Share this comment
In the patent for PCR that was issued in 1986 to Kary Mullis et al., they wrote that one application for PCR would be to diagnose the presence of pathogenic microorganisms including viruses. [patents.google.com/pate…] Mullis was also the last author of a patent from 1989 titled "Detection of viruses by amplification and hybridization", w…
In the patent for PCR that was issued in 1986 to Kary Mullis et al., they wrote that one application for PCR would be to diagnose the presence of pathogenic microorganisms including viruses. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US4683195] Mullis was also the last author of a patent from 1989 titled "Detection of viruses by amplification and hybridization", where they specifically wrote that PCR can be used to detect HIV, and they wrote that HIV has been sequenced and that there are isolates of HIV available. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5176995A] Kary Mullis was additionally one of the authors of a paper published in 1987 titled "Identification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Sequences by Using In Vitro Enzymatic Amplification and Oligomer Cleavage Detection". [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254157/pdf/jvirol00096-0400.pdf]
When Kary Mullis said that "quantitative PCR is an oxymoron", I believe he meant that PCR was not an accurate way to quantify viral load, and not that PCR was not an accurate way to determine whether a sample contains a virus or not. John Lauritsen wrote: "With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: 'Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.' PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers." [https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm]
In an interview with Gary Null, Mullis also said: "PCR came along right about the same time that HIV did. And it was in that [unintelligible word] that people started looking with PCR for HIV. That was the only way to see it, except for culture. Which was a long protracted procedure, which a lot of times didn't turn right. [...] The culture - the whole method - cell biology is a bunch of magic half of the time. And people who say that they can do quantitative estimations of HIV from culture, they're just - they're fooling themselves." [https://www.bitchute.com/video/8SjzUDxBZL9t/, time 9:05] But by "quantitative estimations", I think Mullis was again talking about estimating viral load.
HIV is typically detected using antigen or antibody tests and not PCR, but the main use of PCR tests in the case of HIV was traditionally to measure viral load. PCR tests for HIV are commonly called "NAT tests" or nucleic acid tests, and they are further divided into quantitative and non-quantitative NAT tests depending on whether their aim is to measure viral load, even though some NAT tests for HIV also use transcription-mediated amplification instead of PCR. So the typical use of PCR tests for HIV is different from the typical use of PCR tests for COVID.
The CDC's website says that "Most rapid tests and the only HIV self-test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are antibody tests." [https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/test-types.html] And the CDC's website also says that a NAT test "can tell if a person has HIV or how much virus is present in the blood (HIV viral load test)" and that a NAT test "should be considered for people who have had a recent exposure or a possible exposure and have early symptoms of HIV and who have tested negative with an antibody or antigen/antibody test" (so basically a NAT test is used as a fallback for antibody and antigen tests).
In the year 2006 in Australia, there was a court case where someone was convicted of three counts of endangering life after he had unprotected sex with three women without telling them that he was HIV positive. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070709210442/http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/2007-SASC-143-Parenzee.pdf] He appealed by stating that HIV has not been proven to exist, and testimony in his favor was provided by Eleni Papadopolous-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner from the Perth Group. After Mullis's comments about PCR were brought up the Perth Group, Mullis was sent an e-mail which said: "I am assisting the prosecution in an Appeal to the Supreme court in South Australia about a conviction for criminal transmission of HIV. The basis for that Appeal is that HIV does not exist and that the PCR technology is flawed. So in effect the technical basis for identification of virus is on trial. The group of denialists giving evidence are people from Perth who quote you as indicating that PCR technology is erroneous and misleading. Can I ask you to comment on this statement." [http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/McDonald-Mullis.html] But Mullis responded by writing: "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." And Mullis also wrote that "the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR".
I just want to applaud you. Even though we seem to disagree on the conclusions one can draw from these studies, you are one of the only people I have ever met who has actually read and familarized yourself with the historical criticism of virus theory and then discussed it. So, even though we seem to disagree on whether the theory is valid or not, I do thank you for joining the discussion and doing so in a contemplative way!
Whats written in a patent is a claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be capable of being "reduced to practise".
I suspect, because I've done it myself, is to disclose a use OTHERS might want to patent. You do this because then you've "prior arted them".
They cannot secure a patent unless something is NEW, INVENTIVE and USEFUL.
If its disclosed already, you cannot get a strong patent on anything using that which is in the public domain already, because your invention lacks novelty.
Good points.
(sorry but my "like" function is somehow disabled)