I am pleased to share some important news with you. I am introducing my upcoming book (soon to be available from bookstores and distributors worldwide) on a subject I have been deeply passionate about for many years: the meaning of true science and its misuse within the medical and biological fields. This book is written for both the general public and medical and biological specialists. It uses clear, direct language and avoids the complex and intimidating jargon that often dominates medicine and biology, making the discussion accessible without sacrificing rigor.

I kindly ask for your support by purchasing the book, reading it critically, and sharing it with friends, family, and colleagues. More importantly, I encourage you to help bring this message to policymakers and decision-makers. The continued reliance on false or unscientific claims in public health has caused serious and lasting harm. Honest discussion and scientific clarity are essential if we are to move toward better health, better policy, and a more informed society.

I look forward to your support and meaningful conversations that can lead to a healthier, happier future for all.

(more…)

How the misuse of scientific language, tools, and the word “research” is creating confusion about what science really is.

Not everything that is called science is science. Today, the words “science” and “research” are used so frequently and so loosely that they have begun to lose their meaning. Scientific instruments are used, technical terminology is presented, complex diagrams are drawn, and papers are published — and all of this is presented to the public as “scientific research.” But using scientific language, tools, and the word “research” is not the same as applying the principles of science. Science, in its true sense, is not defined by terminology, instruments, or publications. It is defined by the ability to isolate, identify, measure, and reproduce results using reference standards and validated analytical approaches. If these principles are missing, then calling something science does not make it science.

One of the greatest sources of confusion today is the widespread belief that using scientific instruments, chemical terminology, complex technical language, and the word “research” automatically makes a field scientific. This is not necessarily true.

Science is not defined by the tools being used.
Science is not defined by technical language.
Science is not defined by the word “research.”

Continue here (https://open.substack.com/pub/bioanalyticx/p/not-everything-called-science-is?r=1cygb1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true)

Science is defined by the principles of science, particularly the ability to isolate, identify, measure, quantify, and reproduce results using reference standards and validated analytical methods.

(more…)

For some time, many of you have been following my writing and discussions here on Facebook and on my blog. Over the years, I have tried to raise important questions about science, medicine, and how scientific claims are presented to the public. These discussions have sometimes been challenging, sometimes controversial, but always focused on one goal: to understand what real science is and how it should be applied to medicine.

Now that my book, “Not Science. Not Scientists.” (link), has been published and is available for purchase. I have decided to launch a Substack platform where I can write more regularly, more professionally, and in greater depth.

I will continue to post on Facebook and maintain my blog, but Substack will become the main platform for publishing and discussing my articles. The reason is simple. Serious discussions are often difficult on social media platforms, where thoughtful debate is frequently interrupted by personal attacks, ad hominem comments, and ridicule instead of scientific discussion. Important topics require careful explanation, evidence, and logical argument — something that is not always possible in short social media posts.

(more…)

Article Review: When Winning Requires Sacrifice (link)

I read the article When Winning Requires Sacrifice with interest, but also with some confusion. At first, it appeared to be a story about Dr. Robert Malone, his time on the ACIP committee, and how he was not respected and eventually forced to leave. However, this is not really a story about one man or one committee. It is a story about something much bigger: the use of the word “science” in medicine, and whether what is called medical science today actually meets the definition of science in the first place.

One sentence in the article stood out to me: “The need for honest science hasn’t gone anywhere.” This sentence sounds reasonable and reassuring, but it raises a very serious question: What is “honest science,” and who decides what science is?

From a scientific perspective, medicines, vaccines, proteins, RNA, and mRNA are all chemical substances. Any claim about their existence, safety, toxicity, or effectiveness must therefore be established using the principles of chemistry and analytical science. In real science, before any substance can be studied, tested, or discussed, it must first be isolated, purified, and fully chemically characterized. This is standard practice in chemistry and physics and forms the foundation of scientific work.

(more…)

Most people assume that if there is a problem with drug quality, it must be a manufacturing issue, a company issue, or a regulatory oversight issue. Recently, I watched a clip from a Senate hearing on the quality of generic drugs (link), and the discussion gave the impression that lawmakers had “just” discovered an anomaly that needed to be investigated and fixed. But this is not an anomaly. This is not new. This is the predictable result of a system that replaced real science with rituals, regulations, and the illusion of science.

Drug products are not medical concepts. They are chemical products. Their identity, purity, strength, stability, and quality are chemical properties. Therefore, drug quality is a chemistry problem. Medicine is about diagnosing illness and prescribing drugs, not about defining chemical quality, developing analytical methods, or setting manufacturing standards. Those are scientific responsibilities, not medical ones.

(more…)

We are often told to trust the experts, trust the institutions, and trust the science. But what happens when the experts are not trained in science, the institutions are not truly scientific institutions, and what is presented as “science” is not science in the strict sense of the word? That is when a web of deception is created—so complex and so widely accepted that even politicians fall into it. What we are witnessing today in the debates about viruses, vaccines, and modern medicine is not a scientific debate, but a conflict of authority, credentials, and narratives, all presented under the powerful name of “science.”

I recently listened to a short clip of Senator Johnson referring to physicians and other medical experts who are now speaking against mainstream medical experts who promote and support vaccines (link). What struck me was not the disagreement itself, but the deeper problem behind it. Political authorities, like most people, assume that doctors are capable of understanding and resolving issues related to viruses and vaccination. They do not realize that the issue is fundamentally about science and scientific research, not clinical practice. In this respect, both sides are working outside their actual training and credentials.

(more…)

Words, Definitions, and the Illusion of Proof

It is interesting to observe that the question of viruses has increasingly become a debate between two opposing camps: the “viruses are real” group and the “viruses are not real” group. What is particularly interesting is that this debate does not usually take place among experts in the foundational sciences such as chemistry and physics, but rather within medicine, virology, and biology, and among followers of these fields. This raises an important question: why has this become a debate at all? In true science, the existence of a physical entity is not decided by debate, opinion, or consensus, but by physical evidence that can be demonstrated, measured, and independently verified.

The core of the issue is that medicine and biology often present themselves as sciences in the same sense as chemistry and physics, even though their methods and training are very different. This creates confusion. The use of scientific terminology gives the impression that the work is grounded in the same scientific method used in the physical sciences. Terms such as “isolation,” “characterization,” and “validation” are used, but often they are not used in the same way as in analytical science. This difference in terminology and methodology is rarely explained clearly to the public or even to experts.

(more…)

Question: The covid vaccine makers claim that the mrna sends a code to the cell to manufacture spike proteins. We don’t have an isolated virus or an isolated spike protein. So what is the code actually telling the cells? Is there a code? What are the vaccinologists actually seeing under their “microscopes?” (link)

Response:

Before discussing mRNA “code,” one must first clarify what the word “code” actually means in scientific terms. The term creates the impression of something highly advanced and complex, often beyond the understanding of non-experts. However, in reality, the so-called “code” refers to a chemical sequence in a molecule called mRNA, which is claimed to cause the production of a protein in the body. When stripped of technical language, the entire process can be described as a series of chemical reactions between chemical compounds. Therefore, the subject should be examined from a chemical and analytical science perspective, not merely described in medical terminology.

In principle, or in theory, the word “code” refers to a specific chemical compound called mRNA. This compound is said to instruct another chemical component in the body (DNA) to produce another chemical compound, a protein (for example, the spike protein). The idea is that this process simulates the arrival of a foreign protein in the body, which is assumed to be part of a virus. The body then mounts a defense by producing antibodies (chemical compounds) that neutralize the protein and prepare the body to respond to future exposures.

(more…)

Public discussions about viruses, vaccines, and modern medicine often move quickly into competing narratives. Some defend the conventional medical view, while others introduce alternative explanations such as terrain theory or statistical critiques of viral pandemics. While these debates may appear to challenge the mainstream view, they often leave a deeper question unaddressed: what constitutes a valid scientific demonstration in the first place?

A recent comment illustrates this dynamic well. The commenter largely agreed that proper scientific criteria—such as isolation, purification, and full characterization of a claimed entity—are rarely discussed in virology in the rigorous sense expected in the physical sciences. However, the commenter suggested that focusing solely on these criteria may not persuade many people and that broader arguments, such as statistical evidence or terrain-based explanations, might be more effective.

The comment reads as follows:

(more…)

Virus believers are arguably worse than flat-Earthers. Flat-Earthers, at least, are debating the shape of something that unquestionably exists—the Earth. Their disagreement concerns the form of a real, observable object.

In contrast, virologists and their supporters debate the properties, behavior, and mechanisms of entities that, from this perspective, have never been properly demonstrated to exist as isolated, purified, and fully characterized physical objects. Instead of working with a clearly established entity, they rely on indirect interpretations and assumptions about what may be present in complex biological materials (e.g., cell culture or debris).

This creates a situation in which elaborate theories, classifications, and debates develop around something that has not been demonstrated in the strict scientific sense required for physical entities. In that sense, the discussion becomes even more problematic than flat-Earth claims: at least the flat-Earth debate concerns the geometry of a real planet, whereas the virus debate centers on entities whose existence remains unproven.

Yet they present themselves as science experts or scientists—an honorable and prestigious title. What a shame!

The article, “If Casey Means becomes Surgeon General, Expertise Is Officially Optional ” link), discussing the possibility of Dr. Casey Means becoming U.S. Surgeon General, raises concerns about her qualifications. The central criticism is that she did not complete a medical residency and therefore lacks sufficient expertise to assess and guide public health policy. While this argument may appear reasonable at first glance, it reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the nature of medical scientific expertise.

The core issue is the widespread assumption that medical doctors are scientific experts. In reality, physicians are primarily trained as clinicians. Medical education focuses on diagnosis, treatment, and patient management. A typical medical degree involves approximately four years of training centered on recognizing symptoms, applying diagnostic frameworks, and prescribing therapies. It is not designed to train students as research scientists or as experts in the foundational scientific disciplines.

(more…)