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.

85 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.

    Liked by 1 person

    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.


    2. Interesting comment, Scott. In school, we read Glass Menagerie and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. I cannot say whether they are great, but there was stuff in it that I could relate to. We didn’t read DoaS but I think we watched the movie in school (a rare event). It’s been a long time since then but when I think of these plays now I associate them with broken people and their illusions and resignative attitudes.


      1. “… broken people and their illusions and resignative attitudes.”

        Yep. That’s what it’s all about. Get the general public to identify with characters like that, and you can do whatever you want, eh?


  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.

    Liked by 1 person

    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

        4. Is anyone here into programming and knows about pattern matching? The addition of the second primer is such an obvious thing to do that it cannot be more obvious. Like discovering that when a sequence has a start it must also have an end. It is laughably obvious. Was that what he actually was awarded the Nobel Prize for?


          1. No, that is not what he got the Nobel price for. Computer programming and pattern matching have noting to do with it. PCR is about biochemical prosseses, not prossesing data by a computer. The sequences spoken of in PCR are real live DNA sequences not numbers in a computer.


            1. If the piece of DNA that is targeted by the primers is not in the sample noting will be multipliet, if it is it wil be. That’s how you use PCR to tell if the piece of DNA you are looking for is in your sample or not.


              1. It’s a real process, but in the hands of corrupt people is a black box and a scam. They are supposedly looking to match a primer from a virus that has never been isolated, purified, and for which no genome exists. That is the essence of the lie called the pandemic, that they are using PCR not to look for a needle, but to merely give that appearance. When amplification cycles exceed 40, as is prescribed by WHO, the results are meaningless even if there were a real virus. They crank it up or down as they please to get the results they want.

                The number of people who have died from Covid 19: -0-. Amazing lying going on in every way imaginable, layered lies all designed to stampede people to the “vaccine,” which is also a black box.


                1. I know Mark I’m very wel aware of the scam. My post was not in reaction to your black box comment but to your post about Kary making PCR useful which is is not entirely the case.

                  In that comment you are talking aboud PCR looking for maching pieces of DNA, it doesn’t. That’s why the explanation what PCR does.

                  I know 40 cycles are way to much for a reliable result. I also know you can’t use PCR to look for an infection. Even if there was such a ting as a virus there are several reasons way PCR is useles to detect an invection.

                  I don’t think the plandemic is just to get people to take the vaccine, but to push through far-reaching social and financial changes, just like the climate hoax.


            2. You’re oversimplifying, XS. It is claimed that there is a needle in the haystack. The needle has never been shown to exist, but it is claimed we know it is somewhere in there because it has pricked little holes in the haystack that we are able to detect by blowing smoke through the haystack and thus visualizing the resulting turbulence, which is then interpreted by a computer program to identify the needle.

              Not saying this is a perfectly accurate analogy, but PCR is a more indirect way to prove something than enlarging a needle in a haystack. I need to read more to fully understand it.


              1. It seems to me that you are confusing the method used to look for a “virus” with a PCR test. PCR multiplies a specific piece of DNA when present in the sample making it detectable. That’s really all it does.

                Detecting a so called “virus” and detecting a piece of DNA are two entirely different things.


              2. This is my explanation of how PCR works:

                It’s a method of producing large quantities of specific DNA or RNA fragments from a very small sample. When searching for RNA, a DNA copy of the RNA is first made

                It’s done by heating up a sample so that the two strands of DNA melt loose, then cooling it down again and adding a synthetic primer of the DNA you are looking for.

                At low temperature, the sample DNA gets a short time to hybridize with the rapidly mobile primers in the solution. It does not get enough time to undo the detachment.

                Then the sample is warmed up again and the polymerase starts. The single-stranded DNA is complemented to double-stranded DNA from the bound primers at a medium high temperature.

                So the two half-strands of DNA that have been melted apart build themselves back up into a complete DNA. This is how one strand becomes two. If you repeat this often enough, you reach an amount of DNA that is enough to prove that the DNA you are looking for is in the sample. If you repeat these cycles too often the result becomes unreliable.

                This article, posted by TIMR, contains a very clear explanation of what PCR does. However, the statement in the article about the number of cycles is incorrect:


              3. Thanks, XS. You are right that in my example of the needle and the haystack, I had the alleged virus in mind when talking about the needle, and the bits of DNA when talking about the holes it left in the haystack.

                For all they’ve been telling us, however, the way to look for a virus is by using PCR which allegedly detects the alleged viral DNA. So I wouldn’t say the two things are entirely different.

                Thanks for your PCR explanation. There are many things that beg more questions. How can we be so sure about the effects of heating and cooling down? How are the primers manufactured and how is their purity ascertained? How can we exclude race conditions between the primers and other possible reactions in the mix? How do we know the interval between the two primers is unequivocally determined by them?

                If, as claimed, running too many cycles makes the result unreliable, there must be a certain unreliability inherent even in a single step scenario. How is this unreliability calculated and experimentally verified?

                Thanks also for the interesting McGill article. It comes with its own bias and doesn’t even attempt to give an in-depth answer, instead striving for a quick sedation of the reader’s curiosity by making an analogy to a Sherlock Holmes novel.

                One interesting in there is the subtitle: “The people sharing the claim that COVID-19 PCR testing is not reliable because of high Ct values are just amplifying noise.” Amplifying noise. Could this be an accurate description of what PCR does? Remember, they always blame others of what they’re guilty of themselves. 🙂

                But as I said, I need to read more.


                1. What passes for isolating a virus these days and a PCR test are two very different things. The only similarity is that it involves DNA.

                  I think your skepticism would be better applied to the use of a PCR test to find an infection than to PCR itself.

                  Racial differences in DNA make no difference to what DNA is and how it reacts to temperature differences and synthetic primers. That is what PCR is based on and therefore play no role in PCR.

                  PCR has been used successfully in a whole range of areas since the 1950s. This would not be the case if we were not aware of how DNA behaves. I assume that the questions you have have been researched out and out before PCR was as widely used as it is now.


                  1. We are talking past one another, I think. I am with you all the way on the use of PCR, as it has deeply affected me and my family, releasing an innocent man from jail and then later identifying the perpetrator of a horrible crime. Check out the link below. It is a post I wrote saying exactly what you say, that PCR when used as intended is a powerful tool, but that its use in Covid is fake science, meaningless test results, people cruelly quarantined for no scientific reason.

                    Pssst – the PCR test is fake!


                    1. True, we are on the same page when it comes to the usefulness of PCR to look for an infection, even if there was such a thing.

                      We differ in the way we think about the impact Kary Mullis addition has made on the process and it’s usability.

                      The thousands of matches that were not 100% accurate against the one right one you speak of in a previous post make it look more dramatic then it is.

                      PCR does not look for matches but will amplify the amount of the DNA you are looking for if it is in your sample so it becomes detectable among thousands of different pieces of DNA.

                      If the PCR goes sideways, which was more often the case before Mullis than it is now, it will make thousands of copy’s of the wrong DNA. That’s not thousands of errors but basically thousands of copy’s of the same error.

                      When the PCR goes right it makes thousands of copy’s of the DNA you are looking for.

                      The addition of a second primer gives more grip on the prosses excluding a lot of errors but in my opinion makes Mullis not the inventor of PCR.


                  2. See new fresh top-level comment on February 10, 2022 at 1:52 pm pertaining to “race conditions” and “racial differences”.


                2. Lumi911’s questions are perfectly justified and very relevant. I personally think that the PCR method itself is bogus. It is not specific. It amplifies anything. Hence the very chaotic results.

                  And as for the fact that it has been proven in other areas, there is this very interesting article by William C. Thompson on how testing is done for police investigations.


                  Basically, the technician then uses Photoshop-like software to match the strips to that of the suspect. He makes them longer or shorter or moves them or makes them brighter or dimmer. And he can do that because he’s in contact with the investigators. And it seemed so natural to him that he was doing it in front of Thompson without seeing where the problem could be. It just shows that the results are bogus. To get what the investigators want, you have to fudge the results.

                  So it’s safe to assume that a lot of innocent people are in jail based on these PCR tests that were fabricated by the police technicians.


                  1. The article you refer to is about RFLP Analysis. That’s not the same as PCR testing. PCR has noting to do with looking for matches in photographic images or looking for matches in general.

                    RFLP analysis technique involves cutting a particular region of DNA with known variability, with restriction enzymes, then separating the DNA fragments and determining the number of fragments and relative sizes.

                    Real time PCR, is an amplification of your target gene using specific primers and you can monitor the reaction in real time.

                    PCR is a biochemical process that is very accurately controlled by two primers, which in this context are synthetic pieces of DNA, not numbers in a computer like Lumni seems to think.

                    The amplification spoken of in this context concerns a multiplication not an enlargement. It most definitely does not amplify everything, the amplification is triggered by two primers that relate to a specific piece of DNA.

                    Where your skepticism, like Lumni’s, is legitimate is that this process is used to detect infection.


                  2. The problem with RFLP Analysis begins, like the article say’s, when the results are not very clear. That’s where bias creeps in and innocent people go to jail.

                    That doesn’t mean the results are all over the place and always unreliable and it most certainly says nothing about the reliability of PCR.


                    1. My fault. I that I was referring to a text I had written a long time ago. I didn’t remember the details.

                      That said, if the RFLP method does not require amplification (but a lot of genetic material to start with), it is almost worse. With enough genetic material, you still can’t get a reliable method to identify one person from another. This already introduces a huge doubt for the rest of the techniques used. You have to see that originally, the medical orthodoxy considered this technique to be perfectly reliable to identify a person, with evidence to support it, etc… It was abandoned because it was not fast enough. But its reliability was considered almost perfect. But it wasn’t. And so, if the RFLP method falls, there’s a huge doubt about the PCR method, which involves amplification.

                      And here, the cases were not considered doubtful. And at no time is it stated that the technician only cheats in doubtful cases. This is the method used in the ordinary way.

                      “The laboratory report gives no indication of any uncertainty about the “match” between the suspects and the vaginal sample, so it would appear that the DNA test provides damning evidence against both suspects. But let’s look at the underlying results.”

                      And anyway, Thompson also criticizes the PCR method in his text. He says:

                      “In PCR-based tests, where the results are sometimes shown in a pattern of dots on test strips, ambiguities are even more common. The analyst must decide whether to “score” faint dots. When there are discrepancies between the patterns of two samples, the analyst must decide whether to attribute them to true genetic differences between samples or to technical problems in the assays, such as the failure to detect certain alleles due to degradation of the DNA or the appearance of spurious extra dots due to cross-hybridization or contamination. Whether or not experimental controls have failed (and thereby invalidated the test) is sometimes also an issue that turns on subjective judgment.”

                      So, the PCR method also requires the intervention of the technician to decide whether or not this or that point is significant or not. So, here again, it is based on the subjectivity of the technician and therefore is not reliable.


                    2. A PCR based test is not just the Polymerase Chain Reaction itself. PCR does not involve amplification, it is noting but amplification.

                      All PCR does is propagate a particular piece of DNA when it is in the sample and nothing when it is not. The PCR process is reliable, the way the results are used or interpreted maybe not so much. But we know from years of experience that PCR itself does its job. That’s what you and Lumi seem to doubt. I don’t think that’s justified.

                      A PCR based test to identify someone is not just a PCR. PCR is used for a whole range of things and in them is part of a bigger picture as in your example. The sum of those things can indeed be unreliable, but as the article you linked states, it only becomes unreliable when the results lack clarity and are difficult to interpret and that is by no means always the case.

                      But again, the way in which the product of a PCR is used does not say anything about the validity of PCR iself. A good example is how PCR is now being used to determine if someone is infected with a virus of which the existence has not been proven. Even if the existence of such a virus had been demonstrated, PCR could not be used to detect an infection. The result is 100% unreliable but that says nothing about the reliability of the PCR process itself. Even Thompson does not criticize the PCR method but PCR-based tests to identify a 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.

      Liked by 1 person

          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.


      3. One of the de Moers was a le Despenser, which is a variant of the name Spencer, as in the aristocratic Spencer family from England. That means Kary Mullis was a “distant” cousin of Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales, as well as other famous Spencers like Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (assuming there is a direct relation between the Despencer and Spencer families, as this has been contested). They always keep it in the family.

        Hugh de Courtenay was born 14 September 1276, the son and heir of Sir Hugh de Courtenay (died 1292) of Okehampton Castle in Devon, feudal baron of Okehampton, by his wife, Eleanor le Despenser (died 1328), a daughter of Hugh le Despencer, 1st Baron le Despencer and sister of Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester, an important adviser to King Edward II.”,_1st/9th_Earl_of_Devon#Origins

        Hugh was also a de Courtenay, of the Courtenay nobles of feudal England. It’s current head is Charles Courtenay, 19th Earl of Devon, who married American actress Allison Langer (possible relation to Hollywood actress Jessica Lange?),_19th_Earl_of_Devon

        The Courtenay bloodline was a cadet branch of the royal House of Capet, which ruled France from 987 to 1328, making them cousins of French royalty (via Capetian King Louis VI). Some family members later moved to England, where they became feudal lords and gentry, as the Courtenay’s lost prominence in early Medieval France.

        “The Capetian House of Courtenay, also known simply as the House of Courtenay, was a royal house and cadet branch of the direct House of Capet. Founded by Peter I of Courtenay, a son of Louis VI of France, the family drew its name from the lordship of Courtenay, to which Peter’s wife was heiress.”

        The Courtenays also ruled the “Holy Lands” (present-day Middle East) during the fake “Christian” Crusades, and married Armenian royalty in the same era (Armenia was where the Komnenes first appeared before they emigrated and became Cohens, Khans, etc.), which again indicates they were crypto-Jewish bluebloods. After all, their Capetian ancestors were cloaked Jewish aristocrats, thanks to their descendancy from the “Phoenician” Merovingian, or “Sea People”, bloodline.

        Joscelin de Courtenay arrived in Outremer with the third wave of the First Crusade and proved himself capable, becoming in turn Lord of Turbessel, Prince of Galilee,[2] and (in 1118) Count of Edessa.[3] He was succeeded in 1131 by his son, Joscelin II, but the county was lost in 1144, and Jos died in captivity in 1159. His son, Joscelin III, was the titular Count, while his sister, Agnes, became Queen of Jerusalem* by marriage to **King Amalric and was mother to two monarchs, Baldwin IV and Sibylla. Joscelin III died in the 1190s, succeeded by two daughters; his last property was passed by them to the Teutonic Order.”

        Joscelin I, Count of Edessa, married 1. Beatrice (daughter of Constantine I of Armenia)”,_Count_of_Edessa

        Constantine I … was the second lord of Armenian Cilicia or “Lord of the Mountains” (1095 – c. 1100). He ruled the greater part of the Taurus Mountain regions, while managing the towns and lands within his domain.[2] He provided ample provisions to the Crusaders….”,_Prince_of_Armenia

        The main French line “died” out in 1733, although they have surviving relatives from other connected lines, like the Medicis (their main lineage allegedly died out in the same period, too).

        “The last male member of the French Courtenays died in 1733. His niece married the marquis de Bauffremont, and their descendants assumed the title of “Prince de Courtenay”… which they bear to this day. The marquis de Bauffremont was made on 8 June 1757 Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (inheritable by all male-line descendants); this title was recognised in France. Bauffremont-Courtenay are also princes of Carency and dukes of Bauffremont.”

        Speaking of the Medicis, their coat-of-arms are also similar. Both sport the iconic red balls in front of yellow shields. Red & yellow are colors that carry huge significance in the Occult, just like the Masonic orange. Perhaps they were cousins from ancient “Phoenician” lines?


        Medici (old crest):


            1. I’m still baffled by the amount of details he was allowed to disclose about the PCR being a fraudulent process when improperly applied. Were opponents of the HIV era also on it, so PTB needed the master CO persona to counteract the truth becoming annoyingly pervasive? Like always, time told the truth.

              Btw, ever since PCR was brought to life, they’ve mostly applied it to research in virology. It has become the fundamental part of “identifying” the invisible enemies of the human species. I think that’s why they fell in love with it instantly.

              Most likely, in a few hundred years they’ll rewrite this part of historical era to define how society had to fight and succeeded in exterminating of the newage witches. They’ve already used this pony trick once and they love to reuse those, which is why there’s a repeating pattern of historical events.

              While at it, have you heard of the variation where the witch hunt / Inquisition actually represents PTB forces going after “counterfeit” monies? The witches were likely just synonyms for all the small mints and their engineers / operators, taking care of official local money supply in times before PTB have managed to organise central banking institution (thus controlling entire nations’ supply of centralised money).


              1. Kary Mullis revealed almost nothing about PCR. He just said that it couldn’t be used to measure viral load for HIV. He gave almost no details beyond that. His contribution was limited to a few sentences on the subject. The Perth group has published a lot of papers on HIV isolation. Lanka has published a number of papers on various topics. But Mullis has said almost nothing about PCR. Even though he’s supposedly the creator of the technique. That alone indicates that he is an agent of the elite. He was there to help the AIDS dissident movement get off the ground, but with as little detail about PCR as possible.

                Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks. Apparently, the ball symbology is tied to the usual suspects of Renaissance Europe – the Medicis and the Lombardy merchants of Italy. It’s also tied to Charlemagne.

            “The medieval Lombard merchants used the three golden spheres as a symbol. They are said to have hung the spheres in front of their houses. In Europe, a pawn shop was called the Lombard. In London, England, a banking family was called The House of Lombard.”

            “…. legend claims that a Medici hired Charlemagne to slay a giant using three bags of rocks. From that day forward, the Medici crest used the three balls.”


            I suspect that the esoteric meaning of “ball” is Ba’al, as the spelling and pronunciation is similar. Ba’al (Lord) was the bull deity of the ancient Phoenicians/Canaanites. As the English language (and most Western languages) use the Phonetic alphabet, which originated from the Phoenicians, this hypothesis is not implausible.

            In “ancient” Egypt, the bull god Apis was represented with a sun disk on top of his head, which was inherited from his mother, the Egyptian goddess Hathor. The “ancient” Egyptians are famous as sun-worshippers, for they saw the sun as the giver of life, light, divinity, and power. Like their Phoenician cousins and their god Ba’al (also known as the sun god Bel, among other aliases), the Egyptians made sacrificial offerings to the bovine deity. The Phoenicians also venerated the sun in their religious practices & beliefs. That explains their love of using circles or balls in some of their old family crests. It’s simply paying homage to their esoteric customs & rites in another form.

            Apis (Egyptian):

            Sun deities of “ancient” Phoenicia/Canaan:

            For more information, read:







      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]”

        Liked by 1 person

          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.”



      2. Ironically, Mullis wasn’t an A+ student in his early years. He didn’t even comprehend basic biochemics when he was studying in college & university. It was only due to knowing the “right” people that he went so far in his career in biochemistry. The publication of his first dissertation in the periodical Nature in the late 60s is one example of this form of nepotism.

        “Although he published a sole-author paper in Nature in the field of astrophysics in 1968, he struggled to pass his oral exams (with a colleague recalling that “He didn’t get his propositions right. He didn’t know general biochemistry”), and his dissertation was only accepted after several friends pitched in to “cut all the whacko stuff out of it” while his advisor lobbied the committee to reconsider its initial decision. Mullis himself believed that it was the Nature article that greased the wheels with the committee.”

        He then went on to publish fiction books for a brief period before continuing his scientific career (convenient), where he invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in the early 1980s, despite limited expertise in the field of molecular biology, which I find to be highly questionable, as it is little different to hiring hiring a person who has no expertise in tailoring clothes to tailor dresses, shoes, and hats. He ​even went on to run a large biotech company, in spite of his lackluster background in molecular research. Clearly, he received support from the higher-ups to advance his career and to cement his legacy in “science”.

        “After receiving his doctorate, Mullis briefly left science to write fiction…. Mullis returned to science at the encouragement of Berkeley friend and colleague Thomas White, who secured Mullis’ UCSF position and later helped Mullis land a position with the biotechnology company Cetus Corporation …. Despite little experience in molecular biology, Mullis worked as a DNA chemist at Cetus for seven years, ultimately serving as head of the DNA synthesis lab under White, then the firm’s director of molecular and biological research; it was there, in 1983, that Mullis invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure.”

        So in conclusion, Kary Mullis was more like Mozart or Howard Hughes who managed to became famous and successful through nepotism and a modicum of overblown talent than a Nikola Tesla. His entire biography feels fudged and it’s very likely that he was retired of his assignment as a “limited hangout” in the science community and was death-hoaxed out of public life.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Mullis reminds me of Isaac Newton, who was another fraud. I believe Mathis uncovered Newton last year in one of his essays, where he suggested his theories on gravity to be, at best, incomplete, as well as the usual Peerage and Jewish connections. Isaac was also connected to certain prominent people who were involved in a scheme to defraud the British financial market in the early 1700s. Basically, spooks cut from the same dingy cloth.


  6. Before the Corona scam started, I had never heard about PCR or Kary Mullis. Now, I’ve seen a couple of interviews with Mullis, such as this 2005 interview:

    While I liked him because of his seemingly unorthodox personality, his stance on the AIDS/HIV issue and the interesting little anecdotes he would tell, something didn’t quite add up. He comes across as sloppy, erratic and blurry in his entire personality – unlike other scientists I am used to seeing on television. Sloppy and blurry pronunciation, grammar, syntax, wording. Erratic hand gestures. Scratching, poking and rubbing as if ants were crawling on his body. Answering extensively, circumlocutory, digressing – not precise and to the point.

    Is that him? Or is he playing a role? The role of a scientist?

    He reminds me of the widely propagandized nuclear physicists, the ones who allegedly built the bomb (no such thing) and understand how it works (it doesn’t), and who then go on to talk about responsibility and peace and philosophy and man and nature and the cosmos.

    I have a feeling that something’s not right.


  7. This was more than 100 days ago but I had made a mental bookmark on this post because the whole PCR/DNA business had started to intrigue me.

    Racial differences in DNA make no difference to what DNA is and how it reacts to temperature differences and synthetic primers.

    This was a misunderstanding. I talked about a race condition, but everyone cannot be expected to know what it is. It’s not about negro vs euro. Rather, it’s a term used in computing, in parallel (multi-threaded) processing. It means the outcome may vary according to which thread starts or finishes first (think horse race). This may result in a wrong outcome with regard to the purpose of the program, and in that case the program is flawed, and such bugs are notoriously hard to find because the outcome is not always wrong, only sometimes, maybe only once in a million times, and this is absolute horror as the error condition is stochastic and cannot be reliably reproduced, and so the bug may be very hard to find.

    Mixing reactants, if we make claims to detect and amplify tiny amounts of molecules, as PCR does, may be seen as highly parallel processing, in fact so highly parallel that it boggles the mind and is unfathomable in computing.

    Hence the problem of race conditions in PCR.

    This problem only arises because PCR pretends to be some sort of a chemical computation. I find that very hard to believe.


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 )

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