Mullis was quoted saying "the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas" has hurt science.[13] 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.[13]
Mullis wrote that he began to question the AIDS consensus while writing a NIH grant progress report and being unable to find a peer-reviewed reference that HIV was the cause of AIDS.[23][45] He published an alternative hypothesis for AIDS in 1994,[46] and questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, leading some to label him an "AIDS denialist."[47][48]
HOly shit science has always been like it is today.
>Mullis was quoted saying "the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas" has hurt science.[13] 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.[13]
>Mullis wrote that he began to question the AIDS consensus while writing a NIH grant progress report and being unable to find a peer-reviewed reference that HIV was the cause of AIDS.[23][45] He published an alternative hypothesis for AIDS in 1994,[46] and questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, leading some to label him an "AIDS denialist."[47][48]
HOly shit science has always been like it is today.
Yeah. Ineteresting, right?
Yeah. Ineteresting, right?
(post is archived)