Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

In principle, efficacy is intended to represent the proportion of patients who are cured. Traditionally, this has been inferred from clinical improvement—the resolution of visible or reported symptoms. More rigorously, however, a true cure should be demonstrated objectively through testing, using measurable markers whose changes reliably reflect disease progression or recovery.

For example, in the case of a viral infection, effective treatment would be expected to reduce viral load or specific viral markers, such as viral RNA or proteins. This framework assumes that such markers are elevated in sick individuals compared to healthy ones, and that their reduction corresponds to recovery. This is the model upon which claims of efficacy are meant to rest.

However, this framework does not operate in virology as practiced today. There is no scientific evidence demonstrating the existence of viruses as claimed, and therefore, no validated evidence for their supposed markers. As a result, the fundamental requirements for objective measurement are neither met nor applied.

(more…)

There is an ongoing debate about the role of inert placebos in vaccine clinical trials. What is rarely acknowledged is that many vaccine trials do not, and cannot, use a true inert placebo.

Arguably, the very concept of a placebo originates from classical drug development, where the intervention (drug) typically involves a simple, well-defined active ingredient. Consider, for example, a study evaluating the efficacy of propranolol, a beta-blocker used to lower blood pressure. One group of patients receives a solution containing propranolol dissolved in water, while the control group receives water alone. Neither the patients nor the drug administrators know which treatment has been given (a double-blinded design). Outcomes—such as changes in blood pressure—are measured objectively, and the results are analyzed only after the treatment codes are revealed.

(more…)

I recently read a blog article by Paul Offit and watched a related interview in which he expresses strong concern about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his actions regarding childhood vaccination. In both the article (link) and the interview (link), Kennedy is repeatedly framed as a non-medical outsider, while medical professionals are presented as unquestionable authorities on science.

However, a careful reading reveals several weaknesses and inconsistencies in Dr. Offit’s claims—particularly in how vaccine efficacy is presented and interpreted.

One example stands out. Dr. Offit cites three studies reporting vaccine efficacy ranges of approximately 52–61%, 63–78%, and 67%, respectively. He characterizes these figures as representing high-quality and strong evidence of effectiveness. From a scientific standpoint, this interpretation is problematic.

(more…)

I am pleased to share some important news with you. I am introducing my upcoming book (soon to be available from bookstores and distributors worldwide) on a subject I have been deeply passionate about for many years: the meaning of true science and its misuse within the medical and biological fields. This book is written for both the general public and medical and biological specialists. It uses clear, direct language and avoids the complex and intimidating jargon that often dominates medicine and biology, making the discussion accessible without sacrificing rigor.

I kindly ask for your support by purchasing the book, reading it critically, and sharing it with friends, family, and colleagues. More importantly, I encourage you to help bring this message to policymakers and decision-makers. The continued reliance on false or unscientific claims in public health has caused serious and lasting harm. Honest discussion and scientific clarity are essential if we are to move toward better health, better policy, and a more informed society.

I look forward to your support and meaningful conversations that can lead to a healthier, happier future for all.

(more…)

Discussions about the non-existence of viruses, the validity of viral testing, and the scientific basis of vaccines often trigger hostile and dismissive reactions. The response is predictable: You are not trained in medicine or microbiology, so you do not know what you are talking about. Go back to your test tubes—real science happens in clinical medicine.

This attitude is not merely arrogant—it is telling. It reveals a fundamental contempt for science itself and a profound ignorance of how genuine scientific knowledge is established. Cloaked in credentials and institutional authority, it replaces evidence with entitlement and rigor with deference. Worse still, it renders its proponents blind to their own incompetence, allowing demonstrably false claims to persist unchallenged under the illusion of legitimacy. The damage is not incidental: it is systemic, harming the public and corrupting science at its core.

When challenged, defenders of medical and biological claims often retreat behind “peer-reviewed publications,” presenting them as unassailable proof. The implication is clear: if something is peer-reviewed, it must be true; questioning it is evidence of ignorance. This tactic works remarkably well, particularly when combined with intimidating language, complex terminology, and excessively long, technical titles designed to discourage scrutiny.

A striking example is a recent paper titled:

(more…)

The persistence of the virus narrative is not accidental. It is the result of a framework constructed and maintained by medical and biological professionals under the label of “medical science.” The public—and even many experts—accept these claims because they assume that true science, credibility, and authority support them.

This assumption is the central problem.

The “science” invoked by medicine and biology is not science in the fundamental sense. It is a conceptual and observational narrative developed within disciplines that do not require formal education or training in the foundational sciences—particularly chemistry, which governs molecular identity, structure, and reaction mechanisms. Without this foundation, conclusions about causation, specificity, and efficacy cannot be scientifically established.

(more…)

Terms such as science, scientists, studies, data, research, and scientific evidence are now routinely deployed in public discourse to promote medical, pharmaceutical, and healthcare claims. These words carry automatic authority. They command trust. They persuade compliance.

That authority is being misused.

In contemporary medicine, these terms are repeatedly invoked by physicians to legitimize claims that do not arise from science in its proper sense. What is presented as “scientific evidence” is most often clinical observation—records of patient encounters, outcomes, and correlations. Renaming such observations “clinical data” does not convert them into science. They remain descriptive surveys, not experimental investigations.

These words were not created for this purpose. They belong to real science.

(more…)

Articles such as the one published by MedPage Today rely heavily on the repeated assertion that “medical experts” and “scientists” have settled the questions surrounding viruses and vaccines. That assertion itself deserves scrutiny—because it is foundationally flawed (link).

If I were sitting next to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., I would urge him to request Congress to examine a far more fundamental issue than any individual policy dispute: the systematic misrepresentation of medical credentials as scientific credentials.

Medical practice is not a science in the strict sense.

(more…)

In a recent podcast, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made the following observation:

“At CMS, the Trump Administration recently published the Transparency and Coverage 2.0 proposed rule. It requires health insurers to show patients the actual cost of care upfront, so you can see the cost before you receive it.”

It is worth watching (2:41 minutes, link). I consider this a genuine turning point. Price transparency in medical care is a good start.

The move toward price transparency in healthcare—allowing patients to know costs upfront and compare options—is genuinely good news. It is long overdue and clearly points in the right direction. I have been thinking about this issue for years, particularly with respect to drug pricing, but often hesitated to raise it because it exposes uncomfortable truths and invites predictable resistance.

Still, the logic cannot be ignored.

(more…)

The image of physicians in lab coats jumping from a ship loaded with medicines to one loaded with food captures a deeply troubling reality. Instead of confronting the long-standing deficiencies within medicine and pharmaceuticals—particularly the absence of rigorous scientific training in chemistry and physics—these same professionals are now repositioning themselves as authorities in yet another domain.

Rather than addressing the failure of medical and pharmaceutical practice to meet foundational scientific standards, so-called “science experts” are simply shifting domains. Medicine is not being corrected; it is being abandoned. The authority attached to the label of “science” is now being transferred from pharmaceuticals to food and nutrition, without any corresponding transfer of scientific competence. That is not reform; it is rebranding.

(more…)