Search Results for: lie

It is a lie that medical and pharmaceutical experts follow science. They do not study, get training, or practice science. The actual science is chemistry, as most medicines are chemicals and behave in the body following the principles of chemistry (the science), which these professionals hardly study or apply. There is no such thing as medical or pharmaceutical science. These are false and fraudulent versions of chemistry.

The assertions of the virus’ (SARS-COV-2) existence, its illness (COVID-19), and the development of vaccines (mRNA) have been false and fraudulent and can easily be shown so by applying basic scientific (chemical) principles.

In the future, avoid anyone who promotes (chemical) based medicines without having extensive knowledge and training in chemistry/science, such as isolation, testing, and test validation. Their claims almost certainly will be baseless and false.

For further details, see here, here, here, and more.

People do not realize that it is not only COVID-19/Ivermectin, as an example of so-called clinical trials, but most, if not all, will be shown to be invalid. As I have explained several times, the reason is that clinical trials are a specific type of analytical (chemistry) test. Unfortunately, these tests/trials are done and promoted fraudulently as valid and scientific. Proper analytical tests require precise and quantifiable outcomes (endpoints) using VALIDATED analytical tests/methods.

In the case of current practices of clinical trials, there is no such thing – neither an objective and qualifiable endpoint (but mostly subjective symptoms or arbitrary markers) nor validated tests (but non-validated and irrelevant tests such as PCR, drug dissolution). Hence, a valid clinical or scientific trial cannot be conducted, particularly under the guidance of medical experts and related regulatory authorities who lack the necessary training and understanding of the subject/testing.

Do not forget the disastrous failure of the clinical trials and the vaccine development for COVID-19. The catastrophic outcome of the vaccine was accurately predicted based on the understanding of flawed PCR tests and the analytical or scientific aspects of clinical trials (link, link, link, and much more at Bioanalyticx.com).

Further information may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.

People, including mainstream “scientists” and “experts,” do not realize that vaccines, mRNA-based or otherwise, have never been tested for their efficacy. To test the efficacy for developing and testing the vaccines, the virus (SARS-CoV-2) must be available in pure isolated form. This is not only a scientific requirement but simple logical consideration as well. It is impossible to establish the usefulness and effectiveness of the vaccines without the use or presence of the target, i.e., the virus.

It is a commonly known fact now that no purified isolated specimen of the virus is available anywhere in the world. Therefore, no one can test the efficacy of the vaccines, and it has not been done either. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie.

The development of vaccines is based on testing against the PCR test, which is not a test for the virus but an RNA/DNA-based marker of the unknown or imaginary virus (commonly known as SARS-CoV-2). The PCR test is an arbitrary “dipstick” type test without any link to the virus, infection, or illness. As the virus has never been isolated, it is impossible to link the marker to it and validate the PCR test for its relevancy and accuracy as well.

Testing and assessing viruses and their link to illnesses and the treatments, as currently described and promoted, reflect ignorance and incompetency of the “experts” and “scientists.” Therefore, the medical and pharmaceutical areas require urgent scrutiny and audit of their scientific claims.

The focus should be treating the illness/infection, if and when it occurs, and not developing the treatments (such as vaccines) for the imaginary virus and its mutants.

For further reading:

COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Quantifiable (link)

For example:

FDA claims that it establishes and monitors the quality of pharmaceutical products such as tablets and capsules. A lie – FDA neither defines the quality of the products nor its measurable parameter; hence it does not, or cannot, determine the quality of the products.

FDA claims that it establishes the safety and efficacy (as well as quality) of pharmaceutical products using valid clinical testing (e.g., bioequivalence assessment) and in vitro (drug dissolution) testing using USP apparatuses. Again, a lie – these tests and associated testers have never been validated for the intended purpose. In fact, these tests are scientifically invalid and irrelevant for their intended purpose.

USP claims that it provides reference standards for establishing the quality of the pharmaceutical products such as tablets and capsules. A lie – USP never provides reference standards for any product. It provides powder or liquid samples of pure chemical compounds, not the products which patients use. However, it falsely promotes reference standards of medicines.

USP claims that it provides a valid analytical test for assessing drug release characteristics of the products for establishing and monitoring the quality of the products. A lie – the test has never been validated for the intended purpose. The test cannot determine the drug dissolution/release characteristics of any product. It has been shown experimentally that the test provides irrelevant and highly unpredictable results/data with no relevance to product quality.

For more examples, please visit here and here. Manufacturers and patients should be cautious in accepting such claims from FDA and USP and other national and international authorities, which often follow FDA/USP claims and guidances.

Please consider accepting the Citizen Petition (under review with FDA for more than a year and a half, link) to address the underlying lies concerning products development, manufacturing, and their regulatory approval.

Bio-waiver is a term used for establishing and accepting quality of a pharmaceutical product (tablet and capsule) based on in vitro drug dissolution testing without corresponding bioavailability/bioequivalence data.

The scientific rationale behind this practice is that, in general, the bioavailability of a drug product depends on its release and solution formation (dissolution) characteristics. The in vivo (physiological) dissolution is monitored or simulated in vitro by a dissolution test. Therefore, an assumption made here is that the in vitro dissolution test will appropriately and accurately reflect in vivo dissolution in humans and thus the bioavailability/bioequivalence characteristics of the products. This linkage is commonly referred to as an in vitro-in vivo (co)relationship or IVIVC. Therefore, a pre-requisite for bio-waiver practices is a well-established IVIVC.

It is, however, generally well recognized and documented in the literature that current practices of dissolution testing do not relate well to in vivo outcomes or often lack IVIVC. Therefore, presently, a bio-waiver should be considered as a scientifically weak case.

There are, however, guidances available for considering bio-waivers in certain, very specific cases.  For example, bio-waivers are considered for products having drugs with high aqueous solubilities and absorbabilities from the GI tract in humans. In addition, the products should show fast dissolution. The underlying thought is that if drugs are highly soluble and absorbable, and the products show fast and complete in vitro dissolution (usually in less than 30 minutes). The products are not expected to pose any potential problems in vivo, and thus they may be considered for bio-waivers. Therefore, it may be assumed that current practices of bio-waivers are based on faith rather than their scientific merits.

In short, for an appropriate and scientifically valid bio-waiver inference, one has to establish IVIVC, with evidence that the techniques and methodologies (dissolution apparatus, medium, and associated experimental conditions) employed are indeed capable of providing physiologically relevant results.

It is now undisputed that no virus has been isolated; hence, it does not exist. So, why is this fact not accepted, and why do people/experts (including doctors) believe viruses exist?

The reason is that “virus isolation” is primarily described in medical, virology, and (micro)biology literature. Considering the lack of knowledge and training on the topic (isolation) and, in general, science/chemistry, where the topic belongs, medical/biological experts use the words “isolation” and “isolate” interchangeably (link).

Sadly, it is an example of ignorance and incompetence in the subject/science. Isolation is a separating (extracting or purifying) process/step of something from a mixture, while “isolate” means a substance, mostly a crude extract/mixture/gunk. The word “isolate” concerning the virus may be explained by analogy: fermentation broth (isolate) and alcohol (virus) in the broth. Importantly, they both have to exist independently.

The experts in the virus camp claim that the virus exists and has been isolated. They do not realize that samples available from vendors, such as BEI, or used in studies are isolates, not viruses (link). The vendor sells isolates, NOT viruses, without any claim or assurance it (isolate/broth) contains the virus. In consumer language, it is a tricky and fraudulent claim for a product. Therefore, whoever claims that viruses are part of the broth (or culture) uses tricky language to cheat or lie. Use caution in trusting them or their “science.”

In short, the claims and arguments about the virus’s isolation and existence reflect scientific ignorance and incompetence, i.e., physical or actual science/chemistry. Therefore, all claims about virus existence, related pandemic, and their treatment developments (such as vaccines) are fictional, not factual, and certainly not based on science (link).

Opinions on this aspect (science) from the experts (doctors, virologists, and microbiologists) who do not study the actual science are irrelevant. There is an inherent interest in protecting their (false) science and published “scientific research,” which must soon be retracted as false and fraudulent.

Hence, choose your experts wisely for valid scientific advice! (link).

People will not believe it, but it is true and a fact that universities hardly teach about medicines and science for a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree.

More astonishing is that academia promotes doctors as (medicine/chemical) science experts or “scientists” without teaching them about the science of medicine (chemistry). No wonder the mRNA vaccine resulted in such a disastrous blunder and an extreme tragedy. It is a tragedy of ignorance and incompetence.

A doctor’s role as a science expert or researcher must be stopped immediately, as it is a fraud. Doctors should only practice what they are trained to do, i.e., hearing/watching the symptoms, seeking relevant test results, and then writing up matching prescriptions from memory or through Google.

Medical professionals are among the least educated and knowledgeable about science. Prove me wrong!

More (here, here, here, and more)

The question is: When medicines are approved to be safe and effective, why can’t they be sold like any other safe and effective product? Why are they placed behind the counter like tobacco products? Why does one have to pay a service fee to bring the medicines from behind the counter to the front of the counter? Why cannot they be sold through vending machines, online, or chemical stores (medicines being chemicals) and reviewed by users and independent, knowledgeable third parties?

They cannot be because everything associated with authorities’ approved (allopathic) medicines will go bankrupt in no time, as no substantiated and independent scientific evidence is available to support their claims of their quality (by extension, safety and efficacy). Authentication (valid scientific testing) is not part of the medicines development and manufacturing system.

I have been saying this for the past 20 years about pharmaceutical products such as tablets and capsules. mRNA vaccines are the current and the best-documented example of this fraud. Medicines are sold on an as-is basis – with priesthood-type claims, i.e., science has been done, viruses exist, and vaccines work. When the fact is – that no science has been done, the virus does not exist, and vaccines cannot work. Science, its training and practice, is not part of the medical and pharmaceutical professions and practice. The public and “experts” have been living with lies for the past some decades.

No wonder developers and manufacturers require strong legal protection/immunity from expected damages (“adverse effects”) as medicines/chemical products are developed primarily under the guidance and supervision of (medical and pharmaceutical) experts who lack the needed expertise in science/chemistry.

Auditing by independent third parties, such as those having analytical chemistry-based expertise, considering medicines are chemicals, is urgently needed (more).