Category: Analaytical Testing

It is quite revealing when a cardiologist publicly describes the presence of the so-called “spike protein” in the body—doing so on the assumption that it must already exist (link). What is often overlooked is that the “spike protein” is, in fact, a chemical compound. As I have repeatedly emphasized, medical professionals generally possess limited, if any, expertise in chemistry—the very foundation of true science. Their belief in the existence of the spike protein is not based on their own analytical verification but rather on trust in what others—such as the FDA, CDC, or the pharmaceutical industry—have told them.

From a scientific standpoint, however, I have yet to encounter any validated analytical evidence confirming that this so-called spike protein actually exists. The situation mirrors the long-standing narrative of “viruses,” which most physicians have accepted as fact for decades without ever demanding scientific proof.

(more…)

There is little doubt that individuals like Dr. Marcus Zervos (M.D.) — and many others within the medical establishment — have failed to act in an honest and honorable manner (‘I’d Be Finished’: Vaccine Researcher Trashes Own Study to Save Career, link). Yet, a more profound and more important question arises: why would they not act honorably?

The answer is simple but disturbing. Any individual within the system who dares to question or expose misconduct would be judged by the very authorities he is accusing — the so-called medical experts operating under the umbrella of “medical science.” In such an environment, even legitimate criticism is dismissed as a “personal opinion,” or the critic is accused of conducting a “poorly designed study.” The system is structured so that the accused also serve as the judges, leaving no possibility of an objective review or scientific accountability.

This is not a theoretical concern. The same situation occurred to the author himself when he questioned the validity of the drug dissolution testing used to assess the quality of pharmaceutical products such as tablets and capsules. This test, long accepted by pharmaceutical authorities, is scientifically false and fraudulent. Despite raising these concerns for years, the issue was repeatedly deflected, with officials insisting that “medical and pharmaceutical authorities” must address it — the very bodies benefiting from its continued use.

Eventually, a formal complaint was submitted through a Citizen Petition to the U.S. FDA. Predictably, FDA experts reviewed the petition. The same experts enforce and defend the very technique in question. After nearly four years, the FDA’s final response was that the test “Method validation and verification encompasses the apparatus used in the method; the apparatus is not separately validated.” Case closed. The circular — and rather dodgy — reasoning was complete: the apparatus wasn’t validated, yet it was deemed validated simply because the authorities stated so (link).

The same fraudulent logic applies to the PCR test, which has been misused as a diagnostic tool for viruses and illnesses without any scientific validation. Despite repeated objections from independent scientists, medical authorities continue to rely on it — fueling false claims of viral diseases, pandemics, and vaccine needs.

At the core of this problem lies the medical and pharmaceutical establishment itself — the main culprit of dishonesty and fraud — which has falsely claimed to be practicing “science.” In truth, it operates under a counterfeit version of science, detached from the foundations of true science: chemistry, physics, and mathematics.

What makes the current exposure of this fraud possible is that certain inquiries — such as those initiated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (RFK, Jr.) and Senator Ron Johnson— come from outside the medical hierarchy, from individuals not bound by medical credentials or interests. Only such independent third-party oversight can bring truth to light.

If genuine audits or evaluations of “medical science” are ever to occur, they must be conducted by experts in real science — chemists, physicists, and mathematicians — not by physicians judging themselves. Once such an independent review is undertaken, the fraud of “virus,” “vaccine,” and “medical science” will collapse swiftly, revealing the profession for what it has become: a trade built on unscientific assumptions rather than measurable truth. It is time, therefore, to handle this issue from its proper perspective — through the lens of true science (chemistry), not medical authority.

There is no scientific basis or justification for vaccination (link). I support Senator Rand Paul’s position on this matter and offer a scientific argument for it. Unfortunately, physicians are not in a position to counter this discussion, because the question is not medical (mistakenly assumed) but scientific in nature. Moreover, the defense of vaccination has become a matter of pride and ego within the medical community, rather than an objective evaluation of facts.

Institutions such as the CDC and FDA are now trapped in their own contradictions. Their predicament arises from years of misrepresenting medical practices as “science-based.” The central falsehood is the claim that the development and validation of vaccines are grounded in genuine science, and that physicians are scientists conducting scientific work. In reality, physicians receive little or no education, training, or experience in the true sciences—namely, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Medicines, including vaccines, are chemical entities; therefore, their study and evaluation properly belong to chemistry, not medicine. What medicine presents in the name of science is, in fact, an imitation — a form of fake chemistry and fabricated experimentation.

(more…)

It is essential to note that the term “study,” as used here (quote) and throughout much of the medical literature, most often refers to an observational survey rather than a valid scientific study. The same applies to the term “research” in medicine—what is called “medical research” is frequently nothing more than a survey, sometimes with statistical analysis added, but still not scientific research in the true sense.

Actual scientific research requires several non-negotiable elements:

  • Defined and measurable inputs.
  • A controlled test object (humans, animals, or samples), placed in a controlled environment, independent of confounding factors.
  • Clearly defined outputs that can be measured using validated surrogate markers that can serve as substitutes for direct measurement.
  • Reproducibility, so that independent investigators can obtain the same results under the same conditions.

These are not special requirements unique to medicine—they are the basic principles of all scientific investigation.

Because medical education does not teach or train physicians in these principles, they often describe their practices as “science” even when they do not meet these standards. As a result, much of what passes for medical literature is, in fact, false science—opinion and observation presented as evidence.

It is also critical to note that the concept of “cancer” often falls into this same category of survey-based and observational science. Much like “viruses,” cancer diagnosis is mostly image-based, not grounded in rigorous, quantitative, analytical science. Diagnosis and treatment decisions are therefore largely subjective, not based on validated, reproducible measurements. Extreme caution should be exercised, as the potential for misdiagnosis and overtreatment is very high.

Therefore, most—if not all—of the medical literature must be regarded as scientifically suspect. If judged by the same standards applied in other fields, much of it would likely need to be retracted or withdrawn.

An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)
Cancer or Misdiagnosis? An Uncomfortable Truth (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

Propaganda and marketing have been so pervasive that the public and public leadership have come to genuinely believe that physicians possess complete knowledge of medicines— chemicals and their interactions (chemical reactions), and also related health care in general. They are presented as all-knowing authorities who carry the full understanding of illness and treatment processes in their back pocket, armed with “modern science” and the limits of human intelligence and capability.

This image of expertise is carefully constructed in different areas, such as:

(more…)

After accurately predicting the non-existence of the virus, the fraudulent PCR test, and the fake vaccine, it is time for the next prediction: a safe and effective vaccine — universal or otherwise — is impossible to develop.

Without a clearly defined and measurable illness, along with validated methods for diagnosing and treating it (such as with a vaccine), there is no possibility of creating any genuine vaccine. The tests lack a proper reference, and without it, the entire framework collapses.

Medical and pharmaceutical “science” (pure nonsense) along with its associated scientists, will be remembered not for true science or progress, but for one of the greatest scientific frauds in history — a lie we have endured at a massive cost to both health and wealth.

This is not guesswork or opinion, but a conclusion drawn from the principles and practice of actual science — chemistry.

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

I read Dr. Robert Malone’s recent article with great interest (link). His recognition of the deep flaws in the U.S. regulatory medical system—including research funding, approval processes, and oversight—is both timely and important. However, his critique largely reflects the common physician’s viewpoint, blaming bureaucracy and government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and NIH for the dysfunction. This perspective, while partly valid, misses the core of the issue.

The problem isn’t just bureaucratic mismanagement. The root of the dysfunction is the fraudulent framework of so-called “medical science” itself—a system run by professionals who claim scientific authority without actually practicing science. Dr. Malone is beginning to see aspects of this breakdown, but he stops short of identifying its real cause: the widespread lack of scientific literacy among medical professionals, particularly in areas where rigorous scientific analysis and measurement are required, such as pharmaceutical quality assessment.

(more…)

Terms like “science,” “scientific research,” “science experts,” and “scientists” are frequently used in the medical field — especially when discussing viruses, diagnostic testing, vaccines, or drug approvals. But in this context, such claims are often false and deeply misleading. Modern medicine, particularly in these areas, has little to no connection with actual science.

Physicians who invoke scientific language typically do so to secure government funding or promote their services — not because they possess genuine expertise in scientific disciplines like method validation, analytical chemistry, or test design. In reality, most have no formal training in these critical fields.

This is not a matter of opinion; it is a demonstrable fact. As such, any report or publication that uses the veneer of science to support medical claims — even those appearing in so-called scientific journals — should be approached with deep skepticism and rejected as lacking true scientific credibility.

Practically all medically dominated panels—especially those claiming to represent “science”—need to be dismantled, without exception. There is no such thing as “medical science” in the true, rigorous sense. Medical professionals (physicians) neither study nor practice actual science; they lack formal training or credentials in it.

What they do practice is based on flawed or false interpretations of science. As a result, we are left with a healthcare system that is not only enormously expensive but often ineffective—and in many cases, outright fraudulent.

This is not merely an opinion. It is a fact, grounded in my education and training in science, as well as my work experience (30 years) at Health Canada.

As I’ve explained previously, one of the central issues is medical testing, which underpins diagnosis. Most of these tests are developed either by medical professionals or under their guidance. The fatal flaw is that these tests are rarely, if ever, scientifically validated for their intended purposes—this includes tests related to viruses, cancer, and associated treatments.

In an earlier article, I stated that if actual scientists, trained in disciplines like analytical chemistry, where testing of chemical compounds is a rigorous and exact science, evaluated such tests—the entire structure of modern medicine would collapse. I wrote:

“This is equivalent to a scientific checkmate against the claim of virus existence. There is no escape from it. The entire scenario of viruses, vaccination, virology, medical science, and pandemics collapses, as all depend on testing and testing methods that are not valid or validated. Game over!”

Indeed, the game would be over—immediately. There would be no need or demand for further so-called “research.” The cycle of fear, driven by false testing and imaginary diseases, would come to an end.

And arguably, many of the illnesses attributed to viruses or even cancer begin to disappear—simply because the unvalidated testing that “discovered” them would no longer be in use.


Separating Science From Filth (link)
 Explaining My Disagreement With Non-Virus Camp Medical Experts (link).
Is Cancer An Illness Or An Imaginary (Misdiagnosed) Thing Like Viral Infections? (link)
PCR testing and the viruses (link)

Below is my response to Malcolm Glass’s comment on Facebook (link). His comment is provided at the end of my response.

Thank you very much for taking the time to evaluate my view critically and for explaining your understanding of the subject.

In short, your narrative does not accurately describe my position. Your description is similar to those who consider there is no or limited need to know or understand science to resolve the virus or virology issue. A straightforward discussion (based on so-called logic) could easily and effectively resolve the issue. No true! If that had been the case, the problem would have been resolved a long time ago.

Unfortunately, both groups (virus and non-virus) have been arguing about science (without understanding it) and have failed to resolve the issue. My view is that if one wants to discuss science, then say so. Do not hide it under the rug of logic or high school stuff.

(more…)