"Referring to the guardians of the HIV establishment, such as Gallo and Fauci, Mullis suddenly turns from rage to pity. "I feel sorry for 'em," he admits. "I want to have the story unveiled, but you know what? I'm just not the kick-'em-in-the-balls kind of guy. I'm a moral person, but I'm not a crusader. I think it's a terrible tragedy that it's happened. There are some terrible motivations of humans involved in this, and Gallo and Fauci have got to be some of the worst."
Then the anger kicks in again. "Personally, I want to see those fuckers pay for it a little bit. I want to see them lose their position. I want to see their goddamn children have to go to junior college. I mean, who do we care about? Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I'm the most concerned about. Every night I think about this. I think, what is my interest in this? Why do I care? I don't know anybody dying of it. They're right about that. Well, except one of my girlfriend's brothers died of it, and I think he died of AZT."
At this point, Mullis voice starts to crack. "The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at, if you look at it through the glasses that you've developed through looking at this thing, seems pretty scary to me. Look at the oncogene people and I go, oh yeah, I know what they are doing. Same stuff. Oncogenes don't have anything to do with cancer. Radiation probably doesn't have anything to do with stopping cancer. The drugs that we use on people - all those goddamn horrible poisons - they're no less toxic than AZT. And we are doing it to everybody. Everybody's aunt is being radiated once a goddamn month and given drugs that are going to kill her.
We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession - except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbing problem - is really fucked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do shit about it. It's scary, that's what it is."
So just read Faber's article, and sorry Frances I am not buying Mullis story no matter how well written it is. Nothing in that article convinces me to disregard what is set out in this paper about him >
Oh here we go.... another hero who was probably murdered for what he knew is being trashed by people who NEVER met him and who are determined to misinterpret everything he said and did.
That is disgusting.
Kary Mullis made it very clear that he did not believe his PCR test could detect anything which could be identified as causing an illness.
When he said "if you do sufficient cycles you can find anything in anyone!" he meant that the test could be misused by nefarious agents to prove anything they wanted to prove.
Celia Farber met Kary Mullis face to face. She also interviewed Duesberg who was the first to say that there was no HIV virus. Mullis supported him in that belief.
So - go back to Celia's article and stop spreading hate. So fucking WHAT if he was a surfer who went to a few parties and got high? My entire generation did that. Are you suggesting that because we took LSD and smoked a bit of cannabis we are all addled idiots?
Frances, have you read the rest of DPL's articles here on his substack???? Also, you need to realize that, per HER OWN ADMISSION, Celia Farber doesn't know jack shit about the science, and actually she NEVER DID! Therefore, she was incredibly useful to Duesberg and Mullis and their CABAL. And....
I was IN that old, "AIDS" dissident movement, going back to the mid 1990s! Although I never "interviewed" Mullis, I DID MEET Kary Mullis several times, and I was not only PRESENT when he made some now often-repeated and infamous comments that many people in the current dissident movement have **MISINTERPRETED**, I actually *CO-PRODUCED* that seminar!!
Another opinionated arsewipe who never met Kary Mullis but thinks he knows all about him?
When he said "if you do sufficient cycles you can find anything in anyone!" he meant that the test could be misused by nefarious agents to prove anything they wanted to prove.
Frances, do you have reading and comprehension difficulties...?? I LITERALLY JUST WROTE ABOVE: " I DID MEET Kary Mullis several times, and I was not only PRESENT when he made some now often-repeated and infamous comments that many people in the current dissident movement have **MISINTERPRETED**, I actually *CO-PRODUCED* that seminar!!"
You may not like hearing what I have to say, but I am INFINITELY more knowledgeable about the quotes attributed to Mullis than either you OR FARBER!! My bio is at: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about Feel free to call me any name you'd like, but I think you are showing your true colors in your comments! Mullis' comment you have cited says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the existence of the SOURCE material which, in the cases of viruses, simply DOES NOT EXIST! THAT, my dear, is something that MULLIS NEVER CONCEDED!! In fact, to his dying DAY, Mullis was a defender of mainstream virology!! See this link: https://www.karymullis.com/pdf/jpuppe.pdf and search for Mullis' comments about H5M1...!!! Mullis was also a stalwart defender of genetics and genomics, which was more than enough to keep all those mainstream assholes he was constantly insulting purring like satisfied kittens who just consumed a hearty meal......
A refresher on "good cop, bad cop" may prove useful if you are open at all to more realistic interpretations of what Mullis did and said and what he actually accomplished **FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT**....!! Judging from your comments, though, YOU are the one who is closed-minded!!
This article makes me think back to Dr Willner was an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. They came after him. I remember when this happened. I found the information on yandex.com since Google is all for free speech. They wouldn't censor or change the algorithms from preventing you from finding the information. Anyways, there are many articles out there that state the same. Here's a short article and the press conference he held. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/dr-who-says-hiv-does-not-cause-aids-injects-himself-with-virus-live-on-tv/
This is a great review, I've heard her speak and she is on the ball. In this interview, though she is clear there is no HIV, she says things that suggest that viruses exist like near the top:
"ELENI: From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911."
I only read a few pages, maybe she corrected this later in the interview...?
She says this mockingly to show how they contradict themselves.
Further down she says something in the lines of 'no one can dispute the characteristics of a retrovirus'. Insinuating that it's been laid down in stone in virology and then goes on to explain how HIV differs in size more than 700%
I so wish she was still alive. We could have done with her expertise.
She spoke on the phone for endless hours with Anthony and Rod and they said that Eleni constantly told them the whole profession is shot.
I just think that their decision not to go full out against the virus BS was not the right decision but I get why they did it. There was still a big respect for science back then and they probably thought that keeping things purely scientific other "scientists" would see the absolute trash for themselves and wake up to the nonsense. Little did they realize that most of science stems from inventive reasoning and most scientists are nothing more than science fiction authors.
Yeah, I think a lot of them delude themselves, thinking, "well there must be something to this, everyone is into it, oh and I do need my job💲" The ones at the top though know it's a ruse.
Liar. This interview, if real, makes it crystal clear that she believes in retroviruses. That they were purified with centriguation and the isolates were electron micrographed.
There's 0 indication that she is mocking or joking.
> For some unknown reason the decades old method of retroviral isolation (6,7) developed to study animal retroviruses was not followed.
> It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
> It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy and this was utilised to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
> Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
Throughout this interview she refers to retroviruses as a settled fact and only argues that HIV did not meet the burden of what she considers proper isolation which had been done for "real" retroviruses.
> From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911. It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
This is your hero, parroting the official "rockefeller" history of vituses. There's no sarcasm or mocking here. And if you continue to argue that she actually means the exact opposite of what she is saying, you are only showing yourself to be delusional.
I agree with DPL, in this interview, she is clearly stating the "accepted science" on retroviruses and then stating why these experiments have not been properly met when it comes to HIV.
She has not been asked in this interview about other viruses or other retroviruses but it is obvious if she had she would have to say that in order to prove their existence they would be required to meet the same criteria as set out by the accepted science. Why would she measure other viruses or retrovirus by a different standard??
Just because she states what the accepted science is, doesn't mean she accepts it. It's clear that for her isolation is required and so is proof of replication. And we all know that this has not been shown for any virus or retrovirus ever. Again, why would she require other viruses to meet different standards??
CJ: Can't you just look down a microscope and say there's a virus in the cultures?
ELENI: No you can't. That's the whole point of putting the virus question. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses. You have to prove that whatever particle you nominate can actually make copies of itself. No replication, no virus. I'm sorry but this is an extremely important point. No one, especially virologists, can afford to ignore it.
....
CJ: Which steps are the most important?
ELENI: All the steps are important. Establishing the presence of retroviral-like particles in cultures, purification and analysis of those particles, proof the particles can replicate and proof that the antibodies in patients' blood which react with the proteins taken from the particles are specific.
.....
ELENI: No. Isolation means separation from everything else. Not just detection of some phenomena. The only way to prove the existence of an infectious agent is to isolate it. That's what this debate is all about.
If you took the interview as a whole instead of pulling snippets out of context, this would be glaringly obvious. I think your comments are disingenuous.
Bullshit. She was doing far more than laying out the rules. She was referring to retroviruses as a settled scientific fact confirmed by density gradient centrifugation and electron microscopy. She wasn't saying what should be done, she was saying that it had been done for retroviruses in general, just not for HIV. This is as clear as day in this interview.
> From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911. It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
> It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy and this was utilised to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
> CJ: And do retroviral particles band at a characteristic point?
> Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
This is all presented as factual historical exposition. An honest person who knows that viruses are an unproven hypothesis would never refer to viruses having been "discovered", having certain properties, having been purified and electron micrographed. Unless of course this is all true, in which case I look forward to you dedicating your blog to proving your hero right in all the above assertions.
She said that meaning that the field based their theory on a set of rules which retroviruses must adhere to. She did this to show that they contradict themselves.
In her many peer reviewed and published work she never once made anyone believe that viruses or retroviruses existed. She had to however, navigate around the decision they have mad which had been that they will not, publicly, make the claim that viruses do not exist. This was an attempt to not be written off completely in the field because people start to think that you are a looney… This is perfectly understandable because no one in the field of virology takes Stefan Lanka seriously. Eleni however was able to publish a lot of papers, all of which was carefully crafter to lead anyone who read them to the conclusion that viruses do not exist. Where do you think Lanka came from? Eleni was his mentor…
So to say that the Perth group believed in viruses is just plain disappointing because it shows you do not know their work.
It wasn't good enough because of the gatekeepers who instead of supporting her did their utmost to suppress her work.
She clearly states in this interview that it's not just because HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV does not exist. This was at a time when HIV was by far the most feared unicorn out there.
Apart from all the above Eleni was quoted on the phone on several conversations with some of the other people she was also mentoring stating that the whole of virology if shot.
INTERVIEW KARY MULLIS
AIDS; Words from the Front
By Celia Farber in Spin, July 1994
"Referring to the guardians of the HIV establishment, such as Gallo and Fauci, Mullis suddenly turns from rage to pity. "I feel sorry for 'em," he admits. "I want to have the story unveiled, but you know what? I'm just not the kick-'em-in-the-balls kind of guy. I'm a moral person, but I'm not a crusader. I think it's a terrible tragedy that it's happened. There are some terrible motivations of humans involved in this, and Gallo and Fauci have got to be some of the worst."
Then the anger kicks in again. "Personally, I want to see those fuckers pay for it a little bit. I want to see them lose their position. I want to see their goddamn children have to go to junior college. I mean, who do we care about? Do we care about these people that are HIV-positive whose lives have been ruined? Those are the people I'm the most concerned about. Every night I think about this. I think, what is my interest in this? Why do I care? I don't know anybody dying of it. They're right about that. Well, except one of my girlfriend's brothers died of it, and I think he died of AZT."
At this point, Mullis voice starts to crack. "The horror of it is every goddamn thing you look at, if you look at it through the glasses that you've developed through looking at this thing, seems pretty scary to me. Look at the oncogene people and I go, oh yeah, I know what they are doing. Same stuff. Oncogenes don't have anything to do with cancer. Radiation probably doesn't have anything to do with stopping cancer. The drugs that we use on people - all those goddamn horrible poisons - they're no less toxic than AZT. And we are doing it to everybody. Everybody's aunt is being radiated once a goddamn month and given drugs that are going to kill her.
We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession - except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbing problem - is really fucked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do shit about it. It's scary, that's what it is."
https://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfmullis.htm
From what I understand Mullis was in on it and was a virus pusher as well...
🎯.
That's my understanding as well.
Well, read the article I added and learn some truth from Celia Farber!
So just read Faber's article, and sorry Frances I am not buying Mullis story no matter how well written it is. Nothing in that article convinces me to disregard what is set out in this paper about him >
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc/mobilebasic
I don't think Mullis was a genius nor do I think PCR was some great invention for the reasons set out in these papers >
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
*Farber's
Oh here we go.... another hero who was probably murdered for what he knew is being trashed by people who NEVER met him and who are determined to misinterpret everything he said and did.
That is disgusting.
Kary Mullis made it very clear that he did not believe his PCR test could detect anything which could be identified as causing an illness.
When he said "if you do sufficient cycles you can find anything in anyone!" he meant that the test could be misused by nefarious agents to prove anything they wanted to prove.
Celia Farber met Kary Mullis face to face. She also interviewed Duesberg who was the first to say that there was no HIV virus. Mullis supported him in that belief.
So - go back to Celia's article and stop spreading hate. So fucking WHAT if he was a surfer who went to a few parties and got high? My entire generation did that. Are you suggesting that because we took LSD and smoked a bit of cannabis we are all addled idiots?
I sincerely hope not.
Frances, have you read the rest of DPL's articles here on his substack???? Also, you need to realize that, per HER OWN ADMISSION, Celia Farber doesn't know jack shit about the science, and actually she NEVER DID! Therefore, she was incredibly useful to Duesberg and Mullis and their CABAL. And....
THOSE GUYS WERE ALL PRO-VIROLOGY!!
SEE: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-covid-truth-movement-has-probably
I was IN that old, "AIDS" dissident movement, going back to the mid 1990s! Although I never "interviewed" Mullis, I DID MEET Kary Mullis several times, and I was not only PRESENT when he made some now often-repeated and infamous comments that many people in the current dissident movement have **MISINTERPRETED**, I actually *CO-PRODUCED* that seminar!!
Mullis was, like Farber, VERY USEFUL, but to the BAD SIDE. Again, read this document that Mia has just cited: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc/mobilebasic
There may be a second part to that document that will get published. You also need to please read (and listen to) MY COMMENTS about this very phenomenon of "The Mullis Mirage" on MY substack at: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
Another opinionated arsewipe who never met Kary Mullis but thinks he knows all about him?
When he said "if you do sufficient cycles you can find anything in anyone!" he meant that the test could be misused by nefarious agents to prove anything they wanted to prove.
Do me a favour..... do one!
Frances, do you have reading and comprehension difficulties...?? I LITERALLY JUST WROTE ABOVE: " I DID MEET Kary Mullis several times, and I was not only PRESENT when he made some now often-repeated and infamous comments that many people in the current dissident movement have **MISINTERPRETED**, I actually *CO-PRODUCED* that seminar!!"
You may not like hearing what I have to say, but I am INFINITELY more knowledgeable about the quotes attributed to Mullis than either you OR FARBER!! My bio is at: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about Feel free to call me any name you'd like, but I think you are showing your true colors in your comments! Mullis' comment you have cited says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the existence of the SOURCE material which, in the cases of viruses, simply DOES NOT EXIST! THAT, my dear, is something that MULLIS NEVER CONCEDED!! In fact, to his dying DAY, Mullis was a defender of mainstream virology!! See this link: https://www.karymullis.com/pdf/jpuppe.pdf and search for Mullis' comments about H5M1...!!! Mullis was also a stalwart defender of genetics and genomics, which was more than enough to keep all those mainstream assholes he was constantly insulting purring like satisfied kittens who just consumed a hearty meal......
A refresher on "good cop, bad cop" may prove useful if you are open at all to more realistic interpretations of what Mullis did and said and what he actually accomplished **FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT**....!! Judging from your comments, though, YOU are the one who is closed-minded!!
I am on the verge of banning you... It's clear you're only here to troll.
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virus-isolation-confusion-is-the
Did you actually read the article that Celia Farber wrote? Obviously NOT.
Review the work on Mullis instead of making a fool of yourself in the comments.
What does "isolation" of a virus have to do with the fraudulent ways of Kary Mullis?
This article makes me think back to Dr Willner was an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. They came after him. I remember when this happened. I found the information on yandex.com since Google is all for free speech. They wouldn't censor or change the algorithms from preventing you from finding the information. Anyways, there are many articles out there that state the same. Here's a short article and the press conference he held. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/dr-who-says-hiv-does-not-cause-aids-injects-himself-with-virus-live-on-tv/
This is a great review, I've heard her speak and she is on the ball. In this interview, though she is clear there is no HIV, she says things that suggest that viruses exist like near the top:
"ELENI: From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911."
I only read a few pages, maybe she corrected this later in the interview...?
She says this mockingly to show how they contradict themselves.
Further down she says something in the lines of 'no one can dispute the characteristics of a retrovirus'. Insinuating that it's been laid down in stone in virology and then goes on to explain how HIV differs in size more than 700%
Thanks, I know she is rabidly no-virus, the wordage needed clarification but I got it now thanks!
I so wish she was still alive. We could have done with her expertise.
She spoke on the phone for endless hours with Anthony and Rod and they said that Eleni constantly told them the whole profession is shot.
I just think that their decision not to go full out against the virus BS was not the right decision but I get why they did it. There was still a big respect for science back then and they probably thought that keeping things purely scientific other "scientists" would see the absolute trash for themselves and wake up to the nonsense. Little did they realize that most of science stems from inventive reasoning and most scientists are nothing more than science fiction authors.
Yeah, I think a lot of them delude themselves, thinking, "well there must be something to this, everyone is into it, oh and I do need my job💲" The ones at the top though know it's a ruse.
Liar. This interview, if real, makes it crystal clear that she believes in retroviruses. That they were purified with centriguation and the isolates were electron micrographed.
There's 0 indication that she is mocking or joking.
> For some unknown reason the decades old method of retroviral isolation (6,7) developed to study animal retroviruses was not followed.
> It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
> It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy and this was utilised to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
> Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
Throughout this interview she refers to retroviruses as a settled fact and only argues that HIV did not meet the burden of what she considers proper isolation which had been done for "real" retroviruses.
Your new hero, like Mullis is a virus hugger.
Great stuff. You've just clearly highlighted exactly what I've said. Is there more your want to add you lil sewer rat?
dpl, I have to say I'm a little confused myself. I think her words do suggest she believes in retroviruses.
Like I've explained a few times now. She laid out the rules established by virology and then show how they contradict themselves.
> From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911. It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
This is your hero, parroting the official "rockefeller" history of vituses. There's no sarcasm or mocking here. And if you continue to argue that she actually means the exact opposite of what she is saying, you are only showing yourself to be delusional.
I agree with DPL, in this interview, she is clearly stating the "accepted science" on retroviruses and then stating why these experiments have not been properly met when it comes to HIV.
She has not been asked in this interview about other viruses or other retroviruses but it is obvious if she had she would have to say that in order to prove their existence they would be required to meet the same criteria as set out by the accepted science. Why would she measure other viruses or retrovirus by a different standard??
Just because she states what the accepted science is, doesn't mean she accepts it. It's clear that for her isolation is required and so is proof of replication. And we all know that this has not been shown for any virus or retrovirus ever. Again, why would she require other viruses to meet different standards??
CJ: Can't you just look down a microscope and say there's a virus in the cultures?
ELENI: No you can't. That's the whole point of putting the virus question. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses. You have to prove that whatever particle you nominate can actually make copies of itself. No replication, no virus. I'm sorry but this is an extremely important point. No one, especially virologists, can afford to ignore it.
....
CJ: Which steps are the most important?
ELENI: All the steps are important. Establishing the presence of retroviral-like particles in cultures, purification and analysis of those particles, proof the particles can replicate and proof that the antibodies in patients' blood which react with the proteins taken from the particles are specific.
.....
ELENI: No. Isolation means separation from everything else. Not just detection of some phenomena. The only way to prove the existence of an infectious agent is to isolate it. That's what this debate is all about.
If you took the interview as a whole instead of pulling snippets out of context, this would be glaringly obvious. I think your comments are disingenuous.
Like I've said. She laid out the rules the was established by Viroliegy and then go on to show how they contradict themselves.
You continuing to highlight this doesn't change the fact.
Bullshit. She was doing far more than laying out the rules. She was referring to retroviruses as a settled scientific fact confirmed by density gradient centrifugation and electron microscopy. She wasn't saying what should be done, she was saying that it had been done for retroviruses in general, just not for HIV. This is as clear as day in this interview.
> From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911. It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
> It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
> It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy and this was utilised to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
> CJ: And do retroviral particles band at a characteristic point?
> Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
This is all presented as factual historical exposition. An honest person who knows that viruses are an unproven hypothesis would never refer to viruses having been "discovered", having certain properties, having been purified and electron micrographed. Unless of course this is all true, in which case I look forward to you dedicating your blog to proving your hero right in all the above assertions.
She said that meaning that the field based their theory on a set of rules which retroviruses must adhere to. She did this to show that they contradict themselves.
In her many peer reviewed and published work she never once made anyone believe that viruses or retroviruses existed. She had to however, navigate around the decision they have mad which had been that they will not, publicly, make the claim that viruses do not exist. This was an attempt to not be written off completely in the field because people start to think that you are a looney… This is perfectly understandable because no one in the field of virology takes Stefan Lanka seriously. Eleni however was able to publish a lot of papers, all of which was carefully crafter to lead anyone who read them to the conclusion that viruses do not exist. Where do you think Lanka came from? Eleni was his mentor…
So to say that the Perth group believed in viruses is just plain disappointing because it shows you do not know their work.
It wasn't good enough because of the gatekeepers who instead of supporting her did their utmost to suppress her work.
She clearly states in this interview that it's not just because HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV does not exist. This was at a time when HIV was by far the most feared unicorn out there.
WRT her being Lanka's mentor here is the big man himself - https://twitter.com/dpl003/status/1704917167165042752?t=8krD9vSERlyJEJcpj27qTg&s=19
Apart from all the above Eleni was quoted on the phone on several conversations with some of the other people she was also mentoring stating that the whole of virology if shot.