Category: Pharmacetical

Post Views: 4

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…)
Post Views: 26

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…)
Post Views: 291

Like a celebrity, Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a high-profile physician (cardiologist) from the U.K. Recently, I had an opportunity to watch his interview on YouTube (link). I am disturbed by his advice about maintaining good health.

The first part of his interview is mostly about vaccines, particularly COVID-19. He is highly critical of COVID-19 vaccines, presumably because of a family incident. Otherwise, he fully supports vaccines and vaccination, saying, “Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are traditional vaccines, no doubt.”

(more…)
Post Views: 117

My comment on the article ((link)

As I wrote in one of my recent blog posts (link), worldwide authorities, including the FDA, CDC, USP, etc., drug approvals are not based on scientific investigations or logical considerations but on compliance with their arbitrary requirements and standards.

There is a gross misunderstanding among the public, including medical experts, that the approved products are based on science (advanced or sophisticated). Not at all. They set up some arbitrary standards and then showed some laboratory work, pictures, and numbers (mostly unrelated) to make their claims “sellable.”

A recent example is the COVID-19 virus. Authorities first assume (when there is nothing) that there is a virus and then develop some experiments, like culturing, “sequencing,” PCR, pictures, etc., to say there is proof for the virus.

No toxicity/pathogenicity of the virus has ever been established because no virus sample is available (link). Similarly, vaccine safety and efficacy cannot be established as no pure and isolated vaccine (mRNA) sample is available. Safety and efficacy are assumed/imagined (link).

It’s all fake and false (medical/pharmaceutical science). Use caution when listening to medical/pharmaceutical (doctor’s science) experts.

Post Views: 77

Often, one hears such announcements, i.e., FDA approves, concerning drugs and drug products from the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities. People, including physicians, assume that the FDA independently evaluates the products and that the claims (safe and effective) are based on scientific studies or evidence.

Unfortunately, it is not true.

An approved drug product does not mean it is safe and effective, but it only means that it complies with the FDA requirements for putting its label or stamp for approval. In short, approval is for compliance mostly with arbitrary standards and requirements that do not reflect the products’ quality (by extension, safety and efficacy). Prove me wrong!

(more…)
Post Views: 70

I just came across an article titled ” 52 Top Scientists Sign Letter Warning of ‘Substantial’ Cancer Risk from Covid’ Vaccines.'” A few beginning lines from the article (link) are as follows:

A group of leading scientists and academics has signed a letter that calls on lawmakers to ban Covid mRNA “vaccines” due to the “substantial risk” of cancer from the injections.

The call was made due to the unprecedentedly high levels of synthetic DNA contamination in the shots produced by vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna.

Eminent scientists and academics warn that this DNA contamination is causing genomic integration and triggering long-term health impacts, including cancers, among the Covid-vaccinated.

The letter was signed by leading experts from around the world.

The article lists eminent scientists, showing that most (20) are physicians with M.D. degrees or equivalent (link).

It is a well-known fact that physicians do not study science, and their academic credentials and expertise are based on education and training of a non-science undergraduate degree (e.g., M.D.). They are trained to write prescriptions by listening to symptoms and reading lab results. Therefore, claiming physicians as eminent or leading scientists is a misrepresentation or falsehood (link).

The remaining participants mostly have credentials unrelated to science, including management (10), lawyers (6), etc. It indicates that participants are also non-science experts (link), contrary to the claim.

Their claim is based on describing (detecting) DNA fragments in the vaccine vials (only three tested, a statistically insignificant sample size for making any credible/scientific claim). Finding DNA (chemical) fragments as contamination indicates the issue of (chemical) processing/manufacturing. Therefore, it needs to be looked at by chemical manufacturing or purification experts (science/chemistry), not by practitioners of medicines (link).

Post Views: 89

It is a common perception among the public and experts, particularly in health and medical areas, that having a Ph.D. makes one a scientist. This is a very wrong view or assumption.

A Ph.D. degree is a higher level of education and training after an undergraduate level. With a Ph.D. degree, the person may be considered an expert in the subject. For example, a Ph.D. in history or literature would not make a person a scientist but an expert in the subject.

Similarly, a Ph.D. in medicine does not make a physician a scientist but an expert in practicing medicine, which is generally training and education in writing prescriptions based on observing symptoms and reading diagnostic test results.

Being a scientist means having extensive and exhaustive education and training in science. It is ascribed to studying the fundamental units of matter or bodies such as atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, etc., that is, the study of physics and/or chemistry with mathematics (link) using validated tests.

Anyone who does not study and practice chemistry and/or physics (with mathematics) cannot claim to be a scientist or science expert. Such a claim should be considered quackery or fraudulent and treated according to the laws.

Medical science, pharmaceutical science, health science, biology, virology, immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, pharmacology, pharmacy, etc, are a few examples of fake and false science.

Post Views: 63

Viruses, vaccines, virology, medical science, health science, pharmaceutical science, etc., and related institutions, including the CDC, FDA, Health Canada, etc., have practically died. For all practical purposes, they are now zombies and are there to scare people to protect their own interests and enterprises.

The contributions (“hittings”) from actual science/chemistry have virtually killed them as all of their claims were based on chemistry terminologies/vocabulary but falsely and fraudulently described and promoted as science. These so-called activities have been promoted by those, in particular, physicians, who do not study or know science but make it up for their self-interest. The lies have been exposed.

The actual science/chemistry will most certainly play a major role in characterizing illnesses (if they exist) and medicines. It will provide a much better understanding of chemical-based medicines and help alternatives. In this regard, a much better future for alternative medicines than allopathic ones is anticipated.

Consider familiarizing yourself with science/chemistry as much as possible. It will not only help you get out of the virus/vaccine nonsense but will help you take care of your body much better than physicians. They use very potent and dangerous chemicals (in the name of medicines like vaccines, chemotherapy, etc.) without knowing or learning anything about chemicals other than their names, mostly their commercial or brand names. 

Do not be intimidated by the pretentious use of complex vocabulary, chemical structures, reaction diagrams, etc, often described by doctors or medical “scientists.” One does not need an extended knowledge of science/chemistry; some basics will do wonders. I provide this and explain it in the book (link). If you need further clarification and help, I can always try and help further.  

Post Views: 20
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…)