Defense of Dr. Judy Mikovits by Her Co-Author…

I believe Dr. Mikovits was the victim of a WELL ORCHESTRATED campaign using both the civil and criminal justice system to damage her reputation and prevent her from continuing her scientific work, especially over the XMRV issue.   – Kent Heckenlively JD

Opinion by Kent Heckenlively, JD

In all of this the questions EVERYONE needs to ask themselves, and others, are:

Simple fact – the so-called “stolen” notebooks were, and are, Dr. Mikovits’s personal scientific notebooks from the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) study.  They were never, and are not now, anyone else’s property.  They are all in her own handwriting.  Dr. Mikovits STILL wants them back.

(1)  WHY was it so important that the personal scientific NOTEBOOKS OF DR. MIKOVITS, in the XMRV study, be kept from her? 

Even now, nine years later, Dr. Mikovits, has not been given copies of her own research journals she kept for five years. 

(2) WHAT is so dangerous in those notebooks that she is not allowed to have copies?”

(3) WHO went to such strange and unusual lengths to keep these personal scientific notebooks from Dr. Mikovits?

Let’s look at some facts that may lead us to answers:

This attack was primarily led by Mikovits’s former boss of five years, Harvey Whittemore, a State of Nevada political power player, who we believe got played by higher-ups in the public health establishment to make the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) issue go away. 

If her XMRV work was confirmed it would be a liability of billions of dollars to the federal government and private corporations because of their negligent use of animal tissue and aborted human fetal tissue in government and private laboratories to develop medical therapies. 

Here is the story…

Many years ago, I told Dr. Mikovits that the media and the judiciary were so corrupt that she would never receive justice in those forums.  I pledged to her I would be her attorney in the court of public opinion. 

In order to respond to the attacks against her,  I must first familiarize you with the character of her sole accuser, Harvey Whittemore, that NO journalist ever seems to mention in their discussion of Dr. Mikovits.  What follows is my opinion, based on ten years of research, of what was really going on.  I must first start with Harvey Whittemore.

Harvey Whittemore is one of the most colorful and intelligent characters you are ever likely to ever encounter. 

He is tall, physically imposing, and knows his way around power.  

This is how Harvey Whittemore was described in a Las Vegas Review article on February 26, 2012.

“THROUGHOUT THE 1990S AND EARLY 2000S . . . WHITTEMORE . . . WAS THE SUPREME LEGISLATIVE LOBBYIST. HE REPRESENTED THE GAMING, TOBACCO AND LIQUOR INDUSTRIES . . . HE COULD GET LEGISLATORS TO PASS THE LEGISLATION HIS CLIENTS WANTED AND THEN HELP THE SAME LEGISLATORS FINANCE THEIR NEXT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.” (Ed Vogel, “Nevada Power Broker Whittemore Now a Pariah,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 26, 2012.)

For most of his life, Whittemore used his skills for mostly admirable pursuits, developing golf courses and real estate developments, and founding an institute at the University of Nevada, Reno, to help his daughter who had come down with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as ME/CFS.  All of these facts are covered in Chapter 16 (Whittemore Justice), of our first book, PLAGUE, published in 2014. 

A Las Vegas Sun article from June 10, 2012 (Anjeanette Damon, “Indictment Caps Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore’s Dramatic Fall from Grace,” Las Vegas Sun, June 10, 2012) described some of the darker aspects of Whittemore’s character, such as his well-known penchant for reaching into the legislative chambers to give things to legislators before important votes.  Because there was such a public outcry over this behavior, tall glass walls were installed so that the legislators were forever separated from the public gallery.  These quickly became known as “Harvey walls.” 

The question which I think lies at the heart of Whittemore’s actions is whether the great recession of 2008 put them at considerable financial stress.  Apparently it did, because they were sued by their former business partners, the Seeno family of Northern California. 

In an article from the Reno Gazette Journal of February 12, 2012 THE REPORTER WROTE…

“WHITTEMORE’S FORMER PARTNERS AT WINGFIELD NEVADA GROUP – TOM SEENO AND ALBERT SEENO, JR – HAVE SUED WHITTEMORE, SAYING HE USED HIS SMOOTH-TALKING, SLEIGHT OF HAND TACTICS TO STEAL MILLIONS FROM THE WINGFIELD COMPANY. WHITTEMORE SHOT BACK WITH HIS OWN LAWSUIT CLAIMING THE SEENOS THREATENED TO KILL HIM AND HIS FAMILY IF HE DIDN’T FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS AND SIGN OVER HIS ASSETS.” (Martha Bellise, “Wit and Work Made Lobbyist, Harvey Whittemore, ‘An Institution,’” Reno Gazette Journal, February 12, 2012)

The Seenos sued the Whittemores for forty-four million dollars.  The allegations in the lawsuit painted a dark and dangerous world.

“THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING THE MISAPPROPRIATION, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND EMBEZZLEMENT OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. ACTING AS MANAGER OF WINGFIELD, WHITTEMORE HAS ADMITTED AND CONFESSED TO ENGAGING IN OVER 20 DIFFERENT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESIGNED TO DEPLETE WINGFIELD OF ITS ASSETS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING AND PROMOTING WHITTEMORE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION AND TO FURTHER HIS STANDING IN THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY OF NEVADA.” (Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Company LLC, et al vs. F. Harvey Whittemore, Annette Whittemore, the Lakeshore House Limited Partnership, District Court, Clark County, Nevada Case No. A-12-655426-B, Complaint Filed January 27, 2012.)

The complaint went into great detail about what had happened in the 2007 to 2009 time period, and a confrontation they had with Harvey Whittemore in September 2010. During that time, Dr. Mikovits was still in the good graces of the Whittemore family.

“IN OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 2010, THE SEENOS CONFRONTED WHITTEMORE WITH THEIR SUSPICIONS. HOWEVER, THEY QUICKLY LEARNED THEIR SUSPICIONS, WHILE WELL-FOUNDED, HAD NOT EVEN SCRATCHED THE SURFACE OF WHITTEMORE’S FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND MALFEASANCE. CONFRONTED WITH SOME OF THE EVIDENCE UNCOVERED REGARDING HIS POTENTIAL FRAUDULENT CONDUCT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES, AND MISDEEDS, WHITTEMORE CONFESSED, ADMITTED, AND DISCLOSED A MULTITUDE OF ACTS THAT REVEALED YEARS OF THEFT, CONVERSION, ASSET MISAPPROPRIATION, AND A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO WINGFIELD.” (Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Company LLC, et al vs. F. Harvey Whittemore, Annette Whittemore, the Lakeshore House Limited Partnership, District Court, Clark County, Nevada Case No. A-12-655426-B, Complaint Filed January 27, 2012.)

If one is wondering what this lawsuit has to do with Dr. Mikovits…

…the payment of her salary by Harvey Whittemore was also part of his pattern of alleged embezzlement. 

“FOR EXAMPLE, DEFENDANT ANNETTE WHITTEMORE, WHO LACKED MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER WINGFIELD, MANDATED TO THE WINGFIELD ACCOUNTING STAFF THAT 75% OF THE SALARY OF DR. JUDY MIKOVITS, A RESEARCH SCIENTIST AND EMPLOYEE OF WPI, WOULD BE CHARGED AND PAID BY WINGFIELD.” (Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Company LLC, et al vs. F. Harvey Whittemore, Annette Whittemore, the Lakeshore House Limited Partnership, District Court, Clark County, Nevada Case No. A-12-655426-B, Complaint Filed January 27, 2012.)

The Whittemores filed a sixty-five million dollar counter-suit against the Seenos on February 12, 2012. 

As the Whittemores described the actions of the Seenos:

“ON ONE OCCASION, A LARGE, VERY OMINOUS BURLY MAN NAMED “RAY” DEMANDED THAT WHITTEMORE OPEN A SAFE IN THE HOUSE. THEY ASSURED MR. WHITTEMORE THAT THEY ONLY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT AND THEY WOULD TAKE NOTHING FROM THE SAFE. MR. WHITTEMORE GOT THE COMBINATION FROM MRS. WHITTEMORE, AS IT WAS HER SAFE, AND OPENED IT FOR INSPECTION. THE LARGE BURLY MAN THEN DUMPED EVERYTHING IN THE SAFE INTO A BAG AND TOOK IT WITH HIM. TAKEN FROM THE SAFE WAS A PORTION OF MRS. WHITTEMORE’S JEWELRY AND CASH, LEAVING BEHIND ONLY MRS. WHITTEMORE’S PASSPORT. THEY ALSO TOOK MR. WHITTEMORE’S WATCHES AND JEWELRY, THE SEENOS DEMANDED AND THE WHITTEMORES TRANSFERRED, MOST ALL OF THEIR FAMILY AUTOMOBILES AND MOST OTHER ASSETS THAT THEY AHD TO THE SEENOS, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND INSURANCE POLICIES.” (F. Harvey Whittemore, Annette Whittemore vs. Thomas A. Seeno, Albert Seeno, Jr., and Albert Seeno III, Complaint, United States District Court in and for the District of Nevada, Case 3:1 2-cv-00063-LRH, Complaint filed February 1, 2012.)

The Whittemore lawsuit described an angry confrontation with a member of the Seeno family.

“ALBERT SEENO, JR. THREATENED TO GO TO THE FBI WITH INFORMATION THAT HE ALLEGED HE HAD REGARDING THESE ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES; THAT HE WOULD PERSONALLY BRING DOWN EVERY MEMBER OF THE POLITICAL “MACHINE” IN NEVADA INCLUDING REFERENCE TO US SENATORS; THAT IN THE COURSE OF THIS THREAT ASKED WHETHER WHITTEMORES BELIEVED IN GOD; WHETHER MR. WHITTEMORE WENT TO CHURCH; THAT MR. WHITTEMORE SHOULD GATHER HIS FLOCK ON SUNDAY AND PRAY. ALBERT SEENO, JR. THREATENED THAT WHEN HE WAS THROUGH WITH MR. WHITTEMORE HE WOULD BE DISBARRED AND BEHIND BARS; THAT THEY WOULD SPEND MR. WHITTEMORE INTO THE GROUND AND THERE WAS NO WAY HE HAD THE FINANCES TO DEFEND HIMSELF; THAT HE WOULD BRING DOWN ANY BUSINESS OR FRIEND ASSOCIATED WITH MR. WHITTEMORE; AND THAT AT MR. WHITTEMORE’S FUNERAL THERE WOULD NOT BE ONE PERSON IN ATTENDANCE.” (F. Harvey Whittemore, Annette Whittemore vs. Thomas A. Seeno, Albert Seeno, Jr., and Albert Seeno III, Complaint, United States District Court in and for the District of Nevada, Case 3:1 2-cv-00063-LRH, Complaint filed February 1, 2012.)

As the writer of Judy’s story and reviewing the legal documents…

…it seemed there was a good deal of anger on the part of the Seenos over the alleged embezzlement of forty-four million dollars.  But in my opinion, the threat of going to the FBI, getting Whittemore disbarred, and ruining him financially, did not cross any legal line.  In fact, according to reports from other long-time associates of the Seenos, they were great people with whom to do business.  One of these individuals was Bill Pagenetti, who’d been in business with the Seenos for decades.

“PAGENTTI CALLED WHITTEMORE’S ALLEGATIONS “BEYOND FICTION.” HE SAID HE HAD BEEN IN BUSINESS WITH THE SEENOS FOR 33 YEARS AND HAS NEVER HAD AN ARGUMENT OR CROSS WORD WITH EITHER BROTHER. “THESE PEOPLE ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH. THESE PEOPLE ARE GOOD BUSINESSMEN. I COULD LIVE 100 LIFETIMES AND NOT HAVE ANOTHER PARTNERSHIP LIKE THIS.” (Martha Bellisle, “Whittemore Manager Claims Seenos Violated Environmental Permits,” Reno Gazette Journal, February 25, 2012.)

One might be tempted to attribute this drama to a business relationship gone bad, but the federal authorities came to similar conclusions about Harvey Whittemore.  On February 8, 2012, roughly two dozen FBI agents served subpeonas on business associates and friends of the Whittemores in about thirty different locations in Southern and Northern Nevada.  As reported on February 10, 2012 in the Las Vegas Review Journal: 

“CONTRIBUTIONS MADE ON ONE DATE – MARCH 31, 2007 – TO THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF SEN. HARRY REID, THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADER, HAVE ATTRACTED THE INTEREST OF FBI AGENTS, SOURCES SAID. ON THAT DAY, REID’S CAMPAIGN RECEIVED $115,000 FROM ABOUT TWO DOZEN WHITTEMORE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, MOST OF WHOM EACH CONTRIBUTED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED $4,600, ACCORDING TO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REPORTS.” (Jeff German and Francis McCabe, “FBI Investigating Whittemore Activities, 07 Campaign Contributions,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 10, 2012.)

An article from the Law Vegas Review Journal a few days later explained the reasoning behind the government’s show of force.

“THE BIG SPLASH FBI AGENTS MADE FEBRUARY 8 WHEN THEY SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVED SUBPOENAS ACROSS THE STATE IN THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION INVESTIGATION OF POWER BROKER HARVEY WHITTEMORE WAS DESIGNED TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES BEFORE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT.” (Jeff German, “FBI Subpoenas in Whittemore Probe Aimed to Surprise,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 20, 2012.)

The same article sought to capture the close ties Whittemore had to Nevada’s most powerful politicians.

“IN 2007, WHITTEMORE, WHO CONSIDERED US SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV., AMONG HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS, WAS ORCHESTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF COYOTE SPRINGS, A MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY IN SOUTHERN NEVADA. WITH THE HELP OF REID AND OTHER MEMBERS OF NEVADA’S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, WHITTEMORE SOUGHT TO OVERCOME SEVERAL GOVERNMENTAL HURDLES BECAUSE OF COUNTY WATER ISSUES AND FEDERAL LAND ISSUES.” (Jeff German, “FBI Subpoenas in Whittemore Probe Aimed to Surprise,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 20, 2012.)

Further investigation showed that Whittemore’s scheme to boost the re-election chances of Senator Harry Reid, who was facing a tough re-election battle against Tea Party favorite, Sharon Angle, was even more extensive than they’d suspected.

“ON THAT DAY, THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER’S CAMPAIGN RECEIVED AT LEAST $133,400 FROM 29 WHITTEMORE ASSOCIATES, INCLUDING HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND HIS EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SPOUSES, MOST OF WHOM CONTRIBUTED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED $4,600, ACCORDING TO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REPORTS.” (Jeff German, “FBI Subpoenas in Whittemore Probe Aimed to Surprise,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 20, 2012)

The audacity and brazenness of Whittemore’s scheme even surprised Kenneth Gross, a former Head of the Enforcement for the Federal Elections Commission.

“GROSS, FORMER HEAD OF ENFORCEMENT FOR THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON, SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY BUNDLED ALL AT ONCE IN A FEDERAL RACE. ‘I CAN’T RECALL ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE THAT MUCH CAME IN ON A (SINGLE) DAY,’ HE SAID.” (Jeff German, “FBI Subpoenas in Whittemore Probe Aimed to Surprise,” Las Vegas Review Journal, February 20, 2012)

On June 6, 2012, Harvey Whittemore was indicted on federal charges of election violations. 

An article in the Las Vegas Sun a few days later captured the  contradictions of this colorful character.

“HARVEY WHITTEMORE ONCE BOUNDED THROUGH NEVADA’S LEGISLATURE AS THE EMBODIMENT OF INFLUENCE – A LOBBYIST FOR CASINOS AND OTHER POWERFUL INTERESTS, A LAWYER, A GREGARIOUS PERSONALITY AND SHARP MIND. HE WAS ALSO A LUCRATIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHICH HELPED OPEN DOORS.” (Anjeanette Damon, “Indictment Caps Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore’s Dramatic Fall from Grace,” Las Vegas Sun, June 10, 2012)

“ON MAY 29, 2013, FOLLOWING A TWO-WEEK JURY TRIAL, HARVEY WHITTEMORE WAS CONVICTED ON ONE COUNT OF MAKING EXCESSIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, ONE COUNT OF MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE NAME OF OTHERS, AND ONE COUNT OF CAUSING A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION.” (Press Release, “Former Nevada Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore Convicted of Making Unlawful Senate Campaign Contributions,” Federal Bureau of Investigations, May 29, 2013.)

Acting US Assistant Attorney General, Mythili Raman said of the case in the FBI press release.

“TODAY A JURY CONVICTED MR. WHITTEMORE OF USING DOZENS OF STRAW DONORS TO EVADE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SO HE COULD EVADE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SO HE COULD MAKE GOOD ON A CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING PROMISE. THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS IS CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND TRANSPARENCY, AND MR. WHITTEMORE’S CRIME WAS DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE BOTH. TODAY’S VERDICT DEMONSTRATES OUR RESOLVE TO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE THOSE WHO USE ILLEGAL TRICKS TO CORRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.” (Press Release, “Former Nevada Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore Convicted of Making Unlawful Senate Campaign Contributions,” Federal Bureau of Investigations, May 29, 2013.)

The sentencing hearing for Harvey Whittemore was held on September 30, 2013 before District Judge Larry Hicks…

…and in my reading it seemed a surreal scene.  It appeared the federal prosecutors were doing their best to secure a sentence of more than four years, but other powerful forces were at work. 

After Harvey Whittemore spoke to the court, claiming he’d violated the law because of a promise he’d made to Senator Harry Reid, and not to curry favor, a swift rebuke was given by Assistant United States Attorney, Steve Myhre, who said:

“THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS OFFENSE. AND WE’VE HEARD SORT OF AN ALMOST SCHIZOPHRENIC ARGUMENT FROM THE DEFENSE: ON THE ONE HAND, IT’S SERIOUS, BUT, OH, REALLY NOT THAT SERIOUS: I ACCEPT REPONSIBILITY BUT NOT REALLY. MR. WHITTEMORE SAID THAT HE BELIEVED HIS CONDUCT WAS LAWFUL, THAT HE WAS NAÏVE AND PERHAPS ARROGANT TO BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS LAWFUL, BUT, OH, MY GOODNESS, I GAVE MYSELF BAD ADVICE, AND I ACCEPT THAT THE JURY FOUND ME GUILTY . . . IT’S A FAR CRY FROM ANY EXPRESSION OF REMORSE . . . HE’S GUILTY OF KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATING THE LAW. AND THE LAW HE VIOLATED STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS, THE VERY CORNERSTONE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.” (US v. F. Harvey Whittemore, United States District Court, District of Nevada, Transcript of Imposition of Sentence, Case 3:12-cr-00058-LRH-WGC, September 30, 2013, p. 101-102.)

I was personally stunned when I read the judge’s response…

…to what was a very heated discussion between Harvey Whittemore and the Assistant United States Attorney.  This is what Judge Hicks said of Harvey Whittemore during the sentencing hearing.

“NOW, BEFORE ME I HAVE THIS MAN, HARVEY WHITTEMORE, WHO I HAVE PERSONALLY KNOWN OVER THE YEARS AND KNOWN THE FAMILY, OR KNOWN OF THE FAMILY, NOT CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS, BUT AT LEAST TO THE LEVEL OF PEOPLE YOU SAY HELLO WHEN YOU PASS IN THE HALLWAY AND YOU APPRECIATE SEEING THEM . . . I HAVE A MAN HERE WHO HE AND HIS WIFE HAVE, I MEAN, IN THE WAY THEY’VE TREATED THEIR FRIENDS, ARE REFLECTED IN THE LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COURT . . . AND I CAN TELL YOU THE LETTERS ARE ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. THIS MAN IS A FINE FAMILY MAN. THIS MAN HAS DONE GREAT THINGS IN THIS COMMUNITY. AND THESE ARE NOT THINGS TO BE TREATED LIGHTLY.” (US v. F. Harvey Whittemore, United States District Court, District of Nevada, Transcript of Imposition of Sentence, Case 3:12-cr-00058-LRH-WGC, September 30, 2013.)

During the closing argument, it seems that Assistant US Attorney Steve Myrhe was frustrated at the false picture painted by the defense of Harvey Whittemore.  Myrhe had his own take, comparing Whittemore to the phony wizard from the classic “Wizard of Oz,” movie. 

“AND YOU REMEMBER IN THAT STORY HOW DOROTHY AND HER THREE FRIENDS ARE CONFRONTED WITH A BIG SCREEN OF THIS LARGER THAN LIFE PERSON. AND THERE’S ALL SORTS OF SMOKE AND MIRROR AND LOUD NOISES AND BOOMING VOICES AND THESE IMAGES THAT JUST SCARE THE DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THESE PEOPLE. BUT IT’S NOT UNTIL DOROTHY’S LITTLE DOG TOTO RUNS OVER AND PULLS A CURTAIN BACK THAT YOU SEE THAT BEHIND ALL THE LOUD NOISES AND THE SMOKE AND THE MIRRORS AND THE LIGHTS, IS SOMEONE MANIPULATING SOME CONTROLS, MANIPULATING THE SCENE, IF YOU WILL. AND YOU RECALL THE CLASSIC RESPONSE THAT THE WIZARD MANIPULATING THE SCENE, WHAT HE SAYS WHEN THE CURTAIN’S PULLED BACK. HE SAYS, “IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.” . . . THOSE WITNESSES HAVE NOT SEEN OR HEARD THE TESTIMONY THAT CAME OUT ON THE SITNESS STAND FROM ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THIS CASE. THOSE WITNESSES HAVE NOT SEEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WILL SEE DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS. THEY SEE ONE THING. THEY SEE THE FAÇADE ON THE WALL WITH THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS. THEY DON’T SEE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURATIN WITH THE LEVERS FUNNELING MONEY INTO THE REID CAMPAIGN. YOU HOWEVER, HAVE THAT BENEFIT.” (US v. F. Harvey Whittemore, United States District Court, District of Nevada, “Transcript of Jury Trial (Day Nine), Closing Arguments of Counsel,” Case 3:12-cr-00058-LRH-WGC, May 28, 2013, p. 89.)

Instead of the fifty-one months in jail, the US Attorney’s Office had argued for, Judge Hicks sentenced Harvey Whittemore to twenty-four months in jail, imposed a hundred thousand dollar fine, two years of supervised release, and a hundred hours of community service.

On August 6, 2014, Harvey Whittemore surrendered to federal authorities to begin serving his two year prison sentence. 

It had taken federal authorities a little less than two and a half years from their raid on Harvey Whittemore and his family and business associates to prosecute him, handle the various appeals, and for Harvey to spend his first day in jail.

That is due process and what the citizens of our country have come to expect of our legal system.

Nothing remotely like that happened with Dr. Judy Mikovits.  The two cases could not have been more different.

She went from having a civil lawsuit filed against her in early November, 2011 to having a default judgment entered against her on December 19, 2011, with a claim for damages of fifteen million dollars.  

And she was also held in jail without an arrest warrant ever being produced, for five days, because she was conveniently arrested on a Friday afternoon, and couldn’t get a bail hearing until the following Tuesday.  Let’s review the events in detail.

On September 29, 2011 Dr. Mikovits was fired by Annette Whittemore for “insubordination,” as Dr. Mikovits refused to certify that a research at the institute had worked on a federal grant.  An additional problem was that Dr. Mikovits had refused to certify a viral detection test for XMRV developed by the Whittemore’s for-proft lab, VIPDx, because she didn’t believe it was accurate.

The firing of Mikovits was covered by Jon Cohen in an October 4, 2011 article in the magazine, Science. 

“THREE LETTERS BETWEEN WHITTEMORE AND MIKOVITS SAY THE FIRING HINGED ON MIKOVITS’S FAILURE TO PASS ON A CELL LINE THAT WAS SENT TO VINCENT LOMBARDI, THE FIRST AUTHOR ON THE OCTOBER 2009 SCIENCE PAPER WHO RUNS UNEVX (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIPDx), A DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY OWNED BY WPI [WHITTEMORE-PETERSON INSTITUTE]. UNTIL RECENTLY, THE LAB SOLD A TEST FOR XMRV AND RELATED VIRUSES.

IN AN OCTOBER 1 WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WHITTEMORE, MIKOVITS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS “COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE” FOR HER, AS RESEARCH DIRECTOR, NOT TO GIVE LOMBARDI THE CELL LINE. THE CELL LINE WAS NOT RELATED TO STUDIES OF THE GAMMARETROVIRUSES, BUT LOMBARDI WANTED TO USE IT FOR EXPERIMENTS CONNECTED TO A GRANT MIKOVITS HAD SECURED FROM THE U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH TO STUDY POSSIBLE CAUSES OF CFS. MIKOVITS CONTENDED THAT LOMBARDI “WAS UNWILLING TO TAKE MY DIRECTION” AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKING A NEW PROJECT “WHILE NEGLECTING HIS OTHER DUTIES.” SHE ALSO QUESTIONED HIS ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THAT EXPERIMENT.

ANNETTE WHITTEMORE ISSUED A STATEMENT TO SCIENCE IN WHICH SHE STRONGLY DEFENDED LOMBARDI’S PERFORMANCE. “DR. LOMBARDI IS A VALUED AND IMPORTANT MEMBER OF OUR TEAM, AND CONDUCTS HIS RESEARCH WORK ACCORDINGLY,” WROTE WHITTEMORE. “WHILE PERSONNEL MATTERS ARE GENERALLY CONFIDENTIAL, THE STATEMENTS MADE BY JUDY MIKOVITS ARE WRONG, WITHOUT MERIT, AND THOSE OF A DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE.”

IN AN INTERVIEW WITH SCIENCE, MIKOVITS CONTENDED THAT HER FIRING WAS ALSO LINKED TO A LONGSTANDING BATTLE ABOUT WPI’S DECISION TO SELL, THROUGH VIPDx/UNEVX, A TEST FOR HUMAN GAMMARETROVIRUSES. THE LAB BEGAN OFFERING THE TESTS, WHICH COST AROUND $500, SHORTLY AFTER LOMBARDI ET AL, REPORTED LINK BETWEEN XMRV AND CFS. SOME PATIENTS WHO TESTED POSITIVE WENT ON TO TAKE ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUGS. “I SAID, ‘NO, NO, NO, NO,’ SAYS MIKOVITS OF THE TEST. “I’VE ASKED THEM FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2 YEARS TO SHOW ME THAT WHAT WE GOT IN LOMBARDI ET AL IS THE SAME THING THEY’RE SELLING TO PATIENTS.” (Jon Cohen, “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Researcher Fired Amidst New Controversy,” Science magazine, October 4, 2011.)

After being fired over the phone while she was away from work, Mikovits immediately packed up her Reno apartment…

…, and returned to Southern California, leaving her research journals in her office at the Whittemore-Peterson Institute.  

Unbeknownst to Dr. Mikovits, her research assistant, Max Pfost, was concerned about the ethics of the Whittemores, and what they might do to the notebooks.  He went into her office and retrieved the notebooks.  It’s also probably important to say at this point that as the “Principal Investigator” on several government grants, the safety and security of ALL MATERIALS is the responsibility of the principal investigator, who was Dr. Mikovits.

I conducted a recorded interview with Max Pfost on March 13, 2014…

…which I write about on page 157 of or book, PLAGUE, published in November of 2014.  One should understand that Max had a pistol which he mistakenly brought onto campus at this time, which became leverage against him.  This is what we wrote and published in 2014.

MAX’S INTERACTIONS WITH HARVEY WHITTEMORE DURING THE FOLLOWING WEEKS IS UNCLEAR, BUT HARVEY EVENTUALLY GAINED THE YOUNG MAN’S TRUST. MAX BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE STRESS WAS MAKING HIM UNSTABLE AND HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE GUN.

MAX RECALLED, “I ASKED IF I COULD MEET WITH HIM. I HAD MY GUN IN A BAG. HARVEY PICKED ME UP. I TALKED WITH HIM AND ASKED HIM IF HE COULD TAKE MY GUN FOR ME AND HOLD ONTO IT OR TAKE IT SOMEWHERE SO I DIDN’T HAVE IT AT MY DISPOSAL. HE CONTACTED THE UNIVERSITY POLICE. I THINK HIS NAME WAS TODD, AND SPOKE WITH HIM. THEY TOOK IT FROM ME THERE AND HELD ONTO IT. THEN I CAME BACK A FEW WEEKS LATER. I THINK IT WAS JAMIE [ANOTHER UNIVERSITY POLICE OFFICER] WHO RETURNED IT TO ME.”

AFTER THE GUN INCIDENT (NOVEMBER 16, 2011), HARVEY CONVINCED MAX TO FILL OUT AN AFFIDAVIT (EVENTUALLY TWO AFFIDAVITS WOULD BE CREATED) ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME MAX “HAD NO CLUE WHAT AN AFFIDAVIT WAS.” AS MAX RECALLED “THE FIRST ONE, I THINK THIS IS THE TIME I GAVE THE GUN DEAL UP, WHEN I GOT GRILLED BY THE LAWYER, THEY HAD ME GOING TO JAIL, THIS AND THAT, AND I WAS REALLY BLOWN AWAY BECAUSE I DIDN’T FEEL I’D DONE ANYTHING WRONG. SO THEN I JUST EXPLAINED EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON.”

“MY WHOLE INTENTION WAS I DIDN’T WANT THOSE THINGS [THE NOTEBOOK] DISAPPEARING BECAUSE I REALLY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT IT SEEMED THAT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP THOSE NOTEBOOKS INTACT SO THEY DIDN’T END UP MISSING. THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT PUT INTO THEM. A LOT OF WORK AND IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO HAVE IT ALL DISAPPEAR.”

WHEN ASKED WHETHER MAX CONSIDERED THE THREAT TO THE NOTEBOOKS TO BE COMING FROM THE WHITTEMORES OR SOMEBODY ELSE AT THE WPI, MAX MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE CONSIDERED THE WHITTEMORES TO BE THE THREAT.

MAX WAS ALSO INSISTENT THAT HARVEY WHITTEMORE HAD WRITTEN BOTH OF MAX’S AFFIDAVITS, AN ASSERTION THAT RAISES SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS FOR A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION LIKE HARVEY. WAS HARVEY ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY FOR MAX? IF SO, AN ATTORNEY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ACT IN A LEGAL CAPACITY IN THOSE SITUATIONS IN WHICH HE HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST, JUST AS A SURGEON IS NOT SUPPOSED TO OPERATE ON A FAMILY MEMBER.

MAX’S EXACT WORDS RECORDED IN A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW ON MARCH 13, 2014 WERE, “BOTH AFFIDAVITS WERE WRITTEN BY HARVEY.” IF MAX’S RECOLLECTION IS ACCURATE, IT’S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW ONE ANSWERS THE CLAIM THAT THESE ACTIONS BY HARVEY WERE NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. (PLAGUE, published in 2014, p. 157)

 

The view that Harvey Whittemore acted in a legal capacity for the Whittemore-Peterson Institute run by his wife, Annette, is echoed in a declaration signed by Dr. Frank Ruscetti, Judy’s long time collaborator of more than thirty-five years. 

“I HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. WHITTEMORE AND HAVE EXCHANGED EMAILS WITH HIM, IN WHICH HE SPOKE ON BEHALF OF WPI IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. WHITTEMORE WROTE AND EDITED SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE ON BEHALF OF WPI. EXHIBIT 1 IS A MAY 20, 2011 EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN ME AND MR. WHITTEMORE ABOUT “HIS SUGGESTION FOR THE CYTOKINE PAPER RESPONSE.” I ALSO DISCUSSED MR. WHITTEMORE’S EXAMINATION OF WPI SCIENTIFIC DATA WITH HIM BEFORE WPI SUBMITTED TH DATA TO VARIOUS RECIPIENTS. MR. WHITTEMORE WAS ALSO PRESENT WITH ME AT WPI’S SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS . . . I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CONFERENCE CALLS WITH ANNETTE AND HARVEY WHITTEMORE, IN WHICH MR. WHITTEMORE SPOKE ON BEHALF OF WPI ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT. MRS. WHITTEMORE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT HER HUSBAND WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS HE MADE.” (Declaration of Dr. Frank Ruscetti, May 17, 2012)

Continuing with Max’s account of what happened to him regarding the “affidavits” and his thoughts about the events surrounding the notebooks and the true agenda and players behind the scene.

“I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS A PR MOVE, PLASTERING THEM ON THE INTERNET, TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE JUDY WAS UP TO NO GOOD. AND THEY WERE DOING THAT TO SAVE FACE WITH THE PATIENTS. I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE I GO TO COURT AND SAY WHAT HAPPENED. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT THE DEAL WAS WITH THE AFFIDAVITS. LIKE I’M ATTESTING THIS IS THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVING. I TRIED TO GO OVER IT WITH THEM, AND I’M LIKE, YOU’RE MAKING IT SOUND LIKE I’M STEALING STUFF. AND THAT WAS NOT MY INTENTION, TO GO IN THERE STEALING. THAT’S MY RESEARCH. I PAID FOR MY NOTEBOOKS. THEY DIDN’T PAY FOR THE NOTEBOOKS OF MINE.”

IN SUMMATION, MAX SAID, “SO I WENT IN THERE, AND EVERY TIME HE [HARVEY] WORD-SMITHED IT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I WAS STEALING. AND AS A RESULT, THAT’S HURT MY CAREER, LABELING ME AS A THIEF, AND THAT’S NOT COOL. SO NOW MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE AFFIDAVITS ARE NO GOOD. I’M NOT EXACTLY MADE OF MONEY AND VERY QUICKLY I WAS FIGHTING A LEGAL BATTLE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU’RE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT HOW MUCH MONEY OR POWER YOU HAVE. SO THERE’S NO WAY I COULD HANDLE THAT.” (Plague, Hardcover, 2014, p. 158-159.)

According to Max’s recollection, he turned over the notebooks to Harvey Whittemore on approximately November 16, 2011. 

However, on November 18, 2011, a combined posse of University of Nevada/Reno Campus Security and Ventura County sheriff’s descended on Judy’s house.  They searched her house without producing a search warrant, and arrested her without producing an arrest warrant.  They claimed she was a “fugitive from justice” even though she was living in her own house.  She was booked and put in jail. 

The police also searched the house of her friend Lilly (also without a search warrant).  The only possible connection Lilly might have had to the case was that Dr. Mikovits had faxed a response to an earlier civil lawsuit by the Whittemores from Lilly’s house.

Despite a thorough (and yet illegal) search of both houses, NO NOTEBOOKS WERE FOUND.

Because of what Mikovits believed to be violations of her civil rights, she filed a false claims/RICO action against Harvey Whittemore and others on July 27, 2015.  In the document she gave an account of the curious chain of events which led to the notebooks being “found” in her house. 

ON NOVEMBER 21, 2011, THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF HW [HARVEY WHITTEMORE], AW [ANNETTE WHIITEMORE], KINNE [CARLI WEST KINNE], LOMARDI [VINCE LOMBARDI AND HILLERBY [MIKE HILLERBY], TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD LIKELY REMAIN IN JAIL THROUGH THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY WHICH WAS IN TWO DAYS, UNLESS HE RETURNED THE NOTEBOOKS.

HAVING NEARLY COMPLETED THE ENTIRE TASK OF REORGANIZING ALL THE MATERIALS, CLOTHING, BOOKS, PAPERS, AND OTHER POSSESSIONS THAT HAD BEEN STREWN ABOUT THE HOUSE BY THE UNRPD [UNIVERSITY OF RENO, POLICE DEPARTMENT] OFFICERS IN THE WARRANTLESS AND ILLEGAL SEARCH, THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND ASSURED THE REPRESENTATIVES OF HW, AW, KINNE, LOBARDI, AND HILLERBY, THAT HE HAD BEEN THROUGH THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND THE NOTEBOOKS WERE NOT THERE. HE ASSURED THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT IF THE PLAINTIFF HAD THE NOTEBOOKS, NEITHER SHE NOR HE WERE AWARE OF IT, AND THEY WERE NOT IN THE HOUSE.

AT THAT TIME, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HW, AW, KINNE, LOMBARDI, AND HILLERBY TOLD THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, “DAVID, LISTEN VERY CLOSELY TO ME. YOU DO HAVE THEM. I AM TELLING YOU. NOW GO AND FIND THEM AND RETURN THEM AND GET JUDY OUT OF JAIL.”

THE MEN HUNG UP THE PHONE AND THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND SAT IN COMPLETE PERPLEXITY AT THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION, KNOWING HE HAD SCOURED THE ENTIRE HOUSE . . . THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND AWOKE AND REINITIATED HIS SEARCH . . . WHILE SEARCHING THROUGH ONE OF THE GUEST ROOM CLOSETS, THE PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND DISCOVERED A CANVAS BEACH BAG WITH JAM EMBROIDERED ON THE SIDE, THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN PREVIOUSLY, AND THAT WAS NOT INVENTORIED AS PART OF THE SEARCH. EVEN ORE SUSPICIOUS WAS THE FACT THAT THE BAG WAS SITTING IN THE FRONT AND CENTER OF THE CLOSET AS IF IT WERE THE LAST ITEMS PLACED THERIN. INSIDE THE BAG WERE THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTEBOOKS. (Judy Anne Mikovits vs. Adam Garcia, et al., Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, Case no. 2:14-cv-08909-SWV-PLA, filed July 27, 2015.)

Why was Judy’s husband being told that the notebooks were in her house in Southern California on November 21, 2011, when Max Pfost claimed he’d given them to Harvey Whittemore in Reno, Nevada on approximately November 16, 2011?  

Judy’s false claims/RICO case held “under seal” by the Attorney General of Nevada from 2015 until the fall of 2018…

…when she was effectively broke. Why did the Attorney General of Nevada hold that case for three years? Was it because of the still strong political influence of Harvey Whittemore in the state?  Was Harvey Whittemore’s paltry two-year sentence the most they could give this highly-placed power broker?

The apparent political influence of Harvey Whittemore would impact many other facets of this case. 

Dr. Mikovits was held in the Ventura County Jail in Southern California from Friday, November 18, 2011 to Tuesday, November 22, 2011, only being released in the late afternoon.  However, On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, a civil hearing was held in Reno, Nevada before Judge Brent Adams. 

Even though she had not been able to assist her attorney, and the attorney provided that information to the judge, Judge Adams issued a preliminary order that she had to produce 22,000 emails from her years of work on XMRV.  Knowing that these emails contained the confidential names of patients and to make such a disclosure would violate federal law, she refused.

The obvious question is how somebody can be expected to prepare a civil defense when they are in jail?  The case would get even stranger. 

On December 15, 2011, Dr. Mikovits was in New York City when she got a call from her attorney saying she had to appear in a Reno courtroom on December 19, four days away.  At that hearing, Judge Adams leveled a nuclear bomb against Dr. Mikovits. 

Judge Adams claimed the defense of her attorney, Dennis Neal Jones, a past president of the Ventura County Trial Lawyers Association, was so deficient that he was ordering a default judgment against her, something HE HAD NEVER DONE IN HIS TWENTY-TWO YEARS ON THE BENCH.   (Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune v. Judy A. Mikovits, Order to Show Cause, Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, The Honorable Brent Adams, District Judy, Case No. CV11-03232, December 19, 2011, Reno, Nevada.)

That meant the case was over.  The only thing left to be determined was the amount of damages, which the Whittemores were claiming was fifteen million dollars.  

Let’s review the chain of events again so that you can see how the criminal and civil actions were tied together…

The civil action against Dr. Mikovits was filed on November 7, 2011.

From November 18, 2011 to November 22, 2011, Dr. Mkovits was detained without an arrest warrant and held without bail in the Ventura County Jail. 

On November 22, 2011, a hearing was held in the civil suit in Reno, Nevada, without the presence of Dr. Mikovits, in which Judge Adams ordered her to violate federal law by revealing patient names in her emails. 

On December 19, 2011, a default judgment was entered against Dr. Mikovits, which judge Adams claimed he had never imposed in his twenty-two years on the bench. 

In a little more than seven weeks, Dr. Mikovits had been civilly sued, spent five days in jail, and a default judgment was entered against her without being able to present a single piece of evidence.  Oh, and it also looked like she was going to be on the hook for fifteen million dollars. 

It gets even stranger.

In March of 2012, while talking with attorney Dennis Jones, Judge Adams revealed he had received a total of $10,400 in campaign contributions from Harvey Whittemore, his family, and company. (Martha Bellisle, “Fired Whittemore-Peterson Institute Researcher Claims Justice System flawed,” Reno Gazette Journal, April 24, 2012.)

If this case had taken place in California it would have been a violation of legal ethics, as a judge is required to disclose any contribution made to him by a party that appears before him of more than $100.

Nevada has no rules as to the amount of money a judge may receive before they are required to disclose it.  in essence, the judge is the judge of his own conduct.  

If this had been done in California, or pretty much any other state in the union, the judge might have been stripped of his office.  But these were Nevada rules, among the most lax in the country, allowing for a plague of corruption.  

The judge recused himself from the case, but refused to rescind his default judgment against Mikovits, with a potential liability to her of fifteen million dollars.

On March 12, 2012, Dr. Mikovits flew to Reno, Nevada to talk with her criminal attorney, Scott Freeman, about the allegations of theft.  As we wrote in 2014 of that encounter:

AT THE END OF THE DAY, SCOTT FREEMAN WAS BEAMING.  “HOW COME YOU NEVER LIE?” HE ASKED HER.  MIKOVITS COULDN’T GET OVER THE QUESTION.  SCIENTISTS WERE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE TRUTH, JUST AS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

WAS ACTUAL HONESTY SUCH A RARE THING? (PLAGUE, hardcover, (2014), p. 311)

The following day, the attorneys met with the Whittemores and their attorneys.  Judy Mikovits was not present, but when her attorneys called her they were elated.  They described the Whittemores as being “white as ghosts” (PLAGUE, hardcover, (2014), p. 311)

On March 14, 2012 received a call from her civil attorney, Dennis Jones, who had been meeting with the Whittemores about damages in the civil suit.  This is what we wrote in 2014.

JONES SAID THERE WAS A NEW OFFER ON THE TABLE AND SUGGESTED SHE TAKE IT.

IF MIKOVITS SIGNED A LETTER OF APOLOGY, THE CIVIL SUIT WOULD BE SETTLED AND THEY WOULDN’T EVEN ASK FOR LEGAL FEES.  THE CRIMINAL CHARGES WOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY.  HER SIGNATURE ON A LETTER OF APOLOGY AND PROMISE TO NEVER SPEAK OF THESE EVENTS AGAIN WOULD END EVERYTHING.  DAVID, BATTLE-WEARY AND WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD, SUGGESTED SHE SIGN IT AS WELL.

MIKOVITS WASN’T TEMPTED.  SHE EXPLAINED TO HER HUSBAND AND HER LAWYER THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT TO SIGN AN APOLOGY THAT WAS A LIE AND NEVER DISCUSS THE CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST HER AND THE PATIENTS WOULD END EVERYTHING.  IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY END HER LIFE.

DENNIS JONES OBJECTED, BUT MIKOVITS REMAINED FIRM.

THE OFFER WAS WITHDRAWN. (PLAGUE,hardcover, (2014), p. 311)

The hearing for damages was set for September 6, 2012.

Before the hearing for damages, her attorney, Dennis Jones urged her to file for bankruptcy as a way to permanently stay the damages hearing against her for fifteen million dollars.  Jones urged her to take the bankruptcy as a way to stop the imposition of a potential fifteen million dollar judgment and because he believed if she appeared in Nevada, “new evidence” would be produced against her, she would be jailed, and die under mysterious circumstances.   This is how this event is depicted in our 2020 book, PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION. 

“I DON’T NEED TO FILE BANKRUPTCY,” I TOLD HIM. “I HAVE A PERFECT CREDIT SCORE. I’LL SELL MY HOUSES AND TAKE MY NINETY-SEVEN WITNESSES TO RENO TO THE DAMAGES HEARING OF THAT FRAUDULENT CASE. I’LL NOT ONLY PROVE THE SCIENCE WAS RIGHT, BUT THAT CRIMES WERE COMMITTED AGAINST THIS PATIENT POPULATION.”

DENNIS JONES, MY CIVIL ATTORNEY WAS FIRM. “LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DO THAT. WHEN YOU STEP ON THE RENO COURTHOUSE STEPS, YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ARRESTED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO WILL CLAIM THEY HAVE NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU.”

“THAT’S RIDICULOUS,” I REPLIED. “THERE’S NO NEW EVIDENCE.”

DENNIS LEANED FORWARD AND COLDLY SAID, “THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE FIRST TIME, WAS THERE?”

TEARS WELLED UP IN MY EYES.  IT WAS THE ONLY TIME I’D CRIED DURING THE WHOLE ORDEAL.  I KNEW IT ALMOST KILLED MY HUSBAND THE FIRST TIME I’D BEEN JAILED.  THIS TIME IT CERTAINLY WOULD.  

I DECLARED BANKRUPTCY.  I BELIEVE I SAVED THE LIFE OF MY HUSBAND BY THIS ACTION.  IT WAS A STRATEGIC LOSS.  I DID NOT WANT TO DO IT.  HOWEVER, SOMETIMES YOU MUST LOSE A BATTLE TO WIN A WAR.

I HAVE CONTINUED TO FIGHT.

HAVE I SPENT MANY HOURS WITH FBI AGENTS TELLING THEM ABOUT THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE THAT I BELIEVE EXISTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NIH, CDC, FDA, AND AMONG OUR NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE LEADERS?  YES, I HAVE.  (PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION, (2020), p. 17)

Mikovits believes the XMRV multi-center validation organized by Tony Fauci and run by Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia was meant to put a nail in the coffin of XMRV and the chronic fatigue syndrome/ME/CFS patients…

Fauci was directly interfering in the study by not allowing Mikovits to work as a scientist, but shuffling her out of the way.  As detailed in our 2014 book, PLAGUE.

THE TRIP TO NEW YORK FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON DECEMBER 15 OF 2011, TO FINALIZE PLANS FOR THE LIPKIN STUDY WAS COMPLICATED BY A BIZARRE REQUEST FROM LIPKIN.  LIPKIN TOLD MIKOVITS SHE COULDN’T FLY THROUGH WASHINGTON DULLES AIRPORT ON HER WAY TO NEW YORK.  IT ALL SEEMED IN LINE WITH THE BIZARRE EDICT FROM ANTHONY FAUCI AND HAROLD VARMUS THAT THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE WOULD BE HER HOME LAB FOR THE LIPKIN STUDY, BUT SHE COULDN’T SET FOOT ON THE GROUNDS OR ELSE SHE WOULD BE ESCORTED AWAY BY SECURITY.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN’T FLY THROUGH DULLES?” DR. MIKOVITS ASKED.

LIPKIN WAS KIND AND PATIENT AND THE SITUATION RANKLED HIM AS WELL.  “WE ALL KNOW YOU DIDN’T DO ANYTHING, JUDY.  LET’S JUST TRY AND GET YOUR REPUTATION BACK.”

SO SHE STEERED CLEAR OF THE NATION’S CAPITAL AS REQUESTED.

COMPLYING WITH THE FAUCI/VARMUS EDICT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR MIKOVITS TO WORK ON THE STUDY.  IN DOING HIS PART RUSCETTI NEEDED TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE CELLS HE WAS WORKING ON, THEN EMAIL THEM TO MIKOVITS.  SHE WOULD LOOK AT THEM ON HER COMPUTER AS SHE SAT IN A COFFEEHOUSE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TALKING TO FRANK ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS SEEING. (PLAGUE, hardcover (2014) p. 350-351.)

Mikovits also believes the interest in making XMRV go away is why Fauci excluded the patient population of Dr. Jose Montoya of Stanford University, whom Dr. Mikovits believes was one of the few clinicians who understood you needed to select the sickest patients in whom the virus could be detected using current technology.   

SHE HAD EXPECTED THE ASSOCIATION OF XMRV WITH ME/CFS TO GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY BASED ON THE NEW EXCLUSION OF PATIENTS WITH: SEROLOGIC EVIDENCE OF INFECTION WITH HUMAN IMMUNO-DEFICIENCY VIRUS, HEPATITS B VIRUS, HEPATITIS C VIRUS, TREPONEMA PALLIDIUM, B. BURGDORFERI (THE LYME DISEASE SPIROCHETE), MEDICAL OR PHYSICAL ILLNESS THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH FATIGUE, ABNORMAL SERUM CHARACTERISTICS, AND THYROID FUNCTIONS. (PLAGUE, Hardcover, (2014), p. 351)

The exclusion of these patients was like doing a study on HIV, but excluding all gays, prostitutes, IV drug users, and those who’d received a blood transfusion in the past ten years. 

However, overlooked in the study is that 6% of controls and 6% of patients showed evidence of the virus, meaning eighteen to twenty million Americans were harboring this retrovirus like a ticking time bomb.

SIX PERCENT OF THE CONTROLS SHOWED EVIDENCE OF ANTIBODIES TO SOMETHING CLOSE TO A MOUSE LEUKEMIA VIRUS AND SIX PERCENT OF THE PATIENTS WITH ME/CFS SHOWED THE SAME.  AN ANTIBODY TO SFFV (SPLEEN FOCUS-FORMING VIRUS) ENVELOPE WAS IN SIX PERCENT OF THE POPULATION AS CONFIRMED IN CONTROLS OF ALL THE POSITIVE STUDIES.  (PLAGUE, Hardcover, (2014) p. 351)

Dr. Lipkin had promised Dr. Mikovits they would continue with better studies…

…especially as it seems the original VP-62 sequence (a molecular clone created from three different samples), by Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic, was in error. 

But in September of 2013, Dr. Lipkin reported on the Montoya samples from Stanford University in an unusual public conference call. He said:

“WE FOUND RETROVIRUSES IN 85% OF THE SAMPLE POOLS. AGAIN, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AT THIS POINT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT. AND GIVEN THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH RETROVIRUSES IN CHRONIC FATIGUE, I AM GOING TO BE VERY CLEAR IN TELLING YOU, ALTHOUGH I AM REPORTING THIS AS PRESENT IN PROFESSOR MONTOYA’S SAMPLES, NEITHER HE NOR WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP TO DISEASE.” (Ian Lipkin, Public Conference Call with the Centers for Disease Control, September 10, 2013.)

What the hell?

Dr. Mikovits believes that researchers who discount the retroviral connection to many chronic diseases because it questions the wisdom of mixing animal and human tissues in labs to create biological therapies, are richly rewarded by their public health sponsors. 

In 2017, Dr. Lipkin received a $9.5 million-dollar grant from the National Institutes of Health to study Chronic Fatigue syndrome. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/nih-awards-96-million-grant-columbia-myalgic-encephalomyelitischronic-fatigue-syndrome-collaborative

Didn’t Lipkin already confirm the work of Mikovits in 2013?

We need the truth now!!

Even now, more than nine years after these events took place, Dr. Mikovits has not been provided a copy of her notebooks, or those of her team, comprising nearly five years of her life. 

It’s as if the Catholic Church stole Darwin’s notebooks, then challenged him to defend the theory of evolution. 

Why doesn’t Tony Fauci want Dr. Mikovits to have her notebooks?

The grants under which Dr. Mikovits worked were from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

Fauci has the power to return her notebooks but has chosen not to do so. www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/embattled-institute-retains-major-grant-study-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

What is so threatening inside those notebooks that Dr. Fauci must keep them from Dr. Mikovits?

Read PLAGUE and PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION.

The two books are more than 600 pages in length and contain more than 800 footnotes.

The truth is in there.

Opinion by Kent Heckenlively, JD

Be sure to pre-order Kent Heckenlively’s new book with Dr. Judy Mikovits, PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION from Amazon which you can do RIGHT NOW!