Category: Testing

Two days ago, I posted a link to a Substack article on FB (link), which missed or ignored an important contribution (mine). I do not understand why people felt hurt or angry with the post and comments. See for yourself. Mike Stone (ViroLIEgy fame) even started a separate Thread citing some comments (link).

I wondered what happened and what might have caused such trashy behavior and outbursts by some in the “group.”

It appears that it could be the outcome of a post by Linda (on TG), a simple and short comment supporting my views, which the group could not handle, even though she emphasizes that my views do not contradict those mentioned by non-virus camp.

So, why is so much anger against me and my views? It’s hard to know, except they are sensitive to their false claim, narrative, or science. Is it?

You be the judge. I would appreciate your thoughts on it, if possible, as to why so much anger and bad-mouthing against me.

Thanks to Linda and so many others who read my articles and provided appreciation and support. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart. God bless you all!

When people, including “experts,” describe science, they usually mean “medical science,” which is a nonexistent or imaginary thing like viruses, but imply they are referring to actual science (chemistry, physics, and mathematics, mainly chemistry). Generally, they cannot talk directly about the actual science because they have not studied or practiced it significantly. In most cases, they lack understanding, even at the basic level.

So, when reading articles and comments about science from such “expert” or their “research,” make sure to know which science is referred to, the fake one (like medicine, virology, etc) or the actual one.

There is hardly any critique from knowledgeable people about the well-established and well-understood principles and practices of the actual science.

Viruses, variants, PCR testing, sequencing, RNA, mRNA, spike protein, vaccines, gain of function research, etc., are all fake science inventions. They can ONLY be resolved, and quickly, by applying the well-understood and well-established principles and techniques of actual science.

Fake science and its promoters are confusing and hindering resolving the issues – be cautious and seek help from actual science experts or scientists (link).

Last night, as an unpaid subscriber, I received an email from Dr. Meryl Nass Substack titled “The “No Viruses exist” cult has been out in force lately.”  (link)

After reading it, I am confused about whether to cry with the absurd logic presented or laugh at the arguments (hilarious science). I could not decide, so in my frustration, I am leaving it to you to decide – my thoughts or questions are highlighted in bold.

@ “I told Christine Massey over and over that her FOIAs were answered by all countries in the same manner because a) the countries lie about everything related to COVID, …” So, why is it difficult to accept that they lied about the virus existence as well?

@ “These people want everything to be isolated the way they decide it should be isolated.” No, the question is where this (the virus) has been isolated as claimed. The result of an isolation step is an isolated item, in this case, the virus – where is it?

@ “Some things require indirect measurements.” True, but those things have to exist first. Where is that thing (the virus)? Please provide (scientific) evidence of its existence. Moreover, the measuring instrument must be calibrated/validated independently to show that it can measure lengths or distances. Where is the (“indirect”) test/method independently calibrated/validated to measure the viruses? There is none, and it is a fact.

@ “But here is the kicker. Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold? Have they never had flu? No cold sores? No genital herpes? No warts? All these are due to viruses.” That is the question. How have these observations been linked to the viruses? Where are these viruses? Who has them (samples or specimens of the isolated viruses)?

Please bring these questions/thoughts to Dr. Meryl Nass’s attention. (Substack link)

Years ago, I suggested a simple convolution approach using MS Excel Spreadsheet to predict blood/plasma drug levels from drug dissolution results. Several successful applications of such an approach have been published. A simple yet revolutionary approach! The model spreadsheet may be obtained from here.

Details of the approach are described in the publication (Saeed Qureshi (author), In Vitro-In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) and Determining Drug Concentrations in Blood from Dissolution Testing – A Simple and Practical Approach, The Open Drug Delivery Journal, 2010, 4: 38-47 (link).

Obtain a copy of Helpful Notes (link) for pharmaceutical drug dissolution testing with several examples of using this (convolution) technique, along with articles describing the testing, its issues, and suggested solutions.