unskilled in the scientific arts. I know it’s going to be a hard and inefficient answer. Compared to a benevolent monarchy, having three branches of government was also inefficient. And I know that as long as it achieves a better life for us here in the colonies, we will put up with it. We are optimistic people really, and we are not in a hurry to go anywhere else. I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but I know that the answer is not to believe, “Trust us. We’re here to help.” It never has been.
• Nog eens over de PCR-test:
  Years later I invented the polymerase chain reaction. I was a professional scientist, and I knew what I had discovered. It was not the speculations of a kid about the universe and time reversal. It was a chemical procedure that would make the structures of the molecules of our genes as easy to see as billboards in the desert and as easy to manipulate as Tinkertoys. PCR would not require expensive equipment, and it would find tiny fragments of DNA and multiply them billions of times. And it would do it quickly. The procedure 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. PCR would solve murders from DNA samples in trace materials—semen, blood, hair. The field of molecular paleobiology would blossom because of PCR. Its practitioners would inquire into the specifics of evolution from the DNA in ancient specimens. The branchings and migrations of early man would be revealed from fossil DNA and its descendant DNA in modern humans. And when DNA was finally found on other planets, it would be PCR that would tell us whether we had been there before or whether life on other planets was unrelated to us and had its own separate roots.
• Politiek, wetenschap en "evironmentalists":
  JAMES BUCHANAN ADVANCED an ugly idea that got him a Nobel Prize in 1986. Buchanan cannot be held responsible for the ugliness; we can’t blame the messenger. It came to be known as public choice theory. You will recognize it and wonder why people get Nobel Prizes for pointing out such simple things. The answer is that most people can’t see the simple things and the simple things are always the most important. Buchanan divided the world into four groups—voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups. Everyone in each of these groups wants something from the System, and everyone but the voters are organized professionals. The voters have to go to work every day. They cannot concentrate from nine to five on how to get something from the System. Most of us fall into the voter category.
  Who are these people who make comfortable salaries arranging scientific symposia and stories for the media? They aren’t politicians. Politicians don’t know anything about scientific things. They just want to look like they do. Somebody has to advise them. Who are those advisors? It’s an important question because those people— who are always having to come up with the imminent disasters that can be prevented by governmental projects, sponsored by informed and well-meaning politicians—are manipulating you. They are parasites with degrees in economics or sociology who couldn’t get a good job in the legitimate advertising industry. They are responsible for a lot of the things that you accept year after year as your problems. The problems they imagine for you are as imaginary as the commercials during Seinfeld about some Australian outback macho guy, with a Hollywood model by his side, driving a four-wheel-drive vehicle, with pathetic halfwits in pursuit due to a misunderstanding about the relative merits of the vehicles. Who pays these experts? Is it the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the United Nations is supporting with our money? Or is it the Environmental Protection Agency, which you were bitching about today because your company was having to close down one of its plants due to some fish that might go extinct, and you might get transferred in the shuffle? Is it the Tropical Oceans and Global Atmosphere Group? Is it the Arctic Climate System Study? Is it the Marlowe Walker Eternity Endowment? Is it the World Ocean Circulation Experiment? Is it the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility? Is it Greenpeace? The Sierra Club? You are too tired from your day at work to try to figure it out. That’s what James Buchanan predicted. But the sun never sets on the British Empire or bureaucrats —environmentalists, as many of them are called today. Sleep soundly. Your planet is in well-fed hands.
• Hoe de overheid de wetenschap perverteerde...
  Science was going to determine the balance of power in the postwar world. Governments went into the science business big time. Scientists became administrators of programs that had a mission. Probably the most important scientific development of the twentieth century is that economics replaced curiosity as the driving force behind research. Academic, government, and industrial laboratories need money for salaries for staff: the primary investigator and his technicians, postdocs, graduate students, and secretaries. They need lab space, equipment, travel expenses, overhead payments to the institution, including the salaries and expenses of administrators, financial officers, more secretaries, maintenance of grounds around the institution, security officers, publication costs for scientific reports in scientific journals, librarians, janitors, and so on. It’s expensive, and there is a lot of pressure on a professional scientist trying to maintain or expand a laboratory domain. Most of the money comes from institutions like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Department, and the Department of Energy. There is serious competition for these funds. And the question we should ask is, “What the hell are you doing with our money that is so important to us?”
• Over klimaatverandering en de menselijke impact:
  The concept that human beings are capable of causing the planet to overheat or lose its ozone seems about as ridiculous as blaming the Magdalenian paintings for the last ice age. There is a notion that our emissions are causing the temperature of the planet to go up, even though the temperature is not going up. Even if the temperature were going up, we would be foolish to think we caused it. We could just as reasonably blame it on cows. In the nineteenth century the temperature went down. In this century it’s gone up only about half a degree. The trend over the last two centuries is down. Down is not warmer. So if you like to worry, worry that we might be moving into a new ice age. We could be.
• Wetenschappers worden een nieuwe religieuze orde:
  We accept the proclamations of scientists in their lab coats with the same faith once reserved for priests. We have asked them to commit the same atrocities that the priests did when they were in charge. We have forced this situation by requiring that they bring us relevant innovations. We have turned them into something almost as bad as lawyers. Something to toy with us and our strange needs. Scientists could be something to entertain us and invent nice things for us. They don’t have to be justifying their existence by scaring us out of our wits. Can’t they be comforting? It’s up to us, not them, because they depend on us for support. We have to arrange them in such a way that they and we benefit from the arrangement.
• Over cholesterol:
  This is what we know about cholesterol. It makes up a considerable percentage of the membranes surrounding every single one of our cells. We make cholesterol ourselves, and we control the amount of it that we make. Cholesterol synthesis in humans is connected to the synthesis of hormones like androgens and estrogens, which are connected to all of our sexual functions. Chemists think of them as cholesterol derivatives. Cholesterol is not some horrible thing that chickens put into their eggs, it’s something our bodies need, otherwise we wouldn’t be making it. If there was something wrong with it, our bodies would have learned how to make something else to replace it.
• En natuurlijk: AIDS (volgens Mullis zit de wetenschap dus al fout op minstens drie belangrijke thema's: klimaatverandering, cholesterol, en ook de AIDS-epidemie:
  I asked a virologist at Specialty where I could find the reference for HIV being the cause of AIDS. “You don’t need a reference,” he told me. “Everybody knows it.” “I’d like to quote a reference.” I felt a little funny about not knowing the source of such an important discovery. Everyone else seemed to. “Why don’t you cite the CDC report?” he suggested, giving me a copy of the Centers for Disease Control’s periodic report on morbidity and mortality. I read it. It wasn’t a scientific article. It simply said that an organism had been identified—it did not say how. It requested that doctors report any patients showing certain symptoms and test them for antibodies to this organism. The report did not identify the original scientific work, but that didn’t surprise me. It was intended for physicians, who didn’t need to know the source of the information. Physicians assumed that if the CDC was convinced, there must exist real proof somewhere that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
  I did computer searches. Neither Montagnier, Gallo, nor anyone else had published papers describing experiments which led to the conclusion that HIV probably caused AIDS. I read the papers in Science for which they had become well known as the AIDS doctors, but all they had said there was that they had found evidence of a past infection by something which was probably HIV in some AIDS patients. They found antibodies. Antibodies to viruses had always been considered evidence of past disease, not present disease. Antibodies signaled that the virus had been defeated. The patient had saved himself. There was no indication in these papers that this virus caused a disease. They didn’t show that everybody with the antibodies had the disease. In fact, they found some healthy people with antibodies.
  If Montagnier and Gallo hadn’t really found this evidence, why was their work published, and why had they been fighting so hard to get credit for the discovery? There had been an international incident wherein Robert Gallo of the NIH had claimed that a sample of HIV which had been sent to him by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris had not grown in Gallo’s lab. Other samples collected by Gallo and his collaborators, from potential AIDS patients, had grown. Gallo had patented the AIDS test based on these samples, and the Pasteur Institute had sued. The Pasteur eventually won, but back in 1989 it was a standoff and they were sharing the profits.
  I finally had the opportunity to ask Dr. Montagnier about the reference when he lectured in San Diego at the grand opening of the UCSD AIDS Research Center, which is still run by Bob Gallo’s former consort, Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal. This would be the last time I would ask my question without showing anger. In response Dr. Montagnier suggested, “Why don’t you reference the CDC report?” “I read it,” I said, “That doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?” He agreed with me. It was damned irritating. If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did?
• Kankeronderzoekers die vruchteloos probeerden te bewijzen dat een virus kanker veroorzaakte (ondanks massa's geld als gevolg van Nixon's war on cancer), hadden met AIDS nu een nieuw doel gevonden om hun carrières veilig te stellen:
  All the old virus hunters from the National Cancer Institute put new signs on their doors and became AIDS researchers. Reagan sent up about a billion dollars just for starters, and suddenly everybody who could claim to be any kind of medical scientist and who hadn’t had anything much to do lately was fully employed. They still are. It was named Human Immunodeficiency Virus by an international committee in an attempt to settle the ownership dispute between Gallo and Montagnier, who had given it different names. To call it HIV was a shortsighted mistake that preempted any thought of investigation into the causal relationship between Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Duesberg pointed out wisely from the sidelines in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that there was no good evidence implicating the new virus. He was ignored. Editors rejected his manuscripts and committees of his colleagues began to question his need for having his research funds continued. Finally, in what must rank as one of the great acts of arrogant disregard for scientific propriety, a committee including Flossie Wong-Staal, who was feuding openly with Duesberg, voted not to renew Peter’s Distinguished Investigator Award. He was cut off from research funds. Thus disarmed, he was less of a threat to the growing AIDS establishment. He would not be invited back
  to speak at meetings of his former colleagues.
• De echte rol van retrovirussen:
  WE LIVE WITH an uncountable number of retroviruses. They’re everywhere—and they probably have been here as long as the human race. We have them in our genome. We get some of them from our mothers in the form of new viruses—infectious viral particles that can move from mother to fetus. We get others from both parents along with our genes. We have resident sequences in our genome that are retroviral. That means that we can and do make our own retroviral particles some of the time. Some of them may look like HIV. No one has shown that they’ve ever killed anyone before.
  There’s got to be a purpose for them; a sizable fraction of our genome is comprised of human endogenous retroviral sequences. There are those who claim that we carry useless DNA, but they’re wrong. If there is something in our genes, there’s a reason for it. We don’t let things grow on us. I have tried to put irrelevant gene sequences into things as simple as bacteria. If it doesn’t serve some purpose, the bacteria get rid of it right away. I assume that my body is at least as smart as bacteria when it comes to things like DNA. HIV didn’t suddenly pop out of the rain forest or Haiti. It just popped into Bob Gallo’s hands at a time when he needed a new career. It has been here all along. Once you stop looking for it only on the streets of big cities, you notice that it is thinly distributed everywhere.
• Over de antilichamentest:
  If HIV has been here all along and it can be passed from mother to child, wouldn’t it make sense to test for the antibodies in the mothers of anyone who is positive to HIV, especially if that individual is not showing any signs of disease?
  The CDC has defined AIDS as one of more than thirty diseases accompanied by a positive result on a test that detects antibodies to HIV. But those same diseases are not defined as AIDS cases when the antibodies are not detected. If an HIV-positive woman develops uterine cancer, for example, she is considered to have AIDS. If she is not HIV-positive, she simply has uterine cancer. An HIV-positive man with tuberculosis has AIDS; if he tests negative he simply has tuberculosis.
  If he lives in Kenya or Colombia, where the test for HIV antibodies is too expensive, he is simply presumed to have the antibodies and therefore AIDS, and therefore he can be treated in the World Health Organization’s clinic. It’s the only medical help available in some places. And it’s free, because the countries that support the WHO are worried about AIDS. From the point of view of spreading medical facilities into areas where poor people live, AIDS has been a boon. We don’t poison them with AZT like we do our own people because it’s too expensive. We supply dressings for the machete cut on their left knee and call it AIDS. The CDC continues to add new diseases to the grand AIDS definition. The CDC has virtually doctored the books to make it appear as if the disease continues to spread. In 1993, for example, the CDC enormously broadened its AIDS definition. This was happily accepted by county health authorities, who receive $2,500 from the feds per year under the Ryan White Act for every reported AIDS case.
• Wat is de oorzaak dan van AIDS?
  Whenever I speak on this issue the question always comes up, “If HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS, then what is?” The answer to that is that I don’t know the answer to that any more than Gallo or Montagnier. Knowing that there is no evidence that HIV causes it does not make me an authority on what does. It is indisputable that if an individual has extremely close contacts with a lot of people, the number of infectious organisms that this individual’s immune system is going to have to deal with will be high.
  If a person has three hundred sexual contacts a year—with people who themselves are each having three hundred contacts a year—that’s ninety thousand times more opportunity for infections than a person involved in an exclusive relationship. Think of the immune system as a camel. If the camel is overloaded, it collapses. In the 1970s we had a significant number of highly mobile, promiscuous men sharing bodily fluids and fast life styles and drugs. It was probable that a metropolitan homosexual would be exposed to damn near every infectious organism that has lived on humans. In fact, if you had to devise a strategy to collect every infectious agent on the planet, you would build bathhouses and encourage very gregarious people to populate them. The immune system will fight, but the numbers will wear it down.
• Over het AIDS-medicijn AZT:
  I was interested in giving a seminar about things like this to the scientists assembled in North Carolina by Glaxo, formerly Burroughs Wellcome, and by the University of North Carolina in the name of Frontiers in Chemistry and Medicine. I was thinking that this technique of killing people with a drug that was going to kill them in a way hardly distinguishable from the disease they were already dying from, just faster, was really out there on the edge of the frontiers of medicine. In previous interviews and seminars I had said that I thought AZT was not only useless against AIDS, but in fact it was poisoning people. There were large-scale medical studies done in Europe, called the Concorde Study, that indicated just this. AZT was worthless against AIDS and harmful even to healthy people. This conclusion was reached despite the fact that the study was heavily funded by Glaxo. I wondered if these people knew how I felt about their product when they issued the invitation.
• Nog eens over de global warming idiotie:
  The Catholics and their associated henchmen, the revisionist Christians, fixed our dues at 10 percent of our income. The climate control cartel—which includes everybody who can charge us for measuring a climatic variable and claim that it is changing in any way, shape, or form—is now spending more of the world’s resources than we used to allocate to the much more realistic threat that someone might blow up the world without the threat of fierce retaliation by other concerned parties. It was mad, of course, and that’s what they called it—MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction. But this business of intergovernmental panels on climate change is not just mad—it’s embarrassing. Furthermore, it smacks of what the Greeks used to call hubris when one of their number decided he, and not the gods, could control his own life, the weather, or something equally impossible to control. If it were just the embarrassment or the mortal sin of hubris involved, I don’t think I would get upset about it. Everybody needs a job. But people should only be paid for doing things that benefit the people paying them. No one has ever been able to predict long-term weather better than a tossed coin. Why do we continue to pay a vast cadre of scientists and bureaucrats who pretend to speak for the Planet? They claim that we can change the world forever—and they are willing to tell us exactly how. The U.S. Weather Service has gotten a little more conservative about saying things about the future. They won’t even make ninety-day forecasts any more. They used to do that, but after 1988 they ceased the practice because they noticed that a coin flipped was cheaper than a cadre of computer scientists and just as accurate.
  What happened in the 1980s? We have brought something down on ourselves as expensive, although not quite as brutal, as a world war. Did everybody forget that we were just big ants? Did somebody convince us that just because most of our religions had lost their appeal, we ourselves were suddenly gods? That we were now the masters of the planet and the guardians of the status quo? That the precise climatic conditions that happen to exist on the Earth today in the Holy Twentieth Century, the Climatic Century of 001, the first year of human domination of all of Earth, should be here forever, in secula seculorum? All the good species are here now. None shall perish and no new ones are welcome. Biology is no longer allowed: the Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now in charge. Evolution is over.
  The world that the Vikings sailed out into a thousand years ago was warmer by far than it is today. Since then it has gotten colder. It even got colder last century. It didn’t do so in response to the Viking ships or the Spanish horses dropping manure on the California poppies. It got colder all over the planet and drier on the West Coast of the United States for reasons that only the planets and the sun can be held accountable. It pissed off the Spanish who were trying to civilize the Indians in California as slaves, growing crops for the missions while having their souls saved. The Indians laughed that the white man’s god could not provide rain for the white man’s foolish crops. It got colder and drier because angles and distances of Earth and our major heat source changed—things that neither the Vikings nor the Spanish could measure and surely did not affect.
  About 11,500 years ago the surface temperature of the Earth began to warm. The glacial period that had lasted for about 100,000 years was ending. It had been about 20 degrees Centigrade colder. For Fahrenheit people, that’s 36. The present interglacial period is a vacation for Homo sapiens. We can sit out on the front porch of the cave on a lawn chair and enjoy the sunset. We can even mow the lawn instead of shoveling snow. There was another interglacial period, the Eemian, which ended about 120,000 years ago. From the tree ring data found and the ice cores they drill in Antarctica, that also seemed like a pretty nice break in the weather. Of course, I prefer to surf than ski. As we go into the next millennium, all the solid facts look like I’m out of luck. We are headed back into another glacial period, which is a more common climate on Earth than the relative warmth we are enjoying now. So who’s bitching about global warming? Is it the skiers? It’s not the surfers.
• Ook de klimaatwetenschap is eigenlijk louter gebaseerd op computermodellen op basis waarvan voorspellingen worden gemaakt en beleidsaanbevelingen gedaan, net zoals de "coronawetenschap" a là Neil Fergusson en Geert Molenberghs.
  The global warmers—the climate simulation programmers, the so-called general circulation modelers, the computer jocks who hardly go outside even on nice days—write the programs for their bosses at IPCC. They predict that global warming is coming and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.