Category: Medical Science

mRNA Vaccines – are they real?

Medical experts have yet to provide concrete scientific evidence that mRNA is actually present in the vaccines. There is no verified proof that mRNA has been successfully manufactured, isolated, and incorporated into these formulations. To establish its presence, a validated analytical method/test is essential—one that must be based on a reference standard: an isolated, purified, and fully characterized sample of mRNA. Such a standard does not currently exist (link).

Therefore, all claims about mRNA and its purported role in these vaccines remain unverified and lack a sound scientific foundation.

While experts continue to debate the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, their conclusions are based on assumptions rather than proven facts. Without verified mRNA, the basis for these vaccines remains speculative at best.

This is not a matter of opinion—it is a matter of scientific rigor and evidence.

It is essential to note that biology is not a science, nor is it a science subject. Biology more closely aligns with the arts—similar to fields like psychology, sociology, or economics—drawing heavily on observation, interpretation, and speculative theorizing rather than direct experimentation with physical substances. In this framework, biology constructs narratives based on observed patterns and inferred mechanisms, rather than engaging with empirically verifiable entities.

For example, concepts like viruses and the diseases attributed to them must be viewed as theoretical (imaginary), rather than physically demonstrated realities. On the other hand, science (physics and chemistry, link) is concerned only with tangible substances. As the physical samples of the isolated and purified viruses are not available, claims about viruses and their illnesses cannot be considered science-based or scientific, but biological (non-scientific).

As medical practice and research heavily or solely depend on biology, it should also be considered a non-science discipline. Therefore, all claims by medical experts, particularly physicians, in medical research areas concerning diagnosis and their treatments, including vaccines, should be regarded as false and fraudulent from a scientific perspective.

Anyone who claims to be a science representative or expert, especially physicians, must disclose their credentials (academic background, expertise, hands-on work experience, etc.) to support their claims about science. An M.D. degree does not qualify one as having scientific knowledge or expertise, because it is a typical non-science undergraduate degree. Association with so-called medical or biology institutions and/or being a member of expert committees does not qualify one as a science expert or scientist. It is fraudulent.

Does it not show that doctors have lost their professional credibility, and the public is taking the prescriptions of medication into their own hands? In reality, I would not recommend such a practice, as it could have some unintended harmful consequences. However, under the circumstances, it is the most practical approach; the public has no other choice, as doctors have misled and lied to them.

As I have been describing for a long time, physicians’ claims have been fraudulent, regarding science experts or scientists. Their diagnoses and treatments have no support or relevance to science or scientific research. They have no formal education or knowledge of the science of medicine and its research, which is primarily based on science (chemistry). Hence, the medical fraternity employs ritual-based practices but promotes them as science. They imposed these lies and false claims of science under the government’s authority, which they dominate under the guise of independent science experts and scientists. The public has no venue to express or be heard about their sufferings from illnesses or medical treatments, or (mal) practices.

New CDC Vaccine Panel’s Upcoming Voting  (link)
Drs. Malone And McCullough May Like To Address This Concern (link)
It is worth noting an uncommon and unpopular fact about HHS/FDA/NIH (link)

After Years of Silence, New CDC Vaccine Panel to Vote on Mercury in Flu Shots (link)

Consider the credentials of the new ACIP membership. The eight new members are, according to Kennedy: (link)

  • Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist with a career in clinical research, public health policy, and federal service.
  • Martin Kulldorff, M.D., Ph.D., a biostatistician and epidemiologist formerly at Harvard Medical School and a leading expert in vaccine safety and infectious disease surveillance.
  • Retsef Levi, Ph.D., professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a leading expert in healthcare analytics, risk management, and vaccine safety.
  • Dr. Robert W. Malone, a physician-scientist and biochemist known for his early contributions to mRNA vaccine technology.
  • Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of Pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a nationally recognized expert in pediatric infectious diseases and vaccine policy.
  • Dr. James Pagano, a board-certified emergency medicine physician with over 40 years of clinical experience following his residency at UCLA.
  • Vicky Pebsworth, OP, Ph.D., RN, who holds a doctorate in public health and nursing from the University of Michigan.
  • Dr. Michael A. Ross, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, with a career spanning clinical medicine, research, and public health policy.

It is essential to note that none of the listed credentials indicate that they would reflect science literacy. They are based on self-proclaimed sciences, i.e., without education or expertise in actual science. Such expertise caused the disaster of vaccination in the first place. It is impossible that experts with such expertise would be able to address the issue of vaccinations or other chemical-based treatments.

If the issue needs to be resolved based on science, then actual science (chemistry) experts should be appointed, as medicines, including vaccines, are chemicals or chemical-based.

Science does not require voting or consensus, but rather valid data from well-designed scientific studies conducted by experts in the field (science or chemistry).  

Science And Medical Experts – An Oil And Water Mix! (link)  
For The Attention Of Respectable RFK Jr. (United States Secretary Of HHS) (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…)

People often assume that claiming the non-existence of a virus makes one a science expert, scientist, or an honest and knowledgeable person about science. This is, unfortunately, a prevailing view, especially among physicians and their followers.

However, contrary to such a belief, to claim expertise in science or be recognized as a science expert, one must possess credentials indicating a thorough understanding of the subject based on studying the actual sciences (physics and chemistry) in greater depth.

Please refrain from labeling non-science subjects with the word ‘science,’ such as medical science, pharmaceutical science, life science, health science, and biological science, as these are not science subjects. It is just like having a last name; “king” would not make the person king or related to the king.

Please refrain from making false claims about science or criticizing valid scientific research and subjects based on non-scientific education or credentials. This is particularly important for medical experts who have an education based solely on a non-science degree, such as an M.D. Their claims about science are largely unfounded and misleading, potentially harming the public.

An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)

Drs. Malone And McCullough May Like To Address This Concern (link)
It is worth noting an uncommon and unpopular fact about HHS/FDA/NIH (link)
Unlawful Science Practices By Physicians (link)
Medical Experts (doctors) And Science? (link)
The Best Example Of Controlled Opposition Yet (link)
Vaccine Science: Nonsense And BS! (link)
An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
And many more scientifically authoritative articles on the subject  by a veteran scientist who worked at Health Canada for 30 years in the pharmaceutical area  (link)

The issue is not that these experts have incredible courage or have published extensively (link), noting that medical publications have recently been discredited for their validity and accuracy (link). The problem is that they are promoting themselves and their work as experts in science or scientists. However, neither of them has scientific credentials and makes false claims in this respect. Their academic education and training are based on a medical degree, which is a typical non-science undergraduate degree (link) with no direct connection to science subjects, such as physics and chemistry (link).

Their involvement in viruses, vaccines, spike protein, and mRNA technology is a good example of claiming or working with false science. These things do not exist or have not been shown to exist (scientifically, experimentally, or physically), so how can they make claims about their problems or treatments?

They should seek help from (actual) science/chemistry experts in dealing with these substances, be it viruses, proteins, mRNA, or medicine, in general, including vaccines, which are chemicals or chemical-based in nature.

News: US stops recommending COVID shot to healthy kids, pregnant women! (link)

Strangely, such a decision is made, which does not make sense from a logical or scientific perspective. It is critically important to note that vaccines have not been tested for their safety or efficacy on any group of people (link, link).

The reason is that no SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (patients) are available for testing (aka clinical trials); hence, safety and efficacy claims remain unfounded and fraudulent. Any claim contradictory to it must be considered false or a lie. Even physicians may not recognize this lie, as they are not trained in science to critically evaluate and understand the situation.

Therefore, such a decision may be considered purely a political one to calm the public outcry over damage caused by untested vaccines and more so to protect the false claims that medical experts are knowledgeable or trained in science. It is worth noting that the organizations mentioned above are neither science-based nor led by scientists or science experts.

Furthermore, suggesting or seeking safety studies for vaccines in the future is simply a trick to continue with false medical/virology science. Scientifically, it is impossible to conduct, as noted above, safety as well as efficacy studies, as there are no patients available (for efficacy testing) and there is no isolated, purified active ingredient (mRNA) available (for safety studies).

Please consider withdrawing all vaccine-related treatments and shutting down all the so-called medical science research and institutions and their funding. They have not provided useful or valid research for at least the past five decades, yet this has caused severe damage to public health and wealth. Please have their science audited by competent scientists, not from the medical field, but from those having a science (chemistry) background, as medicines are essentially chemicals or chemical-based.