Just a few quotes (thank goodness for voice activated dictation):
At 23:15: " Federal government had seen the autism. It wasn’t in the original paper, but we had several meetings between July and the publication where we showed the children, we showed the other diseases, we showed the family, we showed it to Tony Fauci and NIAID…there’s just no doubt… there won’t ever be any doubt in my mind that we isolated and we were… direct isolation… as our paper said, of, of, of, this novel gammaretrovirus… and… and there are many strains just like there, there are at least seven strains of HTLV-1, or HTLV, human T cell leukemia virus lymphotropic virus – and many of these strains aren’t yet associated with any disease at all…(etc., etc.)…
So the government quickly uh, um, when they realize uh, within the next year when our (unpublished) studies continued and we showed the extent of the family studies (???) and, and the fact that these things were associated not only with autism, but with the Lou Gehrig’s disease, with Parkinson’s disease, uh, um, with um, Alzheimer’s disease, um, um, and the aluminum and the vaccine and the other excipients we call them the debris those other things um, harm the immune system….(etc., etc.)…Why are all our kids developing allergies to peanuts? “Oh, it’s because we’re injecting them with peanut oil when they’re a month old!”
So many questions, so little time, so I'll just ask a few...
If they had seen a link to autism before publication of their paper, why wasn't that mentioned in the 'original paper'? Were children's lives not worth it until she decided she had no choice 'but to play the autism card'?
And what about the other diseases? Where are the 'family studies' she's talking about and 'the fact' that there was an 'association' with all those other diseases? If there's "no doubt", then why were there more than a dozen follow-up studies from all around the world that indeed showed 'doubt'?
Peanut allergies are connected to peanut oil in vaccinations? Hmm, that must be why only 0.6 percent of the population is allergic to peanuts.
And then for all her tak about the certainty that 'this novel gammaretrovirus' is associated with so many illnesses, she then seems to negate or greatly diminish it's importance, when she says at 22:22:
"… but only 5% of the people with the virus will ever get sick… so you have to have something else."
In other words, 95% of people with the virus will not get sick.
Game, set, match...or whatever.
Again, this is not meant as an attack on the doctor or on any patients that still believe in her hypotheses. It's just that she repeatedly doesn't seem to make any sense, and has become her own worst enemy by these conspiracy theories with nothing to back up her claims. That's just self-servingi IMHO (Why isn't Ruscetti part of her book or book tour?), and incredibly unscientific and unfair to patients suffering from all these horrible diseases.
p.s. If I ever post about Mikovits again, please just shoot me.