Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

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

A thought, taken from the internet (FB), worth considering!

FB (link) – with thanks to Steve Bashir.

 Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D., is an Analytical Chemist and former senior research scientist at Health Canada for over 30 years. 

There are many people who are speaking out against vaccines. Doctors and microbiologists. Even lawyers like Robert Keππedy and Reiner Fuelmich. You see them on so many podcasts. Yet, none of these people have the expertise in the science of isolation, purification, testing, and validation methods. That is necessary to show the existence/non-existence of a mi¢robe (e.g., virus). This is the domain of analytical chemistry.

Dr. Qureshi is the only scientist I know who is speaking out with the expertise to show definitively that no virus has ever been isolated and sequenced. And therefore, no test for it can be developed without a reference standard (specimen of virus).

Dr. Qureshi has been speaking out since the beginning of the fake pandemic about the non-existence of the virus. Due to the lack of any scientific evidence whatsoever. Yet, you don’t see him on these popular podcasts being interviewed. I wonder why. Everything we are hearing is riddled with fiction, whether for or against the va××iπe.

-Steve Bashir

Yesterday, someone sent me an email trail concerning a discussion/argument about the existence of the virus, for my view. I responded by considering the following two statements (in bold). I believe visitors will find my response helpful, so I am also posting it here.

____________________________________________________________________________

@ “I still have not seen a single concise, well-sourced article which makes the case that viruses don’t exist”

In response to the above, it is highly unlikely, in fact, impossible to find an article that will answer the question because the question is incorrect. For example, how can one show the existence (or otherwise) of something that does not exist?

On the other hand, the fake existence of something can be disproved. I believe this is what you are, or should be, asking for.

So, for example, if someone says that a certain dirt sample containing yellow particles is a gold ore. It can be confirmed (proven) by isolating the yellow particles and testing those yellow particles against the gold reference standard. If it matches, then the claim of gold in the ore/dirt is valid and proven the existence of gold in the ore.

On the other hand, if the yellow particles in the ore do not match the gold reference standard, then gold does not exist. The yellow particles could be from any number of things. So, the existence of the gold particle in the ore has been disproven or rejected.

The critical point to note here is that the existence or non-existence of something can only be established with the help of comparing it with an existing reference standard. If the reference standard is unavailable, one can confidently say that the thing one is looking for does not exist. The virus claim falls in this category, i.e., there is no reference standard of the virus, or its RNA is available anywhere. Therefore, the virus does not exist.

People get confused with such a statement, as noted below,

“Surely we can observe these particle under an electron microscope performing their tasks so they don’t necessary need to be physically isolated in tiny test tubes to prove that they exist!”

This is incorrect. Pictures are exactly like seeing yellow particles in the dirt and assuming them as gold, as described above. Only by isolating and testing against the reference standard can one confirm or reject the existence of the gold in the dirt. The picture would help but cannot be considered evidence of the existence of something. Only the (physical) isolation of the item can confirm its existence. As no physical sample of the virus or its RNA is available, the virus does not exist.

Further details here

Virology, and its science, are another name for the PCR test. It is well known that the PCR test is false and fraudulent (link), so virology and “the science” automatically become false and fraudulent. Therefore, there should not be any argument about it.  

If one takes out the PCR test, virology and “the science” will disappear like magic.

How to take the PCR test out? It is by getting an audit done by an independent third party, not from the virology or medical field. The external expert could be anyone trained and experienced in developing test methods (such as a chemist trained in analytical chemistry) or from organizations that develop reference standards, such as NIST.

The external expert will ask the first question to provide a report for the PCR test to show that it has been appropriately calibrated and validated. Bingo, check-mate, end of the game! No one can provide such a report because it requires a specimen of the isolated and purified virus or its RNA, which is unavailable.

PCR will be dead, and so will the virology and “the science.” Happy ending!

Further information (link)