(link)

Please note that the safety aspect of any drug/treatment comes after establishing efficacy. If a medicine/chemical is not shown to be effective, the safety evaluation becomes mute; there is no need to discuss it further. The medicine is dead. However, if medicine is effective, one must assess its safety profile. If it is favorable, then one proceeds with its development. Otherwise, the medicine is dead.

From this perspective, it is critical to note that vaccines’ efficacy (effectiveness) has never been tested or established. I have repeatedly described it on my blog (link, link). So they are dead as medicines (scientifically). Promoting the development of safer vaccines is an argument based on ignorance and a useless endeavor, amounting to promoting fake and false medication. Sorry.


Part 1 (link)

Response to a comment (link)

It is important to note that I come from a science/chemistry background, which differs from biology/virology and medical “science,” I do not consider them science or science subjects. To me, science means physics and chemistry (with mathematics).

Another thing when biology books describe microorganisms (pathogens), they include viruses along with others like bacteria. This is incorrect because microorganisms exist but not viruses. Therefore, when I consider microorganisms, I include bacteria, molds, fungi, and so on, but not viruses. There is no such thing as viruses, at least scientifically.

Yes, I believe in pathogenicity and transmissibility. Note that this is a belief, not a scientific fact. That is why I wrote that appropriate scientific studies are needed to reject this belief.

My belief is that microbes cause infections commonly observed in ears, throat, eyes, gums, etc., and those infections are commonly treated with antibiotics. I do not accept that microbes are not pathogens, as some describe, but are there to help the body heal or be healthy. I do not believe that pathogens are there to strengthen tissue/body. They are not there to improve or work as hearing aids or enhance the eyes’ vision. They are infections/illnesses that must be treated and done effectively with antibiotics.

Yes, I believe in transmissibility, too. If one hugs someone coming from a mudbath, one catches mud and becomes muddy. Other routes of transmissivity are possible as well.

However, contagion is a different story. It is possible, but very difficult to study. And that is where the problem is. Contagion will only occur (or be more accurately observed) under the very specific conditions of the recipients. Usually, the contagion will not occur (observe), even if one spits directly on the face or into the mouth, because the recipient must provide the environment for the pathogen to live and grow. Usually, the recipient body would effectively neutralize it with its defense mechanisms. However, if the defense mechanism of the recipient is weak, absent, or just about right, sure enough, the illness will pass over. However, conducting scientific studies to establish contagion would be difficult/expensive and hence avoided.

So, in short, contagion exists but has not been shown or disproven experimentally. Experiments (“studies”) by spitting on the face, into the mouth, inhaling, etc., are not considered scientific because the exhaled material and the body (micro) environments are not controlled.

In general, people follow the views of doctors about the “cause” (diagnosis) of an illness, assuming that they have studied such a subject (science) in detail and depth. Unfortunately, doctors do not study this or any other science. Their education is based on an undergraduate non-science degree (M.D.). Therefore, their views/guesses (for germs or viruses) are as good or bad about recognizing illness and matching for its treatment as anyone else. Hence, the debate continues.

They often describe their “science,” using primarily chemical formulas, structures, and reactions/processes, i.e., the science of chemicals or chemistry. However, from the science/chemistry perspective, these representations are primarily false and fraudulent, effectively causing misdiagnosis (fake illnesses) and fake and faulty, in fact, dangerous and toxic,  treatments.

These irrelevant and dangerous practices by doctors need to stop, particularly all claims of  “scientific research” in various medical institutions.

link, link

I came across this article “Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (link)

There are three at least issues with claims made:

  • Genetic virus tracing cannot be done because a virus has not been isolated and characterized. Therefore, the gene cannot be established or traced. The publication makes a false claim about the virus.
  • The virus cartoon in the abstract’s top left corner cannot be true because no sample of the isolated virus is currently available.

    As per the publication, “This study did not generate new unique reagents, but processed data generated for this study can be found in the supplementary files, and reconstructed genomes and phylogenies can be found at the data and code repository associated with this work.” No experimental work was done. But, computer-generated codes/” sequences” were used. Therefore, work was not done with the virus but with computing. (False claim about working with the virus)
  • The publication authors and institutions are related to medical and biological areas/subjects, not science, as commonly understood or implied. The publication may be understood as a science publication, which is incorrect. (link)

Therefore, I stamped it as certified BS’ (link)

medicine, healthcare and pharmacy concept – different pills and capsules of drugs

A drug dissolution test is a test used to establish the quality of a pharmaceutical product, such as a tablet or capsule. This test is conducted because the drug (often called active ingredient) needs to be released from the product for its absorption into the blood to elicit its therapeutic effect.

The test is conducted in place of a clinical test/study called bioavailability or bioequivalence, a pharmacology/pharmacokinetic study type. The test is the backbone of quality assessment of all tablet and capsule products. It is a requirement of worldwide authorities, including the FDA, Health Canada, etc., and pharmacopeias such as USP, BP, EP, etc.

(more…)