Read on Twitter
Dolores Cahill’s lack of credibility as a researcher / academic is shown by her response to the news that trial participants who got the now cancelled coronavirus vaccine, developed by CSL Ltd. & the University of Queensland in Australia, produced false positive HIV test results.
Dolores Cahill is President of the 'World Freedom Alliance'. In the 'Covid-19 Medical Information' section of the organisation's website, there is an article titled “An Important Message About Covid 19 Vaccines And PCR Tests From Dolores Cahill”.
The summary of Cahill’s comments presented in the article is strongly reminiscent of Qanon posts, where information is presented in the form of questions.
In this series of questions and statements, Cahill implies that the discontinued coronavirus vaccine and all other coronavirus vaccines contain fragments of HIV or HIV RNA or mRNA.
Cahill infers that the study participants produced HIV proteins as a result of the vaccine infecting them with HIV. Her framing of this situation as participants being infected with HIV because of a vaccine is shown by her statements, some of which are phrased as questions.
In reality, the vaccine used a protein, which is found on the surface of HIV, as a molecular clamp to maintain the shape of the coronavirus spike protein used for this protein based vaccine.
The use of the HIV protein resulted in the body producing antibodies against it instead of against the coronavirus spike protein.
The HIV protein is not RNA or mRNA, and its inclusion in the vaccine does not result in the expression of HIV proteins by the body or HIV infection or AIDS.
Standard HIV testing involves the detection of HIV antibodies, not the virus itself, therefore resulting in the false positives.
Cahill should know all of this as a researcher in the field of proteomics, with a PhD in Immunology. She knows as a researcher that she must be objective, that interpretations and conclusions need to be founded in facts, that her scientific reasoning should be verifiable.
The question must be raised, is Cahill incompetent or dishonest?
Later in this summary, Cahill alleges that “a high-level whistle-blower” told her that “HIV was found in some PCR tests” and that “new tests, not used, were positive for HIV”.
Cahill declares that “everyone who has had a vaccine and everyone who has been PCR tested should be checked for HIV, they should also be tested for other viruses”.
Based on this whistle-blower’s report, Cahill calls for the setting up of COVID, HIV and Ebola committees, which would investigate the presence of HIV, other viruses, virus fragments or RNA in PCR tests & vaccines.
Again, Cahill’s objectivity is questionable as she offers no fact based explanation as to why viruses would be placed in PCR tests or how it would result in people getting HIV.
Cahill concludes by demanding the setting up of independent repositories, (which she says she is willing to assist in the development and coordination of), that would contain samples of every batch of all vaccines and PCR test kits to be forensically examined & analysed.
These repositories would be set up “to check what is in the vaccines to assess the future impact of these vaccines over generations and to assess adverse events”.
As a UCD Professor, Cahill is expected to “maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research; and ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional obligations and standards” (UCD Research Integrity Policy).
The principles Cahill is expected to comply with to ensure research integrity and good practice in all aspects of research include honesty, reliability, objectivity, impartiality, open communication, duty of care, fairness and responsibility for future generations.
The above is according to the National policy statement on Research Integrity in Ireland 2014.
It is worth noting at this point that the last research paper Cahill was involved with was retracted by the 'Rheumatology' journal due to significant errors in the methods and presentation of results.
David Hawkes co-authored a critique of the study and a letter to the editor which resulted in it's retraction.
According to Hawkes "there is not enough information for these experiments to be reproduced. Also the data shifted around giving contradictory results when both the original paper and the supplement were considered".
