PERSPECTIVES ON THE PANDEMIC XI
April 16th and May 15th, 2020
PERSPECTIVES ON THE PANDEMIC interviewed Dr. Judy Mikovits on April 16th, and again on May 15th, 2020, after her appearance in the film PLANDEMIC. In her second interview, she was joined by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. We have divided the conversation into three parts. The first two focus on Dr. Mikovits, and the third on Mr. Kennedy.
This is the second part.
Tell me, what's your impression behind the original story of COVID-19, that this came out of a wet market, and/or what they're starting to say now? About the Wuhan lab, they're bringing that back out.
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Yeah. Well, that's a pretty simple question to answer because xenotransplantation has really accelerated zoonosis, because viruses and pathogens jump species all the time in nature but it usually takes millions of years. When they say this is a natural zoonosis, from a seafood market, a person doesn't cook the food or whatever it is, gets infected and then transmits it to someone else. That doesn't happen for maybe 800 years because bat viruses need an intermediary host. They need a gain of function. You won't go straight from the bat to the human because you'll kill the human. As we discussed earlier, the virus can't afford to kill its host. It has to live with it, it has to hide there, and make more reservoirs.
The zoonosis that occurred with COVID-19, that gain of function where it looks like it comes from the family of SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, slash CoV-2. This is another virus in that family that has somehow emerged to acquire the ability to infect human cells. Essentially, the only way that happens in a decade, and not in 30, 40, 100 years, for that event to happen again is by way of the laboratory, which is, of course, right there.
I don't use the term engineered because that's a different term when you're a molecular virologist and you're making chimeras. You're intentionally putting a different cap on the nucleic acid of a different virus and I don't think that's what happened at all. Any time you take the animal into a laboratory and take the virus out of it and grow it in other cell lines, then that changes it. You accelerated the viral evolution, the zoonosis, way, way, way rapidly and then how did it get to 190 countries in what's said to be a month or two, which doesn't fit the biology of the situation.
When it came from one woman and most people didn't come in contact with that market or many that were in so-called ground zero, the laboratories and that manipulation, in growing these cell lines, which by the way, we ship around the world and in that study, talking about the emergence of SARS, CoV-2, how it emerged, how it came out into people, the funding was done by the NIAID and in that material and methods of that scientific paper, you'll see that they grew the virus, they replicated the virus, made large stocks of viruses in Vero, the monkey E6 cells, so monkeys are close to humans so you've acquired another ability and if you want to think about the HIV sequences that are in the new SARS CoV-2 that gives it expanding ability, not just to infect the epithelial cells and things but to infect white blood cells, because the glycoproteins from HIV are going to stick like velcro to white blood cells.
Now you can start seeing COVID-19, the disease, looks like a retroviral disease because you've given it access, you've given it the ability to infect white blood cells, which coronaviruses don't do. This is why it almost has to be a lab emerged zoonosis.
I defunded the collaboration between the University in North Carolina and the Wuhan laboratory. They got these cells, the cell line, Vero E6, from Fort Detrick, from USAMRID, from their biosafety level four facility. It went back and forth from the US/North Carolina, the US Fort Detrick, and Wuhan biosafety level four facility, and what most people won't remember but we do because our colleagues still work there, is that the USAMRID biosafety level facility was shut down for safety concerns in late 2018 or early 2019. There were safety concerns at the Wuhan facility as well, so the chance that these things could get in the water, in the feed, in the food supply, it's not imagination. There's a very real possibility that happened.
What I show you is my laboratory and the eight ball, the bio weapons laboratory, which is right here at Fort Detrick. Here is my laboratory on the top. Our biosafety level three facility is right above that staircase and right back behind it is what we call the eight ball. That's where they used to gas animals and do other kinds of bio weapons thing, and the USAMRID is literally right across the field from this location, and so my friend Mike Hugo, and it's a story in the book, actually did a large environmental law case because some of the families outside Fort Detrick with the water supply, with the soil contamination from Fort Detrick had as many as 22 different kinds of cancer. You know, breast cancer, in a single family. He had done an environment law and, of course, it was all dismissed and this was only three or four years ago.
Could you just briefly describe the gain of function work that you were doing on Fort Detrick on Ebola? In science, they attack you for saying that you were making Ebola more deadly or more infectious but really it seems to me, the idea of the studies you were doing, was so that you could then be able to study the best ways of protecting against it, is that correct? Is that why you were doing gain of function with Ebola?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
I did two studies. It was a collaboration between the National Cancer Institute and the USAMRID, US Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease, so what we were doing with Ebola then, the simple thing is if you can't grow a virus, you can't study it. Cry viruses don't ... They have to grow in cell lines. What my first job was was to find a cell line that the Ebola Zaire strain, which was a highly pathogenic strain, find a cell line that it would grow in without killing and I developed cell lines for 40 years now and understand how viruses grow and those immune mechanisms we've talked about.
Among those that I chose was the Vero monkey, the Vero E6 cells. Why? Because it has no type one interfere on pathway. It's a virus factory for RNA viruses because the front line of silencing the virus, stopping its expression is that. Yes. I was growing those ... Finding a cell line, I say teaching it to infect a cell without killing it because if it kills the cell, you can't study those mechanisms and I knew those immune mechanisms because that's been my entire life's work.
The second thing I did in those projects, and this was published in a separate edition of the journal Nature in 1999 and I believe I provided you with that publication of the short abstract of our studies for a meeting.
My job was to see what is the difference between the Ebola Zaire strain and the Ebola Reston strain, which was nonpathogenic against that highly pathogenic strain. I infected primary human monocyte, that's your front line defense. That was my award-winning, PHD thesis research in 1991, just five or six years earlier.
When you infect those monocytes and it becomes latent and then you activate expression, what you get is ... We would infect primary human monocytes with the pathogenic strain, with the nonpathogenic strain, and ask what the cytokine storm is. What's the difference in signaling an immune response that makes a strain highly pathogenic versus nonpathogenic? That happened to be the first time probably that we ever used ... We probably didn't use the word cytokine storm. What we used was cytokine signature of disease, which is exactly what I did when I isolated from the patients in 2009, infectious XMRV. I didn't look at everyone with chronic fatigue syndrome or healthy people. I looked at people who had cytokine immune abnormalities, the inability to control the virus and what the signature of disease was, at which we also published.
Bobby just mentioned the surfer on the beach. One of the things that the journal Science has recently attacked you on is where you talked about how crazy it is to close the beach. I'm quoting you back. You said, "You've got sequences in the soil and the sand, you've got healing microbes in the ocean and the saltwater." You said, "It's insanity to bar people from that." They say, "It's not clear what Mikovits means by sand or soil sequence. There is no evidence that microbes in the ocean can heal COVID-19 patients." How would you respond to that criticism of theirs?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
I didn't say that microbes in the ocean or the sand could heal COVID-19 patients but microbes in the soil and the sand boost your immunity through your natural skin responses, along with the sun and the vitamin D and exercise, which is also immune boosting. This is a natural way of developing a healthy immune system and when you're sanitized and kept away from those boosting things and, in often cases, in most of what we're seeing right now, there is toxic cleaners. That's all we're breathing in our homes, so we're not getting sanitized. We're being exposed to ... We're not getting exposed to the natural environment. That's what your immune system does.
What's the difference between self and non-self? Many, many, many microbial sequences in the soil, in the sand, in the ocean, plants with natural healing properties that are absorbed through the water, through the skin, the skin is its own immune system, that's really all of it. Yeah. Let's just twist this.
What exactly is a microbial sequence? Just in a nutshell.
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
All of the little sea creatures, the little crabs along the soil, they all have DNA, they all have ... There's microbes ... Plants have infections, sand, in the sand, there's natural anti-microbials. That's what plants are used for and I develop drugs from. You're not boosting your immune system with the microbial natural sequences, natural products that are in the sea and the soil.
By sequences, you mean like DNA sequences?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Yeah. DNA from other plants, little creatures, everything. This is what I did for a living in fermentation chemistry, that program harvested around the world, plants and soil samples, looking for anti-microbials because for equilibrium in nature, you have microbials and you have natural anti-microbials. Being in the sand with the sequences, mushrooms, everything that's on the beach and in the ocean, half of what we did in isolated is anti-cancer drugs came from the ocean.
If we can't get in the oceans, we don't have the immune boosting and we're not doing natural immunity in a natural way.
What's the name of your new book? Why did you write it?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Our new book is called Plague of Corruption. It published yesterday. The subtitle is Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science. Right now, in our world, we have propaganda masquerading as science. This is the only mask I will wear. It's from New Orleans.
Now the public is wary of what scientists tell them and we wrote it because it literally makes ... It looks like prophecy. We predicted this very event and we started writing about it four years ago. We should have stopped everything October 8th or probably even July 22nd, 2009. The invitation-only meeting, the "Oh my God. Look what happened, let's protect everybody."
No. What did they do? They covered it up. They didn't make biosafety level three facilities and, in fact, they published over the next seven or eight years in Science, the journals, the journals are part of the propaganda problem. They published, "Unintended spread release" of a biosafety level two organism.
No, no, no. The unintended release of XMRV was a contagious cancer causing virus from mice to the world. We send those cell lines everywhere. That's why we wrote the book because the only thing we can do is show the world that this isn't what you think it is, we're not being told by our top members of the public health service, who make a lot of money, and trillions of dollars at taxpayers' expense, and the taxpayers get none of the benefits and they're actually killing them.
Redfield, Berks, Fauci, they were all in the early AIDS work. They all ... First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this, but a few of them, the current head of HHS, who is a lawyer, not a doctor or scientist, and then, of course, Redfield, head of CDC, Berks, head of the Plan, they're not only from that early AIDS period but they're involved in very right wing, fundamentalist, Christian groups and they have recommended ... For instance, that the groups that Redfield's been associated with, feel like AIDS is God's revenge on the gays and there are very strange associations with these guys.
They seem to all be in a gang that's very self-supporting, mutually supportive. What are your thoughts on just that unit that has stayed together for so many years, from the AIDS days, and is still involved in AIDS, Berks, Redfield, Fauci, how does that all work in the world of science? They all seem to be very connected to the pharmaceutical industry. How does that work?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Well, they should be convicted felons for criminal fraud in these various papers and publications for four decades for spreading HIV and killing an entire continent and an entire population.
How did they do that?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Well, because they get all the funding and they get all the publications and people like me go away. They suicide us. There's an entire chapter in our book on scientists and doctors who are killed who come up against them. They do that because they have the control, they have the power, they have the money. If you don't publish in these journals, you don't continue your career.
As I mentioned, all my funding, my career is like it never existed. As we testify in Vaccine Court, for the injured from vaccines, you've got the DOJ, the Department of Justice, there victimizing the victims even further. A lot of what's in our book tells you how they do that. That's why they need to go away and literally be convicted of these four decades of crimes against humanities because this is genocide, this is a Holocaust, and they censor our data, they jail us, they kill us, they do anything they can to stop this from getting out but maybe they just ...
What they say is if anybody thinks about it, really? Why does everybody ... What public health measure could it possibly serve to take people off a beach or out of the ocean when they're body boarding alone? That has nothing to do with public health. It has to do with control and fear and that we give up more of our rights as Ronald Reagan signed away our religious freedoms and our rights with the liability on all the vaccines. They're liability-free. That's why they do it. It's a lot of money.
Can you just briefly ... What is VICA?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Oh, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act or VICA is a federal law that Ronald Reagan signed in 1986 to remove all liabilities from manufacturers of vaccines. Again, Tony Fauci was standing right next to him saying we won't protect you from the next pandemic if you don't sign this. Ronald Reagan, at the time, said it's unconstitutional and hoped the bill would change in a good way. That act removed liability, so you can't sue manufacturers, HHS and the DOJ, so if I'm bringing a case because my child or my parents died from a flu vaccine, then there's no discovery.
You go to this sham court, I call it a kangaroo court, because there's no discovery, nobody is at fault, and you simply ... They say, "Oh, the vaccine can never do that. Vaccines are presumed innocent at all costs, including literally destroying these families" and yet that program in the last 30 years has paid out more than $4 billion, probably closer to $5 billion, even though, these special masters, not even really judges, really skew it and make certain none of these cases see the light of day and literally commit fraud.
Iin the case of the autism big collective group, it's called ombudsmen, thousands of cases got together and literally when it was shown in one of the test cases that vaccines could, did, by all the opinions of the experts, cause that child autism, that the government paid them off big, silenced everybody, confidentiality, sign this piece of paper, never say anything again, and then they proceeded to throw every case that ever used the word autism and now encephalitis or [inaudible 00:21:44] brain inflammation ... Tony Fauci lied to Congress, February 27th, 2019, and sat there and said the MMR vaccine doesn't cause encephalitis and, in fact, it does. It's on the package insert from the manufacturer.
How safe and effective is the measles vaccine, the MMR vaccine? How would you compare it to other vaccines?
Well, let's talk about efficacy first. It is clearly one of, if not the, most effective vaccine that we have. As [inaudible 00:22:21] said, you really can't get much better than that. That's the reason why we don't want to take away its efficacy, 97% is really, really hood. As both of us have said many times, it is a very safe vaccine. Over millions and millions and millions of doses that have been given. It is a very, very safe vaccine.
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
In my opinion, it's not a coincidence that in 2011, there was a case called Bruesewitz and it's discussed in our book Plague of Corruption, which basically removed everybody from liability, the drugstore clerk, anybody associated, pediatricians, any liability at all from injury and, of course, pediatricians make a lot of money from vaccines. They're paid very well with their vaccine programs. They will ruin your career and your life if you say a word.
We have kids that got seizure disorders, developed seizure disorders from vaccines, and now here in California, their doctor had written no more vaccines, they're susceptible to injury, and the public health of California overrules that now and in order for these kids to go to school, they have to get vaccinated and the next shot could kill them.
When we had replicated Luc Montagnier's work and our paper was in press, Tony Fauci called me on the phone while Dr. Ruscetti was out of town and told me to give him and Dr. Gallo, Dr. Robert Gallo, a copy of our paper, which was confidential, in press, basically, so that they could copy the work. They delayed the publication of our paper and Gallo came out with a paper of his own, and of course, this created a huge problem because many got infected while two countries literally fought over who discovered the virus and this was the debacle in the '80s that Ronald Reagan presided over.
Tony Fauci ...
Tony Fauci was not well loved by AIDS activists in my understanding. Is that right?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Yeah. Not at all. Not well loved by any of us in the work because it appeared that for monetary gains, he's got patents on Interleukin 2, which Dr. Frank Ruscetti discovered. Why does he have patents on Interleukin 2 therapy? For almost a decade, because he had those patents, the drugs that were made and the studies that were funded were to target the T cell and, again, it wasn't until my work in 1991, kind of exploded it, our work, Dr. Ruscetti and our team, because Frank Ruscetti was my PHD mentor, that it was clear that this was the wrong thing.
How many people died because Tony Fauci steered everybody to where he had a monetary gain in that situation? I think we can see that right now playing out in this, we know that alpha interferon is not only curative but can prevent the next round. We're hearing about, "Oh, well, it's going to come back in a year and until we have a vaccine, everybody locks down."
Well, the things that should have been done to mitigate the infection was alpha interferon and the hydroxychloroquine right away to all the vulnerable, do the right tests, the serology tests, to ask how long that virus has been there, and do we have a large population of people who will never get sick from the virus and have, in fact, neutralizing antibodies, which would be a vaccine, as we grow those up and give those to the susceptible, which is what was done in the past. We've never made a successful vaccine, despite trillions of dollars in HIV-2 HIV. In 20 years, not to SARS or MERS. In fact, they accelerate the disease and kill more rapidly and there's several publications on all of that.
Could you speak about ... I'm aware of the studies that were attempted, even very pro-vaccine schedule doctors like [inaudible 00:27:10] others have been very concerned about rushing a SARS vaccine because of those studies. Can you speak to a government study that suggested that those who had received the influenza vaccine were more susceptible to non-influenza pathogens? Like coronaviruses.
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Absolutely. That study, there was three studies that I came across with different kinds of influenza vaccines but what it basically says is that there's a term called viral interference, that giving a flu vaccine would give you a broad paint brush protection for other kinds of upper respiratory RNA infections like coronaviruses but the study that came out, that was done in 2018 and '19, in military who had received the vaccines, said that those people were 36% more likely to get SARS and more disease from it.
With other vaccines, there were three other vaccines that showed the influenza, different formulations could enhance the pathogenesis even more, make people sicker, if they got that vaccine. My frustration is that's what Tony Fauci came out and what is still being said by the CDC, get the flu vaccine because it'll offer you protection, when they absolutely know the opposite will happen.
If you look up Snopes or on Wikipedia or on ... There's a Chicago Tribune story. There's essentially what looks like hit pieces. They're very negative articles about you. Could you just address how Wikipedia describes your case or Snopes or any of those kinds of organizations?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Yeah. I mean, there's nothing that they say about what I supposedly did that's true. They say I was fired on September 29th, and I was fired for insolence and insubordination but Wikipedia said was I was fired because I didn't give a re-agent that was accidentally shipped to my lab. Well, that re-agent was purposely shipped to my lab and its intended use was to misappropriate federal funds and cut off our grants and cover up what happened as the government carried out their threat.
If I gave that talk on September 26th, my grants will be removed. They didn't say it that way but I was threatened. It's clear, I wrote the exact email in the book that I said to them, which was actually quite funny, I must have been angry, and basically they just carried out their threats and they, Watergate style, broke into my lab, took all of the key data, which is who is infected, what do the strains look like, where were the locations, so they could cover up the clusters and just false arrest, no warrant, no nothing, but that's not what Wikipedia says.
The Chicago Tribune, when we got close, our family studies in 2010, which we gave at that NIH workshop, September 6th and 7th, of 2010, it was clear. In families, where people had CFS or other cancers associated with the XMRVs, those families had kids that were susceptible to getting autism from vaccines, wake up, it's dormant, and it spread the reservoirs of XMRVs through the families.
That was what the data absolutely said and then the Whittemores, whose daughter was cured with the very simple drugs that I mentioned and by what clearly we isolated the virus from their very sick daughter, I'm sure, although, I don't know, they threatened ... Harvey Whittemore had committed and is actually now a convicted felon for campaign fraud, with Harry Reid, who was then the Senate majority leader over Health and Human Services [crosstalk 00:31:48].
Wait a second. Who is Whittemore?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Who was he to you?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
He's the owner of ... My boss. He's the founder and funder of the Whittemore Peterson Institute, that institute that we literally formed in 2006. My boss, who he should have held the patent along with me and Frank Ruscetti for the diagnostics ... Think about these PCR tests. Well, he decided to use federal funds to manufacture tests that weren't validated and charge Medicare for them, which, of course, is fraud, in his own private company and, of course, who goes to jail?
You make Mikovits and the data go away because she just gave the talk that said the viruses are real and prove that the molecular mechanism is behind it. They just systematically between Ian Lipkin, the Whittemores, and you can follow all of that in the journal Science. Even years later, 23 articles John Cohen wrote, to basically [inaudible 00:33:01] in a rare move, authors forced to retract, a false positive. December 2011, they published a mugshot. They show Max Post, my student, who they also threatened his life, they show him pointing to my notebook. This is supposedly a mugshot run in the journal Science. This isn't a mugshot. You can't take a mugshot if there is no crime. Never a day in court, never anything. We had a case [crosstalk 00:33:35].
Were you never charged with anything?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Never charged, never a day in court. Forced into bankruptcy, had a case for racketeering and conspiracy, they call it Qui Tam for wrongful termination and the destruction of my career and my reputation, against the Whittemores, against everybody at the university, who keeps the funding, so you can always follow it back to Tony Fauci, beleaguered institute keeps funding, keeps grants. To this day, they get paid and they publish fraud, they publish [crosstalk 00:34:12].
This was funding that you and your partner secured for the institute?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
I was the principal investigator. I secured for the institute more than $5 million in the four and a half years I was there and from a major diagnostic company, a $150,000 a month, almost $2 million, to develop the blood test based on what was in our original paper.
Well, the Whittemores didn't have a contract with me, because I signed a shake hand agreement. You know? When they asked me to come to the institute, and I had another job offer to make biological therapies in cancer in San Francisco, they said, "What do you want?" I said, "I want a five year guaranteed contract because it's going to take me a while to put this together and bring the right people in and build", we had to literally build the buildings, build the collaborations, do it quickly for everything I had done in the biological response modifiers, and a signing bonus so I didn't have to sell my house in California.
Wait a second, Judy. Just tell me, the majority of that funding, why is Fauci involved?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
The majority of the funding was a grant from the NIAID, Tony Fauci. They kept the grants, that's another rare move, never does a principal investigator lose their grants, especially when the institute they work for doesn't have a qualified principal investigator and the institute, itself, was found to be misappropriating federal funds.
They're not charged. They keep the money in perpetuity. To this day, millions of dollars to the people ... They were paid off to keep it quiet.
Did you ever have any direct interaction with Fauci over this?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Oh, absolutely. That was the replication study. That was funded and I was not allowed on NIH property to do the study.
I'm sorry. Just make that just briefly more clear for me. [crosstalk 00:36:24].
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
In 2012, after I was fired, I should have taken my grants to, say, UC Santa Barbara where I am right now. I think any institution, and as bad as funding was in 2011, would have loved $5 million in indirect cost, which is $5 million to them, 100% is usually indirect cost for the institution to turn on the lights and supply everything that you don't use in the grant like consummables.
That money, I would have if the replication study had been true, right? And true and we had proven there was XMRV in CFS patients and satisfied that association, which we would have done if Fauci had not stopped the study when we got to the only positive group, when Fauci forbade me from going into a lab. I did that replication study, I did virology by phone, I was not allowed in an NIH-funded lab and haven't been since that day.
When you call it a replication study, that means you were trying to replicate the results from your first study?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Is that the idea?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Were you able to actually do that? [crosstalk 00:37:46].
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
We would have but Tony Fauci stopped the study when we found it positive. He said, "I'm tired of wasting money ..." Literally we had gotten another year and all the way through it, and he stopped the study and applied a statistical program. That's all in our first book Plague, and it details ... In fact, Ian Lipkin, himself, who was paid by Fauci, tens of millions of dollars for these grants, people get a lot of money for a grant program. Ian Lipkin said at the end of the book that they went back and looked at the Stanford samples from the Montoya study and they found it almost exactly what we found, 80% positive. We would have confirmed, we would have, but he stopped it and then just ruined my career through the journal Science and the editorials.
In 2011, when it became clear that the blood supply was contaminated, Tony Fauci literally ... We had about $5 million in grants from the DOD with me as principal investigator at our institute from the DOD and from NIAID, that's Tony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
Tony Fauci directed basically the confiscation of my entire career, all of my notebooks, two offices, and all of my note books and computers, and then once that was done, he was directing the so-called replication study that he directed Ian Lipkin to do, which when Francis Collins in 2010 found the blood supply contaminated, he asked me, Francis Collins, asked me where did you get the negative controls in the UK? I said our colleague from the blood supply, so 4% in the blood supply is a big deal when HIV was never more than .1 or .2. This was a really big deal, both in Europe and here.
That's when Dr. Collins told Dr. Fauci, "Do a replication study, a very large replication study, and fund it from NIAID." Well, Tony Fauci directed Ian Lipkin to do this where they literally just simply didn't put any of the patient groups, anybody that with chronic fatigue, except literally people they called who were tired out of the phone book. Nobody with the inflammatory signatures, nobody with the things that we said pointed to the retrovirus is a causative agent for their disease. That didn't trouble us all that much because we knew there was one patient population from Stanford that was still in the replication study, when ...
Well, when the study started, Tony Fauci put an order out that said if I flew into NIH airspace, meaning I couldn't do the study in a laboratory, I'd been locked out of laboratories, fired, and was literally here home in California, and all of my grants taken away from me later on, but basically I was arrested as a fugitive from justice here in Ventura, California, and held there for five days with no due process. You know, while basically a story was made up and evidence planted in my house of those notebooks.
Well, those notebooks with my handwriting is who are the people? Who is in the study? We refused, even after all of that, even after the arrests, without a job, and everything taken away, we still refused to not proceed with the replication study because we knew we would be found to be right, so Tony Fauci just said I'd be arrested if I stepped foot on NIH.
In 2016, four years later, I went to NIH to Fort Detrick to pick up a paper from the library and when I walked in the security office, they said, "I'm sorry, Judy. We have to detain you. It says you're a fugitive from justice."
This is ... That study came out as, no, there's no association, XMRV, [inaudible 00:42:32]. The journal Science commissioned fraud. They published the paper that was an association study in September of 2011, to cover up that the blood supply was contaminated and, essentially, from that time, they've done everything they can to make certain that XMRV went away.
You know, the whole thing started then with Tony Fauci getting Science to withdraw that study, not because it was wrong but because Judy got arrested. Why did she get arrested? Because Tony Fauci used his political clout to fool Harry Reid and to convince local police in California and Nevada that she had committed a crime by stealing materials from NIH. In fact, legally, and I'm an attorney, those materials, which were her notebooks, her hard drives, and all of her logs for that experiment, legally belong to Judy Mikovits.
They didn't belong to NIH. Under the grant, under the federal grant, the researcher who is the principal researcher in that grant process, has essential ownership of all of the materials that are created. His accusation, at first, he went to Judy and he said, "Look, this can all be settled. Don't worry. You got a great career here. You can stay here forever and you'll have a brilliant career but you've got to withdraw that article."
Did Fauci himself say that or intermediaries?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
No. It was actually the intermediaries, the funders and Ian Lipkin principally, others that were with regard to Science and the studies that he funded because he never came to us. He's just the funder. It was $7 million to my institute and he sent his grants administrators, who basically said it'll be fine, as long as you voluntarily retract a paper.
Tell me, did Science ask you to retract your paper voluntarily? Can you just describe that moment?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
In 2011, when it was clear there was a real problem with so many disease associations and when it was clear that the infectious molecular clone wasn't what was contaminated, that it was in fact these zoonosis viruses from vaccines in a contaminated blood supply. Science, the journal, came to Dr. Ruscetti and I and asked us to retract the paper.
Dr. Ruscetti and I argued with data and quite cogently that the only data that needed to be removed from the paper was Bob Silverman's figure one, which showed that the infectious clone was not what the virus we isolated.
Well, now Bob Silverman had the patent on VP62 and with the viruses, so you understand a diagnosis, if that diagnostic test never found a single positive and our diagnostic test works then, of course, we had the patent. Science, the journal, agreed to only take that out of the paper and partially retract it as the rest of the authors, everyone on the paper agreed.
When I gave the talk that they threatened me if I didn't renounce XMRV and turn the data back on September 22nd, 2011, if I didn't say there was no XMRV in the blood supply and that we had made a mistake, I would be ruined and beyond. They carried out that threat as I gave the appropriate talk and then they said we manipulated a figure in the paper, which wasn't true, and they later found wasn't true.
Basically, when I was arrested, Science, the journal, said we've lost confidence in the whole thing and they forced the retraction against four of the authors on the paper.
There was an initial retraction and then the other authors also retracted in some way or another, in 2011, the journal Science says, "We note that the majority of the authors agree in principle to retract the report but they've been unable to agree on the wording of their statement. It is Science's opinion that a retraction signed by all of the authors is unlikely to be forthcoming. We are, therefore, editorially, retracting the report."
Is it true that your co-authors on the paper wanted to withdraw their support for the paper? I guess if you could talk about what the partial retraction was at first and then briefly what led to the other authors pulling out, if that's in fact what happened.
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Yeah. That's what's most important is the partial retraction. Throughout the studies we did, and the reasons technically that the studies were negative was because the virus was originally identified in prostate cancer but only as sequences. What was key to our 2009 paper was it was the first ever isolation of infectious and transmissible virus and showing that it could be secondarily infected into other humans and showing the spread of it through families and communities that were associated with the infected.
What Bob Silverman and Joe [inaudible 00:48:25] did was a technique where they only looked at PCR technique, where they only looked at a small portion of the virus, in the genomes of men with aggressive prostate cancer. They then made an infectious molecular clone, a synthetic clone in the lab, and this was in 2005 and '06, well before I even started my studies, but I did do prostate cancer drug development, so I was aware of this work when I was at the NIH working with Johns Hopkins.
At any rate, that clone, that infectious molecular clone, when we collaborated with him, once we isolated the viruses from the people, we sent it to Bob Silverman's lab to be sequenced and so it was Bob Silverman's lab that on three different occasions failed to sequence the viruses we isolated as VP62 or directly related, that infectious molecular clone, that strain, so as the negative studies came up, they would target their assays only to detect that strain, VP62, and that's all we were ...
Joy Dasgupta is the name of the scientist who did the sequencing in Bob Silverman's lab at the Cleveland Clinic and he by the fourth time, he told Dr. Ruscetti or he told us that one more sample, one more try and then we'll give up, it's not that virus. Lo and behold, this time he found our samples were, in fact, the virus we isolated, he sequenced as VP62. It was closest related to ... VP62 means virus from prostate cancer from patient number 62. Again, they only had pieces. We had the whole virus.
As the tests were tailored, the negative studies towards that virus and particularly, the serology tests, it was very clear VP62 was never in humans. It never was the virus. They had the patent with Avid Labs and at the time, so, in fact, it was in their interest to continue saying they had discovered XMRV when, in fact, we had discovered XMRVs. There were many strains.
By the time that was realized in 2011, that was the partial retraction. It was very clear from all of the science. We all, everyone on the paper, agreed that figure one was wrong, the PCR was wrong, that testing was wrong, and in fact, we had actually discovered XMRVs and it was a family of multiple strains and it not only came from mice but there were monkey, there were mink cell focus forming, so other small animals that had these families of Gamma retroviruses, they're called.
The partial retraction was accepted by the journal and, again, this didn't play well because the blood supply was so heavily contaminated. We continued to refuse to publish fraudulent studies and say our studies were wrong, so they forced the retraction after I was held in jail. They held me in jail and the other authors lost confidence because of the sheer bizarre events of putting somebody in jail, accusing her of being a fugitive from justice with no charges behind it, [inaudible 00:52:12] did the notebooks go here or there.
It was that circus where Science, the journal, told Dr. Ruscetti that they had lost confidence and they were going to force the retraction but at that time, neither Frank nor my two students, who had done all the work, we still refused to retract it but Dr. Ruscetti and the other co-authors, of course, did not want to lose their careers.
Who is Ian Lipkin? What was his role in regards to your paper in Science? Did you, in fact, acknowledge at some point, as the journal of Science now maintains, that his findings were correct and that, "There was no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen"? Did you ever say that at any point?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
The word I used was it. It goes exactly to the story. W. Ian Lipkin is the doctor who led the multi-center study, he was assigned when Francis Collins on September 6th, ordered Dr. Fauci to fund a multi-center study, a large study to show the association, nobody ever denied the existence, the association with chronic fatigue syndrome. Ian Lipkin was made the senior investigator in charge of the study.
This is what I just said a few minutes ago, during the meeting to set the funding and set the study design, that was held November 4th, 2010 and the dates matter, because on November 4th, 2010, a lot of the data suggested there was something wrong with VP62. But because the title of our paper said XMRV in our Science paper, and the only sequence that was reported in that paper was the synthetic clone that we now know wasn't the virus, and never was the virus, that was the only thing that we could find in the multi-center study.
In fact, our assays did find positive samples and, again, this is where Tony Fauci stopped the study, so the study design [inaudible 00:54:24] November 4th, 2010, you cannot veer from that study or it's considered fraud. They veered in several respects from that study, in that Harold Varmus, then the director of ... Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus, then the director of the National Cancer Institute and my colleague Dr. Ruscetti's boss, so Dr. Ruscetti was also on these publications, had insisted that the VP62 infectious molecular clone be put into a number of the samples and the investigator is not told about that.
He limited our ability to do our cultures because the contamination would spread and then they would say it was contamination when we found that positive. Again, that's one part of it that's fraud. The rest of it is that ... Again, they had no legitimate groups. They didn't have chronic fatigue syndrome with the inflammatory signaling and the epigenetic problems, which was our basis. We had immunological proof, just like we see today, the cytokine signature of the disease, of the infection of SARS CoV-2.
The patient populations weren't correct. When we got to the end, Fauci stopped the study, they applied statistics and Ian Lipkin told me and Dr. Ruscetti, "Look, we need to put this to bed. Everybody knows it's not VP62. Everybody knows there never was any evidence of VP62. That's the only thing you can call XMRV. That was the title of your paper. That was Bob Silverman. Those were the data that were partially retracted in June of 2011." This study was most of the winter and the summer of 2012.
At the end of the day, as we sat in the press conference, and unblinded the study, we unblinded the study in the middle of the summer, and it was published ... It wasn't published in Science. It was published in a journal called mBio and that study was published September and October issue in 2012.
He applied the statistics when Tony Fauci stopped the study and he told me and Frank in email and other places, we all need to put this in bed and John Coffin, who wrote that accompanying article, said earlier that year it's clear there are many strains of gamma retroviruses, just not that one, and so because we've gathered as a part of this important study, thousands of samples now of CFS patients and we can really drill down on the other viruses and re-isolate the correct ones, you simply must say because that was the study design, it's not there.
I didn't say there, not there, and I was not aware of the sentence in the abstract that said there's no evidence anywhere because table three said clearly 6.1% of the viruses in the patients and the controls. That's it. I made the quote because I was told, we only could look for VP62 by W. Ian Lipkin and, of course, he committed the rest of the fraud with applying the statistics.
We did a recent interview with an independent journalist named Sam Husseini and in that interview, he revealed that Ian Lipkin, your old friend, was one of the ... First of all, he was one of the consultants on the film Contagion. I don't know if you know that. He has also been very vocal in denying the possibility that SARS CoV-2 could have been released from a lab accidentally or otherwise.
Can you just give us more of a sense of who he is? What interest would he have in protecting the idea ... Whether it's the Wuhan lab or the lab at Fort Detrick or wherever, is there ... What interest might he have in protecting the idea that this could have been a gain of function experiment gone wrong or intentional?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Well, because Ian Lipkin in September and October of 2012, right after he made certain that the XMRVs were dead and gone, I think according to Science journal, he was awarded $34 million, by Tony Fauci, to create the Center for Diagnostics and Discovery. Since that time, he has used that money in collaboration with the Baric lab in North Carolina, with the Chinese at Wuhan, accelerating that work and causing the cell lines that these animal tissues, that the coronaviruses are grown in, happen to be the same cell lines, the Vero E6, the Vero monkey kidney cells that carried those XMRVs into humans, among several cell lines, as we discussed earlier.
His interest is in covering up and burying, literally calling COVID-19, those 50 million Americans, he knows ... Forget CFS Association, those 4% to 8% that were infected by contaminated blood supply in vaccines, that are not necessarily asymptomatic carriers but have these diseases, they will die, they will be buried of COVID, nobody will do a test and nobody will ever see that, in fact, the carrier passengers in those SARS coronavirus discoveries and those cultures and those vats, they grew the virus and changed the virus, were those very viruses that we discovered and associated with the diseases, the neuro-immune disease, the cancer, those are the clinical symptoms we're seeing right now that are being COVID-19.
This is a coverup. They will bury them and they can say ... Just as they cleaned up the blood supply after 2011, because when I identified the contaminated blood supply, I also identified that there was a way to clean it up. They didn't have to worry about the blood supply and the people on those papers were paid off tens of millions of dollars to clean up the blood supply and, oh, so quietly, say, "Yeah, Judy Mikovits is crazy. It was never contaminated."
Yeah. The data don't support that. It was contaminated and that's proof in our new book Plague of Corruption with both of our books have thousands of references, including emails between Tony Fauci and Ian Lipkin, essentially, making those quid pro quo deals that I mentioned where we were told everybody knows there are more gamma retroviruses there, Judy, just put to bed VP62. It never was that. As they twisted this fraud.
I believe this is a coverup of the XMRVs and they're growing them in the same animal tissues, cell lines, and they have since the beginning, since '13, since '14, and he's funding those studies, those very pathways I identified, those paradigm shifting pathways of epigenetics in DNA methylation and how viruses are silenced and how they're activated, exactly as we just discussed. All of these natural things that we do prevent the activation and he's covering up, literally burying, again, the patients he's already injured.
It's interesting to note that the confirmatory study of our work, our 2008 publication, which similar to the [inaudible 01:02:32] situation, it was greeted with great fanfare and Science, the journal, even published an editorial saying, "Oh, how wonderful this is. One new virus, how many old diseases?" This was authored by John Coffin, who is in the National Academy of Sciences. It was great fanfare and when the extent of the injuries ... I mean, with the extent of the diseases, the association, and showing that, in fact, the contaminated blood supply was a primary source and that the infection in the United States was 25 to 40 times the height of HIV, during the AIDS epidemic, and that was only a million Americans and I say only a million Americans in 1991.
What Harvey Alter and colleagues and Shyh Ching-Lo had done when our paper published was they went back to a box that they'd had in the freezer since the early days of HIV, when patients with women and children, others who didn't fit the demographic, the susceptibility group of HIV/AIDS, which was called gay-related immune deficiency, and it was men, IV drug users, prostitutes, here were family, women, and children and Shyh Ching-Lo pulled the box out of the freezer, did the exact testing that we had done, and his boss there ... He was at the FDA and his boss was Harvey Alter, who [inaudible 01:04:10] that's the American equivalent of the Nobel Prize, and so they found 86% of the people with CFS, they used to call it non-HIV/AIDS, because they didn't fit the patient population and, clearly, there was no evidence of HIV.
He had announced and published his study in the journal PNAS, the Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, which is also the National Academy of Sciences, which is also a premiere journal in the world. Here within six months of our publication is a confirmatory study that's even bigger and more importantly, the control group in that situation from samples from the early '90s, the control group was 7% infected, and so now we know that the blood supply has been contaminated since the '90s. It hadn't been cleaned up because it's only checked for HIV and so now there's another family of viruses that spread around the world unchecked for 30 or 40 years.
Harvey Alter was also encouraged to withdraw his study. They didn't force its retraction. He did withdraw it. The reason why he withdrew it is because he had no more samples. He had no more of that box and in order to replicate his work, he had to use the same samples.
You see, our work was confirmed and around the world it was extended and then when that evidence became so great, of a number of diseases that are associated and the disease that probably was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, is I gave a talk at Columbia to an expert on a disease called ITP, which is Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia. It's a platelet disorder, a bleeding disorder. ITP is long associated with fatigue and some of the things we see in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
In that study by the world's expert, in that group, who provided us the samples, we found more than 30% of people with ITP had, in fact, evidence of the XMRV infections. What's important about that is ITP is listed as a side effect on MMRV vaccine. We now have more evidence for injury and the development of cognitive and learning disorders from ITP. I gave that talk in New York June 1st of 2011 and other than the September 22nd talk, it was the last talk of my professional career.
How has this recent firestorm, and you've been through them before but this is a pretty big one, how has it affected you? How are you bearing up under all of this?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
This is absolutely nothing compared to false arrests, jailing, losing everything, being forced into bankruptcy under threat of going back to jail, being silenced from 2011 to '15, doing a replication study that mattered to 25 million Americans, and doing it by telephone and then having Fauci stop the study, convince Dr. Hanson, convince Dr. Ruscetti, "Oh, it has to be contamination voodoo. Oh, all the samples, all the centers were equally represented", that was pure hell.
This is nothing. They have no new ... Come on. Come up with something. Prove you didn't falsely arrest me. Go to the NIH. I went there November 15th of 2016. It still says Judy Mikovits is a fugitive from justice. Who put that on?
They're running scared because I can still prove everything, except figure one in that paper, is right and true to this day and I have every sample to prove it. It's in the last chapter of the book. They think they confiscated everything but they forgot that mentor of 37 years had to have every copy of data that I have ever worked on and we do and we're exposing this Plague of Corruption and this is the fun part, except for we've got to stop the Plague of Corruption that is COVID-19.
What would it require? What would it take for you to expand and continue the work that you were doing before?
DR. JUDY MIKOVITZ:
Well, I mean, we've never stopped working. I continue to make therapeutics, I continue to work with patients, I continue to look for adverse events. We've had a small consulting company since 2015, since I was allowed to enter back into work. We've served as expert witnesses in vaccine court for many years so we can start to see the injuries and who is susceptible and how to heal. We've developed those formulations with natural products, including cannabis and mixing them with therapeutics. We can heal all of this and right now we could make a safe vaccine. We could continue to make the safe immune therapies I made my entire life.
I haven't stopped. I don't need to be in a lab. I have a brain.