Kary Mullis FULL interview with Gary Null - 1996
https://odysee.com/@newstonedphilosopher:2/kary-mullis-full-interview-with-gary:9

Transcribed with https://github.com/openai/whisper/ - lightly proof read. Please copy and share.

Professor Kary Mullis is one of the most unique minds in America.
He won the Nobel Prize.
We did this interview late at night at his home on the ocean.
Do you believe that we have made science our final arbiter and what is right?
As a result, we continue to look at science and scientists hold themselves up to make the decision that this is right behavior, that's wrong behavior.
You can do this, you can't do that.
It's a good question and I think the answer is definitely that science, in a way, having led to this sort of decline of, let's say, the Protestant church, the Protestants got a little bit too involved in history and left themselves open there for scientists to come in and say, it's a debunk Christianity because it came a mythological kind of thing rather than an only by faith kind of thing.
It became a, it's not a real religion in the sense of like Buddhism or something.
Science having been involved in that, people say, well, we're not going to go to church anymore.
We left a big hole in a lot of people's psychological makeup that has, I think, been filled to some degree by the ecological madness that people have jumped into.
And there, the scientists, or like you say, they are considered the final arbiters of what's good for the planet or what's bad for the planet.
And they hadn't got the slightest idea.
Instead of wearing white robes, they wear white lab coats, you know, instead of bringing you the word of God, they bring you the word of the EPA or whatever.
And they don't have to understand what it is that they are making you do, in fact.
And people, you know, just, I think they fall naturally into it because there is a need in humanity for something like a religion, something that makes you feel a part of some larger kind of group, something that you think, in spite of your wormy little life, makes you a part of something good, something big, something that makes sense.
But doesn't it also happen that when people were naturally evolving, it was necessary for them to take responsibility for the major part of their life?
If they didn't, if they couldn't make their own decisions about their own sense of reality, in significant ways, then they would have succumbed.
Today, very few people make many decisions that are really significant.
If they feel something's wrong, they go to a doctor.
The doctor frequently will tell them, this is your condition, and this is how to treat it.
People are not questioning innate knowledge or innate healing.
And as a result, we've relied upon a pharmaceutical model for all of our healing.
In fact, medicine doesn't mistrust nature, mistrust the person's own ability to have their own healing experience.
Well, I think people are still responsible for their decisions, and they still make them, just like they always have, and they do it with insufficient information, just like they always have.
It's just that the world's a little different now than, say, two million years ago, when maybe it was a matter of, do we go down there with the family next door, or are we going to stay up here in the canopy, or whatever?
I mean, the decisions that people make are important to their lives.
And they certainly accede to authority a lot, but I think that's always been the...
I don't know if there's ever...
There's no evidence in my mind for the time, from anthropological stuff, that there weren't always rulers and people that...
We've always had a hierarchical order, even in the caves, we've had a hierarchical order.
I believe there's...
In fact, my new book is just on that very topic on life energies, where it's born with a different life energy.
I'm very concerned when the media publishes a story that came out recently in the New York Times and all the other papers, that now it's being mandated that there's going to be pregnancy tests to determine if mothers have HIV, if the babies have HIV, and then put the babies on antiretrovirals, like AZT.
Well, if you have a baby that has no developed immune system of its own, should be getting it breastfed to develop a immune system.
It's going to take many months, in fact, several years to really fully develop, and you wouldn't start giving a child this completely healthy, just as an antibody in their system, and you give them a toxic chemotherapy drug, and then we are not at all...
Is that going to be mandated by law?
That's what they're trying to do.
They're not that dumb, aren't they?
I mean, they...
To mandate it?
What state?
Well, they've mandated vaccines.
You can't get into some college, you can't take it, have your kid go to school.
You can't travel to certain countries unless you've had vaccines, and it's never been shown that vaccines can be predictive of who they're going to help and what the consequences of side effects are going to be for who it hurts.
Yeah, I'm a libertarian, true right to the heart, and I do not like to see freedoms eroded at all for whatever grand cause, and that would almost...
I mean, I can't believe that there would be some big people in society that might like to do that, like that guy who used to be the head of the, you see the Surgeon General that's a...
C. W. Coop?
Yeah.
C. W. Coop, yeah.
Yeah, he's a bit on the sort of like a little bit like a Nazi kind of a guy in a way, and although he has some redeeming social value, but the man is just a little bit too much into...
I mean, he thought everybody at the NIH should start wearing uniforms, and that sort of that kind of a personality is capable, I think, also of thinking, yes, and we do have the moral right to make you give your kid AZT because it's our job to protect your child even if you don't want to do that.
State agencies have taken kids away from parents when the parent based upon informed knowledge chose not to give their child either AZT or other chemotherapy agents, either for AIDS or cancer, and these were parents who knew more than the average parent, and based upon their knowledge made it an informed choice, and those parents were deemed unfit and abusive parents and their kids were taken put into a foster home.
You know what?
In the 19th, early 20th century, actually late 19th century, in the South, pellagra was thought to be an infectious disease.
It was a lack of niacin because Southerners were eating corn instead of wheat that poor farmers were, and they were taking kids out of houses at homes there, thinking it was an infectious disease because everybody in the family was getting it, put the kids in an orphanage, and in the orphanage the kid would get a little bit of niacin because they'd have some wheat, and he wouldn't get pellagra, so it made real sense.
I took a government research station in South Carolina and finally got somebody, some clever Goldberg, some Jewish guy came out and they were with a little brains and said, wait a minute, this is not an infectious disease.
They had to throw out all the idiots that were running that, but that was a long time, and they did the same thing.
They took kids out of homes.
All they needed to do was bring in a little bread, a little whole wheat bread.
Does it bother you at all that every time we need a decision made, we're always looking for some scientist to tell us what to do, whether it's on cancer or almost any issue, where science has become state religion?
It does bother me when I see people, my mother's a good example of doing that.
Her doctors are never questioned at all, even though her son is sort of a medical person himself and sometimes disagrees with them, because I'm her son, of course I don't have any brains, and her physicians are always telling her weird things.
Yeah, it doesn't bother me so much, I like this planet, I'm not upset about it at all, I'm not a crusader.
If I had my way, I would make a few changes, I would make them slowly and carefully, I wouldn't make any radical kinds of changes, I would change science to be a little less responsive to central authority, like if you're going to fund a scientist for something, he says, here's what I'll do for you, you give me $200,000 next year and I'll do this.
I think, well, okay, why don't you just give him the $200,000 and let him do what he wants to do.
Don't make him tell you what he's doing.
Don't make him convince his colleagues that what he's going to work on with it.
If he's good enough to give it to him for one thing, just give it to him and let him decide, because you'll get a lot better science that way, and a lot more freedom for scientists to actually pursue their own goals, and a lot more discussion, which is a really important issue today about what is the proper way to go about what particular problem.
The way it's done now is rather medieval and it counts on the fact that it's not true anymore, that scientists never lie, that scientists will always be honest, and that they aren't each other's competitor, that they're each other's colleague.
The way we do, the way papers get published, the way grants get funded, all of that stuff is ancient, it's the structure that worked in the 17th century maybe, but it doesn't work now, it works very, very much against science, which is I think one of the better institutions on the planet, science is why we are sitting here with lights and stuff like that, empirical science, but not, it's almost always flourished better when dissent was expected and in fact encouraged to have a central authority like NIH doing all the medical decisions, it's kind of ridiculous.
Very prone to political positions that it shouldn't be taking in science, that adulterates science.
Oh yeah, very, very much, I mean we knew if we studied Hegel at all that after the 60s there was going to be a swing back to a repressive government, right? It just was going to happen, there was nothing you could do to stop it I don't think, it swung farther than I thought it would ever go, but we definitely got into it and that's, I mean the whole business of AIDS if you want to look at it in a big picture, AIDS is a Hegelian, it's the pendulum swinging back to the right thing, less permissiveness, people that don't pay attention to their grandmothers code of ethics are going to suffer for it. You can figure out all the little mechanisms of how that happened, but you can also just look at it in the big picture and say yeah, that was going to happen and now it's going to come a time pretty soon when it's going to go back the other way. Hopefully the swings, I'm afraid that Hegel is not right.
You make them wait until you start to have some sex and enjoy it and not go about it.
Oh yeah, well you know I never stopped, I said those guys aren't going to tell me what to do with my personal life and I know enough about the details of it, so if somebody wants to debate me about it I can do it and I would always try to be informed before I would make that decision, but also if you didn't know anything at all about the science of biology and you just looked at it from a sociological point of view, you should have been ready for the 80s. It's going to happen, it always does. Now Hegel probably, I think he had the impression that the oscillations get less and less, it's sort of a damped pendulum, it finally settles on something that's great. I think he missed there. It's chaotic, it's like he had the wrong geometry, but it will go back and forth and it will because that's the way that that is. In fact, it's probably important to the success of any species that it tries some experiments, but it never goes too far from something that has survived.
You can see it as sort of like an evolutionary standard in a sense, the idea that society will swing back and forth, experimenting a little bit, but then returning across some line that has worked in the past. You don't want to just keep going in one direction because you might just end up falling off a cliff. You destabilize basic institutional control.
You mean in the course of history?
Yes, individuals can make radical adjustments in their own lifestyles. Institutions never do. There's never been major institutions that make radical shifts because they'd be shifting their power base. The whole effort of an institution is to maintain its power and stability of power. So anything that threatens that stability is considered undesirable.
I would agree with that. The institutions do have this shifting sort of thing, but they don't go very far.
Very small.
I try to stay out of that stuff as best as I can personally.
Look, this is Peter Duesberg, right? Inventing the AIDS virus. Here's a man, the fair-haired scientist, who was considered a poster boy of science.
California scientist of the year in 1974, I think it was.
And now he's a pariah.
Not in this house.
No, but in this state and in that university, because when I filmed him in his laboratory three years ago, the laboratory had no funding. Now he doesn't even have that laboratory.
They've made it.
And he was tenured.
He was tenured.
Oh, tenured and also one of the most brilliant people. Surely the most brilliant virologist.
Possibly the most brilliant molecular biologist around. Peter is a very scholarly person, in addition to being brilliant, too. He's very careful. He doesn't say anything that he can't support, or usually. I mean, you can catch him in a weak moment and he might say something that he can't support. But he was a really well thought of guy, too, because of his ideas, the whole field. I mean, in cancer, he's got to let him into the whole oncogene thing, you know? Big research bonanza. Anybody who could order a little kit from some company and hire a couple of technicians could be a cancer researcher because of things that Peter opened up. And then Peter says, no, I don't think that's actually the cause of cancer. And that made those guys a little bit angry. And then he comes along and does the same thing for AIDS. He says, you know, I think we're on the wrong track here. And for some reason, you know, the second time, it was almost like nobody even had to argue with him. Oh, it's just Peter again, ruining our fun, telling us that all this easy research stuff that we know we can do now for years, and the American people will pay for it, that we shouldn't be doing that. And Peter did that again. He did that twice. We need a lot more Peters. We don't have enough people like him. And I, you know, the system doesn't really, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. It's a low sense. It's a taller like that.
Yeah. Peter has been marginalized. The media will not quote him without having a challenge quote. Yeah, there was a time when whatever he said was like any other major scientist would have been accepted on his face value. Now he is considered the controversial. They always preface the controversial, you know, X professor nature states, and just over and over again, if Peter Duesberg can be shown to be an idiot, then HIV causes AIDS. That's, that's what the argument comes down to in a lot of the media. It has nothing to do with they don't talk about, you know, the issues at all. Nobody has ever come up with with the arguments that need to be brought up to decide whether HIV has any effect on anything.
But let's just look at a few of those arguments for a few moments. If if they are right, they meaning the NIH, NCI, Gallo, Fauci, if they're right, then their prediction should be right also that we would have a pandemic worldwide an epidemic in America, an infectious disease sexually transmitted that hetero and homosexual equally be susceptible to. That's their first argument. Based upon that, everybody got terrified. You mean we could get sex, have sex and get AIDS and die. Then we put the big chill on promiscuity in any form. And then we started making accusations about who caused this and then started blaming. Has any of those initial predictions come true? Well, HIV, according to the CDC, if you look at the, and this is anybody can buy them the the annual medical yearbook from Britannica, 39 bucks or something like that and look in there and see and there's always an article in there about AIDS. And it's used as somebody from CDC giving a number saying here's the number of North Americans infected with this virus. The articles usually practice that I mean the headlines is HIV spreads into some new area, right? Spreads into heterosexuals, spreads into women, spreads into teenagers. But the number has always been the same since they started measuring it and estimating the number of North Americans infected by this virus. It has remained constant at approximately one million for 10 years. That is not an epidemic. Now it's okay. They had to drop it because they had realized all the false positives were ruining. We're starting to really mount up when they got into a into a population that did not have a lot of positives and then the false positives become predominant. And you know what? This is the craziest thing. I cannot believe this. When you catch a, find a kid like a 19 year old boy from Montana is joining the Air Force. It turns up HIV positive. And he's not been around the block too often. Nobody's ever bothered to check his mother to see if his mother is also HIV positive. In spite of the fact that we all know that if a mother is HIV positive, there's a 20
to 30% chance that all of her offspring will be, right? I mean everybody accepts that. But for some reason they can't see the simple reverse of that and say, wait a minute, this kid in Montana who's raised on a farm or something, who's HIV positive, probably didn't get it from, you know, hanging out in the bathhouses in LA. He got it somewhere. Why don't we just look at his mother and see if he got it? Because all you need is about 10 or 15 mothers of 19 year old boys that have HIV and did when the kid was born to blow that theory right out of the water.
No one's ever done that work. I don't understand why. I contacted the CDC and I asked them, did you do blood workups on all the people that you claimed were included in the AIDS figures from day one? The answer was no. No they didn't. About 25% of those figures were based upon symptoms.
Then I said, I presumed, I presumed diagnosis of HIV. And I said, but if you're presuming it's HIV, hence age, you must presume then that you have a gold standard. Nothing else could have caused the same symptoms. And I said, there are at least seven other friendly phone. And I said, there are at least seven other diseases that have the same identical symptoms of AIDS, such as tuberculosis and malaria.
And also cytomegalovirus is the band stage and tertiary syphilis. And I was going through some of the diseases I'd found that have this and they kind of shrugged their shoulders and didn't address the issue at all. They just avoided it. Then I asked about Africa and I said, no.
And in this documentary, there's five countries in Africa that have, you will see, where doctors who spend much of their life in Africa, their whole life as professional physicians in Africa, haven't seen a single case of AIDS. Right. Now the African thing is a big joke. I mean, it's a bad joke, but it is. In the epicenter, they're saying, yes, we have malaria and we have TB and they're not being treated because we're not getting any money. And they could be prevented and we could cure these people. We don't have fresh drinking water. They're drinking. And you'll see in the film, people drinking right out of septic water. I mean, you'll see human debris right on the water. They scoot to the side and drink the water. And then they get parasites and they get diarrhea. Well, if you drank out of infected feces water, you're going to get diarrhea and you're going to get tuberculosis in that environment and you're malnourished. And you're going to have a dry, nonproductive cough, lose about 10% of your body weight and you're going to be classified as AIDS. And he says, but if we give money for AIDS, then suddenly you'll see these new cars driving through the, you know, the highways here with loads of condoms and pamphlets, but not a single antibiotic to help anyone with tuberculosis or AIDS. The World Health Organization has totally messed up. So, I mean, following the lead of the NIH, they've, I mean, and those things, the article, I read this article about, it was a year ago, I think, in nature that just, I could not believe that it was in there. It has about 10 or 15 doctors with their names on it.
They study the prostitutes in, see, some little eastern African country right above Liberia, I forgot the name of it, it's a coastal country. They had gone there five years before and found that 75% of the prostitutes were HIV-positive. They predicted if they came back in five years, half of them would be dead, right? So, they come back in five years and there's no bodies to count, there's no dead prostitutes to do autopsies on. There's still HIV-positive according to their tests, which cross reactivity with all kinds of things. And their conclusion in the paper was that when that should have told them right there, I said, wait a minute, HIV doesn't seem to be of hurt in these people. The conclusion was these people have got a, this is in nature, a special strain of HIV, which, number one, does not cause any disease. Number two, it protects you from the strains that are rampant throughout Africa that do cause disease. And we ought to study these people further because we might be able to develop a vaccine out of this. That was published in Nature. And it is on its face, I mean, even a sixth grader, I think, looking at the logic there, would say, wait a minute, these guys, the emperor has no clothes here. There's something serious wrong with the mind of these people. They come in with a conclusion and they just won't ever examine it. And when they see direct evidence that their conclusion is wrong, they just make up some ridiculous thing like that. And the WHO gives them money to come back there and, you know, they probably have nice hotels on the beach there. But it's, and doctors like to go on little vacations to collect blood, things like that, which don't take a lot of time. And then take it back home and study it for all year. When they said that it was, remember about four years ago, they said that AIDS is now becoming an epidemic in the black community. And that all these black women, heterosexuals also, that's when it started to make its move, they suddenly became heterosexuals, but they said it was black heterosexuals. So I went into the hospitals in Connecticut, in Pennsylvania, and started contacting hospitals around the United States, not inner city hospitals, regular hospitals, couldn't find any cases of AIDS or HIV infected babies.
I went to Hall Hospital in Brooklyn, which is exclusively inner city, very depressed, poor people, and a lot of intravenous drug users. And I spoke with one of the, in fact, I spoke with several physicians, including one of the head of pediatrics, and the woman said, yes, we have a lot of women who come in here who are IV drug users, they're malnourished, they've got tuberculosis, they are, they would normally be dead if we didn't get them off the street and give them some treatment. Because normally drug, drug users who are heavy and mainline, they die. You know, they've always died. You know, this is, they're not in optimal health. And she says, yes, the babies will be positive and most are black. So hence, they take one hospital, and they make all the statistics from that hospital as if it related to all the blacks in America, where you're dealing with less than one hundredth of one percent of blacks in the total country. But you make that suddenly represent a population group, and how you manipulate that statistic by not showing that it's all hospitals and it's all blacks, and that these are IV drug users. Suddenly the IV drug user becomes representative of heterosexual transmission. Yeah, I mean, I mean, the question, I can't understand why no one's challenging this. I, well, you know, I've been challenging it, but it's not real loud because this is the first time PBS has come into my house and said, hey, what do you think about this? You know, I've had to fight really hard, you know, to get anybody, usually I'll go to, go to, I mean, until this year, when things are slowly starting to change, I think people are starting to realize this is serious. And these guys have been, have been, have got big woollen bags over their heads or something. They've been fooling us. They know, you know, the people that are age researchers now are getting neurotic if you ask them any questions. There was a time when I first started asking questions, all I wanted was, where are the papers? Just tell me the papers that you read that convinced you that HIV was a cause of age, because I need to reference those papers in some of the, I was working on a test for HIV with PCR, and I needed to write a little report to the NIH and say, here's the progress we've made. And the first line of it was, HIV is the probable cause of age. And I thought that was true. This is before I got involved. And I said, what's the reference for that quote? And I looked for it for about two or three years and I never could find it.
And by the end of two years, I'd ask everybody at every meeting that I'd gone to that talked about age, I'd ask, you know, I'd look through every computer database, there is no reference. There is nobody who should get credit for that statement. And that's a pretty weird situation in science, where getting credit for a discovery is the most important thing in your life as a scientist.
You want your work to be associated with you, especially if it's got to do with something that's so important in the world that they're spending billions of dollars on. We ought to know who was it that should get credit for pointing out to us that HIV was the probable cause of age.
And probable is not a very powerful word, but there is no such person. There is no paper, there's no group of papers. They can say, well, it's in there somewhere, but it's not in there somewhere. Gallo couldn't find it for you. Gallo wouldn't talk to me, but Montagnier couldn't find it for me. Montagnier said, why don't you after first they say, look at the CDC report, okay, they're talking about the bulletin of mortality and morbidity that comes out every couple of weeks. That's not a scientific publication in the sense of here's the data, here's the arguments, here's the conclusion. That's just a little thing that goes to doctors and say, when you see somebody come into your office with this kind of symptoms, you reported to us because it's possibly this or that kind of thing. It's not a scientific thing. It's not the guy that wrote that bulletin that month doesn't get the Nobel Prize for having discovered that HIV is the probable cause of age. I mean, it's just ridiculous to quote that thing. And then I said, I told him, I said, I read that, I don't think that was very, I mean, I'm talking about where did science come by the notion? Who brought that up? Who showed it to us? Who explained it to you? Where did you come up with the idea? He said, well, there's this SIV stuff. And I said, yeah, well, that was last month. We've known this for a long time. Who is responsible for us knowing it? Don't we want to know that person's name? He walked away. I figured that was the last person I ever asked. I asked a whole lot of people in that two or three years when I was certain at first that there must be an answer. I was in a different field slightly. I figured the virologist had that one taken care of, but they didn't. There wasn't a soul. And there still isn't. And the more you ask them, now you ask them, you can get thrown out of a dinner party. I mean, you sit around with, go to some virologist's house and start talking about questions like that, or even, you know, people that aren't virologists, people that are just ordinary people that are completely ignorant of the detail will get mad at you if you start talking about the fact that AIDS may not be caused by HIV. Just say something simple like, it may not be caused because I can't find any evidence that it is. These people that are being treated with AZT, a fairly lethal drug, if you take enough of it, they may be taking the drug that's killing. I mean, you'd think the Oklahoma bomber is a bad guy, right? There's nobody in the United States that doesn't think the guy that killed those 200 people in Oklahoma for no good reason, you know, shouldn't be sentenced to death probably. I think we all agree if he did it, he'd be ought to be killed. Now, is it not criminal, just as bad and maybe worse? Just then it's a whole lot of other people. I mean, these people, we are, there are people dying just because of AZT. I mean, that's proven in big studies, big studies like the Concord study, the conclusion of the Concord study was, this stuff is not good for you. You know, the little skeleton on the little crossbones, you know, the skeleton and crossbones on the bottle says, probably wouldn't be a good idea to take this stuff unless you've got a good reason to. Now, I would say that probably, you know, there've been, I don't know how many of the people who have died, so-called, of AIDS, have actually died of AZT because it certainly would wreck your immune system to 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. You know, when you give chemotherapy to somebody 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, the patient's going to survive, but you don't keep giving it to him until he dies because he certainly will. And AZT is just like those things. It's a little more lethal than most of the anti-cancer things that people take for that. Everybody knows that those things, you wouldn't want to just keep taking them until you died. Why would they, I mean, how can somebody say, take this drug, it's not making you well, by the way, it's making you feel terrible, but you just, we don't have anything else to give you, and this is going to cost you $8,000 a year.
Someone postulated that the AZT would stimulate T-cells, and then it was shown that it did not stimulate T-cells, that it was in a healthy way, that it was causing the body to have a hyper-immune reaction. I didn't know somebody thought it was going to stimulate T-cells. I thought they figured it was going to kill that virus because it's going to terminate DNA reproduction. Yeah, that's what it does. And it certainly does that, and it does that quite well in a lot of places that are not viral. I mean, it does that in normal immune, any rapidly growing tissue, just like any other chemotherapeutic type agent. Hypothetical situation. How many, let's assume for a moment that HIV is the cause of AIDS, just bargain with me. Okay. How many HIV cells are there generally compared to healthy cells? You mean, how many cells are infected by the virus in somebody that's that fairly, yes. The numbers vary wildly around, you know, all kinds of, I wouldn't, I mean, there were used to be a time when people said one out of ten to the fourth, then they went to one out of ten. There are some papers that say one out of ten and one out of a hundred. It's not like it's got them all, for sure. And I don't think that that means it can't cause a disease. Because, you know, it could do something subtle, and it might not have to be in every cell. It just that there isn't any evidence for that. And, you know, you- But what is the benefit of killing 100 or 1000 or 10,000 healthy cells to kill one sick cell? Well, if that one sick cell had something property about it that was going to get you- But has that been shown to be the case? Well, if it was, you know, let's say you had a, if you had a way of, if you, if you, when you kill, when you try to kill cancer cells, you kill a lot of healthy cells too. It's not a very effective treatment, but the argument is you're going to, you got nothing else to do. You're going to try to kill a cancer. Hopefully, it's more susceptible to the chemical than the healthy cells. Now, in this case, they have the same argument, except for the fact that they say you're going to keep on using this drug, knowing that it's killing your healthy cells until you die. You're not going to take it for two weeks and then hope that you've killed all the HIV, and now you will be live.
It's not like that. They said, no, we're going to do the same thing that we do to cancer, but we're just going to keep on doing it until you die. And hopefully it's going to prolong your life. Well, if it doesn't prolong your life, what they look for is surrogate markers. Now, have you heard that term battered about? Surrogate markers means, well, it doesn't seem to do anything for the disease, but it does, every now and then, do something for the level of CD4 cells that we measure, or it does something for this or that. Not that anybody really knows whether you want more or less CD4 cells at any particular time in your life. A lot of diseases call CD4 to go up.
A lot of diseases cause it to go down. Nobody's even sure if a CD4 cell is always a CD4 cell.
Just it's a marker on the cell at the time that they do this little counting procedure, which is stick a fluorescent tag on there, and say the ones that light up have CD4 on the outside.
And we don't really know what those cells do. The immune system is incredibly complicated, and immune, the immunologist brains are not nearly complicated enough to deal with it.
We have these little, you know, their theories all over the place, but no real confident immune immunologist would tell you that CD4 levels was a sufficient, a surrogate marker for anything until we know more about it. But that's what they're using. That's what the FDA's in yet.
You don't have to show that it helps them. These protease inhibitors, the same thing.
You don't have to show that it helps the patient. You don't have to show a single life saved.
All you have to do is show some little clinical indicator has changed in a way that somebody is hoping is going to make you better. I mean, it's a round argument.
I took a group of individuals who were HIV positive, husband and wife, they had both been intravenous drug users for about eight years, put them on a detoxification program, gave them a protocol under a physician where they were using ozone, vitamin C drips, bitter melon, several times a day, liver flushes, blood cleansing with a lot of chlorophyll rich juices, and glutathione and intravenous. At the end of one year, the woman's seroconverted to negative and her T cells went from around 400 to 1200. The husbands were at zero. Both are ideally healthy. There's not a single opportunistic infection. Not only that, there's no indicator infections. For instance, they had cytomegalovirus, they don't have it. Herpes, they don't have it.
Herpes 6 and mycoplasma don't have it. So here's two people. He's a construction worker, right? Totally healthy. She's totally healthy. He has zero T cells. She has a lot of T cells. Hers went up, but his went down. So clearly in this case, the T cells were irrelevant.
Nobody was counting those cells with those little, the markers like CD4, CD2, CD8, those had just become available to Gottlieb. I think he's the guy that did it in Los Angeles as AIDS came about. He had about five patients that are AIDS patients. His personal research interest was in using these new antibodies, OK4, OK8, that somebody in Japan had made that could distinguish types of T cells. That was just a research interest of his. He wanted to see what they would tell him. You know what they did. And then they suddenly came up with names for my helpers and suppressors and that kind of stuff later. But they really didn't know, they didn't have any experience. There was no experience. There was no log of what a CD4 level meant before AIDS came along. And then they decided low CD4, bad. High CD4, good. Go up to the Andes to look at somebody who's never had an infectious disease. I bet you they don't have any CD4 cells at all. They don't need them probably. They maybe have a couple waiting. But I mean, we don't know those kind of... I took a group of marathon runners who were terribly healthy, never had any risk factors at all. Vegetarian and they were running a marathon. All of their CD4 cells were very low. In fact, so low, even though they were totally healthy, getting ready for the marathon, that had they gone in with any kind of experience of a symptom and someone measured their blood, they'd have said, oh, you're a candidate for AIDS. So there are many conditions. Cytomegalovirus will bring your CD4 down. Epstein-Barr virus. You bake what is in our population. 90% of the public have this. Herpes will bring your CD4 down. Malaria brings your CD4 down. TB throws them clear down into the cellar. So when something is so inaccurate to make that a gold standard, that concerns me. Also, it's ridiculous is what it is. And it's the question really is whether it should be considered criminal behavior on the part of people who have the public trust. You know, I mean, it is criminal behavior to set off a bomb in a federal building. Is it criminal behavior to start passing out poisons to people who have no real diagnosable diseases to babies, for instance? And you know, the question, I think, we get often the details a lot in this thing. And it has been probably the worst part of it from the point of view of the public. There's only one real question that's relevant. And you don't have to think about CD4 cells. You don't have to think about all these other diseases with Latin names. You have to think about one thing. Who is it? And where is the paper that he wrote it down in who figured out that HIV was the cause of AIDS? Right? Who is that guy? If there's no person who can stand up in front of a scientific body and say, I'm that person, this team of us did that. And here's how we showed it. You know, you don't have to get into the details. You don't have to worry about the hemophiliacs in Africa. You don't have to worry about all the sort of subterfuges in a way that just keep coming up to complicate what is really a very simple situation. Here we have a bunch of people that are definitely sick for some reason. It's likely that their behavior was so radically different than the behavior that had gone. It was an experimental kind of behavior in a way.
It's not unlikely that they would have some kind of problems, some health problems. People stopped sleeping and eating. People start using all kinds of substances instead of food. And they're associating with the world's getting more and more densely populated and we're spreading more and more diseases around. It's not totally shocking that those people should come down with some diseases that'll kill them. So we don't need to postulate that there was an infection going on.
Since nobody actually did show that there was, what's the fuss? Why do we have to even think about C84? 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 to all the details and stuff and listen. These guys like Fauci get up there and start talking. He doesn't know anything really 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. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on the bottom. But the simplest person on the planet can say well if we know that this disease is caused by HIV how do we know that? Who figured it out? Is it in the Bible or is it in the Journal of the American Medical Association? Is it in some place where we can all look at?
That's what science is supposed to do. It's empirical science. I think a more fundamental question. If you're saying that HIV, not you, but rhetorically to the scientific community, saying HIV is the cause of AIDS, then are you saying that HIV by itself is the cause of AIDS?
They say yes. Then I say show me where any study has ever been published where HIV by itself has caused any illness at all. Now you're saying it causes 29 illnesses including Kaposi sarcoma.
And I say show me the evidence that in the absence of any other risk factor in the other antigen HIV causes Kaposi sarcoma. I think they've given up on Kaposi's. You can propagate Kaposi's in mice and you don't happen to get HIV following it. And that one is probably an alkyl nitrite kind of a problem. I think even Gallo himself. But that was originally what they hung the hat of. Oh yeah, sure. Kaposi's in a pneumocystis. Those were the one, two companies. You know how you give pneumocystis to a rat if you want to? Put him on a low protein diet and give him some steroids for about six weeks and he'll get pneumocystis. These guys are doing that same thing.
Low protein diet and a lot of steroids. I mean all kinds of steroids. And that's the known way. I mean that's what the people that study pneumocystis, that's the way they produce a rat model for pneumocystis. It's like, but you don't, again, I don't think it's worth my time to worry about the details in this thing because the really big fact is missing. Why do we think? Just because Bob Gallo gets up, takes his sunglasses up and says, gentlemen, you discovered the cause of AIDS.
That's all we have. New York Times article, CDC report. That's all we have. That's not enough.
That's not enough to, you know, that is not sufficient to publish even a meager little scientific paper somewhere. That isn't enough for scientists to believe some inconsequential fact about some star 50 light years away. You know, that's certainly not enough to treat at the cost of millions, billions of dollars a year and at the cost of a lot of lives and anguish and just destroyed, you know, lives have just been totally ruined by this thing.
On the basis of some flimsy little statement made by a guy who's known to be a crook in lots of other ways. He lied about a whole lot of other stuff. Why are we trusting there? If he was a witness in a courtroom, we wouldn't trust his testimony. We've caught him in too many lies.
You don't trust him anymore. We don't trust Gallo. We don't trust him. Nobody should trust Gallo.
Gallo's been caught too many times making up stuff. Okay, who do we trust? Fauci. Fauci doesn't know enough to, you know, if Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it because he's been asked. I mean, I've had a lot of people, president of the University of South Carolina, ask Fauci if he'd come down there and debate me on the 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 can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that's going to tell me the other side.
But Fauci didn't want to do it. He didn't want to talk about it.
Based upon the HIV equals A type hypothesis, they didn't give us the test. Now, they didn't give it to us. They sold it to us. Now, who sold it to us? Who owns, who gets money off the bank?
Gallo himself was getting quite a bit off of it. He had to give a lot back to Montagnier when it was finally proven that he stole the virus from Montagnier in the first place. But Montagnier and the Pasteur Institute are getting a dollar, I think. They're so every time somebody gets an HIV test. Is that tested gold standard? Will it only identify the HIV virus?
If you get it twice in a row, you have a pretty good chance of getting a plus one time and a minus the next. I mean, it is not. Even if the virus were a deadly virus, we wouldn't want to use that test to test it. I mean, that test was responsive. That's why they thought for a while that it was widespread in Africa because it cross reacted with antibodies to malaria.
That was the big, and they never went back and said, you know what, we just made a mistake there because we couldn't find the HIV one in the first place when we looked up for it.
We looked for the organism and after we didn't find it. So, we found something else that was close enough, 33% difference in sequence. It's not close at all, not for retroviruses.
They found something else. They said, it's HIV two. We're going to call this for a while. Now, they just drop that whole thing. They don't look for it at all anymore. You go into any kind of a, I must, a lot of places in Africa, the only kind of place you can get any medical treatment is at WHO hospital that's there for AIDS, right? So, anything you come in there for, you cut your knee with a machete. You're an AIDS patient in some little book somewhere.
You know, it's just, and presumably you have HIV too. So, they'll add that.
How in the world could scientists today, legislators, physicians, public health officials, give any legitimacy to a test that's determining predictive of a person going to die of a condition and hence be put on, almost insisting to put them on antiretrovirals when there's no gold standard. If a test cross-reacts with flu, back via vaccines, malaria, lupus, some arthritis conditions and connective cell conditions, leprosy. With all these other conditions they can cross-react with, then it's not a gold standard, is it? No, it's not. But, you know, the general public doesn't understand the idea of a gold standard here. Neither do doctors, physicians. I mean, you could, you just pull the average physician away from his, his convention someplace in Cincinnati or something and 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? I mean, how is it different from this Eliza test?
Does he understand how an Eliza test is operated? Does he understand anything about the statistics associated with the times when they've been tried? 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 every treatment that he does, for every little prescription that he writes, and he likes to have a lot of patients. And the county health department also knows that due to the Ryan White Act, for every single person who is diagnosed as having AIDS in the county, $2,500 a year from the federal government. So the county health department is actually pressuring doctors by their little subtle ways. They're not going to have ever beaten them. But don't miss an AIDS case.
You report it to us. If it's, if it's, if it's a positive test on the HIV, you report it to us because it's $2,500 in our pocket every year. I mean, it's kind of a, I mean, there's plenty of reasons why they're doing it. But, you know, one of them is not that doctors are intelligent people in this particular, I mean, the doctors have been dumb. The people that have taken the drug have been idiots also. I mean, they really are idiots. Go to some doctor and he gives you a drug when you're not even feeling bad sometimes. You start taking it and you start feeling worse or you start feeling bad for the first time. Keep on taking it because otherwise you're going to get sick. And then, you know, you read about it. It's not like you can't find out about AZT. You know, you can find out about it. It's not that hard to look in books like the Merck manual and stuff like that. What is this stuff? What's it used for? Why are they using it here? How did it get approved? Why is it that they would allow Western block abuse in the United States when it's been discontinued in England because it's worthless? Why is it that they're allowing a test that there's no two countries that have the same standard of how many bands it has to be comparatively reactive with? It's two in one country, three in another and four in another country. Making it very easy to test positive one country, a little more difficult in another country. If they didn't allow them to charge so much for it, I think that it'll be a lot less use of it. You know, I think that money is the main, the only, you know, it's just like in political scandals. Follow the money trail. Figure out who's getting paid for this. Who's getting the money for those Western blocks? There's your person who's going to always come down on the side of, yeah, you got a confirmatory Western block, they call it. You know, they do a confirmatory but it's like, well, let's see. And those things are so hokey, it's just ridiculous. I didn't know they did, they had not, they don't even do them in England anymore. No, not since 1992.
It's totally, and ask a doctor how it works. The doctor who says, gotta have a Western block to confirm this Eliza positive thing. How does that work, doctor? Sir, what are they now measuring about me that's different from what they measured with the Eliza test? He wouldn't know. He's not got any idea. I'll bet you there's scarcely 50 physicians in this country that know what a Western block really is. They know when to order it. And they know they get a kickback on it probably.
They make some money from having to take the blood or whatever. And they make money off the by prescribing AZT. They get money every time they turn around. They get money. Money is what makes it work. They get money to interpret the test also. Both courts. Why is it that a person would get a vaccine shot like hepatitis or measles to create antibodies, to get an antigen reaction so that the body will now have a memory cell so that when they're exposed in the future they will be able to call upon that immune response. But when you have an antibody to the HIV virus it's always predictive of causing the disease. It was because I would say they didn't have well enough developed way to look for the virus itself at the very beginning. They could only look for the antibodies to it at first. PCR came along right about the same time that HIV did. And it was at CEDIS 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 up right. The results there weren't very good either. Oh, the culture is the whole method that cell biology is a bunch of magic half the time. And those culture, you know, the people that say they can do quantitative estimations of HIV from cultures are just, they're fooling themselves. But I would say the answer to the question is that antibody tests was something they could quickly develop. That's what Gallo did and cell. And so he did. And he said, we're going to make a lot of money off this. Everybody in the world is going to have to take this test to find out who's going to dive the plague. And a lot of people did take it and he got a lot of money for it. I mean, and there's all kind of people all the way down the line getting paid for doing something that's absolutely insane. I mean, now where is John Q. Public?
You know, he's busy playing video games or something. He's not, he's just asleep at the wheel.
He's not saying, what are these guys trying to pull? I thought antibodies when I was in high school were good for you. Isn't that what cures your diseases? And if we're going to make a vaccine for this thing, isn't that going to make antibodies to it? Wouldn't that be the way a vaccine would work? So if you get, if you take a vaccine for HIV, you get A's, don't you? Yeah, antibody gets net. It's like ridiculous. If we had a vaccine out there widely used and everybody that had taken it, we said, well, let's see, how do you tell whether they don't have it or not? But you're talking about 100,000 scientists who are making $6 billion this year, more than on cancer and heart disease combined, you'll have probably five to 15,000 studies written and published over the next year and a half to two years on this phenomenon. Everyone wants to be a part of that action.
Why is it there's only a small handful of scientists like yourself and Gilbert and Duesberg who are willing to challenge this? Well, okay, 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 that Tony Fauci has to be the head of. A lot of people like Duesberg had the intellectual integrity knowing that he was going to catch it, knowing that they were going to just have a heyday pulling his grant. He went ahead and said it and he got, he's basically, he's been martyred. 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 eventually to feel foolish about having done that. I know that was going to happen. Duesberg knows that one of these days these idiots are going to have to face the music. I hope that he's kept that in his heart all along. I think he has. He knows one of these days because you can see the insanity, you know, and when they make stupid comments like John Maddox one of these days, John Maddox is going to have to, you know, eat it basically because he's been just personally, without mathematics, nothing about biology. He doesn't barely know anything about physics. I know more about physics than he does and considers himself a physicist. He writes these dumb little editorials and stuff like that and then these stupid attack, personal attacks on Duesberg seem to be like scientifically justifiable somehow to the editor of the foremost scientific, what used to be the foremost scientific journal in English language. It's not anymore in my eyes.
I still take the thing, but, you know, I just look through there occasionally. I don't read it with seriousness to find out anything anymore. Because it bothered that there is censorship in scientific publications and even in the major media? Yeah, it bothered me when nature rejected.
Right after I got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, man, I can't even write a short four-page hypothesis about what might, in fact, be a probable cause of aid. A hypothesis that was a useful one because it suggested a way to disprove it or prove 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, Lancet, Nature, Science, those people, we don't need a hypothesis directed at understanding what might be causing aid. We already know. And I call back the editors and I say, no, wait a minute. This is, you got to like, in Lancet, there's got a section called medical hypotheses. That's a type of an article you can submit. I say, this is a hypothesis.
This is a very good hypothesis. Not only can it be proven or disproven easily with rats or mice, but if, in fact, it shows, if it turns out that this does cause aid, you'll have a model system, an animal model system, which would be worth billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry.
You know, it was a beautiful little hypothesis, cute little thing. It wouldn't have taken a lot of work to prove or disprove it. But it wouldn't have taken any work to publish it. But not anybody would touch it. You know, I finally published it in some kind of, I think, genetic, I finally published it. And it may or may not be the cause of aid, but the fact that it, that you can't even, it was, it has, it's a sort of a variation. It's a, I thought a clever one on the idea that you have overloaded your immune system. If you think about time in terms of evolutionary time, and you see the population of humans growing like it has, the chances of you getting a human virus today are a hell of a lot higher than they were, they 10,000 years ago. And they, and, and it goes up in a, in a funny way. If you're hanging out with a, let's just say that there are an infinite number of retroviruses in the, the world, because they're changing so fast, you couldn't really count them. Okay. So there's a total, there's a number of retroviruses that's basically a function of the mass of human flesh, human retroviruses. And, and, and, and also it's, it's proportional to how much that flesh enracks. So it starts to get dense, more and more people are in your life. You've got more and more chances of getting retroviruses. Now they all might be harmless. The chances are good that they are, because they're just barely alive. But if you hang out with a thousand people a year, in a way that would maybe get, allow you to get some or most of their retroviruses, and they hang out with a thousand people a year, and they hang out with a thousand people a year, you're hanging out with a fourth of the human race. You're getting all the retroviruses from all over the planet. Now it might be that none of those things by themselves is going to hurt, hurt you, but we know that some of them do grow in your immune cells. Right. And they come in, they come in at very low multiplicity. You don't make an immune response every time you get a retrovirus inside of you somewhere. But if you have a cell in your immune system that has a retrovirus in it, and you promote that to clonality because it's going to be a part of an immune response, that cell, then the retrovirus will definitely escape. It will flower in a sense, and it will then have to be dealt with by the immune system because there'll be enough of it showing in the blood that the immune system will go for it. Well now if you've got enough harmless, but different retroviruses in your immune cells, such that every time you may mount a new immune response, which means you probably take about 500 different immune cells and make a million copies out of each one of them, if you've got enough retroviruses in your immune system such that one of those 500 is going to have a retrovirus in it that you've never made an immune response to before, you're going to have to make an immune response to it this time because it will, if you make a million copies of the cell, it's sure the retrovirus is certain to flower, to like make infectious bodies, right. Then you have to make another immune response, right. It's called the chain reaction.
See, it's all you have to do is have enough retroviruses in your immune cells, and we know that they can get in there, right, and we know that there's an infinite number of them out there, and we know there must be some level of contact with humanity that will cause you individually during your life to accumulate so many different retroviruses in your immune system. In the real risk group, which is the people that were undernourished, the people that were exposing themselves to a lot of other humans in environments where viruses could be easily passed around, if there were, I mean, there's a whole bunch of things about those guys that was different than normal people. Once they got outside of the inner city homosexual IV drug-using population and started sampling kids going into the army at 19, that's when the latency started going up fast because what they should have said, uh-oh, it's not got anything to do with HIV, does it? Because things are not going to change like that, honest. Also, it was very interesting that they predicted approximately a million North Americans were infected in 1984, I think it was, and it stayed the same right on through 1996. That's not an epidemic. The number of cases reported went up epidemically, you know, exponentially, because a number of tests that was done went up exponentially. I asked the first time I ever saw one of these CDC graphs, it showed this thing going off the page, you know, I went up after that and I said, how did you disentangle the, I mean, did you divide the number that 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 getting, 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. It's just, 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?
40,000. So that's where the curve came from. How many tests were done? Same thing. How many tests, they could have just said, how much money did we make off of HIV this year? And they could apply to that and it would look the same, you know, and they could have said, it's an epidemic because we're making more and more money off of it every year. But does it bother anyone that we haven't had an epidemic, that it's not in heterosexual community, it's still in the same basic risk groups and the risk factors that caused it back then are the ones that are indicated today from all the people I've interviewed? Well, the only person I know of has changed their mind on this issue is my mother. She finally said, Carrie, you know what? You're right. Because I told her a long time ago, I said, mother, don't worry about my sexual habits. Okay? There's a couple of diseases that you can get by having promiscuous sex life. They're both curable by penciling.
And there's nothing out there that's fatal and deadly. And in fact, sex is probably pretty healthy. It's something we've been doing this race for a long time, you know? It might be very unhealthy to go for long periods of time without it. We don't know that. But we do know that the venereal diseases that are around can be cured now. So what's the big scare, you know? And she's, well, hey, I said, but it's not shown to be. So she's funny. I mean, I don't know anybody else who's actually come across. I mean, but I don't know everybody who's thought about it. But I feel like a lot of people are starting to learn that a lot of people have got will be just like it's simply be it'll be like trying to get a Catholic to give up Catholicism, because somebody has proven that they can't they can make a vacuum. And inside that could not possibly be a God because it's nothing in a vacuum right now with a 17th century issue that the church. If AIDS is supposed to be an infectious disease, then why does it not represent the same model of behavior as any other known infectious agent? Well, now it could be that it's absolutely unique. I mean, glossy one stall, I think so, you know, but I I just I found that kind of, you know, it's not it is not on the other hand necessary to have a plausibility argument for something that you've got proof for. If I could show you that it did cause AIDS, then you could ask me that question.
And actually, I don't know why it does it that way. But it does cause it because here's the fact you give that stuff to somebody who doesn't have AIDS, he gets AIDS or some experiment that showed you definitely that you can't show me an animal model where I can't read that can I because every damn chimp that's ever been injected with it, you know, it's lived in the chimp for a while, chimp gets rid of it makes antibodies by definition, the chimps got AIDS at that point if he starts to like if it gets uterine cancer and it's a female chip, he's now got AIDS, but none of those chimps died of AIDS. I mean, they're still alive and happy. It's no evidence. But if there were evidence, see if there were this is one of the things I think I would if I could produce evidence that HIV caused AIDS, it could cause it by some weird mechanism that we never heard of. Totally implausible. But if you're saying no biology, it wouldn't matter if I had evidence, but there isn't any evidence. But if you're if you're suggesting, for instance, as Fauci suggested as Gallo and all the rest, that it's sexually transmitted, right, I went out and I charted for the last five years, the prevalence and increase of sexually transmitted disease, chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and and papilloma, and trigomonas. I then charted in the same risk groups, AIDS, HIV infection. Here is sexually transmitted diseases. And here is AIDS going down. Yeah. Yeah. That's pretty good proof that it's not a sexually transmitted disease. I mean, why was it a sexually transmitted disease? Why did they say it was sexually transmitted? First thing they said, this is a homosexual disease, right? So if you look back at the early kind of discussions of it, it's probably anal intercourse, right? We don't want to talk about it at dinner, but that's probably what it's caused by, right? So somebody in the CDC probably said, you know what, if that's the way it's transmitted, then Congress is going to say, good, we don't need those guys anyhow. We're not going to spend a lot of money trying to cure them of this thing that's caused by their bad habit, right? I mean, there's just not going to be a big public outcry to do anything at all about it.
If it's just caused by needles, or it's just caused by homosexual activities, you're not going to really get a whole, a long sustained public outcry against it, and nobody's going to want to spend $6 billion a year. They're going to say, well, we really don't like those people anyhow. The pendulum swinging back toward the 90s, great. I can't think of a better solution to the homosexual problem than a disease that'll kill them all. I mean, that would be congressmen that would talk about that quietly, not on television. So the CDC had to say, we can't say that. We've got to say it's got to be heterosexually transmitted. There's no proof that it's transmitted at all at that point.
So why not just say, well, it's heterosexually transmitted too. It must be in semen. And when they looked for it in semen, they didn't find it. They had no evidence that it was sexually transmitted or any other way transmitted. They just said it because that made it a plague. And the CDC needed one. The CDC hadn't had a good plague since polio. Their funding was probably going to be cut back if they didn't come up with one. The guy that was the head of the CDC in fact wrote memos that have been obtained where he describes this as hot stuff, just like they're playing with this ridiculous Ebola virus stuff, trying to frighten people there. That's like Coop. He'd love to see Ebola come into Florida and start sweeping across the southeast. He could take his uniformed troops. They could have barricades. It could be just like in the movie.
Those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They've got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to. And they smugly, like Tony Fauci, does not mind going on television in front of the people that pay his salary and lie directly into the camera. I mean, that's... Did you ever meet Linus Pauli? I unfortunately did not bother to go down there, just like I didn't go up to see Richard Feynman until he was dead. Because there were two people I wish I had just said hi. It's like shake your hand because you're cool people. I knew Linus Pauli for a long time. And I found it interesting that of all the Nobel laureates in the United States and around the world, he, having two unshared, I'm not aware of any other American to have two unshared Nobel Prizes, was never respected again by mainstream medicine or science when he supported that vitamin C could cause an improvement in people with terminal cancer.
And I watched, I watched all this funding dried up even though he was one of the founding members of the National Academy of Science. He couldn't even get a grant from them. And it took him almost 14 years just to get a mediocre grant to study cancer. Even when the Mayo Clinic supposedly reproduced his results that he obtained at the Vale of Levin Hospital in Scotland where Dr.
He and Dr. Ewan Cameron took a group of terminal cancer patients, divided them in half, gave half 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C every day of their life. Another group got a placebo and there was a statistically significant improvement in people receiving vitamin C. They turned around and did it at the Mayo Clinic, but they didn't use the same criteria. Pauling says don't use people who have chemotherapy, it'll knock the liver out. They use people with chemotherapy. Pauling says you have to give vitamin C every single day, they didn't. And so it was not the same study, yet they published it saying they duplicated his work. Then when they went to publish the results of what is a terribly flawed study, they didn't even get in the courtesy of saying here's the results, would you like to examine it? And all he was given was a letter to the editor of New England Journal of Medicine long after the study. And I saw at that time how you can take one of the best and brightest in America, much as they did our greatest living scientist of the century, who was destroyed, Dr. Andrew Ivy. There was never a scientist who's been more cited in the scientific literature than Dr. Ivy. He was a jurist, he was a physician, he was a scientist, he was everything. But he supported Carbiocin and he supported Carbiocin in a correct manner and they destroyed him. And that's been shown. Now I'm looking at what the media has done to you, projecting you as a flippant, drug taking womanizing person who everyone has to wonder how you even got through college, let alone got a Nobel Prize. And I'm thinking, my God, haven't we learned, haven't we learned from Andrew Ivy, and Linus Pauling, and Peter Duesberg what they'll do to the best and brightest? Well, you know, you can't expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don't know the difference really. I mean, I like humans, don't get me wrong, but basically, there's a vast majority of them do not possess the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. I mean, that's a problem, that's a main problem actually with science, I'd say, in this century because science is being judged by people, funding is being done by people who don't understand it. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people could sit down with Linus Pauling and not realize that he was a brilliant man. I mean, most people wouldn't know him from, you know, somebody who, you know, this was a little taller or something. I mean, nobody knows Richard Feynman, or Richard did finally showed a few people that, you know, when he said, you know, here's the O-ring, here's some cold water, see what happens? That he at least knew about it. I mean, but most people don't understand what a brilliant guy that Feynman was. There's a handful of people at any one time in the world who are capable of really doing innovative things, and usually those people turn out to care for their fellow man, you know, they respect them in a way, although they don't think that most of the people, the great masses of people, really are going to be able to understand what it is that they're doing. You know, it's got to, before the transistor radio, most people didn't really understand who John Bardeen was, right? John Bardeen didn't know who John Von Neumann was, who was 50 miles away, who needed those transistors really bad with his ENIAC. I mean, there's not a lot of specialized scientists. You don't expect everybody to understand what it is you did. I don't expect, you know, my mother to really understand how clever PCR was.
I just, I can't explain to her what, it was only a few people, you know, that really could see what a clever idea that was at first. Now everybody says, well, it's a wonderful thing because we hear about it all over the place. But see, what I'm saying is, if you're one of these people like Linus Pauling, I'm sure Linus did not expect to be appreciated. You know, I find the scorn of the masses to be sort of a, you know, they, I mean, if they love you too much, you're probably doing something wrong, don't you think? I mean, the guys, if they're willing to elect a president who lies right in front of them and says, I just put it in my mouth, I didn't inhale it.
And by the way, Mr. President, it's illegal to have it in your mouth too, whether you inhale it or not, you know. But somehow, he was like, well, such a clever way of getting around that issue.
What is he? He's a real diplomat, right? He's a lion bastard is what he is. But we elected him, you know, there wasn't a whole lot of other possibilities, there never is.
But that's the kind of people that you don't expect them to know whether Linus Pauling would be, you know, Linus's first paper about that business of ascorbic acid is all it took to convince me, just the theory. He says, look, here's where we came from. 20 million years ago, we're eating the tops of green plants, the little leaves. We're doing it all day long. It's a very, it's not a very rich substance. It's got a lot of vitamins in it, and we don't cook it so to destroy the vitamin C. Now, we don't make our own. We got used to getting it from those leaves.
When we come back down the tree, maybe we need it. You know, maybe we don't need it.
But it's probably a good chance that, you know, you got to look into it and see if you do, because you change your diet drastically. And the vitamin C is the one of those things, you know, the vitamin, you cook your food and you lose it. It's not stable to heat.
I thought it, I immediately started taking vitamin C, and it tastes pretty good.
You know, and it doesn't hurt you unless you take, if I take more than five grams a day, I start getting diarrhea, so I don't take any more. But the chance, the fact that it won't hurt you, and that it is a good chance that it does something, that's, here's some very smart people say it's very good for you, and they have good reasons to say that. I'd say it's worth, you know, it's worth the money that it costs. I take a lot of vitamins just because it's a, it's a good chance that, that our diet right now is not really optimal for our body. It would be unusual if it were, because we've changed our habitat completely. And it takes a long time for biochemistry to catch up with animals. They're fast. You know, they don't just sit in the same spot all the time. And we have to think about, we're animals, and we are changing our behavior all the time. We might just need something from our last environment. And that one seemed to me like pretty simple, reasonable, that that was a good idea. I thought it took from me, and then he had all kinds of data. But if he just said, take this poison here until you die, because I think you need it. I mean, that's what the CDC pulled off. Take this poison here until you die, because I think otherwise you might die. What do you say to the American public about stopping believing in the myth of AIDS? Well, in the first place, I would say, don't think of it as a belief. Science isn't a set of beliefs. It's not like Methodists and Catholics. Those, those people, Methodists and Catholics can believe whatever they want to, and they say, I will believe it. I'll stick by my story till I die, right? I'm a Methodist, pure and simple. That's okay for that kind of stuff. Scientists are not supposed to believe anything. Scientists are supposed to have some evidence that leads them tentatively to some conclusion or to some action. They're supposed to be able to show that to other scientists.
Any interested person, in fact, who's willing to understand what it is that was used as evidence, should be able to say, yeah, I agree with that. That makes sense, using rules of inference that we've used since Aristotle. Okay, and there's not, it's not complicated at all. You learn it in the sixth grade. Most scientists forget it pretty quickly, but science is not a set of beliefs.
I mean, there's only one belief in science that has, you have to retreat to commitment in a certain point. You have to say, we do believe that if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C, and we do believe that if P is a proposition which is true, then not P is a proposition that is false. That's all we have to believe in in science. The rest of it is tentative awaiting further study. And almost every single thing that is considered to be a fact in the 20th century in another 200,000 years will look very silly. You know, if you just think, picture yourself being a real bright Egyptian mathematician, and thinking that you really understand math, and then see what you'd look like from the point of view of somebody in the year 2000. Did you really understand math? Nope. Was any of it right? Nope. It was all wrong in just a little way here, a little bit there. There were things wrong with it. I wouldn't be surprised if 200,000 years ago from now, Aristotelian logic turned out to not be, you know, it's already starting to look kind of funny because of quantum mechanics. Sometimes things are true and not true at the same time. Sometimes effect precedes cause. Time isn't quite what we think it is either.
Nothing is certain in science. There are, there's no room for beliefs. Beliefs are for people, beliefs are for things where you want to have a belief that helps both through your courage in something in order to act. So that's what religion's for. You know, there you say, I'm going to believe in something that's going to help me to get through this mess out here that I've got to get through. And I'm going to do that because it's useful for me to believe that.
And the harder I believe in it, the more powerful I get in a way, especially if I want to start to be bossing a lot of people around and I can get them to believe the same thing. That's a belief.
The difference between that and science was established clearly at least in England in the 17th century by the Royal Society, the founding of the Royal Society. The Royal Society is still around now. They probably don't, don't remember this, that same bunch of assholes that people won't accept my papers anymore. But they said there's a big difference between empirical science.
Empirical science 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 is interested in seeing the results and we should all agree on the results. We don't have to worry about why. You know, we really don't. We don't ever, if you, if you why long enough, you'll always come to a big because and you won't be able to always know. But you can know what you showed. You can say, if I take this ball and I roll it down an inclined plane, it rolls down at a certain rate. It has to do, I think, with some kind of force we're going to call gravity. But I don't have to really know why it does. I can just show you that it does every time we can make cannons that will drop balls on people's heads with the same principle. It works. I can show you that it works by making the cannon. I can show you by repeating the experiment. I don't have to know why and I don't have to believe in balls because I can throw one at you. You know, I don't believe in them. They are there because I can pick them up. I have them in my hand. I don't believe in science. I don't believe in polio. Do you believe in polio? I mean, we are under the impression that there was a disease called polio that it caused and it got into your brain. It was terrible for you and some people died from it.
We have evidence for it, but we don't believe in it. It's not in some church somewhere.
And if somebody came along 100 years from now, studied the whole thing and said, you know what, there wasn't ever a disease called polio. It was a mistake. It was something else.
It wasn't a disease. I mean, then you change your mind about it in science. You're always ready to have your favorite theory proven wrong. And if you're not, you shouldn't be doing science. In fact, most of the people that are doing science shouldn't be there. Children should not be encouraged to go into science, by the way. Children should be encouraged to avoid it unless they just can't stand not being scientists. It's not a wonderful area where everybody is happy and heroes. There are very few of us that get the chance to go over to Stockholm and pick up a prize. It's a hard job.
There are a lot better jobs for people that have belief systems. I mean, if you want to believe in something, you can be a lawyer. You can believe in a lot. There's a lot of places in law where you can believe it's okay. You can be in church. You can be a church person. You can believe there. You can be lots of other professions. Well, you can be in real estate where you believe things. You don't do too well in real estate if you use too strict a belief system, but science is a place for people that just are too ornery to believe in anything. They say, show me. Show me why you think this is one way. And I'll try to show you another way. And we'll both do this and we'll enjoy doing that. We'll debate about what is the actual outcome of the experiment. And we'll do it over and over again until we all agree. Then we'll move on to the next step. Make some gunpowder, something like that. Make cars. We don't believe in cars.
It's not a belief. They're there. You can get run over by one. You don't have to believe in them.
We believe in things like God. The Catholics have sort of forgotten that. And that's why they sort of took a hit by science in the last century. It's a belief thing. It's faith. That's totally different from science. It's silly to hear people saying, you don't believe that HIV causes aid?
You don't believe that? I mean, it's just a word, but it's a very, very important distinction, I think, that, you know, that's why it's become a very emotional kind of thing. Because people actually, they get personally committed to what really is a body of evidence that can be analyzed, you know, by lots of people. And at this point, there's so much of it out there, nobody can really analyze it all of it. But nobody can write a review of it that says HIV causes aid because of this. You know, if a postdoc were to write a review of their literature that showed without much doubt that HIV was the cause of AIDS, that guy would be famous.
Now, there's 100,000 guys out there who had the opportunity. It's 10 years has passed. We've been waiting for this star postdoctoral fellow to distinguish himself forever and get a lifelong grant from Tony Fauci, but he hasn't shown up. No one has bothered to write a definitive review.
Any journal would take it. That right there proves that HIV does not cause AIDS by induction.
Then what have we seen the photograph and the photograph? Have we photographed AIDS? Do we have AIDS in a test tube? Because if we haven't proven HIV causes AIDS, then can we show that what we're calling HIV is an actual organism? Nobody has actually purified HIV. There's no little bottle of HIV anywhere on the planet that's just got HIV in it. They have cell lines that they think that is growing in. There are a lot of people who think it's not even there at all. But I mean, I wouldn't doubt that it's there. I think anything you can imagine is there somewhere.
But whether it's there or not is not the question. The question is, does it do anything with regard to these set of diseases that we've now called AIDS? It's a tangled web of madness by calling all those things AIDS, by just making it more and more and more complicated to figure out what causes what. It's not the way science works. It's a real bizarre thing to have 100,000
people being paid to do something that strange, to take a whole bunch of diseases, to lock them all into this one big thing. I mean, pretty soon, there won't be anything that's not AIDS. If they keep going, they'll write they're going. You say, well, let's see what'll happen in 100 years. How many diseases will be on that list? They put uterine cancer on there. That was stretching the imagination quite a ways, wasn't it? Throw uterine cancer in there as one of the indicator diseases.
You got uterine cancer and HIV antibodies. You got AIDS, honey. And we need some more females, by the way, with AIDS, don't we? What do you think of them giving social security benefits, disability cards for automobiles, free plate tickets, free bus rides, free meals to people who test positive for the HIV antibody and show any indication like night sweats?
By the way, then a person never has to work again for the rest of their life. In England, they give them a free car to drive. Here, with cancer, with Alzheimer's, and with major disabilities, there clearly are disabilities that don't give anything. Yeah, I've heard about all that stuff, and it is very difficult to understand from the point of view of the so-called the neutral observer why that would happen. But if you look at the details of it, you'll find out why, because this guy gets some money, this guy gets some money, and this guy gets some money, this guy gets...
They give me a free parking sticker down at the parking lot by the Scripts Pier because I'm a Nobel Prize winner. If they did, I'd take it. And I don't know whether I should have one or not, but I like to surf down there, and I like to park in that lot. But, I mean, people will take things if you give them to them, and if the process of giving out the money, everybody's always skimming it, right? I mean, in government handout things, if somebody's always making money off the process, I've given it away. Don't you think? I mean, and it's become such a... Just the issue of this ridiculous thing. It's like... It may be that we'll never understand how we got into that, because it's so complicated, but we got into this mess. I mean, it was a reaction to the sixties and the early seventies. Can we afford to be honest about AIDS? Is it too late for us to extract ourselves because of liability and acknowledging that there may have been medical genocide committed? The first time I heard Charlie Thomas say this, I thought, Thomas, you're being a little bit too rude there, but I started thinking about it, and I was... The way to get rid of AIDS is to stop funding it. Just stop everything that's called... It's called AIDS Research. Somebody tries to get a grant for AIDS research. They say, we don't do it anymore.
We don't have AIDS. If you want to study pneumocystis carinii, we'll maybe look at your paper and see if you've got something to say about that. If you want to study any one of those diseases by itself, try to cure it, we'll talk about that, but we're not going to talk about AIDS anymore. Just like in the 17th century, they decided to stop talking about God in science. It was too complicated.
It started a war. I mean, we started... Catholicism gets confused with science. You have trouble, and I think here we've got a similar kind of problem. We've got a religious phenomenon, a large segment of the population that has very strong opinions about something and beliefs.
Right? I mean, that's a religious kind of a thing, and it's tangled up with science. It needs to be untangled. The way to untangle it is to use the analytic kind of method that we used before, pick them apart. Don't talk about this overall disease called AIDS. Say, have you got pneumocystis carinii? Have I got pneumocystis carinii? That's a question we can answer. We know that organism.
We can detect it. What do you do about that? That's a reasonable question, but whether or not you have AIDS or not, it's not, because the definition of AIDS is so complicated that nobody can understand it. And it's the same kind of thing that was... It's like it becomes, when beliefs get tangled up with facts, matters of fact become matters of religious kind of significance, where if somebody gets mad at you for asking him a question in a scientific meeting, or says, I'm never going to have Carrie Mullis at the European Union of whatever kind of scientists, or they put it in nature, because he came in there and had the audacity to tell people that it might not be that bad to have sex, that AIDS might not be something you get from sex, that I don't see any evidence for it, is all I said. I don't see any evidence for it. Why?
You can't tell young people that. We'll never have you in Europe again. I mean, that was actually that sort of kind of thing. See, that's a religious thing. That's what you... You walk into a coffee house in the 17th century in England and say, I don't think we should worship the pope here anymore. I don't think we should pay any attention to him. Some people would get mad at you.
That's religion. Same thing with AIDS. It's religion. Go up to Los Angeles to some of these meetings where there's a whole bunch of guys that have had AIDS-type diseases, or have friends seen, friends die, and say, I don't really think there's such a thing as AIDS. I think you guys are suffering from the results of a lot of things that you have done yourselves. It's not like God just smiled on us and not on you and dropped a virus on you. It's because you've been not eating well, you have not been sleeping very much, and you have let yourself get run down. You've also gotten into a panic about the whole thing. You've fallen for their stuff, man. You've taken their poison. Science is a big institution, and most of the people there aren't scientists.
What do you think of all these people now who are willing to take what sometimes are very brilliant minds and apply it specifically just to helping a major industry market a product?
Even when the results of what that company need do not always match the actual science behind it?
You're talking about the marketing people. Well, you've got to be a little cynical to be a good marketing person, probably. A little bit. I'm a libertarian in that regard, too.
I think let them do it. They're not forcing you. If you're dumb enough to watch that box over there and do what it says to do, then that's your problem. It's not mine. I think it's all right for people to try to suspend your good judgment for long enough to get your wallet out, whatever.
I think that's okay. People should be subjected to marketing. Most people actually distrust marketing. They see it for what it is. They don't realize that when Tony Fauci gets up and starts talking, he's marketing, too. That's what they really need to learn.
Go back to something you said about when you get up to give a lecture with people with AIDS and some of the AIDS organizations, they're willing to cut you to pieces. A lot of them, just to get angry, if you suggest that it's got anything to do with the behavior, if it's possible that it's a behavioral thing. These guys lived next door to me in Berkeley a long time ago.
They were homosexuals. We played cards together on the front a long time. Then the bathhouse stuff started happening. Those guys started going over to the bathhouses. I was waiting for the heterosexual bathhouses to happen, but they never did. I didn't go over there, but I noticed over a couple of years that those guys got paler and thinner. They're coming in at five in the morning, take a little amphetamine, go to work, don't eat very much, come home at night, head out to the bathhouses. It was a fascinating place to be at that point. That was a wonderful time in their lives. I regretted that I wasn't homosexual myself, but I saw that those guys were sick. I could tell just by looking at them, because I'd known them before they started doing that. They weren't normal healthy males between the ages of 24 and 45. It was obvious to them, I think, that they were abusing themselves. I mean, if I go two nights without sleep, I know I've done something bad to my health. My little cuts don't heal quite as well if I don't sleep, and all kinds of things. Everybody knows that. Those guys somehow decided when they started dying that it wasn't their lifestyle, which was radically different from other people's that was causing it. It was something else. Then here comes Gallo and Montagnier and the NIH saying, that's right, it's something else. It's something you're not responsible for. You're just the beginning of it. We're all going to get it. They liked that so much, because they said we can go right ahead and do what we're doing. We just have to do a few little things differently, and then we'll be okay. They cling to that, and they think if you suggest that it's their activity, that the way they live their life, that you're a homophobe or something, you're some kind of an idiot, there's something wrong with you. There's some of them that aren't that stupid, but there's a lot of them that are religiously associated with the notion, they believe in the notion that it is an infectious thing that will eventually sweep across the planet and kill everybody.
That's what they've been hearing that, and they like that better than the idea that maybe this experiment in a radically different style of life failed. Maybe there were some things in that lurking in there that weren't really going to work. It seems reasonable when you start doing a whole lot of different things that something might just go wrong. It's a complicated system, a whole bunch of people just quickly changing all their habits and starting to do all kinds of things that they haven't done in generations before. Have you ever had a time in your life?
I want to add on to something. I want you to go a little further, but in a little different way.
Have you ever had a time in your life where you really burned everything out? You just couldn't stop whatever you were doing. I mean, if it was having sex or staying up late or drinking or whatever, maybe for a week or two weeks, you just went on a real rip. Last week.
How did it feel? I felt, I want to give you a coke out of here.
My co-author in this book was in town for a week and a half. We just spent a lot of time, we'd work every day for about five and a half hours, and then we'd play really hard.
We really started on Cinco de Maya, the weekend. Cinco de Maya, we started around Thursday, and by Monday, I felt like we had just about got to the edge of death, that if we went any further with that kind of a, you know, with no sleep, no real food, lots of tequila, just crazy, wonderful women just happened to be coming through all the time, and it was a lovely time. But I knew, and David did too. We'd got to the end, and if we'd go and push that any further, it would be really bad. So I don't do that very often. I'm not finished yet. That's the first part. Now, let's say that we gave you hepatitis, not once, not twice, but five times. And then when you woke up in the morning, before you had the cigarettes and the alcohol, we gave you a handful of antibiotics.
Let's say we gave you a bunch of penicillin. And then we also gave you some recto infusion of sperm, which we know is immunosuppressive. And we also gave you every kind of drug imaginable, ecstasy, and poppers, so you could keep having your erections in sex all night.
And let's say you just didn't have tier three sexual acts. Let's say you had five, ten sexual acts per night. But it didn't end on the day that you and your buddy felt it was going to end.
You did that for the next two years, every day. I would not expect to live through it. I mean, you know, I wouldn't expect to live through even the minor incursions that I make into, like, you know, riotous living if I kept it up very long. I know I can't. If I go, I could go without sleep for two nights, and then I start bumping into things. I can't start dropping things. I know I am really, I mean, I don't mean going completely without sleep. I mean, like, go in the bed at 3.30 and waking up at six o'clock to go surfing, that kind of thing.
That's not enough for me. I need more than that. I need to have, you know, a fairly decent diet, I think. Well, then where is the surprise of guys who did this for three and four years, at the same level and more intense than you did? And now they come down with one of these 29 or multiple, 29 opportunistic infections. Where is the surprise? Those guys that lived next door to me, they, I mean, I talked to them, they were, I said, you guys looking awfully pale, aren't you out in the sun anymore? And the answer is no, we're working, we're, you know, we're in the, I mean, on the weekends, we're hanging out at the bath house, and it's fine, why don't you come over there, I won't show you. But, I mean, I don't think anybody should have been really surprised. That's the shock of the whole thing, actually, when you look back and say, why did they think it was just some virus that this guy, Montagnier, pulled out of a lymph node, he could have pulled anything out of that lymph node, it probably had a hundred different things in there that he could have identified. Just pulled out, and now why did anybody fall for that? They wanted, they wanted, like hell, to keep going, doing what they were doing, and you get, you get, you know, used to things. They didn't start all that stuff on one day, they started a little over time, too, you know, they didn't, all of a sudden, one day, say, we're going to go from being, like, clean cut kids that get three square meals a day, and they just slowly started picking up more and more riotous kind of living, and it, you get used to things, I guess, and then, I don't know, somebody put the suggestion out, the CDC wanted, you know, they did want to have a plague, and it was a good, you know, it looks like a nice possibility, and they went for it.
Remember the actor, Errol Flynn? He was a swashbuckler, he was in, you know, Robin Hood, and Captain Blood, and he died on his 50th birthday, around his 50th birthday, he was only 50 years old. He was so burnt out, so washed out, that when the doctor who, he died up in Canada, when the doctor did an autopsy, couldn't believe that he was alive for the last five years, his liver was totally sclerosed, his heart was completely shot, he had athero and arterial sclerosis, he had it all, and he looked about 90. Now, he drank every day, he smoked every day, and he lived a fast life, he also did some drugs.
There's a good example of what would happen to a heterosexual in a very relatively short period of time, took him about 20 years to do that, and so then you triple what he was doing, and you can speed up the process. We have a lot of models for, in the heterosexual community, for people who have destroyed themselves without needing a virus to do it. We have a lot of things lifestyle that the show does, so now we say lifestyle is not a part of it, and that always amazed me that everybody bought that. It was the easiest solution, I mean the easiest explanation for those people who were starting to get all these diseases to accept, because the other one would have said, you maybe are going to have to modify your behavior, now we don't know exactly what it is you're doing that's wrong, but you might not think about dropping a few things and what is it that's making you sick? I just can't imagine people that were doing that kind of stuff that weren't aware that it was the things they were doing that were doing it. I mean, it's so obvious to me when I go without sleep for two days that that's what's causing me to bump into things, or forget things, or have a little sore on my finger that should have healed really quickly. It's obvious to me when that happens, but why not just look at all the other gays who were not living that kind of life, who never got HIV or AIDS? Only two percent of the gay population that tested positive for HIV or AIDS. This particular whatever it is, you can't call it a hoax, you can't call it a conspiracy, you can't call it, it's something so bizarre that to try to explain it to somebody, it's almost like they can't possibly believe how bad it is, how dumb it was, how crazy. That's why that's one of the reasons I think it just got a hard time convincing anybody at all, because you say, look, every single thing here is wrong. There's no evidence. You know, there's plenty of reasons that doubt it. Every bit of the data is wacky in some way. All the conclusions are wrong. All of them are wrong. I think that's if there's been one little thing wrong, then it's easy to say, well, here's one little thing that's wrong here, and people will be with that a lot easier than the entire AIDS establishment is absolutely guilty of some hideous sins, and everybody's been fooled. Everybody on the planet has been fooled by a handful of greedy people without any scruples and no brains. That's hard to believe, see? I was 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 is causing people to die that's called HIV. It's just not. No, Carrie, I read it everywhere I look. I go, you know, and mother, the entire medical establishment is wrong, and I'm right. No, you can't possibly be right, Carrie. They wouldn't do that. They couldn't possibly be wrong. Every radio station you listen to, every television station, every where 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. So how can you come in here and tell me that? Do you think that it should be renamed Dumb or Dumber? Dumb or Dumber after the movie? You know, I think that some of those people really ought to be, you know, there's 100,000 of them, right? There's probably about half of those people who are just too dumb to know what they've done. The other half of them have just been too dishonest. They have not the heart or the 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 of Alamogordo and drop another bomb out there, just get rid of them. I think that we're going to do that to, you know, the guy that killed 200
people in Oklahoma. He was an idiot, you know, misguided, but powerful. He could make bombs.
These guys are the same way. They're idiots, misguided, and they're powerful, and they have been killing people right and left. And the people they hadn't killed, they think of all the suffering and misery they've caused. Just the fear of AIDS has probably killed about a thousand people, just the fear. You know, it doesn't make you feel good to think you might be getting a fatal disease all the time and worrying about it every morning. Is this cold the beginning? Is this flu the beginning of AIDS? You know, there's a lot of people with HIV who are always worried. Every time they get any little disease, they're worried sick about it, and some of them probably end up dying just because of their worrying about it. You know what I mean? Worries? I mean, it's not one of those things. Bone-pointing. Bone-pointing, yes. It's sort of like bone-pointing. Yeah, the aboriginal quality of pointing a bone and condemning someone, and that allows them to go out and die.
There's things that I can see there, but I don't know how to talk about it. If you look at them long enough, you say there's a lot of interesting stuff there, and that's probably the way Adams looks somehow like that. And they go down infinitesimally in structure. They don't get down to any shiny little balls anywhere. And then just all the things that we really started with when we started trying to decide what matter was made out of turn out to not make sense in light of what we find out using those assumptions going in. You come up with something like a neutrino. Well, that's a cool little particle, isn't it? No mass, but angular momentum. Carrying the angular momentum of an electron. Well, that's a really sort of interesting idea. And so we don't know anything. And it's like not unlike, I mean, we're only here because we learned how to eat, not because we had slide rules. We're here because we know how to eat and mate and maybe bring up our young to where they can do that. And that's not, you know, it's shocking to me that we know anything. I mean, that we can build a jet plane that can usually fly is an amazing, it's got to do with we cooperate.
We have we have written language and I mean, none of us could do that. Actually, I couldn't even make a book. You know, I might by myself, I couldn't make a damn coke can if I had to. I don't know all the things you need to know. None of us is very smart really. We don't know anything much. I know a few things. And you know a few things and all of us together. You know, it's it's a miracle that we're here. And I don't think it's the the weak anthropic principle kind of thing operating here. I didn't go for that. I think it's a it's stuff that we just, you know, it's way beyond our comprehension. That's why there's it. That's why the religion is a thing that people do continually seek out. They some people somewhere inside of you know that it's a lot weirder than that. You know, it's stranger. I think some British guys like life, the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. And I think that sort of, you know, that is one of some that struck me a long time ago as being, yeah, we're pretty arrogant to think that just by learning how to copulate and eat and raise our kids, that we're going to learn about the inner workings of the entire universe. And when we get run out of information, we just come up with something like the cosmology, you know, the primary first, the way you start in cosmology, you say, well, if you can't see it, it's like everything you can see, right? If it's two, the whole universe must be homogeneous, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be able to talk about it here in this classroom, right? That's pretty, that was lame the first time I heard that.
I said, well, right, because you couldn't talk about the whole universe, since most 99% of it's invisible to you. So you must just you have to assume that the same laws apply everywhere.
If they don't, then you can't even make up a theory about it, right?
It doesn't matter that it's not testable at all. I have my own cosmology published in Nature, by the way, that was funny as hell. When I was a second-year graduate student, I published a paper called The Cosmological Significance of Time Reversal in Maddox's Magazine, and he took it.
And I wasn't a cosmologist or even an astrophysicist. I'd read Scientific American a little bit, taken some acid and had some dreams about how things were, wrote myself a paper and got it published. Suddenly, I was writing, you know, I was saying, Big Bang Theory is not right, and then Steady State theory is not either. This is a good idea right here. What about it?
Published it. When I sent PCR, no thanks. They rejected it. Nature rejected the PCR paper that I wrote, and so did Science, both of those austere magazines. But they took, Nature took the cosmological significance of time reversal, which was the sort of lunacy of a sophomore, I mean, a second-year graduate student in biochemistry. When that happened, it really, that was my first real shock about science. I said, There's nobody minding the store.
There aren't any wise old men up there. How could this happen? How could they let me publish this theory in Nature? It's not like in some backwater journal. Nature, you know, a lot of the professors in the departments, and what in the hell is this? One of our graduate students just put his own paper in Nature, and it's not even about biochemistry? It caused a lot, it was, it was, it's weird what that did to my career at Berkeley. People said, Well, he's weird, but AIDS is, is, a lot of people think of it as a conspiracy by some group or something like that, but it's just, it's just something that happened. It's a thing that really fit right into the historical framework, and it went exactly the way sociologists looking at history would have said, Yes, it's something like that ought to happen, and it happened. And there's the thing that I learned, like back in 1968, when I first published a paper by myself in Nature in a field that I had no expertise in at all. There are no old wise men up there at the top of science, where, which I would have, I really did until 68, I would have thought, you know, if you try to publish a dumb paper in a journal like Nature, it won't get published. If you try to publish a good paper in there, like I later tried to publish PCR, the invention of PCR in the same journal, and they didn't take it. It's up there, there isn't an up there there. There's no place up on the, the Academy of Sciences, just a bunch of idiots, just like everybody else, you know, the editors of journals, all steered journals even. They're just busy with their little lives and stuff. There are no old wise men up on the top, making sure that we don't do something really dumb, you know. And we are kind of like the children of the apes that we came from. We're a, we're a very, we're naïve, and none of us even knows how to make his own shirts, you know. We don't really individually amount to a whole lot. We, we have a pretty neat thing going here, and I like it. But you can't imagine, you can't think that there's, there's really some council of elders or something watching, and there certainly is not some austere body of people that are, that are not self-interested, that are really looking at medical science and making sure that everything works, or that nothing really dumb happens. We're on our own here.
Carrie, what would happen if half the scientists in the United States came here, could live right across the street from the Pacific Ocean, see beautiful sunrise sunsets, have a lot of nice sex, have a refrigerator with beautiful women, with nice bodies, hang out with some good people, and enjoyed this kind of lifestyle? You think you'd get a little different, would they be different? Would they be different?
No, I think people are gonna, you know, we're really bound to remain human. Human is what we are, and human is, you know, we have foibles, right? We, our, our warranty runs out probably when we're about 35, for one thing. You know, we're old wise men, we're not involved in evolution because they didn't exist. I mean, there weren't any people over 35, probably for, until at least 100,000 years ago, when people started carrying things around that they could bash animals with and stuff like that. We're, I mean, old wise men are kind of a new development. Old wise women are a new development. They're just, we're very sad. I think that humans will always just be, you know, we have to think of ourselves as a bunch of kids. I mean, I think there was a real, you know, somewhere back in there, when we came out of the trees and hit the ground, there was a neoteny kind of an event where we became, we stopped growing up. We were babies of the apes that got old enough. We got capable of reproduction. You know what I mean? That something had to happen there to keep us, to make that transition. And if we look around and think of ourselves as kids, you know, just a bunch of kids, then I think we see much better who we are than if we think of ourselves as being, you know, mature. I always think of myself as a kid.
I, I roller skate. I play, you know, and I love little kids to play with. And I, I don't ever think of myself as mature at all. And I think that that's a better way of looking at humans than that as they start looking older that they somehow get wiser because it's not my experience.
Carry them all. It's fun talking with you.
It was a pleasure talking with you. Let's go get something to eat.

Edit

Pub: 20 Jun 2024 11:50 UTC

Views: 60