Two of the most abused and fraudulent words of our time — especially in medicine.
In reality, so-called modern medicine has little to no connection with actual science, like physics or chemistry.
These labels are mostly worn by people who have never studied real science, yet parade around as “experts,” “scientists,” or “researchers.”
Beware.
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have recently announced what they are calling a “next-generation, universal vaccine platform.” The project, branded Generation Gold Standard, is being promoted as a major leap forward in vaccine science and safety assessment. Public figures, including RFK Jr., have spoken about it as if it were the solution to the failures of the COVID-19 vaccines — the dawn of a new, “safe and effective” vaccine era.
Before accepting these claims, it is worth examining them from the standpoint of actual science — specifically chemistry — to assess the validity of the approach and the likelihood of success (more like its failure).
(more…)
“$14 Billion Later, Cancer Is Worse Than Ever. Where Did the Money Go? (link).
I have long argued that many cases labeled as “cancer” may actually be misdiagnoses. While direct, irrefutable proof is hard to obtain, the pattern of illness and its response to treatment point strongly in this direction. In several cases, the condition has improved with antimicrobial treatments such as ivermectin, doxycycline, curcumin, mebendazole, and fenbendazole — drugs designed for microbial infections, not cancer.
This possibility is rarely considered because cancer is defined and classified largely through imaging and pathology — methods not unlike the “imagery” used to depict viruses that have never been truly isolated or characterized. Image-based diagnosis alone is not a valid scientific method; at best, it is an observation or an educated guess. A truly scientific approach would require independent physical and chemical confirmation: isolating the microorganism, identifying its components, and proving treatment efficacy with antibiotics or antimicrobials.
(more…)
The medical community has a new trick. After decades of virus-vaccine failure, fraud, and public harm, some doctors are now rebranding under terrain theory. See the recent article by Richard Z. Cheng, M.D., Ph.D. (Editor-in-Chief, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service) promoting it (link). The motive is obvious: the virus narrative has collapsed under its own lies, so they need a new story to keep the funding flowing.
Now they pitch terrain theory as a “new” scientific model — and are already calling for funding to run clinical trials comparing vaccine-based vs. terrain-based strategies. This is audacious. After decades of massive funding, they’ve delivered nothing but damage. Before they get another cent, they must account for their record: not progress, but failure on a historic scale.
(more…)A Facebook follower recently brought this article (link) associated with Dr. Stefano Scoglio to my attention and asked for my thoughts. I’ve heard of Dr. Scoglio and his work before and have looked into it to some extent. However, this article provides a clearer overview of his views, particularly regarding the ongoing scientific critique of viruses, vaccines, and transfection technologies. As a microbiologist, Dr. Scoglio presents his perspective from a biological standpoint, offering valuable insight from within that domain.
That said, I must clarify that I do not regard biology — as it’s commonly practiced — to be a true science (link). In this case, one of the article’s subheadings is particularly striking: “When Biology Meets Physics: The Transfection Paradox.” It’s unclear whether this title originated from Dr. Scoglio or the article’s author, but either way, it’s deeply problematic. Why invoke physics when discussing proteins, mRNA, and complex biochemical interactions — all of which clearly belong to the domain of chemistry?
(more…)
I read a recent article titled “Freedom in a Post-Covid World” by the well-known and respected author Jeffrey A. Tucker (link). I found the article informative and containing many valid observations. However, from a scientific standpoint, I found one particular comment troubling and misplaced:
“Notice that all the above deal with invasions to the human body and mind via science and labs, all backed by hugely powerful industries that work directly with the government.”
The phrase “invasions to the human body and mind via science and labs” reflects a common misunderstanding — one shared by many who lack formal scientific training but are nevertheless assumed to speak with authority. Mr. Tucker, like most others, assumes that these invasions were carried out via science. In truth, they were carried out under the banner of science — more accurately, the propaganda of so-called “medical science” — not science itself.
What actually happened is that the pharmaceutical industry exploited this false narrative. They co-opted the prestige of real science — like physics and chemistry, which historically led to revolutionary discoveries — and attached it to what they called medical science. But unlike those genuine sciences, medicine and health (including nutrition) are not sciences in any rigorous sense. There is no such thing as “medical science” or “health science” in the way we speak of chemistry or physics. These terms are not only misleading but also fraudulent — and most people, including learned individuals and industry experts, accept them as legitimate science.
(more…)I read Dr. Robert Malone’s recent article with great interest (link). His recognition of the deep flaws in the U.S. regulatory medical system—including research funding, approval processes, and oversight—is both timely and important. However, his critique largely reflects the common physician’s viewpoint, blaming bureaucracy and government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and NIH for the dysfunction. This perspective, while partly valid, misses the core of the issue.
The problem isn’t just bureaucratic mismanagement. The root of the dysfunction is the fraudulent framework of so-called “medical science” itself—a system run by professionals who claim scientific authority without actually practicing science. Dr. Malone is beginning to see aspects of this breakdown, but he stops short of identifying its real cause: the widespread lack of scientific literacy among medical professionals, particularly in areas where rigorous scientific analysis and measurement are required, such as pharmaceutical quality assessment.
(more…)
Terms like “science,” “scientific research,” “science experts,” and “scientists” are frequently used in the medical field — especially when discussing viruses, diagnostic testing, vaccines, or drug approvals. But in this context, such claims are often false and deeply misleading. Modern medicine, particularly in these areas, has little to no connection with actual science.
Physicians who invoke scientific language typically do so to secure government funding or promote their services — not because they possess genuine expertise in scientific disciplines like method validation, analytical chemistry, or test design. In reality, most have no formal training in these critical fields.
This is not a matter of opinion; it is a demonstrable fact. As such, any report or publication that uses the veneer of science to support medical claims — even those appearing in so-called scientific journals — should be approached with deep skepticism and rejected as lacking true scientific credibility.
Understanding the Distinction Between Clinical Practice and Scientific Research. Physicians undergo extensive training in clinical diagnosis and treatment protocols, with a primary focus on identifying diseases and prescribing appropriate medications to manage patient conditions. Their education emphasizes pattern recognition, symptom analysis, and evidence-based treatment guidelines rather than the foundational scientific research that underpins medical knowledge. While doctors must understand basic scientific terminology to practice effectively, their training is oriented toward the practical application of medicine, not the conduct of original research or the advancement of scientific theory.
(more…)
What is medical science?
Medical science is a narrative constructed by medical professionals—primarily physicians—to explain illness and treatment according to their own interpretations and preferences. These explanations are not necessarily grounded in reality; many are speculative, hypothetical, or outright fabricated.
Crucially, medical science does not meet the standards of true science. It bears little to no connection with the actual sciences that deal with measurable substances—such as particles, atoms, and molecules—or with disciplines like chemistry that rigorously study them.
In essence, medical science is a belief system, propped up by ritualistic practices and unverified assumptions. At its core, it is a distortion of science—if not an intentional deception.
What are pharmaceutical and pharmacological sciences?
These are subdisciplines of medical science that claim to focus on the body’s chemistry—studying substances introduced into or produced within the body. However, they are largely practiced by individuals with limited training in real science, particularly in chemistry.
Although these fields claim to deal with compounds and molecular interactions, they operate without the scientific rigor found in true chemical sciences. Instead, they follow a medical science mindset that lacks depth in both theoretical and experimental chemistry. At best, these disciplines are superficial approximations; at worst, they are misrepresentations of actual science.
What is virology?
Virology is presented as the study of viruses—microscopic particles said to cause disease. Yet, there is no solid evidence that these viruses exist as physical entities, either in laboratories or in nature. They remain hypothetical constructs—mythical agents without direct scientific confirmation.
Virology, therefore, resembles a modern form of medical folklore—a narrative grounded more in belief and assumption than in empirical evidence. It remains detached from the hard sciences, which are based on observable and measurable entities. Despite its scientific appearance, virology operates outside the framework of real science, often in a ritualistic and uncritical fashion.
