Kary Mullis' Widow Told British Tabloid In 2021 That Mullis Died Of Longstanding Illnesses-- Was Not Murdered. Was So Distressed About Internet Rumors That She Wrote To Tony Fauci To Apologize

That Said, Kary's Objections To PCR As Diagnostic Tool For HIV/AIDS ARE Applicable to Covid. Doubtful He Would Have Called Anybody A Conspiracy Theorist. Under Any Circumstances.

“Basically, what I think about is the truth.”

—Kary Mullis

“It’s a world of inference.”

—Liam Scheff

Wow.

I just found this.

Nancy Cosgrove Mullis, who I have met (long ago,) and who was Kary Mullis’ fourth wife and great love, has categorically stated that Kary was not murdered by dark forces, for his objections over PCR being used to diagnose “viral” infections. I would have guessed this, but was not aware of this article published in 2021.

From the article:

“She said: “Kary died at home so how do they (the conspiracy theorists) think somebody had access to him?

“Where would they have access to him, would they have come into our house?

“Kary had a six-way heart bypass when he was 60. He had a lot of health issues over the years but he was tough and self-reliant and always thought he could overcome anything. 

“The six-way open heart surgery led, over the years, to blood pressure problems, several ablations, a pacemaker inserted for erratic and low heart beat, and a stent.  

“Heart disease ran in his family, his mother had heart attacks and his two brothers had issues with their hearts too. 

“Pneumonia probably just finished him off. He had it for a couple of weeks and was being treated at home by a nurse.

"I am completely bereft and devastated by his loss and I will never get over it."

A representative for Dr Fauci was contacted but did not respond to a request for comment.”

So the person closet to Kary in the world has spoken: He was not murdered. Hence, people should stop speculating that maybe he was.

(Although, to be clear people do get murdered, in this arena.)

I’m glad Nancy Mullis did clarify this and wish I’d known of it sooner. Had she put out a simple, factual statement long ago, maybe speculations that Kary was murdered by Fauci’s cabal would not have mushroomed across the internet as they did.

She was in contact with David Crowe, for example, before he died of a sudden onset cancer in 2021. She could easily have told him, and this could have been laid to rest ages ago.

I am very much against speculation passing for journalism or discourse, and look where this one got us.

Nancy Mullis, love of Kary’s life, driven to write to Tony Fauci and apologize for people she does not know, and bears no responsibility for.

You’ll read the article.

How might this have been avoided?

By the Mullis estate and family making a clear statement as soon as rumors and speculation began.

Now look what happened. Fauci receives an apology, and grist for his victim mill.

Fauci, who Kary Mullis held in unambiguous contempt, receives a pleading apology from his wife. Sorry, but this is really bothering me.

There is nothing (to borrow a Kary Mullis word) I like about this article, and we can now look forward to everything Kary did say, and say clearly, over decades, being corrupted and diluted, because people started tweeting things they didn't investigate.

Disinfo agents? We will never know. Let’s just always stick with what is know-able.

For proof, (of Kary’s abject contempt for Fauci) go to 45:40 in this video:

Now, let’s move on.

What’s wrong with this…hit piece? It’s obvious.

The writer sought out Nancy Mullis and used what she said to try to discredit “conspiracy theorists” addressing the abundantly documented crimes of Moderna, Pfizer, and the US government in the wake of 2020 and Covid’s launch.

Kary Mullis never lived to address Covid but it’s not fair to say that all he said over so many years does not apply to Covid in any way. I don’t think the “conspiracy theorists” did any good with their speculations, and, again, I do wish Nancy had put out a simple factual statement long ago, not waited for a hostile tabloid to catch up with her when she was already so frustrated and fed up.

From the article:

”Since then several old video interviews have gone viral online where Mullis can be seen saying that the PCR “doesn’t tell you if you’re sick” and slamming Dr Anthony Fauci for his role in the AIDS crisis.  

“Conspiracy theorists have used the videos to claim the maverick man of science was murdered because he would supposedly have revealed that PCR tests produce fake Covid cases.

“Some have gone to the extreme of suggesting that Fauci, 80, may have somehow orchestrated his scientific rival’s death to keep him quiet.

Pause here—listen for yourself what Kary said about his misgivings about Fauci’s HIV/AIDS apparatus and its way of arriving at its trillion dollar certainties about novel deadly viruses:

Back to the article:

“The Sun reached out to his grieving widow Nancy Mullis, who blasted the allegations as “annoying and egregious”.  

“Addressing the conspiracy theories for the first time, the former teacher, 74, said: “These Covid loonies have come out of the woodwork to tell me that Kary was probably killed to keep him from talking about Covid and that Fauci might be behind it.

“This is so ludicrous. I had to make my Facebook page private because of these kinds of people.

“What Kary said about Fauci and PCR being used to diagnose AIDS was 25 to 30 years ago.

“What people have done now is cobble together snippets of various videos but conveniently left out the AIDS part to make it seem that he’s talking about Covid. 

“It’s terribly annoying since Kary died in August 2019 before Covid was even in the news. 

“It’s completely egregious to me. “

I am going to try to un-conflate what has been conflated here. The reason HIV dissent is conflated with Covid dissent over PCR specifically is because of a man named David Crowe, no longer alive.

A few basic points that may help straighten this mess out:

1. Kary Mullis objected to the HIV/AIDS “hypothesis,” industry and tyranny, loud and clear, in great detail, for decades. I was the first journalist to collect his objections to PCR’s applications to HIV, in the early 1990s. He also spoke to Neville Hodgkinson at the London Sunday Times. To Gary Null. And to others. He spoke at conferences. He spoke out about it a lot. The last time I spoke to him about HIV/AIDS was for this 2006 Harper’s article where he is quoted.

   He was sick if talking about it, yes. But still, he talked about it. He was distraught that science was so corrupted and so woke, he was livid at what Fauci’s cabal had done to Peter Duesberg and others.

2. Everything he said on record about that is fair game.

3. David Crowe was both one of the most prolific and brilliant commenters on both the “flaws” in HIV science, all the SAR/MERS and other preludes, and lastly, Covid. He was especially insightful about why the PCR Covid “test” was invalid and meaningless. It certainly came as a shock when he died, of sudden onset cancer, at the peak of his powers.

4. I am not aware of anybody conflating Mullis on HIV with Mullis on Covid, since he died before it began, but Mullis spoke directly and strongly about what PCR is designed to do, and what it is not designed to do.

5. In 2020 David Crowe, after Kary had died, addressed how absurd it is to use PCR to diagnose “infection” with SARS Cov-2. Since I knew both Kary and David for many years, it was an article of mine that bridged what Kary said way back when about PCR and Duesberg/HIV/AIDS and what Crowe said about PCR and Covid.
   That article was very widely read, to my eternal surprise, and can be found here.

6. It contains some hyperbole I wish I could edit out but it also has some very important quotes from David Crowe as well as Dave Rasnick, both of whom were very familiar with Kary’s views on PCR and viral diagnostics—they knew him well and had many exchanges. What Kary said can not be blurred or softened. Nor should people muddy the waters by speculating about the manner of his death. And they certainly shouldn’t call him “perfectly healthy” as they often do. He was not.

7. Yes, people have speculated wildly that Kary was bumped off. When asked, I have always said I have no reason to think so and have no idea. That’s separate from people supposedly distorting what Kary said about PCR and its applications to “viral” diagnostics, that would be viral diagnostics of any kind.

Did Kary Say PCR Could Not Be Used To Diagnose AIDS?

NO. Not Exactly.

PCR was NOT the Diagnostic Trap for AIDS. They Used “Antibody Tests.”

Kary Said PCR Viral Load Should Not Be Used To Scare People About When They Might Develop AIDS. He hated how they were always “scaring people to death.” He didn’t think that was sound science.

What Kary Mullis said about his vehement objections to PCR being “used to diagnose AIDS,” was a little more complex than meets the eye.

“Diagnosis” happened for most of the terror years with “antibody” tests, ELISA and Western Blot. PCR was brought in to measure “viral load” many years later, as part of a “surrogate marker” add-on scare tactic that was exploited to serve the dual purpose of discrediting Peter Duesberg. And that was where Kary stepped in to object.

From my UncoverDC article:

”From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

If things were done right, “infection” would be a far cry from a positive PCR test.”

***

This video features Liam Scheff, the late journalist who went undercover at Incarnation Children’s Center and broke wide open the horrific story of NIAID conducting experiments on black and Hispanic orphans. Here is speaks to the shocking fine print in all commercially available “HIV tests.” When you absorb enough of this kind of material, you begin to see, feel, and sense the pattern.

Questions: Do “HIV tests” reveal whether a person “has HIV?”

Returning now to another excerpt from my UnCoverDC article:

“With PCR’s rise, the HIV Industrial Complex weaponized it to assert that now they could see HIV more abundantly, hence their maligned foe Peter Duesberg was toast. And it was Kary Mullis, himself an HIV dissenter, who rose to Duesberg’s defense and said, “No he isn’t.”

“I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”

The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let’s push through:

“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”

“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it.  You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”

This is where it gets wild.

“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”

I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was Déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.

We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:

“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”

Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?”

Dec 3, 2020:

Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdowns

“In an interview posted on his Twitter feed, Dr. Pieter Borger said, “The virus wasn’t in Europe and the paper was already finished.”  He said these facts “should have been on television long ago. I explained it on LinkedIn, but you get banned if you do.” Regarding PCR he said, “You are not detecting a virus.”

“When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.”

—Kevin Corbett

Coming soon—my book. Photo taken by me, Milan, 2001, Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg. This won’t be the cover. Updates coming soon. I just like the picture.