Category: Analaytical Testing
I studied science/chemistry from grade 9th to Ph.D. level, specializing in analytical-organic chemistry, which makes learning time almost 12 years. Then, I worked for 35 years in the field.
I worked for five years in the industry (food/agriculture), where I supported (analytical) testing and helped isolate a toxin (vomitoxin, a fungal plant pathogen) using industrial-scale culturing. Following that, I spent thirty years with Health Canada as a research scientist (analytical, organic chemistry), working with testing for pharmaceuticals, both in vitro and in vivo, including clinical trials. Details of expertise and work experience may be found here, here.
The short bio above shows that I have not studied or trained as a medical practitioner (physician) or biological subject expert in virology, immunology, microbiology, etc. However, I interacted extensively with biological and medical experts, where people of my expertise and experience are considered “outsiders,” which is unfortunate and has resulted in medical issues, like the most recent one, COVID-19.
Continue here
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
I watched a recent interview (link) of Prof. Syed Sattar (Retired Professor of Virology from the University of OTTAWA, Canada), who is still active in the area. He is a great friend, and I greatly admire his academic credentials and achievements. I have known him personally and professionally, at least for twenty years.
I find the interview informative, describing the fundamental concepts of virology, notably virus isolation. That is, how the virus isolation concepts are illustrated in virology literature, which Prof. Sattar emphasized as well-established practices and routines in virology laboratories.
However, issues and confusion arise when virologists, including Prof. Sattar, describe isolation as “culturing or its part” as a virus. It is essentially their critical misunderstanding, i.e., considering “culture” and the “virus” as the same thing. In reality and scientifically, they have to be and are two separate entities. I often describe the difference between the two as being chicken (“virus”) and “soup,” which may or may not contain the chicken/virus.
To show the presence or existence of a virus, the virus (if there) must be isolated or separated from the culture. The separation of the virus from culture and its content is called the “isolation” step, which has never been done. This is the confusion or misunderstanding virologists and microbiologists have and are unwilling to take the time to consider or evaluate.
They often defend their position by arguing that viruses (particles) are minute in size and number and cannot be seen or isolated (separated) from cells (culture) to observe. Therefore, viruses and culture have to go together and side by side. Hence, it resulted in considering/calling culturing or culture a “virus.”
It is to be noted that there is no objection to the culturing step, which, in reality, is a fermentation step for growing or multiplying the viruses. However, once the viruses are sufficiently multiplied, they MUST be isolated or separated to evaluate their identity and characteristics, such as structure, RNA/DNA proteins, etc. This step is missing.
So, effectively, virologists work with cultures but make claims about them as “viruses.” It is like working with debris from a forest but selling it as novel and rare wood dust particles.
Seeing the photographs with low or high-resolution microscopes does not establish the presence of something, just like seeing small yellow particles would not confirm the presence of gold in the sample. The particles must be isolated/separated to characterize them.
It is an invalid argument that viruses are small (in size and number), so they cannot be seen without culturing or separating from cells. Smaller items like carbon, hydrogen atoms, and molecules are commonly available in isolated and purified forms with full characterization or certifications.
If the claim is that there are viruses, then these entities, considered particles, must be available in, isolated, purified, and fully characterized. Nothing of this nature is available, including for the coronaviruses. Calling or considering cultures/isolates as viruses is an incorrect understanding that needs to be abandoned.
Links to some articles for further information on the topic:
People do not realize that it is not only COVID-19/Ivermectin, as an example of so-called clinical trials, but most, if not all, will be shown to be invalid. As I have explained several times, the reason is that clinical trials are a specific type of analytical (chemistry) test. Unfortunately, these tests/trials are done and promoted fraudulently as valid and scientific. Proper analytical tests require precise and quantifiable outcomes (endpoints) using VALIDATED analytical tests/methods.
In the case of current practices of clinical trials, there is no such thing – neither an objective and qualifiable endpoint (but mostly subjective symptoms or arbitrary markers) nor validated tests (but non-validated and irrelevant tests such as PCR, drug dissolution). Hence, a valid clinical or scientific trial cannot be conducted, particularly under the guidance of medical experts and related regulatory authorities who lack the necessary training and understanding of the subject/testing.
Do not forget the disastrous failure of the clinical trials and the vaccine development for COVID-19. The catastrophic outcome of the vaccine was accurately predicted based on the understanding of flawed PCR tests and the analytical or scientific aspects of clinical trials (link, link, link, and much more at Bioanalyticx.com).
Further information may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.
People should keep in mind that physicians, including specialists like cardiologists, virologists, immunologists, oncologists, etc., are not trained for chemicals (deceptively called medicines) and their development and testing.
This lack of training and practice/”research” in chemical science (chemistry) caused the fake science practices of virology/immunology. It resulted in development of harmful “medicines,” so-called vaccines, and other related claims.
If it had been seen from the scientific aspects of chemicals/substances, it would have become instantaneously apparent that there is no virus, valid test, and safe and effective vaccines. There is a lesson to be learned here.
If the chemical aspect is considered, the assessment of the diseases (diagnosis) in general would become much easier, and developed treatments would be much simpler and more efficient.
Similarly, practices requiring social distancing, face masks, and lockdowns would become unnecessary, as they would easily be shown as unscientific. Most likely, there will not be pandemics in the future, certainly not viral ones.
I suggest medical professionals and experts seek help from knowledgeable chemists/scientists in developing and assessing medicines (generally non-physiological chemicals).
Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.
Have you ever wondered why most medicines are kept behind the counters, obtainable through prescriptions only, and sold by pharmacists only, while the products are approved by authorities such as the FDA, Health Canada, and others as safe and effective?
The reality is that they have never been shown appropriately safe and effective but are only presumed to be by the authorities. In general, physicians and pharmacists do not know this either. They also assume that the authorities have (scientifically) tested and validated the claims of safety and effectiveness. They do not. No one does! The debacle of COVID-19 and vaccines has provided glaring proof, which I have been trying to tell for at least 20 years. Continue here