The problem of Kary Mullis

Two days ago we received the following comment from Beata:

You are the first person I came across who suggested that Mullis probably met with an untimely demise. I thought about it soon after the PCR tests became the gold standard of covid diagnosis. My intuition told me that they got rid of him because he would talk and their entire scam would have been uncovered too soon to take hold.

It is probably not wise to make conjectures based on no evidence, or flimsy evidence, and I certainly have none to back up my suspicion that Mullis was murdered. I have only this: In the AIDS debate he was a turd in the punch bowl. He comes off as an honest, if somewhat odd man, kind of a Doc Brown of chemistry. He could easily be ridiculed and marginalized if he had not invented PCR and won a Nobel Prize for it (along with Michael Smith). He had gravitas.

And indeed, Wikipedia does denigrate him, trying to deflect credit for PCR away from Mullis and to others. But that source comes up hollow in the process. Mullis’ crimes, according to Wiki, are to deny a human role in climate change, and to deny HIV as the cause of AIDS. Climatic Change and AIDS, prior to Covid, were two of the largest scientific hoaxes ever seen, each backed by junk science and bolstered by public pronouncements from authoritative-sounding sources (Fauci appears yet again, alongside Richard Gallo and Luc Montagnier, lined up in a row, each spreading incredible tales.)

Here is footnote 11 in the Wikipedia piece:

Mullis was quoted saying “the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas” has hurt science.[11] He believed that “science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out,” not for what they actually produce.[11]

That is true on its face, not needing documentation. Look at the whole field of virology, yet to produce a real genome of a purified virus. Herein lies the problem of Kary Mullis: He had a habit of speaking truth to power. Noam Chomsky, for what he is worth, noted that speaking truth to power is essentially meaningless, that power already knows what is true. Powerful people certainly know that Mullis was right about science, AIDS, and Climate Change. The normal means of dealing with truth-speakers is to marginalize them, denigrate them, but then there is the problem of the PCR process, and that damned Nobel Prize. There are other final means to dealing with pain-in-the-ass people who will not shut up and cannot be completely buried in lies and defamation: buy them off to shut them up, or, perhaps, murder them.

Did that damned Nobel get Mullis killed? These days Nobel seems under control of the governors, with weak-kneed committee agents handing the prize out to suspects like Barack Obama and Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann, who don’t come off well standing in the shadow of Mullis. The prize has either been co-opted, or has long existed (1954 Enders) as something that can be real, and like all human enterprise, something that can be corrupted. Knowing as I do that PCR is a real breakthrough – in chemistry there are two eras, pre-PCR and post – Wikipedia does its best to take credit away from Mullis, given his truth-speaking habits.

Of course, I have no evidence of foul play. I cannot say with certainty that he really died. Short of murder, the threat of murder can be effective too in shutting people up, noted Don Corleone. I only know that six months ahead of the largest scientific hoax in human history unveiling, one that would center around the Mullis PCR, Mullis got sick and died.*

I have my doubts about that.

*Mullis is said to have died of pneumonia on August 7, 2019 (had he hung on for one more day, he would have hit double eights). A healthy, vibrant man doesn’t just catch pneumonia and die. Pneumonia is the end of a long process of decline, organs shutting down, often referred to as the “old person’s friend”. His death is fishy.

49 thoughts on “The problem of Kary Mullis

  1. Nobel prizes don’t get handed out to outsiders, IMO. His death from pneumonia has a comic ring to it, given all the respiratory “illness’ since. His company Cetus, was bought out by Chiron – those names are mythical and astrological – perhaps they are shell companies. Such a great scientist, and how much have we heard about PCR in recent months, the cycles etc. But how do we know any of it is really real at all? Could it just be random results, or preprogrammed results depending on who’s data it is?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The prize has either been co-opted, or has long existed (1954 Enders) as something that can be real, and like all human enterprise, something that can be corrupted.*

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the Pulitzer Prize is awarded to literary works that make the Elite’s agenda seem palatable to the general public. I reached this conclusion when I went back to college to finish my undergraduate theatre degree and worked on productions of two Pulitzer-Prize winning plays—Death of a Salesman and Next to Normal.

    DoaS appears to be a criticism of our cruel, cold-hearted world. Arthur Miller, born into high society, rich and powerful enough to marry Marilyn Monroe, seems to be standing up for the everyday joe, the “common man.” But the common man’s name is Willie Loman (Low Man, get it?). Willie’s problem is that he is incapable of adapting and adjusting to the New Normal of Post Industrial society, and at the end of the play, he dies in an apparently deliberate car wreck. His oldest son is a rebel who refuses to conform to society and his name is Biff (which is a word meaning “to punch” or “to strike a blow,” commonly used in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.) His youngest son, who wantsn nothing more from life than to conform and comply and follow the rules of society in order to be successful, is named Happy. This is not sophisticated writing. Actually, it’s terrible writing. It’s ham-fisted and sentimental and clunkily contrived. The real message of the play, when you get beyond all the over-the-top hand-wringing and crocodile tears, is: Do what you’re told and like it, or die. If you die, we’ll shed a tear for you because hey, we’re not monsters, but if you want to make it in this world, you damn well better follow our rules. In other words, it’s authoritarian propaganda, but it appears to be a play that audiences can relate to and get behind. Therefore, not only was it awarded a Pulitzer Prize despite the juvenile level of writing, it’s been packed in plaster and handed down to generation after generation. To this day, theatre people celebrate Arthur Miller as one of America’s great playwrights. The man was a hack.

    I could go on in a similar vein about Next to Normal, but hell, just read a plot summary if you want to know why it won the Pulitzer. It appears to be criticizing the pharmeceutical industry, but the real message—which one of the characters pretty much comes right out and says—is, “Yeah, Western medicine’s nuts, but it’s the best we’ve got, so just accept the absurdity of it and do whatever the hell your doctors say.”

    I suspect the Nobel Prize is similar. Barack Obama could win it simply because he appeared to be helping the common man while he furthered the Elite’s agenda. Mullis may have won because the Rockefellers and their ilk saw early on how useful his invention could be for their agenda. They may have thought giving him the award and showering so much respectablility and distinction would keep him happy, quiet and compliant. Maybe he was a rare case where it didn’t.


    1. Interesting take. I like to think that they were not that far ahead of the game where they knew in 1954 that Enders’ game would be vital. Since Mullis made his discovery in the early-to-mid 80s, and got the prize in 1993, you could say they had time to evaluate the work. But they did not use it for AIDS – they were working on that, but never succeeded. There’s never been an HIV retrovirus taken from the body of an infected person (because no one is infected). They were, however, working using PCR for all the other viruses, the usual fraud.


  3. He could have simply been controlled opposition. Funny how there always seem to be two sides in everything even from germ to terrain theory and always the evil wins out. Seems simple hegelian dialetic to me. To give people the illusion of struggle and finally a much fought over conclusion seems to be ordinary strategy, one that gives the impression the best outcome must have taken place after rigourous back and forth, works time and again.


  4. Against your Mullis was murdered theory, is Heath Ledgers Joker performance where he basically takes all of Mullis’s mannerisms and even his make up makes his face look very similar.
    For most people this will register subconsciously, so I don’t believe Mullis was ever a threat. Only people who already know or suspect openly will listen to him. He is the perfect alternative to send them to. Although I could see how him commenting currently (if still in the game) on PCR tests could attract the attention of some semi-Norms in the science arena.

    He also pushes viruses as real and was given the Nobel Prize. They could have prompted anyone instead of him (he did not invent the process).

    If he was still around his character would almost certainly have to acknowledge that there is no evidence viruses are real and his character in theory would certainly have had to question the use of PCR and for continuity of story should have been promoted at least by the alternative media. I suspect he was simply relocated I rate this possibility slightly above his real death. He was not a young man and I saw no obvious intelligence markers in his death story (correct me if I’m wrong) otherwise I would go almost certainly for relocation.

    Same thing if Trump or Biden die in the next 4 years. Either would advance the narrative but by the same token they are old and like Mullis they are insiders, I just don’t think you can be going around Murdering insiders.


    1. “He also pushes viruses as real and was given the Nobel Prize. They could have prompted anyone instead of him (he did not invent the process)”

      True, the first DNA polymerase was identified by Arthur Kornberg in 1957. This enzyme needed a primer to start copying the template and could create DNA only in one direction.

      In 1971, Gobind Khorana started working on DNA repair synthesis. This technique used an artificial primer that help DNA polymerase to copy the desired gene segments.

      Kary Mullis thought of adding a secondary primer to make the results more specific and accurate. It has been this small difference, and the isolation of a thermostable enzyme in 1976, that has allowed this process to be used so broadly and so accurately and did make him the inventor of the PCR process as we now it today.

      National Geographic now calls him “the eccentric scientist behind the gold standard COVID 19 test”. I suspect that would have made him furious and he would have done anything to refute it.

      Despite what he was taught during his education and what he believed to be true for a long time afterward, it would not surprise me if he would have come back on the existence of viruses now that this subject is such a hot topic in the alternative media. No doubt that would have caught his attention.


      1. The addition of the second primer made the PCR a usable process, as without it the results were to return hundreds, if not thousands of matches that were not 100% accurate.e The second primer narrows it down to one.


        1. Eukaryote’s job at Cetus for his Nobel prize hustler boss, Donald glaser, was to find something to do with the excess oligos that were being produced cause of better computation. He was obviously quite successful. Oligos are synthetic dna or rna sequences. Dude was a psience god.


            1. “Most people in molecular biology today are not old enough to remember pre-PCR. But try to do your job without it, and you will see what a difference that simple little technique has made.

              ‘Polymerase Chain Reaction’ is now a word in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and if you put ‘PCR’ into Google, you get 18,000,000 hits. If you type in ‘pcr song,’ you get a lovely little ditty courtesy of Bio-Rad, which will rattle around in your brain like an insane cat in your garage. Try it.

              When I stumbled on PCR in the spring of 1983, I was trying to increase the demand for oligonucleotides, which before automation my laboratory had made by hand. Our new machine from my friend Ron Cook at Biosearch across the San Francisco bay had threatened job stability in the laboratory by doing what had taken us about three weeks to do, in eight hours—and it did it every eight hours, no breaks.”


              1. That is a link I wish I knew of before I wrote this piece. That’s a common occurrence when you are a blogger, just writing shit and hoping for some smart reactions. I started doing this in 2006, and have been affected deeply by people who allow me to see what I do not otherwise easily see. I think now that Mullis, LSD and PCR are inextricably linked.


            2. Here’s another reason why eukaryote was written out of the narrative…

              “Dr. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), the cornerstone of much of today’s DNA science, has entered a new joint venture with Loxbridge Research LLP to form Altermune Technologies LLC, focused on the development of novel therapeutics to combat resistant pathogens such as MRSA, C. difficile, pseudomonas, and pandemic influenza.

              Dr. Mullis takes on the role of Chief Scientific Officer while Dr. Charles Roberts, CEO of Loxbridge, becomes President of Altermune for the initial developmental period. Loxbridge will provide a milestone-based seed-funding funding package worth US $7 million.

              Altermune is pioneering the use of “programmable immunity.” This involves re-tasking antibodies that are ubiquitous in all humans, present at a high background level, and which are ordinarily not tasked by the body in fighting infections.

              Altermune uses “linker” molecules to redirect these antibodies to selected pathogens. The linker molecules work through having two distinct ends. One end binds a consistent cell-surface target on the pathogen using an aptamer (a single stranded oligonucleotide), and the other end presents specific epitopes that attract the circulating antibodies.

              Once attached to the pathogen, via the Altermune linker, the antibodies then activate a full immune response, heightened because they are the individual’s own endogenous antibodies, not synthetic administered ones. The approach therefore harnesses the power of the immune system, yet circumvents the disadvantages of administering monoclonal antibodies, such as immunogenicity and high costs.

              Altermune has a strong team of in-house scientists, and a wide network of partnerships, including collaborative research arrangements with a number of leading Universities in the US and Europe and corporate relationships with leading companies in oligonucleotide synthesis and aptamer selection.

              “We are very excited about entering a joint venture with an innovator with such an awe-inspiring track record,” said Dr. Roberts. “The initial priority is to build on the compelling proof of concept of the Altermune platform, demonstrated in vivo against influenza – and against anthrax by US Air Force scientists – into a broad pipeline of compounds against clinically and commercially relevant pathogens, to undergo FDA approval.”

              “We chose to proceed with Loxbridge over other suitors because, unlike our other potential funders, the investment is smart money that comes with project management and hands-on commercial expertise,” added Dr. Mullis. “It seems to work very well that the investor is also the entrepreneur, able to pilot the project. This structure frees me from ongoing business administration, and enables me to focus on the science.””

              Liked by 2 people

              1. I suspect Mullis is juiced . . . and royally so . . .

                On a related note . . . I left this comment today on my scientism post:

                October 16, 2021 at 6:50 am
                On Kary Mullis and the Royals (aside from his Nobel prize) . . .

                “Loxbridge in $7m joint venture with Dr Kary Mullis to develop novel therapeutics” (October 2011):

                What this linked article does not reveal is that Loxbridge is headquartered at the Royal Institution (see here and here The motto of the Royal Institution is “Science Lives Here”:

                More info on the multiple business holdings of CEO of Loxbridge, Charles Edward Selkirk Roberts (who became President of Mullis’s company, Altermune):

                Returning to the 2014 clp article above:

                Loxbridge has been actively collaborating on the project with coinnovator Riley Ennis, who was selected as one of the ’20 under 20′ by Peter Thiel, PayPal cofounder and early Facebook investor, for his fellowship program. The fellowship aims to mentor and develop young entrepreneurs in building innovative scientific and technical projects, in order to create the defining companies of tomorrow.

                The technology has potential for use in treatment monitoring and companion diagnostics, and may eventually be applied through the use of cloud computing and mobile applications (my emphasis). is already in early discussions with interested pharmaceutical companies regarding the use of the platform to enhance clinical trials.

                “We are honored by Verizon’s recognition of the technology and plan, and the benefits it may bring to patients through earlier diagnosis of life-threatening conditions in the future, said Charles Roberts, MD, CEO of Loxbridge and cofounder of


        2. Exactly, more specific and more accurate. PCR was already in widespread use, even before 1976, so I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say the second primer made it usable.

          From “The History of PCR” on

          “The story of modern PCR begins in 1976 with the isolation of Taq DNA polymerase from the thermophilic bacterium Thermus aquaticus. Its isolation meant that molecular biologists now had a thermostable enzyme that was capable of repeat PCR cycling without the need to add fresh DNA polymerase after each cycle. For those of us who can remember that far back, resetting the PCR reaction as many as 40 times over a four or five hour period was not much fun and did not feel like a great use of time, so the Taq enzyme made our lives better in so many ways!”


        3. From the article “A Short History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction” on

          “The original concept for PCR, like many good ideas, was an amalgamation of several components that were already in existence: The synthesis of short lengths of single-stranded DNA (oligonucleotides) and the use of these to direct the target-specific synthesis of new DNA copies using DNA polymerases were already standard tools in the repertoire of the molecular biologists of the time. The novelty in Mullis’s concept was using the juxtaposition of two oligonucleotides complementary to opposite strands of the DNA, to specifically amplify the region between them and to achieve this in a repetitive manner so that the product of one round of polymerase activity was added to the pool of template for the next round, hence the chain reaction.

          In his History of PCR, Paul Rabinow quotes Mullis as saying:

          [] In a sense, I put together elements that were already there….You can’t make up new elements, usually. The new element, if any, it was the combination, the way they were used.”

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Some of his statements are hilarious and prescient. This is from a 1998 Washington Post profile:

    He denounces sociology as “a worthless science,” psychologists as “modern witch doctors” and the Federal Reserve Board as a “tawdry sepsis.” He claims that HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS, and he dismisses global warming and ozone damage as “illusions” perpetrated by “parasites with degrees in economics or sociology.”

    One result of scientific corruption is the evidence for global warming, he says. It’s blatant balderdash, a fiction concocted by pseudo-scientists out to win government grants and by people who have a psychological need for an enemy. “The Russians have disappeared as our enemy, and we have to replace them with ourselves,” he says, scoffing. “We’re the enemy, we’re spoiling the planet.”

    The woman he was married to at the time of his death, Nancy Cosgrove, has apparently only granted one interview since his death. It ended up being a fairly unflattering piece and she was only quoted in passing. The convenient timing of his death was not mentioned, mainly the ‘problematic’ aspects of his personality:


    1. I assume that a $300,000,000 patent is the reason Kary Mullis is singled out as the inventor of PCR and not just the one who tweaked it.


      1. Ownership of patent rights is the company, and not the employee. That’s how it works. I learned that a a teenager when an uncle of mine, Ed, who was doing research while on a payroll, found that his very good work was not his, and quit in disgust, never again to be an employee of anyone’s.


        1. I know. Cetus Corporation could sell the patent as theirs because Kary Mullis was working for them at the time of his invention that made PCR commercially attractive. To single him out as the sole inventor of PCR makes it theirs.


    2. He could be called eccentric, as is often the case with very smart people. His book is well worth anyone’s time.

      “I couldn’t help but notice the amazing coincidence that the American patent on the production of Freon, the principle chlorofluorocarbon used in refrigerators and air conditioners, expired at just about the same time as Freon was banned. Those countries that had begun producing Freon without paying for the privilege were asked to stop. And a new chemical compound, a commercial product that would be protected by patent, would soon be substituted and make a lot of money for the company that produced it.”


    3. Thank you for that link! The first few paragraphs were a slog, “Although imperfect, it’s been critical in diagnosing the disease by amplifying genes specific to SARS-CoV-2. When it’s accurate, PCR helps confirm positive cases, slows the spread of infection, and allows health officials to treat individuals who have Covid-19.” Umm, yeah, OK, if you insist, I won’t ask for evidence. The next para starts with, “In a sense, Covid-19 has popularized PCR.” In a sense! Awesome.

      The top highlight quote (Medium and its iterations do this for those without time to read more than this, I guess): “He used his platform as Nobel laureate to flout that HIV causes AIDS and that climate change is real.” Oddly stated, but thank goodness he did that! Of course, he was canceled for it.

      The moving graphics are nauseating, though one commenter loved them. To each one’s own.

      Later this, “He used his clout as a Nobel laureate to promote harmful ideas,” says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “ That’s harmful in itself.” Umm, redundant much? “Harmful” to whom? Sounds like a wonderful example of a virologist.

      Mullis gets some redemption at the end of the article, thankfully. Who would have thought an intellect like that would be difficult to be around? How to know?


    4. The article says Russell Higuchi of Cetus came up with a way to make PCR quantitative, allowing it to test for viral load. First I’ve heard of it. That is critical, as if they could really do that, they would not be talking about “cases” where people test positive and “asymptomatic carriers” who supposedly carry a pathogen but exhibit no symptoms. As with climate science, these people simply have the liberty to make shit up, and no one calls them out.


    1. Hey, HPM, you’re a good researcher and know a lot of names going way back, so maybe we are close in age? I have a name for you. I was thinking of odd names, and one of the supposed beautiful young people who died of the vaccine, who, you know, just dropped dead, was named “Rachael,” very much like :”Michael.” Then a weird name from long ago popped into mind, an actress currently 78 years of age, Tuesday Weld.

      I went to and just followed her paternal line, and was amazed at how far back it went, into the 12th century. The woman was totally juiced, which explains why she got so many parts even as she was only average in looks. She’s kind of like that Seinfeld character that looked good in the light, but awful in dim light. Without makeup, Weld was “Yikes!”


          1. The Edward Weld I was speaking of is the Lulworth Welds, the family Maria Fitzherbert married into. Since Edward “died” in 1775, I don’t believe he was her grandfather, as he would’ve too old for that.

            Edward Weld was the third and first surviving son of Humphrey Weld (died 1722) of Lulworth, son of William Weld, and the grandnephew of Humphrey Weld MP,[21] (purchaser in 1641 of the vast Lulworth Estate, who had died without a male heir), and of his wife Margaret Simeons, daughter of Sir James Simeons of Chilworth nr. Oxford. …. He was succeeded by his eldest son and heir, Edward Weld (1740–1775), briefly the first husband of Maria Fitzherbert, before being fatally injured in a riding accident.”


            However, that family is also related to the American Welds who settled in Massachusetts in the early 1600s, and Susan is a descendant of the New England branch. So they could be cousins. (They also enjoyed strong ties to Harvard University and to the military industrial complex via the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts, said to be “the oldest chartered military organization in North America.”)

            “The Weld family has a presence in Massachusetts dating back to the early 17th century and their relationship to one another is clearly recorded. In the first days of the British colonization of the Americas, three sons of Edmund Weld (1559–1608)[42]of Sudbury, Suffolk, England arrived in Boston. Daniel Weld (1585/1586–1666),[42][dead link] the eldest, became a teacher at Roxbury Latin School. Two notable Welds in New England traced their ancestry to him. Captain Joseph Weld (1599–1646), the youngest of the three Weld immigrants, is the ancestor from whom the richest and most famous Welds descend.[42] …. Joseph Weld became one of the first donors to Harvard and a founder of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts.”



            Susan is also a Balfour (perhaps related to British Zionist Lord Balfour) and a Bell, as in the famous inventor of the telephone, Alexander G. Bell. So she’s clearly from the Families.

            “Weld was born Susan Ker Weld in New York City. Her father, Lathrop Motley Weld, of the Weld family of Massachusetts, died in 1947 at the age of 49, shortly before his daughter’s fourth birthday. Her mother, Yosene Balfour Ker, daughter of the artist and Life illustrator William Balfour Ker, was Lathrop Weld’s fourth and last wife.[1][2] Canadian-born William Balfour Ker had Scottish ancestry.[3] His mother, Lily Florence Bell Ker, was first cousin of the inventor Alexander Graham Bell,[4] and his father, William Ker, was a Scottish businessman and banker.[5]”



    2. For what it’s worth… I’ve been looking into him months ago already. All Nobel prize winners are suspicious, Mullis included.

      I’ve mostly followed Mullis’ paternal side, and their family line goes way back to 11th century. Seemingly, the original surname was de Mules / Moels. There are some peerage members, like Barons de Moels, see here for more:

      One of de Moels was appointed titles of Keeper of the isle of Wight and Keeper of the Forest of Branden. Roger de Moels was also appointed Marshal of the Army and was a governor of the castle of Lampsdervour in Ceredig.

      I’ve stumbled upon many Jewish names, like Solomon, Hiram, Edith, Judith, etc., while getting lost within Geni’s pages. But nothing worth noting came up, except that most of maternal lines are carefully scrubbed as if there was a reason to do so.


          1. Well, if his emotions and passion when describing virologists and climatologists as charlatans were genuine at the time, he might have been dead by now as the amount of stupidity these clowns were able to produce has grown exponentially since.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. The shield of the peerage de Moels is also interesting. It hosts three red balls and the customary red-and-white stripes:

        After the Phoenix (which is admitted to mean “the Phoenician bird” or “the purplish-red bird” in Latin), the usage of red and white colors also has it’s Phoenician/Canaanite roots. It’s known that the ancient Phoenicians used red-and-white striped flags as their sails on their ships. The Phoenicians are credited as the founders of the maritime shipping industry. Hence explaining why some nickname them “the Phoenician Navy”.

        It’s also commonly used in the flags of some countries, including most famously the United States, all of which had at one point done business with, or were under the control of, the British East India Company, where the red-and-white color scheme came from.

        So anytime you see those colors (red, white, as well as purple), you now know who they’re referring to.


        1. While looking at Mullis’ maternal bloodline, I discovered that his grandmother was Princess Escoe Miller, the partner of James Albert Barker. Perhaps the “Princess” part is a nod to his royal roots?

          The page is managed by Yigal Burstein (Bursztyn), a Jew who lives in Israel. Like Escoe, he’s also a Miller in his family tree. Miller is an Anglicized version of Müller. So it’s obvious who we’re dealing with, here.

          Yigal’s grandmother:


      2. “But nothing worth noting came up, except that most of maternal lines are carefully scrubbed as if there was a reason to do so.”

        I suspect the usual reason being that his maternal bloodline could reveal more Jewish peerage connections across the board, so it had to be scrubbed.

        On the other hand, if they really wanted to scrub his family tree completely, we would’ve not gone as far on his paternal side.


        1. He’s also related to Elizabeth Howard, Countess of Wiltshire, mother of the famous Boleyn girls and cousin of King Henry VIII’s 5th teenage queen-consort, Katherine Howard, making him their cousin several generations removed. Both ladies were of the noble Howard family from Norfolk. So he was a descendant of the Tudor aristocracy. Small world.


      1. His professor was Joe Neilands, whose birthday was September 11, 1921. He died in 2008, a week shy of Halloween (Oct. 31).

        “Neilands was born on September 11, 1921 in Glen Valley, British Columbia, to Thomas Abraham Neilands and Mary Rebecca Neilands (née Harpur), both of whom immigrated from Northern Ireland. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Guelph in 1944, his master’s degree from Dalhousie University in 1946, and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, Madison in biochemistry in 1949.[2] He then completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Karolinska Institutet’s Medical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.[3]”

        “Neilands joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley in 1951 as an assistant professor, where he remained until he retired in 1993.[3] In 1958, he was named a Guggenheim Fellow;[1] during his fellowship, he studied in London, Copenhagen, and Vienna. In 1974, he was named an honorary professor at the University of San Marcos in Peru.[4] One of his doctoral students was Kary Mullis, who received a Ph.D. under his supervision in 1973 and won a Nobel Prize in 1993.[5]”

        “Neilands died on October 23, 2008 at the age of 87, after briefly battling a rare form of tuberculosis.[3]”


          1. He was also in the news for his involvement in the AIDS scam several years ago (2012). Other Jewish names are mentioned. It’s about a study showing correlation in HIV cases and poverty.

            ““In this study, we followed a group of homeless and unstably housed HIV-infected people living in San Francisco and found that only about a fifth of those for whom antiretroviral therapy was medically indicated were actually on the medications. More importantly, while viral load was one of the most important predictors of overall health, we found that an inability to meet basic subsistence needs had an even larger influence on health status in this population,” said the study’s principal investigator, Elise Riley, PhD, Associate Professor in the UCSF HIV/AIDS Division at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.”

            “Study co-investigators include Torsten B. Neilands, Kelly Moore, Jennifer Cohen, David R. Bangsberg and Diane Havlir. In addition to UCSF, authors of this study are affiliated with the Harvard School of Medicine and the University of California, Berkeley.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s