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.
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…)
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.
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…)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).
