Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Post Views: 4

If medicine is declared safe and effective by medical experts (aka physicians) or regulatory authorities (another title for medical experts/physicians), then such products should be placed in stores along with other safe and effective products (like meat, vegetables, dairy products, processed items, ketchup, candies and cookies, salad dressings, harsh chemicals like sink cleaners, detergent, paints, etc.) for anyone to buy as needed.

Why does a customer have to pay someone to hand over the (safe and effective) medicines from the shelf to them? Why can medicines not be delivered directly from the manufacturers to the consumer, just like so many other safe and effective products such as food (pizza, drinks, etc.)? Like any other safe and effective product, they are all chemical-based products produced by processing industries.

Furthermore, if medicines do not work as claimed or expected, then there should be an option for their return, like other safe and effective products. Why do these products come with a non-return policy and protection (immunity) for suppliers/manufacturers/physicians for the harm they may cause?

Think about it!

The reason is that these products are developed, assessed, and manufactured by medical “science” experts, “scientists,” or under their guidance. However, they do not have the scientific knowledge, training, and experience to develop, assess, and manufacture these products. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. In short, they are handled by those unqualified for the job, requiring protection from expected mishaps (lacking efficacy and safety).

Logically, as medicines are chemicals or chemical-based, they should be developed, evaluated, and manufactured by experts in science/chemistry. They will happily do the job and deliver their products directly to the users/patients with relevant guarantees—a much better option than the current system, which causes massive health and financial issues worldwide.

A revolutionary idea for drug delivery efficiency and an economical alternative!

Post Views: 5

BREAKING PUBLICATION–COVID-19 Vaccines Cause far More Myocarditis than Infection, Overall Risks Greatly Outweigh Theoretical Benefits (link)

@ “… the four-year long false “safe and effective” narrative from the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.”

Haha!

The “Safe and effective” narrative is not from the Bio-Pharmaceuticals Complex (BPC) but from the physicians and their Medical Experts Complex (MEC). BPC provided the “service” (treatment/vaccines) the MEC requested and “approved” (CDC/FDA, physicians). The BPC did not create the virus and its pandemic. It is “created” and promoted by the MEC, with their “science” or following their “science” to which the author is also compliant.

Please be brave and honest, accept that MEC made a colossal error in judgment, and retract all the claims about the virus’s existence and its (fraudulent) “scientific” research. (link).

All the viruses and related vaccines are examples of certified BS’ (link).

Post Views: 0
sick student blowing his nose into a tissue.

From Facebook (link)

You asked an interesting and valid question often asked. However, answering (science-based) requires a lengthy response (maybe a book) because it is a complex topic and a highly messed up case. Let me try as a short comment.

From a scientific perspective, if one likes to deal with sickness, one must first define what a sickness is. Or inversely, what is healthy or what a healthy person is. I posted this question on FB some time ago. I got some responses, not concrete, but illusive or philosophical. So, if the objective is unclear or undefined, one cannot work with it in science. Therefore, at least at present, there is no science in healthcare or medical areas.

People are working with assumptions, narratives or theories, which are more like guesses. The two most popular ones (in allopathic) are Germ and Terrain theories. Germ theory is based on the assumption that gems, like bacteria, fungi, parasites, etc., make people ill. Terrain theory describes that the environment and/or food one consumes causes the illness. However, no (scientific) evidence supports this claim other than a view that “healthy food and a healthy environment produce healthy people.”

I think Germ’s theory is more reasonable and logical because there is evidence that germs cause illnesses and can be treated with medicines. Hearing this, people shout back at me with rage, saying:

(1) So, then, you believe in viruses. Show us where the viruses are. Such a response from “experts” is based on ignorance. I am a strong advocate of the fact that viruses do not exist. Germs’ theory is not relevant to viruses because germs exist but not viruses. Mixing germs and viruses is the biggest fallacy of these so-called science experts (“scientists”).

(2) no evidence exists that germs show one-to-one cause and effect. The problem with this argument is that it is almost impossible to observe such an interaction, at least scientifically. The reason is that germs and the body’s biological system have extreme (natural/physiological) variability and are further exacerbated by the environment. Hence, it is impossible to conduct control and accurate studies as such. Let the scientists (not medical experts) work with it; they can figure this out. However, scientists have been removed from the area, so confusion and falsehood prevails.

In short, people are not sick, and if they are (often normal wear and tear), then in general, they can be addressed by watching their nutrition imbalances and/or fixing microbial abnormalities. Certainly, a recent culprit is the use of long-term medicines (potent chemicals), which, by any standard, can be the cause of sickness.

Enjoy your life with the blessings of the Almighty. We have been blessed with much better food and environment, an envy for the great majority of the world population. Do not get scared; do not eat this or that. These are just to sell their “products.”  I wish I had more time and space to describe underlying science/chemistry aspects and how much nonsense these “experts” are promoting – maybe some other time.

Post Views: 11

I commented on a post (link**) you may find helpful.

Thanks again, Steve Bashir, for your comment. I wish more people had the same approach and thinking as yours – not a follower or cult member, but a listener and open-minded to learn and understand the topic. It will not only help me explain things but will encourage my science/chemistry fellows to come forward to explain how much science has been distorted and messed up in medical and pharmaceutical areas. I will happily help anyone interested in learning about the relevant science aspects. I have significant relevant experience in the field. Continue (here)

Post Views: 7

Article: “Even When It Came to Children, German Government Ignored Own Scientists to Impose Strict COVID Vaccine, Mask Mandates” (link).

I scanned through the article because of the word “scientists” in the title. However, there is no science or scientists in the article, except the views of some who claim to be scientists (I believe self-declared) and their narratives (surveys/observations).

I would like to emphasize that someone with a Ph.D. in a subject does not qualify as a scientist. The person may be considered an expert in that subject. For example, someone with a Ph.D. in biology or medicine may be regarded as an expert in biology or medicine practice (prescription write-ups) – not science. Similarly, adding the word “science” in a subject, e.g., political science, computer science, health science, etc., would not make these subjects science subjects or people having expertise scientists. It is incorrect, and such labeling should be avoided. It causes enormous problems (e.g., false claims of illnesses and their treatments) and gives a very bad name to actual science, its work, and scientists.

In a true sense, science subjects include physics, chemistry, and/or mathematics, working at fundamental/basic levels with extensive and exhaustive hands-on experience in laboratories with physically existing substances.

Fake and false science produced fake and false outputs, such as viruses, tests/testing, pandemics, and vaccines. Actual science has played no role in such narratives/discoveries. In fact, science/chemistry accurately described their nonexistence and irrelevancies.

Please use caution when reading the words science and scientists, particularly in modern medicine and its literature. They are all fake and false—there are no science or scientists.

  • Doctors’ Science Requires Audit and Accountability (link)
  • What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
Post Views: 34

If someone claims to be a doctor and is caught practicing medicine without proper academic credentials and required registration, authorities deal with such a person promptly and harshly. Most likely, the person would face heavy fines and go to jail for extended periods for the fraud.

However, nothing happens when a doctor claims to be a scientist and practices scientific research without relevant academic credentials or experience/expertise. Instead, doctors get large sums of money/funding for their “scientific research” from authorities/agencies, inventing fake illnesses, viruses, etc., and irrelevant treatments (vaccines, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Why is it so? This anomaly (fake and false science) needs to be addressed. An audit and accountability in this respect is urgently required and should be done by actual science/chemistry experts or scientists, as medicines and their interactions are chemicals and chemistry-based, respectively.

  • An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
  • Doctors’ Role In Illness And Treatment Development And Invention Needs To Stop (link)
  • What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
  • Science-Based Medicines (link).
Post Views: 9

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court sharply reduced the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation. (link.)

The court overruled its landmark 1984 decision, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the Agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. In a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.” Continue here