Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Disaster If WHO Gets Total Medical Control – Dr. Meryl Nass (link).

So, what is the request/suggestion here?

To keep “control” with physicians and their national institutions, like the CDC, FDA, National Medical Associations, etc. Is it not this control by the physicians and their organizations that caused the fake pandemic, as well as the development of fraudulent medications, including vaccines?

I believe the public and experts are missing the point. It is not a ” control ” issue but considering and promoting physicians as “scientists.” This is the problem that caused the fake pandemic.

Physicians do not learn or are trained to be scientists. They are not taught to identify new illnesses, their causes, and their treatment. However, this is what they did and are doing that caused the harm – the pandemic and associated public policy disasters.

In the interview, Dr. Nass acknowledges the COVID-19 illness, which, in reality, does not exist scientifically. There is no illness of this name/nature because it is assumed to be caused by a virus called SARS-COV-2, which is now generally recognized not to exist. It is an illusion from an actual scientific perspective.

Therefore, to avoid potential future (fake) pandemics, physicians’ role must be limited to only what they study and are trained for, i.e., to prescribe medications for recognized illnesses with recommended treatments. Their classification as “scientists” needs to be reconsidered or discontinued (link).

This article is a response to an intense discussion on FB (Link, link, link, link). Considering its length, which may not be suitable for FB, I am posting it as a blog article. My blog visitors, who may not follow FB, would also benefit from the post here.

Wow! Very interesting comments here on this thread and others.

To me, the most interesting ones are the comments concerning my (unacceptable) behavior and (poor) writing and communication skills. It is laughable; many clearly understand what I write about the science and the virus/virology. So, what is the issue? Do you expect that I should have writing skills like competing against a Harry Potter Novel writer or some linguistic expert? Sorry, I write simply using direct words, often science and scientific demands, not in sweet or double-meaning wordings or narratives. Continue here

Two days ago, I posted a link to a Substack article on FB (link), which missed or ignored an important contribution (mine). I do not understand why people felt hurt or angry with the post and comments. See for yourself. Mike Stone (ViroLIEgy fame) even started a separate Thread citing some comments (link).

I wondered what happened and what might have caused such trashy behavior and outbursts by some in the “group.”

It appears that it could be the outcome of a post by Linda (on TG), a simple and short comment supporting my views, which the group could not handle, even though she emphasizes that my views do not contradict those mentioned by non-virus camp.

So, why is so much anger against me and my views? It’s hard to know, except they are sensitive to their false claim, narrative, or science. Is it?

You be the judge. I would appreciate your thoughts on it, if possible, as to why so much anger and bad-mouthing against me.

Thanks to Linda and so many others who read my articles and provided appreciation and support. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart. God bless you all!

When people, including “experts,” describe science, they usually mean “medical science,” which is a nonexistent or imaginary thing like viruses, but imply they are referring to actual science (chemistry, physics, and mathematics, mainly chemistry). Generally, they cannot talk directly about the actual science because they have not studied or practiced it significantly. In most cases, they lack understanding, even at the basic level.

So, when reading articles and comments about science from such “expert” or their “research,” make sure to know which science is referred to, the fake one (like medicine, virology, etc) or the actual one.

There is hardly any critique from knowledgeable people about the well-established and well-understood principles and practices of the actual science.

Viruses, variants, PCR testing, sequencing, RNA, mRNA, spike protein, vaccines, gain of function research, etc., are all fake science inventions. They can ONLY be resolved, and quickly, by applying the well-understood and well-established principles and techniques of actual science.

Fake science and its promoters are confusing and hindering resolving the issues – be cautious and seek help from actual science experts or scientists (link).

If someone has not studied and practiced chemistry, physics and/or mathematics in exhaustive detail and does not have hands-on experience but claims to be a science expert or scientist, in that case, they are fake and must be ignored. (link)

Viruses and their existence and isolation, RNA, spike protein, sequencing, PCR testing, and developing vaccines resulted from fake science/scientists. The science (chemistry) does not support any of these claims. There should not be any debate or argumentation about it.

Furthermore, whenever you see the word “study” or “research,” including those published in peer-reviewed “scientific” journals concerning the virus and its RNA, spike protein, mRNA and/or vaccine, consider that you are presented with false and fraudulent information.

Nobody can do such studies or research as none of the above items are available. No study has ever been done or can be done until they are available in physical form and pure from somewhere. It is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

You are not a fool, but fake scientists have fooled and tricked you with scientific-sounding jargon.

Medical experts, particularly physicians, are often presented as science experts or scientists, which is categorically a false and invalid claim. It is not just my claim or observation; anyone can form this opinion by studying the curriculum of any medical/medicine (M.D.) degree program. (link, link)

You will quickly observe an absence of science teaching and training. The medical degree emphasizes memorizing some physiological and chemical terms to associate with the patient’s symptoms to prescribe well-established allopathic medicines (mostly pure chemicals and non-physiological). There is no actual science or its research anywhere.

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that medical experts can not follow the concepts and practices of isolation, purification, and characterization of viruses, RNA, spike protein, and vaccines. These are chemistry-based substances or molecules. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that they do not even try to understand the shortcomings (link) but demean the others, the genuine and actual scientists. The real tragedy!

Unfortunately, the public suffers from fake and false science propaganda, and so do the countries. The tragic mindset needs to be addressed – and quickly.

Information on my training, expertise, and experience is provided here.

Last night, as an unpaid subscriber, I received an email from Dr. Meryl Nass Substack titled “The “No Viruses exist” cult has been out in force lately.”  (link)

After reading it, I am confused about whether to cry with the absurd logic presented or laugh at the arguments (hilarious science). I could not decide, so in my frustration, I am leaving it to you to decide – my thoughts or questions are highlighted in bold.

@ “I told Christine Massey over and over that her FOIAs were answered by all countries in the same manner because a) the countries lie about everything related to COVID, …” So, why is it difficult to accept that they lied about the virus existence as well?

@ “These people want everything to be isolated the way they decide it should be isolated.” No, the question is where this (the virus) has been isolated as claimed. The result of an isolation step is an isolated item, in this case, the virus – where is it?

@ “Some things require indirect measurements.” True, but those things have to exist first. Where is that thing (the virus)? Please provide (scientific) evidence of its existence. Moreover, the measuring instrument must be calibrated/validated independently to show that it can measure lengths or distances. Where is the (“indirect”) test/method independently calibrated/validated to measure the viruses? There is none, and it is a fact.

@ “But here is the kicker. Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold? Have they never had flu? No cold sores? No genital herpes? No warts? All these are due to viruses.” That is the question. How have these observations been linked to the viruses? Where are these viruses? Who has them (samples or specimens of the isolated viruses)?

Please bring these questions/thoughts to Dr. Meryl Nass’s attention. (Substack link)

Here is the time to wish you all the very best for the New Year. It is time to remember the past and look forward to hope in the New World that awaits us (not the New World Order, which is disgusting, as understood).

I wish you all to be happy and healthy and achieve genuine success.

The success is the one I worry about the most, i.e., it must be genuine. It means it must bring health and happiness to you and others. The past four years of the virus/COVID-19 Pandemic have seen a tragic example of false (non-genuine) success for some, particularly in medical and pharmaceutical areas.

They all claimed to be science experts or so-called scientists; however, they ruined the lives and livelihoods of a large world population. It is the biggest lie they told to achieve “success.”

The science in this regard is chemistry, which they never studied in significant detail. They created version after version of their “science” to promote that false science, the fraud – in the name of success.

Therefore, my hope and prayer for the New Year is that they should get out of the “science business” and return to practice what they are being taught and learned, i.e., prescribing and delivering well-established allopathic medicines. No more inventing new illnesses and their treatments and Germ and Terrain theories, please. They are all mental gymnastics without scientific support or relevance to public health.

Unfortunately, this mental gymnastic has created a new breed of even worse “scientists” who just read some articles, imagine stuff, and promote “science research.” You need to help yourself as no one is there to help you. May Almighty protect you from the false “success” chasers!

If you ask me for a suggestion to get out of the unfortunate situation, I would suggest that as allopathic medicines are chemicals or chemical-based, they must be manufactured and sold on the open market (not behind the counters) by appropriately trained chemists with a guarantee of the quality of their products with a certificate readable and understandable by consumers/patients.

With this note, I wish you all the best for the coming New Year. Enjoy your life while keeping a distance from fear and the fearmongers, especially virus promoters.

I explained this in an earlier article. However, it requires some further clarification. So, the following is based on another analogy.

Assume that people in a city noticed that many have eye infections, reflected by redness and watering of eyes (symptoms). People tried all possible treatments, including the medical one, but to no avail.

So, it is considered a new illness caused by something (“thing/agent”) in the environment, such as air or water (from a pond, lake, or river). This becomes the first observation that something in water/air is causing it. Let us find out. It means extracting/isolating the thing from the air, water, or both. Now, we are starting an isolation step.

Let’s say water (pond, lake, or river) causes more intense illness, so the water may contain a higher quantity of the thing. Therefore, water is chosen for further evaluation or isolation. Water looks quite clear, meaning whatever the thing is in there is mostly of very small size (particles or microbe, we do not know). Most likely, filtration would not help, meaning it would not isolate the thing.

In that case, people usually use adsorption technology. Assuming these are particles, let’s try some adsorbent, such as silica (a refined or specific version of sand). Put some quantity of silica in (very large) quantity of water and leave it there so that the thing may get adsorbed onto silica. Let us assume we are lucky, and that thing got absorbed onto silica. Put an extremely small amount in the eyes (humans, often). Oops, the eyes got flared up right away. So, it means we got the stuff out of water on silica. However, we do not know what it is.

Next, there are ways to get the stuff out of silica. Let us try using a small amount of alcohol. For example, shake the silica with alcohol. Filter again, remove the silica, and evaporate the alcohol part to dryness. Most likely, we will get a small amount of white powder. Reconstitute it with water and test again with eyes (extremely small amount). Wow, eyes reacted again very strongly. Let us assume we are so lucky that the powder after ethanol contains only that compound (extremely rare chance). However, let us assume it is one single component, just particles.

We have isolated the agent of interest.

Send it to the chemical lab to see if it is a chemical in nature. Let us assume it is chemical in nature. Now, the chemistry lab will analyze the chemical composition based on (for example) carbon, hydrogen,  oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and then their arrangement (joining) to establish the molecule’s structure.

If it is a commercially available compound, the chemist will get/buy it, dissolve it in water, and test it on the eyes. If it reproduces the effect, it will confirm that it is the caustic agent or agent of interest. Otherwise, it has to be synthesized (chemically or biologically) and tested with the eyes. If it reproduces the eye effect. Then, it became a new and novel toxin –  label it a “virus”).

We have isolated the new and novel toxin – virus. Label, store, and use it as a reference (gold) standard for future testing or studying.

Do you see any culturing step anywhere? No, culturing is not required for isolation. It’s a gross misunderstanding of the subject of isolation.

However, if it is microbial instead of chemical particles, the sample will be sent to the biological lab to see if they can identify it or if it is new. It will become a microbial standard.

Note it is an extreme example. In practice, a vast number of steps are usually involved (often takes years to complete), but conceptually, this is exactly how the isolation is done or should be done. Also, the chemist/biologist will have a physical sample of the thing at the end, the must requirement of the isolation step. 

I read a recent article by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, “Did Cochrane’s study on masks get it wrong?” which analyzes two views about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face masks in protecting from viruses and their infection (link).

There is no doubt that both views are presented by parties with high credentials emphasizing their expertise and experience in a write-up. Below are the two views in a nutshell:

  • Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (Cochrane Review, link)

is ” … 2023 Cochrane review which concluded that wearing a face mask “probably makes little or no difference” in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

  • What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis? (link)

Criticizes the above by stating, “The Cochrane Library, a trusted source of health information, misled the public by prioritizing rigor over reality” by Naomi Oreskes (Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University)

Reading the articles and having a background in science, especially in research, while working at Health Canada as a research scientist for 30 years, I am quite concerned about the poor quality of scientific research and reasoning provided in the publication (Cochrane Review) and follow-up discussions. Continue here

Years ago, I suggested a simple convolution approach using MS Excel Spreadsheet to predict blood/plasma drug levels from drug dissolution results. Several successful applications of such an approach have been published. A simple yet revolutionary approach! The model spreadsheet may be obtained from here.

Details of the approach are described in the publication (Saeed Qureshi (author), In Vitro-In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) and Determining Drug Concentrations in Blood from Dissolution Testing – A Simple and Practical Approach, The Open Drug Delivery Journal, 2010, 4: 38-47 (link).

Obtain a copy of Helpful Notes (link) for pharmaceutical drug dissolution testing with several examples of using this (convolution) technique, along with articles describing the testing, its issues, and suggested solutions.