Category: Chemistry

“Doctors and researchers are stunned after an experimental treatment using an anti-parasitic drug — originally designed to fight infections — showed unexpected success against cancer.” (link)

Why not look at it from another angle? Perhaps the anti-parasitic drug is simply doing what it was meant to do — treating a parasitic illness — and what we call cancer may actually be a misdiagnosed or mislabeled condition. With this kind of reasoning, not only could the so-called cancer be treated effectively, but it might also reveal that cancer has been misclassified from the start, much like “viral infections,” where no actual virus has ever been demonstrated to exist.

The reason such logical explanations are ignored is simple: most so-called medical experts — especially physicians — are not trained in real science, such as chemistry, nor in conducting genuine scientific research. As a result, they make unscientific and false claims or assumptions under the banner of “science.”

(more…)

Further to my earlier post on the interaction between science and medicine, I recently asked ChatGPT to provide a historical overview of the role and contribution of chemistry in medical development, using the discovery of antibiotics as an example.

The results were quite revealing. The history clearly shows that medicines were developed through the work of chemists, while physicians primarily provided clinical observations. This collaboration once defined true medical progress — observation by physicians and discovery, isolation, and synthesis by chemists.

The same model should have been followed in the case of viruses. Physicians observed that people were becoming sick and assumed there must be a tiny infectious particle — which they named a “virus.” At that point, they should have sought the expertise of chemists to identify, isolate, and characterize this supposed causal agent. If such a particle truly existed, chemistry would have revealed its structure and properties.

(more…)

It should be clearly understood that when medical experts refer to science, they mean medical science, not true science.

True science is the study of physical and tangible substances, guided by precise observation, experimentation, and measurement. It includes disciplines such as chemistry, physics, and mathematics — fields that rely on verifiable data, reproducible results, and the logical interpretation of evidence. Those who study these subjects in depth, supported by rigorous academic education and extensive experimental training, are the real scientists.

In contrast, what is called medical science is not science in the true sense. It is a fraudulent imitation of science, borrowing its language and symbols — especially from chemistry — but without its rigor or proof. Physicians’ claims to be “scientists” rest mainly on non-scientific professional, mostly undergraduate degrees such as the M.D., which offer no meaningful training in science and provide little or no genuine scientific credentials.

Over the past five or six decades, most of what has been presented as “medical research” has been false, misleading, or irrelevant — bearing little connection to real illness, its testing, or its treatment. This deception is most evident in the diagnosis of virus-based illnesses, the testing for them, and the development and administration of vaccines.

Despite billions of dollars spent through research grants and donations, there remains no purified sample of any virus, no scientifically validated test, and no vaccine proven effective against an actual, demonstrable virus. What exists instead are claims — supported by publications filled with the terminology of true science (chemistry) but devoid of its substance.

Therefore, physicians’ repeated assertions that they are “following science” must be critically examined. Most of these claims would collapse under the standards of genuine scientific evaluation. It is time to recognize that medical science is not real science — and that true understanding of health and disease can only come through the actual sciences, led by chemistry.

In recent online discussions, several readers raised thoughtful questions about what defines a scientist and what truly qualifies as science. The conversation touched on topics such as bioelectrochemistry, molecular biology, virology, and the role of chemistry in understanding living systems. The discussion revealed a recurring confusion — that biology and medicine are often mistaken for sciences, when in fact they depend entirely on the principles of chemistry and physics.

Defining a Scientist

A scientist is one who studies physics, chemistry, and mathematics in depth — the foundational disciplines that explain nature and its operations. These subjects deal with matter, energy, and the laws that govern their behavior. Only through such rigorous and quantitative understanding can one explore the workings of nature in a truly scientific way.

(more…)