Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

This post is a response to a query (below). The visitors to this site may also benefit from it.

Query:

“I’ve read, albeit very little, about terrain theory. But how do you explain me and my 3 sons all catching the so called Covid and having exactly the same high temperature of 39.8? My eldest got it first in about October. Me and the other 2 at Christmas. Obviously we have shared DNA, and it looks like engineered when having the exact same temp to the decimal point in all of us.

I’m not trying to disprove you, I’d genuinely like to hear your opinion.

By the way, I’m not trying to scare monger. The high temp lasted a few hours, then 2 days of having a cold. Whereas, I had flu about 6 years ago with a high of 41.5 and a week of blah.” (link)

Response:

The common medical practice of evaluating and deciding a sickness is based on testing.

For example, one uses a thermometer to establish a higher temperature, i.e., one has a fever. Therefore, the use thermometer is a test. A thermometer is a validated tester for monitoring temperature.

The next step is to establish what may have caused this fever. There could be any number of reasons for this deviation from the norm. Usually, one assumes it is just a typical reflection of body wear and tear (called flu-like symptoms).

People generally do not consider this as sickness but a reflection of the body attempting to correct the deviation (which forms the basis of terrain theory). So bear with it or take care of it by adjusting with external help such as resting, light meals, and boosting with vitamins/fruits. I do not consider it an illness and, God forbid, a serious one.

However, if this deviation (illness) deteriorates or lingers, one has to find the reason for what may be causing it. So, one (usually a physician, like any tradesperson) guesses it based on their experience and observations and seeks its reason.

The guesses are established or confirmed by testing. There is an extensive battery of tests available. Considering my background in testing, I am not a fan of modern tests. They have weaknesses.

However, for the sake of this discussion, let us assume that these test work and provide indication and cause of illness. Once the test shows an unusual situation, one proceeds with the treatment to bring the body on a regular track.

Once the body is back in its typical form, the treatment must be stopped, especially if it is based on something the body does not need or require for its normal function, like chemical-based medicines.

Unfortunately, it has become a fashion during the past couple of years to ASSUME, immediately, any variation in normal body activity, including higher temperature, as a serious illness. This illness is named COVID-19 and is assumed to be caused by a virus attack named SARS-COV-2.

The illness must be treated immediately with the intervention of a foreign compound (or mixture) called a vaccine. Not only is the treatment suggested to bring the body to the normal stage but implied to be used continuously forever – a clear violation of living a natural and healthy life.

As stated above, illness needs to be established using a test, and this illness and its virus are confirmed based on a test called PCR. Therefore, a positive PCR test would indicate COVID-19.

However, the biggest problem with the test is that it is scientifically irrelevant and invalid. There should not be any doubt or question about it. The reason is that for a test to be relevant and valid, it must be validated against the substance it is supposed to test, in this case, the virus (SARS-COV-2). However, it has not been because no virus specimen is available to develop and validate the test.

Therefore, people should recognize that there is no such thing as the virus (SARS-COV-2, variants, etc.) of its illness (COVID-19).

Considering your specific situation, you all recovered from your illness fairly quickly and without any serious impact. This would support the assumption that your body was going through normal wear-tear, nothing more. So, enjoy your life and health without unnecessary worries.

Concerning your link with children through DNA and the similarity of illness, this is just a fancy talk “experts” tell you to sell you the products and expertise. Scientifically, the link of DNA to illness is in its infancy stage (if it is there at all). Working as a scientist in this area, I have difficulty believing and accepting its accuracy and relevance. At this stage, it is a marketing tool to impress people and promote products and services, which are, otherwise, a waste of money and good health.

I am unsure if this explanation will help you and your children escape the fear of illness or bad health. However, it is worth the try.

For further information, please consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes, where I describe scientific aspects of modern-day medicines in simple language.

I wish you the best, and be vigilant of modern-day health experts and their advice.  

Medicines, alternative medicines, drugs, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, tablets, capsules, antibiotics, therapeutics, vaccines, minerals, vitamins, proteins, fats, sugars, etc. – all are different names (synonyms) for the word – chemicals. Independent of their source, synthetic or natural, there is no difference.

These chemicals can only be studied by conducting laboratory experiments on isolation, purification, characterization, and testing using chemistry/science principles. However, testing remains the most critical aspect, covering the other three mentioned. Therefore, ensure getting information about such chemicals and their characteristics from people who have strong knowledge of chemistry/science and related laboratory experience.

Medical and pharmaceutical experts lack academic training and work experience on the subject. As a result, they often make enormous errors and false claims (for or against) about chemicals and relevant science.

This is the main and the only cause of the current virus-based pandemic and its treatment – a false and tragic story of a non-existing virus-based illness and its vaccine-based treatment. Chemistry/Science clearly and accurately predicted the fakeness (fraud) of the virus, testing, pandemic, and vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic.

Unfortunately, significant health damage has been done, potentially for the long term, and recovery may not be possible, irrespective of the claims made.

Seek help about chemicals from experts trained in chemistry/science, not the medical/pharmaceutical practitioners who lack the relevant knowledge and experience in this area and have caused the issue to start with.

In the future, please pay attention to the testing claims of an illness (their validity and authenticity) and its potential chemical-based treatments. Then, drugs will be much simpler to understand, relevant, and cheaper to use, and life will be more enjoyable.

Please obtain a copy of Helpful Notes today to learn about the relevant science for medicines.

The (gradient) ultracentrifugation technique is often described in the medical/virology literature regarding virus separation, isolation, and purification. However, its use is misunderstood and misrepresented for virus isolation. In short, the technique is a separation technique but cannot isolate viruses, as explained below.

Centrifugation is a simple technique for separating components in a liquid solution. For example, if one shakes some sand particles with water in a test tube and leaves it on the table, the sand particles will quickly settle at the bottom of the test tube. However, if the particles are small and light, they may not settle at the bottom of the tubes quickly and often remain suspended in water. Using centrifugation machines, the test tubes are spun to pull the material down with centrifugal force.   Therefore, it is another technique for separating, like filtering the content (solid/liquid) in a flask or test tube.

The ultracentrifugation technique uses extremely high spinning speeds and gravitational force (g) in thousands of multiples. Such a force pulls the extremely small particles, even macromolecules such as proteins, DNA/RNA, etc., towards the bottom of the tubes.

A variation of this technique, i.e., gradient ultracentrifugation, is conducted where the aqueous phase is replaced by stacking different concentrations of sugar (sucrose) solutions in the test (centrifuge) tubes. Applying the test sample (e.g., treated swab sample) at the top and then spinning the tubes results in spreading particles across the tubes based on particles’ size and density. The band (position) where the specific types of particles settle is pipetted out and used for identification and characterization.

Conceptually, ultracentrifugation is similar to stack sieving, in which particles of different sizes are separated and collected in pans with different sieve or hole sizes. The critical thing to remember is that it is a separation technique but cannot identify or characterize the nature of the particles it separates.

From the virus isolation perspective, gradient ultracentrifugation’s separation or spreading ability does not isolate the virus particles but potentially collects in a band reflecting a certain size and density particle range. Therefore, it still provides a mixture of the original sample, perhaps less dense and more homogenous than the applied sample. Due to the heterogeneity in biological particles, this differential centrifugation suffers from contamination and poor recoveries. The particles’ mass, density, and shape dictate the position of the (particles) band.

However, knowing which band or section of the tubes contains the virus requires a calibration of the centrifugation step before its use. This calibration step can only be done using the isolated and purified virus specimen. But, such a virus specimen is not available. Therefore, one cannot determine which band will contain the presumed virus.

In reality, the centrifugation currently divides the original swab specimen (gunk) into smaller portions, not knowing if the virus exists or which portion (band) contains it. Thus, nothing gets isolated. Therefore, virus isolation using ultracentrifugation is a false claim and shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method/technique.

Please obtain a copy of Helpful Notes today to learn about the relevant science for medicines.

Most claims by physicians and other medical experts are considered reflective of science or science-based. However, it is critical to note that the profession is not science-based. Science has never been part of its degree curriculum, training, expertise, or research (link). Moreover, there is no such thing as medical or pharmaceutical science – it is a made-up name or brand for fakeness or deception.

Most, if not all, claims made by these professionals may be considered observations or assumptions without the involvement of science.

For example, a recent claim is that a virus (SARS-COV-2) is causing illness, but there is no virus. Amazingly, experts claim to have developed a test that can see and monitor this non-existing virus or its effects! Even more bizarre is the claim to have developed highly effective treatments (vaccines) for killing this non-existing virus and its illness. Furthermore, experts are seeking more exuberant research funding and control to “protect” the public from similar future viruses and pandemics.

The actual science (chemistry/analytical chemistry) correctly predicted the fakeness of the virus, tests, and vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic (link, link, link).

Claims are being made for the preparedness to handle future pandemics; however, scientifically, there was no virus or pandemic, and there cannot be any in the future.

Any claims made in this regard should be evaluated based on actual science, preferably seeking help from research-based chemistry experts. Further information may be found here (link). Please obtain a copy today to learn about the relevant science for medicine and direct medical and pharmaceutical professionals toward science.

Often one hears discussions about the nature of the COVID-19 vaccines, such as:

Is it a gene therapy, biologic, s-protein treatment, traditional pharmaceutical, mRNA, vaccine, or something else? It could be anything, everything, or maybe nothing. In fact, it is a fraud.

From the science or reality perspective, it is most likely a cocktail of some chemicals with one major declared, mRNA, a chemical compound.

As the detailed composition of such entities has not been disclosed (which should have been), it is safe to assume that all substances in vials would be “pure chemicals.” Further, they are most likely nonphysiological, i.e., the human body would not have them or require them for its natural functions; hence, many adverse effects (presumed and observed).

All claims and discussions about them can safely be considered mental gymnastics for escaping the science fraud that occurred in the name of advances in medical science.

On the other hand, all claims mentioned above relate to testing or interactions with the virus. However, one thing is sure, the virus and its interactions have never been studied because the virus does not exist—therefore, all claims and naming become false or lies.

There is no way out of this mess except to declare that fraud has occurred. The public has been fooled and deceived. Start with stopping the treatment/vaccination and ignoring “medical experts,” including those branding themselves now as non-virus or no-vaccine advocates. Unfortunately, their views and knowledge about substances (chemicals) are as shallow as virus and vaccine supporters. Instead, seek help from “outsiders” with training, knowledge, and research experience working with substances (chemicals), such as chemists.

Consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes to study the science behind medicines here.

For further information, please follow the link (link).

Query:

“Dr. Qureshi, I’d love to have your views on this video by a virologist who claims there are 3 independent lines of evidence. I think Dr. Cowan/Kaufman probably addressed it but i can’t seem to locate their rebuttal.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNGKUm6Eo0

Response:

I did not find anything new in the clip. To me, it describes the same story repeated numerous times i.e., culturing is considered isolation. This is where the issue is. One requires extraction, not culturing, for isolation. Yet, there is no mention of extraction.

There is a mention of the technique “sucrose ultracentrifugation” or “gradient ultracentrifugation.” However, these cannot work here, and the interpretation is incorrect.

Using ultracentrifugation requires calibration to establish where the “SARS-COV-2” virus (particles) will fall in the gradient band. This (calibration) can only be achieved by first experimenting (ultracentrifugation) with pure isolated virus particles. As no isolated virus particles are available, ultracentrifugation cannot be calibrated or used correctly. Hence the interpretation of ultracentrifugation is false and irrelevant at best.

Considering the pictures (independent of photography type), CANNOT establish the nature of the objects, in particular in a culture or soup. I have explained this aspect here. So please, have a look.

So, in conclusion, the virus has not been isolated and/or identified, at least scientifically. I hope this will help.

The mRNA (vaccine) is described as a chemical molecule interacting with body subcellular structures and their chemical contents. Therefore, if one requires to study such interactions, one has to deal with their chemical characteristics and the chemistry subject. But, unfortunately, this has not been done.

The interaction has been evaluated under medical practices, not chemistry (or science)- hence, flawed and false conclusions. For example, medical practitioners have widely claimed that the efficacy of these mRNA-based vaccines is 95%+ while the safety profile is assumed to be good to excellent. However, this claim has purely been based on imagination because no virus or illness interaction study with the vaccine has ever been conducted. Thus the false conclusions (link, link).

Now, serious concern has been raised about the efficacy and safety of these vaccines. But, as described in this article (link), their assessment (or re-evaluation) is being suggested, and apparently, using the same approach, i.e., working under medical practices, which created the problem to start with. The chances of a valid and successful conclusion from such an exercise are about zero.

The focus is assessing the damage caused by the spike protein (directly or indirectly), a chemical compound or substance. Therefore, its assessment can only be conducted by testing based on chemical principles and practices. Unfortunately, this requires an authentic specimen of the spike protein to develop valid tests and testing, which is not available. Therefore, the adverse effect of spike protein and vaccines cannot be evaluated appropriately and accurately.

Thus, the tragedy of vaccination will continue until some sober and logical thinking takes over. I hope soon.

More information is here.

• The pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, are not medical issues or materials. Their characterization, production, and evaluation belong to chemical science or chemistry. Find a good chemist who will explain that there is no virus, RNA, or s-protein or test for them, and that science has not been followed.
• Claimed ivermectin efficacy indirectly shows that COVID-19 or its virus does not exist. Ivermectin is used to treat infection, most likely parasitic. Nothing, including ivermectin or vaccines, has been tested against the virus or COVID-19.
• Claims made by physicians and medical experts about chemicals (aka medicines) should be taken with a grain of salt, as they do not study their development, characterization, evaluation, or related science.
• Consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes (here) to learn the weakness of current thinking and the science of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines.

In general, science should always be reproducible because it is not based on the views of a single person, organization, or select group but on experimentation over several years by multiple people and groups.

However, the expressed view in the article (link) refers to fake science, which will always be irreproducible. Therefore, any reproducibility numbers provided in the article should also be fake because they are reported based on fake science practices.

For example, authorities and pharmacopeias claim to establish the quality of the products (such as tablets and capsules) based on “pharmaceutical science.”

It should be evident that there is no such thing as “pharmaceutical science.” It is a distorted, more like fraudulent, version of chemistry based on imaginary or fictional assumptions and principles; hence by definition, its data and results should not be reproducible or trusted.

The product quality claims have been based on the authorities’ narratives (called standards or guidance), such as FDA, USP, etc.

In this regard, one of the main tests is the drug dissolution test – a chemistry/chemical test. It evaluates the drug release from the products.

The test has never been validated to determine the dissolution of any product. It is highly unpredictable and irrelevant – shown repeatedly. The test reproducibility is that if a product shows a drug release/dissolution at 30 minutes between 55 and 100%, the product is considered of quality. Often, the test even does not provide results within this range.

Now is the PCR “test,” again a chemistry/chemical test, never been validated. Variability or reproducibility is poor and has to be. It is not a science-based test.

Both pharmaceutical and medical science mutually support each other (peer reviews), describing false chemistry and its principles.

Hence, science is not irreproducible, but fake (pharmaceutical and medical) sciences are.

For further details, please follow the link