Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Doctors (physicians), please share your credentials in science and in conducting scientific research, including your education and expertise in true scientific subjects such as chemistry. After all, your work primarily involves research on medicines, which are chemicals, including:

  • Proteins (enzymes, antibodies, receptors)
  • Amino acids
  • Carbohydrates (glucose, glycogen, polysaccharides)
  • Lipids (cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids)
  • Vitamins (A, D, E, K, C, B-complex)
  • Minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc)
  • Neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine)
  • Nucleotides (ATP, GTP, cAMP)
  • Cellular organelles (mitochondria, ribosomes, lysosomes)
  • Structural proteins (collagen, keratin, elastin)
  • Genetic material (DNA, RNA, genes, etc.)

Additionally, please include your education and expertise in testing, including test development, validation, and research processes.

They have no such credentials—can anyone prove otherwise?

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

I have written several articles on PCR for my blog, but it seems many readers may not have understood them fully. So, here is another attempt to explain.

PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. Breaking it down, polymerase is a combination of two parts: polymer and -ase. Polymers are chemical compounds that can come from natural or synthetic sources. Examples of natural polymers include cellulose, starch, glycogen, proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, while synthetic polymers include polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC, Teflon, and nylon. All of these substances are well-characterized, certified, and widely available, mostly from chemical suppliers.

The suffix “-ase” indicates an enzyme, a protein that acts as a catalyst in biochemical reactions. For instance, hydrogen and oxygen will not combine to form water on their own; a spark or catalyst is required to initiate the reaction. Similarly, in biological systems, enzymes trigger countless reactions essential for life.

(more…)

Question Asked:

Are particles like urea in urine, sugar in blood, and bacteria in blood different from what we call “viruses”?

Response:


Urea, sugar, bacteria, and enzymes can all be detected, identified, and even purified with relative ease. These are real, demonstrable substances. I avoid using the term particles here because “particle” refers to a physical state that may or may not be observable under all conditions. For example, table salt exists as particles in solid form, but when dissolved in water, its particulate state disappears, forming ions—yet it is still considered salt. However, sand exists as particles almost all the time, even when mixed with water. The important point is that these substances are tangible, measurable, and their testing is valid.

(more…)

The debate between germ theory and terrain theory has persisted for over a century, each side claiming to hold the key to understanding illness. In truth, both are theories based on observation rather than rigorous science in its purest sense. Neither has ever provided an absolute, final answer—yet both have shaped the way we think about disease.

(more…)

Yesterday, I watched a documentary (Premiere: Inside mRNA Vaccines), about an hour long, which tells a troubling story that deserves wider attention (link). I highly recommend watching it. From my perspective, the so-called medical experts featured in the film largely rely on theoretical assertions disconnected from reality and genuine science. Their artwork (labelled “science”) is no different than animation shown in the movie. They continue to promote their version of “science” to explain mRNA technology — yet there is little to no actual technological or scientific substance behind their claims.

(more…)

After accurately predicting the non-existence of the virus, the fraudulent PCR test, and the fake vaccine, it is time for the next prediction: a safe and effective vaccine — universal or otherwise — is impossible to develop.

Without a clearly defined and measurable illness, along with validated methods for diagnosing and treating it (such as with a vaccine), there is no possibility of creating any genuine vaccine. The tests lack a proper reference, and without it, the entire framework collapses.

Medical and pharmaceutical “science” (pure nonsense) along with its associated scientists, will be remembered not for true science or progress, but for one of the greatest scientific frauds in history — a lie we have endured at a massive cost to both health and wealth.

This is not guesswork or opinion, but a conclusion drawn from the principles and practice of actual science — chemistry.

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

Two of the most abused and fraudulent words of our time — especially in medicine.

In reality, so-called modern medicine has little to no connection with actual science, like physics or chemistry.

These labels are mostly worn by people who have never studied real science, yet parade around as “experts,” “scientists,” or “researchers.”

Beware.

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have recently announced what they are calling a “next-generation, universal vaccine platform.” The project, branded Generation Gold Standard, is being promoted as a major leap forward in vaccine science and safety assessment. Public figures, including RFK Jr., have spoken about it as if it were the solution to the failures of the COVID-19 vaccines — the dawn of a new, “safe and effective” vaccine era.

Before accepting these claims, it is worth examining them from the standpoint of actual science — specifically chemistry — to assess the validity of the approach and the likelihood of success (more like its failure).

(more…)

“$14 Billion Later, Cancer Is Worse Than Ever. Where Did the Money Go? (link).

I have long argued that many cases labeled as “cancer” may actually be misdiagnoses. While direct, irrefutable proof is hard to obtain, the pattern of illness and its response to treatment point strongly in this direction. In several cases, the condition has improved with antimicrobial treatments such as ivermectin, doxycycline, curcumin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole — drugs designed for microbial infections, not cancer.

This possibility is rarely considered because cancer is defined and classified largely through imaging and pathology — methods not unlike the “imagery” used to depict viruses that have never been truly isolated or characterized. Image-based diagnosis alone is not a valid scientific method; at best, it is an observation or an educated guess. A truly scientific approach would require independent physical and chemical confirmation: isolating the microorganism, identifying its components, and proving treatment efficacy with antibiotics or antimicrobials.

(more…)

The medical community has a new trick. After decades of virus-vaccine failure, fraud, and public harm, some doctors are now rebranding under terrain theory. See the recent article by Richard Z. Cheng, M.D., Ph.D. (Editor-in-Chief, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service) promoting it (link). The motive is obvious: the virus narrative has collapsed under its own lies, so they need a new story to keep the funding flowing.

Now they pitch terrain theory as a “new” scientific model — and are already calling for funding to run clinical trials comparing vaccine-based vs. terrain-based strategies. This is audacious. After decades of massive funding, they’ve delivered nothing but damage. Before they get another cent, they must account for their record: not progress, but failure on a historic scale.

(more…)