Category: Science

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…)

Currently, two views are commonly used to explain illnesses. One is that people get sick by the presence/infection of some invisible particles (viruses). Second, illness reflects the body’s detoxification process to eliminate toxins. Doctors and health experts often promote and support both views, implied as science-based.

Note that these are opinions or narratives presented as theories to sound factual and scientific. However, these theories are not supported by actual science. Both viruses and toxins (cell debris) are imaginary and fictional objects/substances. No scientific evidence supports the presence or existence of such entities and their relevance.

The only way to make such a claim scientifically valid and acceptable is that the so-called viruses or the toxins must be isolated, purified, and fully (physically and chemically) characterized, and these must be available as such in vials or test tubes. Nothing of this sort happens or is available. Hence, all these claims are scientifically baseless.

Use caution when considering doctors’ (medical and health experts’) science as actual science. There is no medical/health science. It is a made-up science (fake and false) based on personal opinions and narratives.

A better alternative to understanding and addressing illnesses is to try to understand the body’s chemistry, i.e., the working of chemicals (in and outside the body). It is essential to note that the body is built on chemicals (fats, proteins, sugars, minerals, vitamins, water, oxygen, etc), and these are supplied by food and the environment. An imbalance of these can result in issues (called illnesses) and should easily be addressed by appropriate testing and adjusting chemical imbalances. Please consider studying the science of chemicals (chemistry) or seek help from science/chemistry experts.  

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)

An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)

“Trump says RFK Jr. will investigate discredited link between vaccines and autism.” (link).

From a scientific perspective, it is much better to investigate if vaccine use is valid, justified, or beneficial.

One should remember that vaccines are promoted as a treatment against viruses and/or their infections/illnesses. However, the issue is that viruses have not been shown to exist, so there cannot be their illnesses. Therefore, vaccines cannot be (or have not) been tested against viruses or their illnesses. Hence, vaccines are useless medicines/treatments but cause numerous severe side effects. As an example, consider the recent claim of virus (COVID-19) illness/infection/pandemic (all fake) and its fake (vaccine) development and treatment, resulting in numerous side effects, along with enormous financial/economic damage.

The issue needs to be examined from the scientific perspective, seeking input/help from experts in science/chemistry, as medicines, including vaccines, are chemicals. Unfortunately, it has been dealt with by non-science experts such as physicians or medical experts.

For further reading:

COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
Vaccines efficacy (link)
The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful (link).
France Identifies 53 Unique COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals (link).
An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
Comments on the article “Do Viruses Exist?” by Michael Palmer, M.D. and Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. (link).
Dr. Marty Makary’s YouTube Video (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link).

“An Extraordinary Step’: White House Mulls ‘Preemptive’ Pardon for Fauci” (link)

One thing is clear: fraudulent activities have occurred, as has been pointed out repeatedly through my blog (link) and the Book “Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon” (link). For example, (1) False and fraudulent story of the existence of the COVID-19 virus (and others); (2) Use and promotion of fraudulent testing (PCR, Antigen, etc.); (3) Development of vaccines and declaring their efficacy without testing them against the virus, infection and or its patients.

The other most critical aspect is that physicians and medical experts, internal and external to governments worldwide, claim to be science experts (scientists) when their training and education are based only on a non-science undergraduate degree.

https://bioanalyticx.com/an-m-d-degree-is-not-a-science-degree/
https://bioanalyticx.com/dr-marty-makarys-youtube-video/
https://bioanalyticx.com/52-top-leading-eminent-scientists-how-and-why/

I watched the video for a few minutes and got frustrated and bored. This is another video of the recent fad about the past wrong restrictions on using cholesterol/fat, which is now considered good. (link).

The reason for my frustration is the comments he made:

(@0:35) “If we use good scientific studies, then we shine as a profession …”

(@12:53) “When you’re a scientist like myself, we do lots of research on my team at John Hopkins …”

But he is educated and trained as a physician with an M.D. degree, not a scientist (link, link, link, and more). I can clearly see that most of his comments are not based on (lab-based or experimental) science but opinions with descriptors, such as “maybe,” “possibly,” and “potentially.” The rest is for you to judge for yourself. I could not continue for another hour.