It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dr. Anthony Fauci's ex-employee, was jailed, finally tells all.

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2020 @ 12:54 AM
a reply to: Phage

I didn't see so much of a "view" of events, as a list of them. Is the list inaccurate?

For a narrative that an employee of Whittemores wants to take for good job prospects it kinda fits. Lots of conflicts and contentions going on looking into it. Whatever really happened with that notebook looks to be one of the more minor aspects of this case. Was used as a big part of the judicial push against Judy. If she took a notebook from someone else office it would be more of a problem. Calling Judy a bartender looking for fanfare comes across as more personal attacking than objective analysis.

Judy has not accepted defeat on her ideas and lines of research in immune therapies. With an end to her career, legal battles, gag orders and sealed indictments I guess we will never really know just what she would of come up with if left to sort it out among the scientific community.

It is clear her work has been disgraced. The proponents against her ideas made it quite clear with her last professional presentation, she did not go back to the office after that. As for being fired, Judy does attribute not supporting the work of another college as justification.

Judy does provide a lot of technical criticisms to those that did try and failed at replicating her work. With billions of dollars in vaccinations potentially at stake due to the results it does create a dangerous place to work. Overall Judy does see a lot of good people working in the scientific industry, further up the chain of command the corruption does get stronger.

Mikovits knowingly published bad research.

Bad to who? what parts where bad and what needed more work? Judy does come across as someone with a lot of knowledge and experience in immunology. I can see how discrediting all of her work may make things easier for some. I disagree that she knowingly published bad research, no need for all the gag orders if that was the case. Rigours scientific debate would of been enough to put an end to it. Despite Judy getting put on the bench for the last few years she still has some fire left in addressing the scientific technicalities.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 12:56 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

It is clear her work has been disgraced.

That's often what happens when you do bad science.

As for being fired, Judy does attribute not supporting the work of another college as justification.
Is that why she was fired?
edit on 5/21/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 02:17 AM
a reply to: Phage

That's often what happens when you do bad science.

It also happen when you challenge accepted dogma. It was quite a risky proposition to tell the Vatican that the Earth was not flat or at the centre of the universe for quite some time. Lots of disgrace and dead bodies along the way. Does not mean they where wrong. Challenges to our accepted gods of mandatory vaccination do not take too kindly to questions.

Is that why she was fired?

Judy has brought up in a couple of interviews that not supporting the work of another was a contributing factor to getting fired. Seams to be one of the issues going on when it all fell down for her. On reflection it looks to be more than that. Judy's work was more focused on immune therapy than vaccinations. At the time of getting fired she was not up to speed of the full implications of her work in terms of vaccinations. Things have gotten a little clearer since.

It does appear that Judy was creating a lot of discussion and controversy with her work in the lead up to being fired. Having scientist rather than lawyers try and make sense of it appear to be a more appropriate path out of these complexities. Even it there is only a small risk billions of dollars could be at stake, it makes more sense for all the legal actions that where taken against Judy.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 05:49 AM
Trying to make some sense of the scientific claims by Judy. Vaccinations do help produce antibodies against disease. Got it, lots of evidence for it.

But what is happening as we are exposing everyone to more and more diseases? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is growing amount of diseases we are being exposed to through through increases in the vaccination schedule. Sure a lot of these diseases in the vaccinations have been knocked down and beat up from their more deadly variants out in nature.

But what kind of accumulative effect is happening as we are exposing people to more variants of disease than what we have been use to for the last few million years? How does the body remember all these virus variation and what exploits are available as a new virus enters this database?

To say the antibody is the be all and end all of the immune system is incorrect. Antibodies are a critical component, but just one piece of the immune system puzzle.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 08:23 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

No Fauci required.

He is named in the title of this thread.

Judy did get off to a bad start with Anthony Fauci when he asked her for a copy of a paper that Francis Ruscetti was working on and she said no. Anthony did eventually get a copy of this paper, held up publication of the paper by Francis and took a lot of the credit in the treatment of AIDS. Soon after this Anthony got the position as head of the National Institute of Health and been there ever since. This position does come with a lot of power on what gets funded and published.

Anthony has shut down a lot of disease initiated Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) study and is heavily invested in vaccination programs. With Judy investing a lot of her study in CFS and its causes I am not surprised by some conflict here. One study Judy participated in found a link to Autism from MMR vaccination through ITP, a blood borne disease.

A lot of scientist have been disgraced looking at that vaccination - Autism link. Does it mean they are wrong? There have been a lot of families getting some payout due to vaccination damage. In reality this payout is just a token amount of the true cost of dealing with such conditions. So in the established scientific literature it is a sin to associate vaccinations with Autism, yet in the back rooms of the court house they know things are not adding up?

With some of Judy's work, PCR tests are not effective as there are just too many strains going on. She has had to develop other methods to isolate and identify the components involved. Part of the reason why attempts to reproduce her work has failed. The photo below is part of the campaign that was used to discredit her work.

I don't get it. Looks more like a call to action for what team you are on. Just what and how the blood supply has been contaminated looks to be a big part of the contentions going on. Fauci required.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

Are you aware that after she was fired from WPI, Mikovits took part in a $2.3 million study to replicate her findings. At a conference in 2012, where the findings were presented, Mikovits called it the "definitive answer." The conclusion, in her own words, was that, " There is no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen."

Those are her own words, based on a study in which she was a researcher. So why is she trying to continue to push the XMRV narrative when she herself has admitted there is no evidence for it?

And yes the original paper was bad science:

In addition, there is evidence of poor quality control in a number of specific experiments in the Report. Figure 1, table S1, and fig. S2 have been retracted by the authors (3). In response to concerns expressed about Fig. 2C [summarized in (4)], the authors acknowledged to Science that they omitted important information from the legend of this figure panel. Specifically, they failed to indicate that the CFS patient–derived peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) shown in Fig. 2C had been treated with azacytidine as well as phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2. This was in contrast to the CFS samples shown in Figs. 2A and 2B, which had not been treated with azacytidine.

That is from the retraction published in Science.

As for Fauci, as I stated earlier in this thread, her story about him demanding a paper from her makes no sense. You yourself have admitted that Frank Recetti was the lead researcher on the paper. That's who Fauci would've gone to. Not Recetti's assistant.

Furthermore, phones existed at that time. Why would Fauci fly across the country to demand a paper?

Then there's also the fact that the paper was already at print. He could have easily requested it from the journal and be given a copy.

Finally, there's the question of why Fauci would want to delay or stop the publication of this specific study. The study in question was a confirmation study trying to replicate the seminal findings of Luc Montagnier regarding HIV (which ultimately earned him a Nobel Prize in 2008.) Researchers all over the world were trying to confirm these important findings at the time. So why would Fauci specifically go after the one Mikovits happened to be working on?

Like I said, the story makes absolutely zero sense.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: kwakakev
Have you seen this?

Prof Delores Cahill PHD speaks in an interview about vaccines.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 09:46 PM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I agree a lot of what happened between Fauci and Frank Recetti is between those two. i don't know what deals or agreements they may of had. If Fauci could not get hold of Frank for some reason, then going to Franks assistant is the next logical step in trying to track down such data. From Judy's perspective, it does appear Fauci was overbearing and not fair in sharing the credit.

If Fauci could get access to a yet to be published paper at that time, why didn't he? Is there some kind of breach of ethics with scientists snooping on what other scientists are doing? With Fauci getting his paper published first he got all the credit, noble prize and promotion. I don't know who done what between Fauci, Frank and HIV research.

At a conference in 2012, where the findings were presented, Mikovits called it the "definitive answer." The conclusion, in her own words, was that, " There is no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen."

I don't know, Judy is not making these claims now. During 2012 Judy was out of a job, had no lab or office and contending with the legal challenges against her. With all the discussion her 2011 work was doing it is good to see that some attempts to replicate the work was made. I assume this is the paper in question:

A Multicenter Blinded Analysis Indicates No Association Between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Either Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus or Polytropic Murine Leukemia Virus

Here, the original investigators who found XMRV and pMLV (polytropic murine leukemia virus) in blood of subjects with this disorder report that this association is not confirmed in a blinded analysis of samples from rigorously characterized subjects

This is not exactly the same as declaring there is no evidence, just that the evidence has not been confirmed. Harvey J Alter is another scientist who has worked with XMRV and named in this paper. Would be interesting to hear his perspective on it all.

The increasing frequency with which molecular methods are used for pathogen discovery poses new challenges to public health and support of science. It is imperative that strategies be developed to rapidly and coherently address discoveries so that they can be carried forward for translation to clinical medicine or abandoned to focus resource investment more productively. Our study provides a paradigm for pathogen dediscovery that may be helpful to others working in this field.

To call this study a conclusive be all and end all to the matter looks a little short with all the complexities and challenges involved.

As for Fauci, rumours of his associations with the Wuhan lab don't look good. My biggest concern at this time is thinking that waiting for a vaccination to stop covid is the answer. Similar claims for a vaccination came out when HIV started, we are still waiting. Attempts at a vaccination for SARS, MERS and other similar viruses are yet to be successful. There is a lot more going on with the immune system than just antibodies, how RNA merges does create one big mess of data.

If anyone offers me an early trial vaccination I will pass. Something in the implications of reinfection is not adding up.

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 10:59 PM
a reply to: Itisnowagain

It was good to see the longer interview with Delores Cahill. I agree that HCQ is showing a lot of promise as a more beneficial treatment in Covid-19. Looks to be more effective if taken early and helps limit the virus gaining traction in the body. Does not look to be much help for those in the critical stages of the disease.

There are other drugs also getting explored and showing some beneficial effect if taken appropriately. The large amount of long term data known about HCQ due to malaria and other treatment does help make it a popular option.

When it come to global tribunals about the response to this pandemic, I don't know. The systems we have in place that puts all the pressure on one man does have its limitations. Lots of people trying to catch up with a lot of unknowns, mistakes will be made. Not too much is black and white with all the complexities going on. Can wearing a mask help limit exposure in some cases? maybe. Can wearing a mask also have it's own risks along with all other medical procedures? Sure.

If it can be proven that there was gain of function research behind this outbreak then I would be more supportive of a global tribunal. As for any issues of racketeering, fraud and intentionally causing harm, national judicial institutions seam to be a more appropriate forum.

Here in Australia there are attempts to force mandatory vaccinations. I disagree with it. Having some parts of society not vaccinated can help distinguish the long term implications of this expanding technology.

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 03:31 AM
In trying to understand some of this XRMV mess, it goes back to 1977 with one paper:

Friend Strain of Spleen Focus-Forming Virus: A Recombinant Between Mouse Type C Ecotropic Viral Sequences and Sequences Related to Xenotropic Virus

The presence of MLV (murine leukemia viruses) looks to be pretty clear and well established. As for the full mechanism of how they cause trouble and get where they do is still in question.

XRMV's is one hypothesis and involves how genetic material recombines in a host. With the 2012 study spending millions of dollars to test 15 samples, it does suggest a level of sensitivity going on that we are not ready to fully engage in. Does not appear to be much capacity to practically deal with any implications on the blood supply should this theory of recombination pan out.

There is still work going on in this area with another recent study from 2017, XMRV and Public Health: The Retroviral Genome Is Not a Suitable Template for Diagnostic PCR, and Its Association With Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Appears Unreliable

Results are mixed and hard to reproduce. Do we need next generation test equipment to help with digging down deep enough? There are other studies going on, but trying to get consistent results one way or another is troublesome. When thinking about issues of RNA recombination, it hurts my head.
edit on 22-5-2020 by kwakakev because: grammer

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 05:37 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

Scientists receive access to papers that are at-print on a regular basis. Speaking from experience, it can take over a year for a paper to be published after being accepted by a journal. If you know someone is doing research that may be relevant to your own you can't wait a year to see their paper once it's in print. So you ask the journal or the lead researcher for a copy. It's no big deal.

As for Fauci, he didn't delay their paper so his paper could get published first and get all the credit. First off, Fauci does not have a Nobel Prize. From what I can tell he didn't really do any research into HIV. Robert Gallo is the American most associated with early HIV research. He's the one that made the connection between HIV and AIDS. Even he doesn't have a Nobel Prize. His paper regarding the discovery of HIV came out in 1984 while the French papers came out in 1983.

Mikovits claims that her and Recetti worked with Luc Montagnier's team in identifying HIV in human saliva and that Fauci delayed their paper from being published so Gallo could get the credit for some reason. There's no indication that Recetti and his team worked on Montagnier's seminal study, but even if they did it was still published before Gallo's.

Recetti's first novel research on HIV doesn't appear until 1985. In it they were able to isolate HIV from the plasma of a patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. A paper that was not beat to print by Gallo.

Like I said, Mikovits' claims about Fauci make absolutely zero sense.

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I was wrong saying that Fauci got a Nobel Prize, it was the Alaska award that was provided for developing an antibody test for AIDS. i also messed up saying that Fauci got a job as head of the National Health Institute, it was Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1984. He is still there.

As for what really happened between Luc Montagnier's team and Gallo's in awarding the patient on the AIDS antibody test, I don't know. Looks like some France - USA rivalry going on. I do expect lots of people behind the scenes helping in different ways to make it all come together. The patient office only picks one winner.

As for what papers Judy claims there where some shenanigans going on around this time.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Epidemiologic, Clinical, Immunologic, and Therapeutic Considerations by Anthony Fauci in 1984.

Immunopathology Associated With Human Lymphotropic Retroviruses by Frank Ruscetti in 1985.

I am not certain these are the exact papers Judy was talking about, but looking through the library make the best match. One thing that stuck out in the paper by Fauci, page 99:

Similarly, cytotoxic lymphoctye function could be restored to normal simply by the addition of interleukin-2 to culture.

Frank Ruscetti in 1984 did publish another paper, Biology of interleukin-2. Interleukin 2 has gone on to be used in HIV and Cancer treatment.

There is a lot of cross over in the work by all these individuals. I do expect they have all put a lot of hours into it. If i was working on HIV at the time and with the history Frank has on T Cells, I would like to hear what he has to say.

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

Here is a paper that will be published in an upcoming issue of AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses written by two experts in retrovirology discussing the bad science in Mikovits' infamous study and the flaws in her narrative.

Fake Science: XMRV, COVID-19 and the Toxic Legacy of Dr. Judy Mikovits

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 10:48 PM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The personal bias against Judy is pretty clear in the paper. The professional criticism follows a lot of the general perspectives of the study with her samples getting contaminated. Some of the scientific background is good to help understand what is going on.

Around 8% of the human genome is made of dead retroviruses and the study of these ‘endogenous retroviruses’ provides fascinating insight into our evolution. However, some of these endogenous retroviruses are still able to be reactivated, and mice in particular harbour many that can be “re-awoken”.

This does appear to propose another hypothesis of what is going on with MLV, the virus has been in us all along, but somehow something trigger it to surface.

Critically, when retroviruses copy their RNA genome into DNA for integration, they are very error prone. They make mistakes, or mutations, in the sequence. In fact, they make these mistakes so regularly, that in an individual infected with a retrovirus like HIV-1, there is no one virus sequence, but rather a group or “swarm” of related sequences.

This is a concept Judy is familiar with and attributes XMRV with. To call someone a fraud because they tried to make sense of these swarms does not seam fair. With a lack of confirmed findings among the scientific community i prefer the word stupid. Something is missing and not adding up but she does not come across as intentionally putting out lies with her work.

One question i have with Judy's recent statements is how covid is also a swarm of viruses. Identification of a single virus with some minor mutations looks clear, as for what swarms of interactions take place on infection, I don't know. Why is there so much difficulty in creating an effective vaccination for things like AIDS and SARS seams to have something to do with swarms of interactions.

Mikovits’s statement that she thought XMRV might be the cause of autism has been picked up by the anti-vaccine movement led by the disgraced British ex-doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who himself had his medical licence revoked for falsely linking the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to childhood developmental problems.

For anyone to say that vaccinations are 100% safe is at least stupid, if not fraudulent. The MMR vaccination is one high on the radar with its complications. One simple test is to check at the child's eyes and facial muscles post injection and look for some misalignment as a sign of brain inflammation. A lot of the time things will go back to normal in the hours or days after injection. Occasionally it takes a lot longer with permanent damage a risk factor.

Vaccinations are a highly emotive situation as we are all forced to play Russian Roulette. Do we die or take damage from the the disease or the cure? Trying to find the right line with so many differing interest results in a lot of concern and confusion.

What I do understand about Judy, she jumped into the the deep end of pool of biochemistry, found a few pieces of the puzzle but a little short of a complete picture. She upset a few people along the way and came across something she thought was was a big threat. It is good that she brought attention to these concerns than cover it up. I can understand some people are disgruntled wasting their time on a nothing burger. As for all the technicalities, I don't know, it looks deep.
edit on 22-5-2020 by kwakakev because: spelling

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in