Category: Medical Science

Once again, the central point is this: viruses have not been shown to exist in a scientifically rigorous manner.

People often respond to this statement—sometimes politely, sometimes harshly—by accusing me of ignorance or denial, insisting that viruses “obviously exist” and have been “clearly shown” in photographs. This reaction is not due to stubbornness or misunderstanding on my part; rather, it reflects a widespread lack of understanding of what those photographs actually represent.

Images commonly presented by authoritative institutions, including the CDC (see below), are not photographs of isolated viruses. They are images of cell cultures—complex laboratory mixtures described as environments in which viruses are claimed to be “grown” or “produced.” Within these images, certain structures—often small dots or particles—are labeled as viruses. However, labeling is not evidence. These structures are assumed to be viruses; they are not scientifically demonstrated to be viruses.

(more…)

The article “The Five Big Lies of Vaccinology” presents itself as a scientific critique of vaccines—particularly mRNA products—by analyzing Pfizer trial data (link). However, this review is authored from a medical, not a scientific, perspective. This distinction is not semantic; it is fundamental.

In fact, the five lies of vaccinology are themselves the result of one larger and more consequential lie: that medical science is science, and that physicians are scientists.

The central problem with vaccines and vaccinology is therefore not merely flawed trials, exaggerated claims, or regulatory misconduct. Those issues are secondary. The primary problem is that modern medicine is not grounded in true science. Medical professionals—whether arguing for or against vaccines—are not educated or trained in the foundational sciences required to make scientific determinations: chemistry, physics, and mathematics.

As a result, both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine medical arguments suffer from the same structural defect. They rely on assumptions inherited from medical doctrine rather than on independently established scientific evidence.

The Unexamined Premise: Virus Existence

The article critiques vaccinology while preserving its most critical assumption: that viruses exist as isolated, purified, and scientifically characterized entities. This assumption is never questioned. Yet from a true scientific perspective, this is precisely where scrutiny must begin.

There is no scientifically valid evidence demonstrating the isolation, purification, and characterization of viruses in accordance with the standards required by chemistry and physics (science). Without such evidence, the entire framework of virology—including disease attribution, pathogenic mechanisms, and vaccine targets—rests on an unverified premise.

If the causal agent itself has not been scientifically established, then:

  • Claims of virus-specific diseases are unsubstantiated.
  • Pathology attributed to viruses is speculative.
  • Preventive or therapeutic interventions—vaccines included—are scientifically unjustified.

Under these conditions, debating vaccine safety, efficacy, or platform technology (including mRNA) is misplaced. There is no scientific necessity for vaccines to exist in the first place.

Medical Debate Is Not Scientific Debate

The article reflects an internal dispute within medicine, not a scientific evaluation of medicine itself. Medical experts reviewing medical studies—even critically—remain confined to a non-scientific framework. Statistical analysis of clinical trials does not substitute for establishing the physical reality of the entities being claimed.

This is why such reviews, while appearing rigorous, ultimately reinforce the same foundational error: they challenge vaccine implementation while leaving the existence of viruses—and thus virology itself—unexamined and implicitly validated.

Conclusion

The failure of vaccinology is not isolated. As even the article indirectly illustrates, it is part of a broader pattern. It is the consequence of medicine presenting itself as science when it is not, and of physicians being portrayed as scientists when they are not trained as such.

Until medicine is grounded in true scientific methodology—beginning with the physical isolation, purification, and characterization of claimed agents—both pro- and anti-vaccine arguments remain scientifically incomplete.

A genuine scientific critique must challenge first principles, not merely debate outcomes.

The Medical Shell Game: The Illusion of Science (link)

LINK

Many so-called “awake” doctors speak out against vaccines, but usually after the harm has already been done and continues to be done.

Vaccines were being developed right under their noses for years, and concerns about harm were repeatedly raised — yet these doctors never acted meaningfully or effectively.

Why? Because they still do not understand where the real problem lies.

The core issue is this: doctors claim they are conducting “science” and “scientific research,” including for vaccine development, but this is a false claim. Physicians — including specialists — do not have education, training, or credentials in true science. They are not scientists. Their entire system is built on a self-declared brand called “medical science,” which produces diagnoses, tests, treatments, and pharmaceuticals — including vaccines.

None of this is grounded in true science. It belongs in the domain of chemistry, where isolation, purification, and characterization must be performed for diagnosis, testing, and product development. These “awake” doctors simply assume those steps were done. They never verify them because they do not have the education and training to do so.

Thus, even their criticisms remain shallow. They talk about side effects and mandates — but never question the core claim: Was there ever a virus? Most cannot even define a pure, isolated virus sample.

The truth is simple: from the perspective of true science (chemistry), viruses have never been isolated, purified, or characterized. Therefore, they cannot be the cause of illness. Most “viral illnesses” are diagnosed using scientifically fraudulent tests — PCR, antibody tests, etc. — not by identifying any actual physical entity.

So, are “awake” doctors helpful?
Unfortunately, no. They cannot solve the problem because they are part of it — even if unknowingly. Their ignorance and misplaced confidence helped create false vaccines, false diseases, and false fears.

The real solution is not more medical advice.
The real solution is to challenge the fraudulent scientific foundation.

Bring in experts in true science—chemistry—to address the issue of virus isolation. The moment it is honestly examined, the entire problem disappears.

No virus → no viral disease → no need for vaccines.
Remove the fraudulent testing and fraudulent medical science, and people recover naturally.

This is what must be addressed—not repeated medical narratives, even from “awake” doctors.

Please forward this message directly to Senator Ron Johnson—it is important that he sees it.

Rethinking Cancer: A Mislabelled Mystery (link)
Vaccines and the COVID virus (link)
Claims of vaccines’ relevancy and efficacy – a big fat lie! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
A Simple And Direct Question RFK Jr Needs To Ask – A Suggestion (link)
Quackery in White Coats (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Critical Review of Medical Authority and Scientific Legitimacy (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

This article is a response to a Facebook follower who asked for my thoughts on the AI-generated critique of my article (link).

I must say, the analysis was quite interesting, and I am genuinely impressed — your AI did a reasonably good job critiquing my article.

Before I present my critique (see below), I want to clarify and emphasize that this is AI, not RI (Real Intelligence). AI depends entirely on what is fed into it and on how the underlying algorithms gather, filter, and present information — including what they choose to emphasize or ignore. In other words, AI is inherently biased both by the input and by the controls placed on it.

That said, I personally make extensive use of AI and often run my comments and posts through it to check for errors or illogical statements. My AI has effectively been “trained” from my side, aligned with scientific standards as I understand them. So I decided to generate a rebuttal from my AI to your AI and see how fairly it responds. The response I received from my AI is thorough, correct, and I fully support it.

For your reading convenience, I have reproduced your AI’s critique first, followed by the rebuttal produced by my AI, which I fully endorse.

I trust my AI’s response because it is based on the principles of true science, from a chemistry and analytical perspective. In contrast, I consider your AI’s response grounded in non-scientific narratives, even though it cites published literature. Its foundation lies in biology and medical science — both of which, in my view, do not qualify as true sciences.

For further convenience, I have also reproduced my original article (the one under discussion) at the end, along with the link to the blog.

Enjoy — and feel free to share your feedback.

Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Virus Isolation AI vs AI-articleDownload

I recently watched a clip of Dr. David Rasnick, Ph.D., a trained (bio-) chemist—speaking confidently about the existence of viruses (link). I must admit, it left me genuinely saddened. Here is someone with a scientific background, someone who should instinctively rely on empirical evidence, yet he has accepted the idea of viruses as real, physical entities.

Some attempt to soften the claim by saying viruses are “actually exosomes,” as if a new label resolves the scientific issue. But it does not.

Whether one calls them viruses or exosomes makes no difference. The fundamental question remains: Where is the physical evidence of their existence?

The confirmation can only occur through isolation, not through assumption, interpretation, or narrative.

(more…)

A Chemist’s Perspective on What That Really Means

Recently, Dr. Malone commented: “President Trump wants to know whether or not there’s actual science behind the entire [children’s vaccination] schedule.”

This is indeed an interesting statement. If the President of the United States is questioning whether there is actual science behind vaccination, then it deserves serious attention.

Dr. Robert Malone, often credited with pioneering mRNA technology, has participated in discussions with public health officials and working group leaders, including those affiliated with the ACIP and HHS.

Dr. Malone, often regarded as one of the key figures behind mRNA vaccine development, should have been the first to respond with confidence and evidence. As someone long associated with “science,” he should have assured the President that the science is sound, settled, and proven.

But instead, he appeared to agree — implying that perhaps something is wrong with the science itself and that it needs to be “fixed.”

(more…)

This is precisely the problem in biology and the so-called “medical science.” As I have emphasized for a long time, the work done in virology is assumed to be science-based simply because biology and virology are classified as “sciences.” This belief is both inaccurate and deeply problematic.

By its nature, biology is not a true science in the strict sense of the term. True science is founded on chemistry, supported by physics and mathematics. Consequently, all work related to vaccines, viruses, and testing (including method development, validation, and application) should rightfully be conducted in chemistry laboratories, where true scientific principles are applied.

(more…)

This is a common question, yet rarely addressed honestly. The reason is simple: people believe that sickness is real, that treatments work, and that medical experts are genuine experts. There is hardly any critical thinking applied to these assumptions.

First, we must ask — are people truly sick? If so, what kind of sickness are we talking about: temporary fatigue, emotional stress, overwork, or mild seasonal discomfort? These are natural parts of life, and recovery usually follows with rest and balance. But modern medicine has turned every sign of discomfort into a diagnosis and sickness.

Remember the COVID-19 pandemic. People were not necessarily sick but were declared sick based on a fraudulent test. Even more bizarre, many who had no symptoms (no sign of sickness) at all were labeled “infected” — the so-called asymptomatics. This was not science but institutional dishonesty on a global scale.

(more…)

A few days ago, I came across a phrase that immediately caught my attention — “procedural declaration.”

It perfectly captured what I had been struggling to explain for years: why regulatory authorities such as the FDA and similar bodies around the world appear “scientific,” yet their drug approval processes are not truly based on science.

That phrase — procedural declaration — describes it exactly.

(more…)