Category: Medical Science

The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governor, is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida. Every last one of them. (link)

There is good news.

However, this should be viewed only as a beginning, not an end. It does not address the core problem with vaccines, which is that they are not a scientifically valid treatment. There is no science behind them. Therefore, not only should mandates be removed, but vaccination itself must be abolished. There is no proven benefit—at least none shown scientifically—since there is no virus or illness against which they have been tested.

Keeping vaccines approved gives the false impression to the public that they are useful and valuable products. Worse, it props up the false legitimacy of “medical science” as if it were real science, when in fact it is neither. One must be extremely cautious in continuing with this so-called “medical science,” which is a fraudulent construct that must be stopped.

No grants or funding should be allocated to “medical science” under the guidance or authority of physicians, because it was precisely this group (lacking scientific education and expertise) that created the vaccination problem in the first place.

COVID and vaccines – ask and listen (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)

Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows there is no virus. RFK Jr. is far more intelligent than most, and he surely knows this. The issue is that the medical establishment always drags anyone who questions the virus or vaccine narrative into their own “court of science.” In that court, they always win, because it is their court—others are beaten down, silenced, or give up. No one is allowed to truly challenge their version of “science,” which is nothing more than fraud.

Medical experts, in particular physicians, are, in fact, the least knowledgeable in real science. They have zero scientific credentials, yet they lie about having them. This is the critical point: rather than demanding records on vaccines or viruses, authorities must first demand that they prove their claim that their work is based on science and that they have the required education and expertise in science. They cannot—because they have no credentials. At that moment, the game is over. Not just viruses, but vaccines and much more will unravel.

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)

Physicians are trained to practice medicine, not to do science. Their education is clinical—focused on diagnosis, treatment, and patient management. It does not provide rigorous training in analytical chemistry, pharmacology at depth, toxicology, or experimental design. Yet, many physicians present themselves as “scientific experts,” blurring the line between clinical authority and true scientific expertise.

Medical standards and guidelines are often written and enforced by these same physicians, creating a closed circle where their opinions reinforce each other and are then presented as “science.” Peer-reviewed publications in medical journals frequently repeat this cycle, offering conclusions that are based more on consensus and authority than on solid scientific evidence.

This is why physicians’ claims to be scientific authorities must be challenged. Clinical practice does not equal science. Without grounding in the methods of genuine scientific disciplines, their declarations about viruses, vaccines, or drug mechanisms rest on weak foundations. The authority they project is false, and it must be exposed as such.

Like I wrote:
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)


This morning, someone asked me about the separation and characterization of alleged viruses—or particles in general. I shared the following response, which I believe may also be useful to others. (The original query is attached below.)

Let me explain, as there seems to be some misunderstanding. SDS-PAGE is a separation technique, essentially a sorting tool. [Edited: In general, SDS-PAGE separation refers to the use of Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) in combination with polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE)]. The application of a reference standard (or calibration) to an SDS-PAGE plate will indicate where the particles of interest are expected to migrate or be observed. Once the SDS-PAGE run is completed, we see a band at that location. However, from a professional and scientific perspective, the work is not finished at this point. The band we see may or may not correspond to the actual particles of interest—it could be slightly different, or even completely unrelated particles, but of the same size. This is because SDS-PAGE only separates particles based on their size; it does not identify them. For this reason, SDS-PAGE is classified as a separation technique, not a characterization technique. In this context, SDS-PAGE can be viewed as a more efficient alternative to ultracentrifugation, another separation technique that offers significantly lower resolution compared to SDS-PAGE.

(more…)

Responding to the question “What is meant by randomized control trial?

I asked this question to ChatGPT, and while I found the response valuable (attached below), I have concerns regarding the current practice of controlled trials.

Physicians often add the term “double-blind RCT” to make it sound more authentic—meaning that neither the person administering the treatment nor the person analyzing the data knows which treatment was given.

As ChatGPT stated, RCTs are considered the “gold standard.” However, many—including physicians and so-called experts—take this to imply that RCTs are a true scientific test or approach. They are not. At best, they can be considered a kind of survey. The reason is that subjects (patients) are treated as if they are constant, with little or no variability, which is simply incorrect.

Because of this flaw, extremely large numbers of subjects are required (at great financial cost and to the benefit of physician-researchers). Yet, even then, the results are always of limited scientific value. This helps explain why modern medicine research has failed to succeed in treating illness—and why, in fact, illness continues to increase.

For these reasons, I personally am not a supporter of, nor do I agree with, the (double-blinded) randomized controlled trial approach. It promotes not true science, but false science.

When people hear the word nanoparticle, they often imagine tiny hard specks—like dust or sand—floating around. But in pharmaceutical science, the “nanoparticles” used in vaccines are not solid particles at all. They are more like microscopic bubbles made of fatty molecules (lipids).

Lipids have a dual nature: one end of the molecule loves water, the other end avoids it. This is the same principle that makes soap work. When you wash your hands, soap molecules surround oily dirt or dust, hiding the “water-fearing” parts inside and keeping the “water-loving” parts outside. This forms small bubbles, called micelles, which carry away the dirt when rinsed with water.

In the same way, when lipids are mixed in water during pharmaceutical manufacturing, they self-assemble into tiny bubbles—liposomes or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Instead of dirt, however, these bubbles are said to carry messenger RNA (mRNA).

(more…)

Physicians and related medical experts claim to follow and practice science. Billions of dollars in funding support their so-called “scientific research.” Yet in reality, they hold no genuine credentials (education and expertise) in science or science research. Their education and expertise rest on a standard, non-scientific undergraduate degree—an M.D. Is it not outright fraud to practice and promote something for which one has no credentials?

Will HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH, and similar regulatory agencies worldwide dare to investigate this fraud?

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)

Seeking advice from physicians on medications, including vaccines, is not the issue. They are trained for that purpose—mainly to prescribe medicines as needed. It is no different from asking the front-end clerk at an auto shop for advice about a car part or a potential issue with your car. Their role is functional, not foundational.

The real problem begins when physicians are assumed to understand how medicines are developed, how they actually work, or how they are manufactured. They do not. That knowledge belongs to science—specifically chemistry, a discipline with centuries of rigorous foundations.

Medicines are chemicals. Their discovery, testing, and production are properly the domain of chemistry, not medicine. Physicians are not scientists, and when they speak as though they are, their claims are misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. For this reason, anyone without training in science and chemistry should be excluded from directing or conducting scientific research.

This confusion has fueled dangerous misconceptions and harmful developments. Viruses, vaccines, PCR tests, antibody tests, and countless diagnostic products have been falsely presented under the banner of “medical science.” But there is no such thing as “medical science.” Medicine is a practice of prescribing and administering treatments; science—real science—belongs to chemistry and physics.

Allowing physicians to lead in areas where they have no true expertise has led to repeated disasters. The narratives surrounding viruses, infections, and even cancer—promoted as if grounded in science—are, in fact, constructs built on fragile foundations. These practices have not delivered genuine medical benefits; instead, they have imposed massive harm on public health and drained societal wealth.

The solution is clear: separate medicine from science. Let doctors prescribe, but let scientists—true scientists—develop and evaluate the treatments. Only then can society avoid the cycle of fraud, fear, and failure that has shaped the modern “medical science” – the fake and false one.

Propaganda and marketing have been so pervasive that the public and public leadership have come to genuinely believe that physicians possess complete knowledge of medicines— chemicals and their interactions (chemical reactions), and also related health care in general. They are presented as all-knowing authorities who carry the full understanding of illness and treatment processes in their back pocket, armed with “modern science” and the limits of human intelligence and capability.

This image of expertise is carefully constructed in different areas, such as:

(more…)

Doctors (physicians), please share your credentials in science and in conducting scientific research, including your education and expertise in true scientific subjects such as chemistry. After all, your work primarily involves research on medicines, which are chemicals, including:

  • Proteins (enzymes, antibodies, receptors)
  • Amino acids
  • Carbohydrates (glucose, glycogen, polysaccharides)
  • Lipids (cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids)
  • Vitamins (A, D, E, K, C, B-complex)
  • Minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc)
  • Neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine)
  • Nucleotides (ATP, GTP, cAMP)
  • Cellular organelles (mitochondria, ribosomes, lysosomes)
  • Structural proteins (collagen, keratin, elastin)
  • Genetic material (DNA, RNA, genes, etc.)

Additionally, please include your education and expertise in testing, including test development, validation, and research processes.

They have no such credentials—can anyone prove otherwise?

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)