Category: Clinical Trials

To determine the cause or causation, one requires an isolated test (virus) sample. As a scientist, one does not have to, or need to, isolate (isolating) it, but one has to have isolated virus samples to work with. Note that using the words isolating or isolation versus “isolated”  – a big difference.

For example, suppose one likes to study sugar for its effects. In that case, one needs isolated, pure, and characterized sugar, independent of its source or process of isolating, whether from sugar cane or sugar beets.

This isolated and pure sample is administered (dosed) in volunteers to see the outcome. Usually, such studies use samples with and without (placebo) test compounds. People often call these clinical trials/studies if such studies are done in humans, otherwise animals, or in vivo.

Medical experts consider such studies to be scientific or science-based. However, in a true sense, these are not scientific studies but surveys, observational, or association studies.

Actual studies are usually conducted at animal, tissue, cellular, and molecular levels to control the variability. More importantly, scientific studies conducted at the molecular level fall under chemical science (science/chemistry), which would require scientifically validated tests for the measurable or quantifiable cause and the response or their validated markers. These are considered mechanistic studies, which can be regarded as causation studies.

While surfing the internet, I came across this piece describing AI-based treatment for cancer by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison (link). For convenience, I reproduce it below:

“Thank you Mr President. One of the most exciting things we’re working on using the tools that Sam and MSA are providing is our cancer vaccine. It’s very interesting early diagnosis.

All of our cancers, cancer tumors (have) little fragments of those tumors float around in your blood so you can do early cancer detection. If you can do early cancer detection with a blood test using AI to look at the blood test, you can find the cancers that are actually seriously threatening the person.

So we can again cancer diagnose using AI. (AI) has the promise of just being a simple blood test. Then beyond that, once we gene sequence that cancer tumor you can then vaccinate the person, design a vaccine for every individual person to vaccinate them against that cancer. And you can make that vaccine, the mRNA vaccine, you can make that robotically again using AI in about 48 hours.

So imagine early cancer detection, the development of a cancer vaccine for your particular cancer aimed at you and have that vaccine available in 48 hours.

This is the promise of AI and the promise of the future.” – Oracle CEO Larry Ellison”

Scientifically, it does not make sense. For example:

(more…)

“A number of Donald Trump supporters and vaccine skeptics have criticized the president after he talked up multibillion-dollar artificial intelligence infrastructure project, which, it was suggested, could help develop vaccines for cancer.” (link).

“Donald Trump Backing mRNA Vaccine Project Gets Backlash.”

And it should be a cause of concern because vaccines, in particular mRNA, are simply false products. For example, stating:

@ “ An mRNA vaccine uses a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) to instruct cells in the body to produce a protein.”

This is an assumption made and promoted by medical science, which is fake and false science to start with. No scientific evidence shows that mRNA vaccine contains the expected mRNA or produces protein (or spike protein). It is an assumption or theory based on drawing sketches on paper or computer screens (link).

AI projects may be worthwhile in medicine to provide diagnosis alternatives to humans (physicians) based, but not for developing new treatments (certainly not vaccines) for ill-defined diseases such as viral infections (link, link) or cancer (link). More (actual) scientific research is needed to properly define and assess such diseases before their treatment is considered or developed (link).

Few dare to announce unwelcome truth – Edwin Percy Whipple.

I know I will not make many friends on this, and perhaps will make many very angry, but it must be explained that,

Medical experts (physicians), in reality, are trained as clerks.

It is almost impossible for most to recognize that modern-day medical experts, particularly physicians, are trained to perform a simple clerical job, like a server. They are educated and trained in writing prescriptions (orders) based on supposedly standard and well-defined treatments/medicines as suggested by their senior doctors or their professional associations.

There is hardly any need or dependence on higher thinking or education, particularly in science. Physcains’ claim of a higher level of intellect and education is based on memorizing science/chemistry terminologies (vocabulary) and techniques without understanding, like a ritualistic practice. There is a lack of any valid education or training in science/chemistry or scientific research in this profession.

Physcians’ claim that they follow science or are scientists is simply false. There is no evidence that they conducted valid scientific studies, but observational or survey-based assessments are often labeled as clinical assessments or trials, commonly with questionable statistical analyses.

It is commonly believed that pharma or government authorities such as the FDA and CDC are to bear the blame for deficiencies in illness identification and/or faulty treatments. However, the public, even experts, do not realize that these are invented, developed, tested, manufactured, and marketed under the supervision and guidance of medical experts, mostly physicians. No drug or treatment can be developed and sold without the explicit approval of physicians (so-called science followers or scientists) working in the organizations.

There is an urgent need to assign or reassign physicians’ roles per their academic credentials and training to avoid further damage to public health and welfare. Further, to bring valid science to study illnesses and their treatments.

Auditing medical professionals as science-based is necessary, starting with inquiring about which science subjects physicians study, when, and from where.

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
Physicians as Scientists: A Hideous Claim (link)

(link)

I would agree with such an observation that Ivermectin and Fenbendazole can be treatments for so-called tubo-cancer. I believe “turbo-cancer” is a misdiagnosed illness (based on doctors’ science – the fake science) when it could very well be a microbial infection. As the two medicines mentioned above are known for their anti-parasitic effect, it is not surprising they provide a remedy for the disease, a commonly noted side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ivermectin and COVID-19 Controversy – Why? (link)
Why Do People Get Sick – A View! (Part 2) (link)
Why do people get sick – a view! (link)

@ “Before widespread vaccines, disease killed nearly half of U.S. children under 5” (link)

The article, by a physician, is full of misinformation and false claims about science. Unfortunately, doctors do not study or are trained in science, so they make incorrect claims. For example;

@ “When a vaccine is developed, it is not immediately available to patients. It goes through many years of rigorous development before it is determined safe for human trials.”

Human or clinical trials are not science. It is a gross misunderstanding.

@ “Anyone can publish their opinion that is not based on science or expertise.”

This is true for physicians who do not study science and make false claims. Sorry! Doctors, please consider correcting your information and knowledge.


Clinical trials – misrepresentation of science (link)
COVID-19 Clinical trials: be watchful (link)
Understanding clinical trials and their outcomes – fake science at its best! (link).
Doctors Lie (link)  
Biology, Virology, Immunology, Medical Science, Etc. Cannot Be Considered Science Subjects (link)
The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful (link).