Agreed!

If a product (vaccine or any other drug) is considered safe and effective, it must be placed on shelves with other safe and effective products, like food items. If the product does not show its safety and effectiveness, then the consumer/patient must be able to return the product with their money back. The manufacturers must be held accountable by the court for the failure, NOT by the FDA/CDC, because they are part of approving the (faulty) drug/vaccines.

No immunity, as it is a loophole to sell substandard and irrelevant products at a very high price in the name of false (science) claims? It is to be noted that there are no (actual) science or scientific studies conducted in developing and approving modern-day drugs, which is why industry requires immunity.

Science And Scientists (link).

(link)

I would agree with such an observation that Ivermectin and Fenbendazole can be treatments for so-called tubo-cancer. I believe “turbo-cancer” is a misdiagnosed illness (based on doctors’ science – the fake science) when it could very well be a microbial infection. As the two medicines mentioned above are known for their anti-parasitic effect, it is not surprising they provide a remedy for the disease, a commonly noted side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ivermectin and COVID-19 Controversy – Why? (link)
Why Do People Get Sick – A View! (Part 2) (link)
Why do people get sick – a view! (link)


Headline: EXCLUSIVE: FDA lab uncovers excess DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines (link)

It is a substack article based on “research” conducted by high school students and published in a High School Science Journal. (link).

The conclusion from the article is reasonable, i.e., the vaccine may be contaminated with DNA, which is not new information, as I noted in my article more than a year ago. (link).

The rest of the claims made are quite exaggerated or borderline false, like:

“An explosive new study conducted within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own laboratory has revealed excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

There is nothing explosive here. However, the study appears to have been conducted within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) laboratory. I would not consider it like this – a research study from an FDA laboratory. It is a high school science project where students learn techniques. It is not an FDA study; there is no authorship from the FDA. The authors of the article clearly state

“The content of this publication only contains the opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Many or most claims are speculative. So, I would leave it here.

In short, the article describes a well-known aspect of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines. The toxicity of vaccines due to DNA is a weak or unproven argument, but observing DNA suggests potential bacterial contamination causing vaccine toxicity.

From FB (link, ref. @Jason Pickels)

I agree with your undecidedness or perhaps confusion. The reason is that most narratives in the medical area (“science”) are based on biology, which is mistakenly considered science. In this regard, most claims are opinions or, at best, observations (social surveys), not scientific. Hence, people, in general, are suffering from “illnesses” because of misdiagnoses and mistreatments.

Vaccines and vaccinations are false treatments because they are treatments for viruses (a biological opinion or guess) that have not been shown to exist. So, treatment is not treating anything but ends up resulting in poor health because of side effects, in some cases extremely bad.

On the other hand, believing and promoting that germs are “friendly” and do not or cannot cause harm is also a biological opinion or guess, and not treating it as such is also a misdiagnosis leading to bad health and possibly death.

There is hope that these misdiagnoses could be addressed using actual science/chemistry, as the body is based on chemical molecules and reactions, physiology).

So, please do not be carried away with opinions and guesses; focus on actual science/chemistry and seek help from those who know actual science/chemistry. I do not pretend that learning and understanding science/chemistry will be easy. It is a challenging subject but doable with time and effort.

I have been writing about this topic for some time now. You can get help from my writing. If you have questions or require clarifications, I will happily address them as time allows.

Best of luck.

https://bioanalyticx.com/what-is-science-and-who-are-scientists/

https://bioanalyticx.com/my-training-and-expertise-people-ask/

https://bioanalyticx.com/biology-virology-immunology-medical-science-etc-cannot-be-considered-science-subjects/


From FB (link, re: Caroline Oakshett)

I appreciate your valuable thoughts and input.

I understand there is great skepticism about the political leadership’s honesty in dealing with the vaccine issues. Perhaps you may be correct that there may be a smoke screen without anything genuine or honest happening.

This time, however, I sense something is different. In the past, such claims were dominated mainly by medical experts (physicians). It seems the role of medical experts is diminished.

Two names that are mentioned for the upcoming administration in the health area are RFK Jr. and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Although Dr. Bhattacharya has training in medicine (M.D.), his main expertise is in economics and management.

“Jayanta Bhattacharya (born 1968) is an American physician-scientist and economist who is a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University. He is the director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. His research focuses on the economics of health care.” (link).

I consider them both outsiders of the medical field and more towards the business or management side, implying trust in medical experts has diminished in the government. Similarly, Elon Musk is an outsider to healthcare and would probably assist them with his business/management acumen.

I also think that, in general, the public and probably the leadership have lost the trust in medical experts (physicians), knowing, as I often emphasize, that they lied about their credentials and expertise in conducting scientific research. They never studied and trained in science but present themselves as “followers of science” or science experts (scientists) in conducting laboratory-based scientific research. I doubt they will ever recover from the damage of their false claim.

Given this background, I like to be hopeful that there will be a good shakeup of the medical-pharmaceutical complex for the better this time.

Time will tell, and I am hopeful.

About an article by David Marks,  “The Truth About RFK Jr. and the Samoan Measles Outbreak” (link)

@ “When the U.S. Government assures the public that any vaccine or medication is safe and effective, this must come from an independent, thorough and transparent process, rather than relying only on the words and actions of those with vested interests.”

Exactly! This is what I have been saying.

The assurance must come from the actual science/chemistry experts (scientists), not from medical science experts, who do not have education, experience, or expertise in science – the science of isolation, purification, and characterization of substances/particles, in addition to developing, manufacturing, and testing chemicals (medicines, including vaccines).

Currently, no valid scientific evidence is available for viruses’ existence and/or the relevancy and efficacy of vaccines.

Dear RFK Jr., please seek help from actual science/chemistry experts (scientists)  to address the science issue in the vaccines/medicines area.

Science Fraud in Medicines –  Vast Majority Does Not Know (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)

Obtaining a specific degree or studying a subject for a limited time may not make one a scientist. For example, a chemistry degree alone would not make a person a scientist. I am often referred to as a chemist as I have chemistry degrees. However, I do not consider it a correct or proper title for me.

I worked with Health Canada for 30 years with the official title of Research Scientist or Scientist, not a chemist, even though there was a separate designation (with a separate pay scale and significantly lower compensation than the scientists’ category) for chemists, where people work with having various levels of chemistry educations. So, having a degree alone would not make anyone a scientist. This practice is not only in Health Canada but also valid in other places, including FDA.

The chemistry degree is a science degree, but it makes you a chemist, i.e., to perform well-understood and established routines and principles of chemistry for a given job. Chemists follow relatively rigid rules and instructions regarding chemistry operations.

On the other hand, in my case, having degrees with a specialization in chemistry as a scientist, I was free to pursue the study of natural or biological processes, mainly those that fall under departmental mandates. I have no set limitations to follow when adhering to a particular subject.

For example, I did projects relating to drug (chemicals) absorption (natural processes) in humans and various animal species. I knew chemicals/chemistry but had to learn several other subjects and techniques to conduct such a study. I was trying to understand the natural process, not doing chemistry based on some set rules, but to know how chemicals/drugs work or behave in the body. Hence, I consider myself a scientist, not a chemist.

When I started this project, I had 12 years of academic training in science/chemistry and almost 10 years of working experience in a science capacity. So, I believe this would require someone to be considered a scientist.

The following was posted as a comment on an FB discussion (link).  

The comment responded to is at the end.  

Chris, your point is well taken. You acknowledge that biology/virology/immunology make assumptions and assertions arguably exaggerated, making their work of questionable merit.

However, Steve is trying to highlight different aspects which you are missing. Take, for example, your comment,

“[They] have a wealth of data programmed into their heads. They’ve mastered techniques to interact with materials in laboratory situations and know a lot about computer number crunching. They can recite physiological pathways and have images of cell structures …”

Agreed; they do all these things. But the question is, will it make them science experts or scientists? No, they would be biologists, virologists, and immunologists, but NOT scientists. This is the confusion people have that if someone does a lot of lab work, crunches numbers, and writes reports/publications, they become science experts or scientists.

(more…)

Blog Article: Fake And False Science Of Illnesses And Diagnoses (link). FB (link). For convenience, questions are copied below the response.

Response:

@ “… is vacciantion build on the simmilar principle as homeopathy / administering a small doses of alleged poison to treat the illness/”

I have some knowledge and personal experience with homeopathy. Based on this, I would say that they are not similar. To me, they are as similar to comparing electric and gas-powered vehicles because they both require a (small) battery or electric power to start the car. So, they both could be considered electric-powered. However, they are very different in operation – there is no comparison.

Concerning “small doses/amount of alleged poison,” I do not think homeopathy injects poison. On the other hand, I am certain, based on what is available in the literature about vaccines, that they are not in small amounts (compared to homeopathic doses) but certainly significantly large amounts of filth/gunk (potentially poison). I would not suggest anyone take it, considering the science/chemistry aspect of it.

(more…)