Post Views: 2

Please support my ongoing effort to explain and clarify the scientific misunderstandings about COVID-19 related to viruses, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and associated testing (the most dodgy aspect). Providing the most authoritative sources of true science-based information on the subject.

You may help:

By obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes and/or the Book;

Visiting my blog (clicking your favorite info ads)

(If using, please temporarily turn off the ad blocker) and/or:

Donating

Kindly consider this request urgent and also share it with your friends. Thank you.

Post Views: 17

Like a celebrity, Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a high-profile physician (cardiologist) from the U.K. Recently, I had an opportunity to watch his interview on YouTube (link). I am disturbed by his advice about maintaining good health.

The first part of his interview is mostly about vaccines, particularly COVID-19. He is highly critical of COVID-19 vaccines, presumably because of a family incident. Otherwise, he fully supports vaccines and vaccination, saying, “Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are traditional vaccines, no doubt.”

(more…)
Post Views: 9

Dr. Malhotra made the following claim in an interview link (1 hour and 09 min).

“Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are traditional vaccines, no doubt.”

I would request that Dr. Malhotra provide supporting evidence for his claim. It is an incorrect claim.

The fact is that vaccines have never been tested against the viruses or their illnesses. The simple reason is that no sample of the viruses or their patients is available. For example, when developing the COVID-19 vaccine, medical researchers could not find the virus or COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. The vaccines were developed by testing in healthy humans, and this practice continues. How could the efficacy or usefulness of vaccines (or any other treatment) be established without testing them on patients or against the virus? It cannot be.

Further information in support of my request may be found here.

  • Vaccines efficacy (link)
  • The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
  • Should FDA, and other authorities, approve the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccines? – A scientific perspective (link)
  • The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful (link).
  • Science: Facts to Know (link)
Post Views: 11

Dr. Aseem Malhotra On Vaccines

I just finished watching this two-hour-long interview. I am sorry to say I am thoroughly saddened and disappointed by it (link)

However, the good thing is that the interview provided firm support for my argument that the medical profession is a non-science-based education and training, where observations or collection of observations is considered scientific research or study, which is not in line with actual (experimental) scientific education, training, and practice.

A significant part of the interview is about COVID-19 and its vaccination issues. Dr. Aseem Malhotra firmly believes in and supports concepts and practices related to viruses and vaccination. In his view, “This (vaccines) stuff works.” “Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are conventional vaccines.” However, he considers the COVID-19 vaccines to be an exception.

Sadly, it is a very well-known fact that viruses do not exist, and vaccines have never been tested, or cannot be tested, against viruses or their illnesses as they are unavailable or non-existent. This is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

I will be careful in seeking and accepting opinions from medical professionals on the subjects discussed.

Post Views: 2

My comment on the article ((link)

As I wrote in one of my recent blog posts (link), worldwide authorities, including the FDA, CDC, USP, etc., drug approvals are not based on scientific investigations or logical considerations but on compliance with their arbitrary requirements and standards.

There is a gross misunderstanding among the public, including medical experts, that the approved products are based on science (advanced or sophisticated). Not at all. They set up some arbitrary standards and then showed some laboratory work, pictures, and numbers (mostly unrelated) to make their claims “sellable.”

A recent example is the COVID-19 virus. Authorities first assume (when there is nothing) that there is a virus and then develop some experiments, like culturing, “sequencing,” PCR, pictures, etc., to say there is proof for the virus.

No toxicity/pathogenicity of the virus has ever been established because no virus sample is available (link). Similarly, vaccine safety and efficacy cannot be established as no pure and isolated vaccine (mRNA) sample is available. Safety and efficacy are assumed/imagined (link).

It’s all fake and false (medical/pharmaceutical science). Use caution when listening to medical/pharmaceutical (doctor’s science) experts.

Post Views: 8

Often, one hears such announcements, i.e., FDA approves, concerning drugs and drug products from the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities. People, including physicians, assume that the FDA independently evaluates the products and that the claims (safe and effective) are based on scientific studies or evidence.

Unfortunately, it is not true.

An approved drug product does not mean it is safe and effective, but it only means that it complies with the FDA requirements for putting its label or stamp for approval. In short, approval is for compliance mostly with arbitrary standards and requirements that do not reflect the products’ quality (by extension, safety and efficacy). Prove me wrong!

(more…)
Post Views: 0

I just came across an article titled ” 52 Top Scientists Sign Letter Warning of ‘Substantial’ Cancer Risk from Covid’ Vaccines.'” A few beginning lines from the article (link) are as follows:

A group of leading scientists and academics has signed a letter that calls on lawmakers to ban Covid mRNA “vaccines” due to the “substantial risk” of cancer from the injections.

The call was made due to the unprecedentedly high levels of synthetic DNA contamination in the shots produced by vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna.

Eminent scientists and academics warn that this DNA contamination is causing genomic integration and triggering long-term health impacts, including cancers, among the Covid-vaccinated.

The letter was signed by leading experts from around the world.

The article lists eminent scientists, showing that most (20) are physicians with M.D. degrees or equivalent (link).

It is a well-known fact that physicians do not study science, and their academic credentials and expertise are based on education and training of a non-science undergraduate degree (e.g., M.D.). They are trained to write prescriptions by listening to symptoms and reading lab results. Therefore, claiming physicians as eminent or leading scientists is a misrepresentation or falsehood (link).

The remaining participants mostly have credentials unrelated to science, including management (10), lawyers (6), etc. It indicates that participants are also non-science experts (link), contrary to the claim.

Their claim is based on describing (detecting) DNA fragments in the vaccine vials (only three tested, a statistically insignificant sample size for making any credible/scientific claim). Finding DNA (chemical) fragments as contamination indicates the issue of (chemical) processing/manufacturing. Therefore, it needs to be looked at by chemical manufacturing or purification experts (science/chemistry), not by practitioners of medicines (link).

Post Views: 4

It is a common perception among the public and experts, particularly in health and medical areas, that having a Ph.D. makes one a scientist. This is a very wrong view or assumption.

A Ph.D. degree is a higher level of education and training after an undergraduate level. With a Ph.D. degree, the person may be considered an expert in the subject. For example, a Ph.D. in history or literature would not make a person a scientist but an expert in the subject.

Similarly, a Ph.D. in medicine does not make a physician a scientist but an expert in practicing medicine, which is generally training and education in writing prescriptions based on observing symptoms and reading diagnostic test results.

Being a scientist means having extensive and exhaustive education and training in science. It is ascribed to studying the fundamental units of matter or bodies such as atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, etc., that is, the study of physics and/or chemistry with mathematics (link) using validated tests.

Anyone who does not study and practice chemistry and/or physics (with mathematics) cannot claim to be a scientist or science expert. Such a claim should be considered quackery or fraudulent and treated according to the laws.

Medical science, pharmaceutical science, health science, biology, virology, immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, pharmacology, pharmacy, etc, are a few examples of fake and false science.

Post Views: 2

Viruses, vaccines, virology, medical science, health science, pharmaceutical science, etc., and related institutions, including the CDC, FDA, Health Canada, etc., have practically died. For all practical purposes, they are now zombies and are there to scare people to protect their own interests and enterprises.

The contributions (“hittings”) from actual science/chemistry have virtually killed them as all of their claims were based on chemistry terminologies/vocabulary but falsely and fraudulently described and promoted as science. These so-called activities have been promoted by those, in particular, physicians, who do not study or know science but make it up for their self-interest. The lies have been exposed.

The actual science/chemistry will most certainly play a major role in characterizing illnesses (if they exist) and medicines. It will provide a much better understanding of chemical-based medicines and help alternatives. In this regard, a much better future for alternative medicines than allopathic ones is anticipated.

Consider familiarizing yourself with science/chemistry as much as possible. It will not only help you get out of the virus/vaccine nonsense but will help you take care of your body much better than physicians. They use very potent and dangerous chemicals (in the name of medicines like vaccines, chemotherapy, etc.) without knowing or learning anything about chemicals other than their names, mostly their commercial or brand names. 

Do not be intimidated by the pretentious use of complex vocabulary, chemical structures, reaction diagrams, etc, often described by doctors or medical “scientists.” One does not need an extended knowledge of science/chemistry; some basics will do wonders. I provide this and explain it in the book (link). If you need further clarification and help, I can always try and help further.  

Post Views: 1

(link)

Please note that the safety aspect of any drug/treatment comes after establishing efficacy. If a medicine/chemical is not shown to be effective, the safety evaluation becomes mute; there is no need to discuss it further. The medicine is dead. However, if medicine is effective, one must assess its safety profile. If it is favorable, then one proceeds with its development. Otherwise, the medicine is dead.

From this perspective, it is critical to note that vaccines’ efficacy (effectiveness) has never been tested or established. I have repeatedly described it on my blog (link, link). So they are dead as medicines (scientifically). Promoting the development of safer vaccines is an argument based on ignorance and a useless endeavor, amounting to promoting fake and false medication. Sorry.


Post Views: 6

Part 1 (link)

Response to a comment (link)

It is important to note that I come from a science/chemistry background, which differs from biology/virology and medical “science,” I do not consider them science or science subjects. To me, science means physics and chemistry (with mathematics).

Another thing when biology books describe microorganisms (pathogens), they include viruses along with others like bacteria. This is incorrect because microorganisms exist but not viruses. Therefore, when I consider microorganisms, I include bacteria, molds, fungi, and so on, but not viruses. There is no such thing as viruses, at least scientifically.

Yes, I believe in pathogenicity and transmissibility. Note that this is a belief, not a scientific fact. That is why I wrote that appropriate scientific studies are needed to reject this belief.

My belief is that microbes cause infections commonly observed in ears, throat, eyes, gums, etc., and those infections are commonly treated with antibiotics. I do not accept that microbes are not pathogens, as some describe, but are there to help the body heal or be healthy. I do not believe that pathogens are there to strengthen tissue/body. They are not there to improve or work as hearing aids or enhance the eyes’ vision. They are infections/illnesses that must be treated and done effectively with antibiotics.

Yes, I believe in transmissibility, too. If one hugs someone coming from a mudbath, one catches mud and becomes muddy. Other routes of transmissivity are possible as well.

However, contagion is a different story. It is possible, but very difficult to study. And that is where the problem is. Contagion will only occur (or be more accurately observed) under the very specific conditions of the recipients. Usually, the contagion will not occur (observe), even if one spits directly on the face or into the mouth, because the recipient must provide the environment for the pathogen to live and grow. Usually, the recipient body would effectively neutralize it with its defense mechanisms. However, if the defense mechanism of the recipient is weak, absent, or just about right, sure enough, the illness will pass over. However, conducting scientific studies to establish contagion would be difficult/expensive and hence avoided.

So, in short, contagion exists but has not been shown or disproven experimentally. Experiments (“studies”) by spitting on the face, into the mouth, inhaling, etc., are not considered scientific because the exhaled material and the body (micro) environments are not controlled.