Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Dear Lord – forgive us and help us save from the humiliation we are about to face.

We accept that we lied and cheated the public and patients. We have never been scientists. We never studied science, but people believed us. So we went along with it as it paid us so handsomely.

People mistakenly believe that we know what medicines are and how they work. We don’t think that this is our fault. Everyone knows medicines are chemicals and very potent and dangerous ones. We never learned or studied chemicals or chemistry in any detail. However, we dosed a majority of the public with chemicals (labeled mRNA) without knowing or testing if they were any good for killing the virus.

We know we have never seen or isolated the virus. Yet, we went along with lab results without questioning the test and its results. How could we question the test? We have no idea how the test and testing work. That has never been part of the medical curriculum, but it was a very lucrative business and went along with it. People trusted us, and we lied to them as if we knew what we were doing.

We are guilty of promoting so-called safety and protective measures such as social distancing and mask use, hence damaging the social fabric of the families and societies. However, there was absolutely no scientific research or evidence that these measures could benefit. Sorry, Lord – we lied!

Now we are changing our jingle from testing to modeling. We have no clue how modeling or simulation work either. Hired guns show us pretty and convincing pictures and graphs. But now politicians are buying this crap to scare people, not realizing that modeling depends on testing. There are no valid test results available. Everyone knows that. However, we are going along with the story because we have no other option but to delay our unavoidable humiliation and doom.

Please, Lord, forgive us. Get us out of this situation. We promise to tell the public the first thing that we are not scientists and never followed science. Like any other trade or service group, we should be working for people. Never to get involved in creating disease and its medicines, again. Lord, we promise!

Today someone asked me to review an article published in The Lancet, titled, “Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00485-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0A-7A34yvpYrviTX5zZ1PBHwUxyRKGpGuR5QRUQrSNsqzegeyhPJHU3jE).

The article appears to be considered a scientific study (because it is published in The Lancet) conducted in a hospital environment. So the question asked, “Dr could you tell me if what I’m reading here means remdesivir is worse for patients.”

I prefer not to respond from the scientific perspective and evaluation because such studies are to trick the public into convincing that COVID-19 (and its associated virus) exists. In the summary section (second sentence), it is stated, “We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support.”

Scientifically speaking, there has been no evidence available or provided that “COVID-19” exists. For a COVID-19 to exist, the presence of the virus must be established in humans. However, that has not been done so far. Hence there cannot be COVID-19. Period! Therefore, treating the imaginary illness just does not make sense. It is purely a marketing strategy for promoting diseases and medicines.

Unfortunately, collecting some subjects and treating them with potent chemicals is a terrible practice, certainly not scientific or logical. Instead, they should re-evaluate the patients and their illness and relate it to some measurable endpoint using scientifically valid tests for the illness or the virus (if it exists). Without such an approach, one can obtain any outcome at random with any treatment. Therefore, consider ignoring and discouraging such non-scientific studies for promoting the disease or its treatments.

Source” (1, 2)

The picture shown is of some (protein?) structures, not the virus. There is no evidence to indicate that structures belong to the virus. These are not pictures but computer-generated graphics.

There is no supporting (scientific/experimental) information provided or available to show that an actual or real physical sample of the structures isolated from a purified and fully characterized virus or its variant. It cannot be because the virus has never been isolated, purified, and fully characterized.

Please take away computers, graphic programs, and chemistry lab equipment to stop the flow of such claims from people about chemicals (chemistry) without training, expertise, and understanding of the subject.

It just appeared on the computer screens. It has a hole in the middle. Therefore appropriately named A-holeIRIS (aka Omicron). So far, it has not bothered its viewers but looks scary because of the hole. Considering its better aerodynamic design, it is predicted that it can travel much faster speed hence more contagious. Now what?

Furthermore, rumors (“science”) indicate it has structural similarity to a popular food item (shown on the side). Therefore, experts advise that consumption of all related food items and their ingredients should be stopped immediately. Experts are working on developing a Wackoccine for the A-holeIRIS. However, in the meantime, using any of the current “90%+ effective” vaccines be considered essential. Please, remain fearful!

Bottom line: It is just another picture with a fancy name. So take it as it should be – a picture of an imaginary object. Its existence is as fake as its original version, which has yet to be found anywhere!

Further details (1, 2)

The current opinion on vaccine efficacy is that vaccination is not effective as anticipated in controlling the positive PCR test results (aka infections) or the spread (aka person-to-person transmission). However, the new “flavor” is that it (vaccination) certainly works but requires a booster shot. The “works” mean reducing severe illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. Note that vaccines have never been developed and evaluated against these endpoints during clinical studies. These are just afterthoughts, not science-based reasoning, to promote and justify continued vaccination. 

The claims appear to be based on the recent observations from hospitals’ activity, not from a controlled or valid laboratory or experimental study. However, an experimental (scientific) study to support the claim can easily and quickly be conducted by administering the virus to live healthy animals, if not humans, or using cell cultures to show that animals or cells react as claimed (illness or death). Ever wondered why such a simple study is not done or even considered. The reason is that such a study will require a sample of the virus that does not exist. Do people need any more evidence for the fakeness of the virus story and its illness or pandemic?

The absence of virus specimens could also explain OSHA’s recent suspension of the vaccination mandate (link). 

The court ordered that OSHA must show that the emergency regulation is necessary to protect employees from “grave danger” due to exposure to “substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful.” (link)  That is, the court ordered to prove the existence of the toxic agent (virus) and its hazard – OSHA could not provide the proof. 

Therefore, consider requesting the virus specimen from the scientists and the experts (through court) – pandemic and vaccination will go away like a poof!

For further reading (1, 2, 3)

Yesterday, I responded by email to some questions from a concerned citizen. I think visitors to my blog would find questions and my responses helpful. My answers are in red.

  1. I guess I understand a little of what you are saying about there not being an actual test to show something is a virus. So, in essence, none of the viruses ever, were or could be proven to be viruses? Right? Correct!
  2. Is it just bacteria that has either been made/engineered to wreak havoc or something else? Nothing is made. They think they made something, but that is their imagination or illusion. Scientifically, there is nothing to show.
  3. What is the actual job of a virologist then? To create pretty pictures? So far, yes!
  4. What does the process used in this case actually prove? (Nothing) When they swab the nose for virus, etc? Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article). Nothing. I critically evaluated the referenced article concluding that the virus has not been isolated. I hope you will be able to follow the article. I have written it, avoiding the technical jargon. I will be happy to explain further if needed. (link)
  5. Has the Covid19 ever been inserted into a healthy person (Never) and been proven (kochs methods) to cause covid19? (Never)

People, including medical and pharmaceutical experts, mistakenly believe that the ball with the spikes is real and exists. However, not realize it is a computer-generated imaginary figure like a unicorn, flying cow, fairy, etc. The literature does not provide any scientific or experimental evidence of its existence in the real world. So, mask or no-mask, distance or no-distance, vax or no-vax, PCR or no-PCR, etc., make your choice for yourself wisely and live freely and happily.

Further details (1, 2)

Q: How many people died of COVID?

A: 0 (zero)

Explanation: COVID is a name of an illness or disease claimed to be caused by a virus. However, the virus has never been found, seen, or isolated from any animal or human source. It is an irrefutable scientific fact. Therefore, people cannot die of the virus or COVID.

So, if one has symptoms, what would one be sick of then? Several possibilities, including now commonly described in medical literature, a parasitic infection. Therefore, get appropriately tested, avoiding a PCR test. A PCR test is not a virus test and may result in misdiagnosis and/or treatment.

Further details (1, 2)