Category: Cancer

A few short line posts may not seem significant at first glance. However, if one pauses and evaluates them carefully, they may suggest a potentially game-changing scientific question (link).

There have been reports of making ivermectin available for cancer treatment, including in certain jurisdictions such as Florida. This is noteworthy because ivermectin is not a cancer drug. It is a well-known antiparasitic medication, developed and historically used to treat parasitic infections in both humans and animals. That is its established and documented purpose.

More recently, however, some have promoted ivermectin as having potential anti-cancer effects. At the same time, mainstream medical experts and regulatory agencies have not accepted this claim as established therapy and do not endorse its routine use for cancer treatment.

This situation invites a broader scientific question.

(more…)

In general, my focus is on highlighting the fact that topics related to viruses and their components — such as RNA, mRNA, and spike proteins — including their isolation, characterization, purification, and testing, fall under the field of chemistry, which is one of the three pillars of true science, the other two being physics and mathematics.

However, in the medical field, these subjects are often described and interpreted by medical professionals who are not trained in science (chemistry) and its research. As a result, their explanations and claims in these areas are scientifically invalid. Although some doctors do challenge mainstream medical views, they, too, are unable to properly address the issues because they lack a grounding in actual science. This is why the problems in medicine persist — including misunderstandings about viruses and medicines in general.

To address these problems effectively, expertise in science, particularly chemistry, is essential. For example, the entire concept of the virus, vaccination, and pandemic response is based on PCR testing, which, by true scientific standards, is a fraudulent test. A proper scientific audit of this testing would immediately disqualify it, exposing the fields of virology and vaccination as fundamentally dishonest.

Unfortunately, the evaluation of such testing and viral claims has been left to physicians, who, due to their lack of scientific training, have developed and defended this so-called “medical science”—a made-up discipline that continues to promote false concepts about viruses, vaccines, and medicines in general.

In short, the claim of “medical science” made by medical professionals must be challenged as false and fraudulent, and the matter should be re-examined through the lens of true science — that is, chemistry, recognizing that medicines are, by their very nature, chemical substances. (from FB, link )

“If you claim that cancers are caused by a parasite, the burden of proof is on you to identify that parasite.” (From FB, link)

Fair enough. But I am not claiming that a parasite causes cancer. What I am suggesting is far more fundamental — that cancer itself may not exist as a distinct disease. What we call “cancer” might simply be a mislabelled condition — perhaps involving parasites or other microbial agents — that has never been properly examined from a true scientific standpoint.

It is time to think afresh. For decades, “cancer research” has produced endless classifications, new names, and countless studies, yet no real cure. Is it not legitimate to question what these researchers have actually achieved, beyond showing frightening images and promoting highly expensive treatments and services?

The deeper problem may lie in who is conducting the research. Medical professionals, rather than actual scientists, dominate the field. Most cancer researchers are trained in medicine or biology, not in the actual sciences — chemistry, physics, or mathematics — that form the foundation of real scientific inquiry. As a result, much of their work lacks the precision and discipline that true science demands.

The situation resembles what we see in virology (now commonly recognized as a false and fraudulent activity or research): vast amounts of funding, publications, and laboratory activity, yet no verifiable isolation or purification of the claimed entities — whether viruses or cancer “cells.” It is a bizarre state of affairs.

The real path forward lies not in more grants or drug trials, but in the courage to ask whether “cancer” has ever been defined scientifically at all — rather than through images and obscure chemical jargon.

“We hope this additional treatment will stop the cancer from returning.”

They are working with hope, not with science. That is the essence of today’s so-called “medical science” — it runs on hope, not on evidence grounded in chemistry or physics.

Doctors speak of “mRNA technology,” but there is no such technology in the scientific sense. It is merely a chemical formulation—a mixture said to contain a compound called mRNA. In truth, there is no verified test to confirm the presence or purity of this mRNA, because no isolated or purified reference material exists.

So, what remains? Hope — the same hope that surrounded the COVID-19 “mRNA vaccines.” Everyone now knows how that turned out: a human tragedy of global proportions, buried under layers of denial and cover-ups.

Just as with “viruses” — unseen, undefined, and unverified entities — the medical world now constructs “cancer” as another illusion, a diagnosis based on images and tissue fragments rather than isolated, characterized substances. Despite decades of funding and experimentation, they have not found, controlled, or scientifically explained either.

Yet, the public continues to trust “medical science,” unaware that its foundation rests on untested methods like the clinical trial — celebrated as the gold standard, but never scientifically validated for its intended purpose. It is not a scientific tool; it is a commercial and regulatory instrument designed to maintain control and to continue medical foolishness and fraud.

And so, the cycle continues:

Hope, not science — marketing, not measurement — faith, not proof.

When asked, “What recent scientific discovery has fascinated you?“ my thoughts turn to the curious case of ivermectin and cancer — two seemingly unrelated entities now being linked in medical discussions (link).

As the article noted, “Ivermectin, widely known for treating parasitic infections…“ — and indeed, that is an established fact. Ivermectin was developed and prescribed as an antiparasitic drug. So how, suddenly, has it become associated with treating “cancer”? Could it be that what is being diagnosed as cancer might, in fact, be a misidentified parasitic or microbial illness?

Modern medicine has a long history of misdiagnosis — and even of creating diseases and treatments out of nothing. Virus-based illnesses provide a glaring example. There is no valid scientific evidence that viruses, as defined by medicine, actually exist; therefore, the so-called “viral diseases” cannot exist either. Yet, drugs and vaccines have been developed to treat these imaginary or mischaracterized conditions, from AIDS to COVID-19.

(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)

“A re-analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna trials, published in Vaccine by eminent, independent scientists—including BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi—revealed that from the very beginning, the rate of harm in these trials was alarming. According to their findings, you were two to four times more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the COVID-19 vaccine.” Paraphrased from Dr. Malhotra’s recent presentation (link).

Impressive! After four years of vaccine rollout—and with significant harms now being reported—Dr. Aseem Malhotra, once a loud and loyal supporter of vaccines (including the COVID-19 vaccine), has suddenly reinvented himself as a leading activist against them. Remember, this is the same man who proudly proclaimed: “Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are traditional vaccines, no doubt.” (link)

(more…)

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)

People got very upset and angry with me when I suggested, based on my education and expertise in actual science/chemistry, a while ago that vaccine adverse effects, especially cancer, may be microbial (parasitic) infections. I feel vindicated as people are starting to recognize that there has been serious oversight in the diagnosis of so-called viral infection and vaccine adverse effects, including cancer and possibly heart issues (link).

Cancer and Ivermectin (link)
Ivermectin and COVID-19 Controversy – Why? (link)
Is Cancer An Illness Or An Imaginary (Misdiagnosed) Thing Like Viral Infections? (link)
Start The New Year With Candid Thoughts (link)
Why Do People Get Sick – A View! (Part 2) (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

Would you (doctors/medical experts) consider cancer as a microbial (bacterial, parasitical, etc.) infection and treat it with antibiotic or antiparasitic medication?

There is strong evidence that vaccines may be contaminated with bacteria, and many claim to be treated with antimicrobial/parasitical drugs such as ivermectin, fenbendazole, etc.

There is nothing to lose here but a strong possibility of saving people’s lives. Why hesitancy?

COVID-19 and its vaccines, in particular, mRNA one, is a dead story, and so is possibly cancer, which potentially could be a grave misdiagnosis of microbial infection. Would you mind taking a chance on this scenario? You have nothing to lose here. I doubt that it could be any worse than other alternatives, like chemo, which is undoubtedly an extremely harmful treatment with limited benefit, if any. Please consider taking a chance.

Is Cancer An Illness Or An Imaginary (Misdiagnosed) Thing Like Viral Infections? (link)
mRNA Vaccine Is Not mRNA But Gunk – A Forensic Analysis (link)
Cancer and Ivermectin (link)
COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
Who Is Corrupt: Doctors Or Pharma? Check It Yourself (link)
Vaccines: Useless But Dangerous Soup/Gunk That Must Be Purged (link)
Vaccine Science: Nonsense And BS! (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? link
My training and expertise – people ask! link