Category: Uncategorized

People seek evidence if vaccines have been tested against the virus (e.g., SARS-COV-2) or its variants. Unfortunately, the literature does not provide any (scientific) proof except the opinions and views of medical/pharmaceutical experts and the associated regulatory authorities.

It is not commonly recognized that the experts have not studied, trained, or practiced the relevant scientific subject; therefore, they neither understand the questions nor can provide the appropriate answers. But blame people who ask the questions with the derogatory label of “anti-vaxxers.”

An independent third-party assessment, not a peer review, is needed to resolve the controversy. Questions to address: (1) who isolated and has the specimen of the virus (SARS-COV-2); (2) how have tests for the virus been developed and validated without the availability of the reference/gold standards (i.e., the virus);  (3) reference to a study showing the vaccine tested and works against (neutralizing) actual virus or its infection.

The answer must be scientifically valid and in a language understandable to the consumers/patients following the quote associated with Albert Einstein “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

The public, and the scientists, seek answers. But there are no valid or scientific answers because there is no virus or pandemic. Prove it wrong!

For further information, see here (bioanalyticx.com)

There are different ways of doing such things. Considering the COVID-19 virus as an example, a straightforward option is,

Get a large number of the used masks and socked them in water. Then, decant the water out and evaporate it using freeze drying. Freeze drying is a technique where water can easily be removed under low pressure by reducing the boiling temperature of the water so it would not disturb things in the water.

Once one has the dry powder residue, apply it to animals (not to humans, at least not yet) and see if the disease develops. If not, then forget about the virus or COVID-19. There is no virus. On the other hand, if yes, start further fractionation while monitoring with animal/bioassay until a fraction containing only the caustic agent/virus is obtained. There are techniques available for doing such fractionation, e.g., chromatography.

No culturing, PCR, sequencing, or computer modeling is needed. One will have the virus (reference/gold standard) if it is there. That can be used for further evaluation and characterization (sequencing, structure elucidation, etc.)

If necessary, it (the PCR) will come after the caustic substance has been isolated. It is quite possible the caustic agent might not even be a virus (or biologic) but may be a simple metabolite of body physiology or from the metabolism of some consumed material such as a drug.

The approach described above is well-established in science and is often used for extracting/isolating substances.

For further information, please consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes, where I describe scientific aspects of modern-day medicines in simple language.

Asymptomatic COVID-19 is like asymptomatic boiling water. If water is not boiling, but the thermometer shows a reading of 100 C. It means the thermometer is faulty; throw it away. Please do not invent a new definition of boiling water, like asymptomatic boiling water.

Similarly, if a person is not showing symptoms (i.e., not sick) but tests positive, please throw away the (PCR) test, and do not label the person ill by calling it asymptomatic ill (COVID).

The public, including the experts/ ”scientists,” has been fooled. It was just the result of a faulty (PCR) test. The human tragedy could have been avoided if the test had been validated per regulatory and scientific practices and requirements. Unfortunately, the practice of the invalid (PCR) test is still in use, which needs to stop immediately.

Up to 80% of COVID-19 Infections Are Asymptomatic, a New Case Report Says (link).
(Video) Virus, COVID, pandemic, vaccine, and testing: fiction, not reality or science! (link)
COVID-19: Open letter to physicians, pharmacists, and laboratory managers (link)

Article: It’s Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion (link)

Sorry to say, but it is a tricky way to rationalize and maintain fictitious activities of the profession and keep the public ignorant and in deception.

It is an unequivocally false claim. The scientific community did not fail.

The medical and pharmaceutical professionals/experts failed. These professionals falsely promoted and marketed themselves as scientists and followers of science –  most certainly an untruthful claim.

However, they have never studied science, trained as scientists, or followed science.

The actual science was correct from the beginning demonstrating that there is neither a virus nor a pandemic. Therefore, there was no need for vaccines. Moreover, scientifically, developing a vaccine for a non-existing virus is impossible. Perhaps, more importantly, recommending the non-validated tests for monitoring the virus/pandemic violated the most fundamental principle of science. There is no excuse for authorities and experts ignoring/violating this essential scientific requirement, which clearly shows a lack of understanding of science and regulations (link).

It was repeatedly highlighted during the past three years that science is not being followed, and the story of the virus/pandemic has no scientific basis.  

Please be honest, accept the truth, and allow science to work with medicines/chemicals.

For further information, see here (bioanalyticx.com)

This post is a response to a query (below). The visitors to this site may also benefit from it.

Query:

“I’ve read, albeit very little, about terrain theory. But how do you explain me and my 3 sons all catching the so called Covid and having exactly the same high temperature of 39.8? My eldest got it first in about October. Me and the other 2 at Christmas. Obviously we have shared DNA, and it looks like engineered when having the exact same temp to the decimal point in all of us.

I’m not trying to disprove you, I’d genuinely like to hear your opinion.

By the way, I’m not trying to scare monger. The high temp lasted a few hours, then 2 days of having a cold. Whereas, I had flu about 6 years ago with a high of 41.5 and a week of blah.” (link)

Response:

The common medical practice of evaluating and deciding a sickness is based on testing.

For example, one uses a thermometer to establish a higher temperature, i.e., one has a fever. Therefore, the use thermometer is a test. A thermometer is a validated tester for monitoring temperature.

The next step is to establish what may have caused this fever. There could be any number of reasons for this deviation from the norm. Usually, one assumes it is just a typical reflection of body wear and tear (called flu-like symptoms).

People generally do not consider this as sickness but a reflection of the body attempting to correct the deviation (which forms the basis of terrain theory). So bear with it or take care of it by adjusting with external help such as resting, light meals, and boosting with vitamins/fruits. I do not consider it an illness and, God forbid, a serious one.

However, if this deviation (illness) deteriorates or lingers, one has to find the reason for what may be causing it. So, one (usually a physician, like any tradesperson) guesses it based on their experience and observations and seeks its reason.

The guesses are established or confirmed by testing. There is an extensive battery of tests available. Considering my background in testing, I am not a fan of modern tests. They have weaknesses.

However, for the sake of this discussion, let us assume that these test work and provide indication and cause of illness. Once the test shows an unusual situation, one proceeds with the treatment to bring the body on a regular track.

Once the body is back in its typical form, the treatment must be stopped, especially if it is based on something the body does not need or require for its normal function, like chemical-based medicines.

Unfortunately, it has become a fashion during the past couple of years to ASSUME, immediately, any variation in normal body activity, including higher temperature, as a serious illness. This illness is named COVID-19 and is assumed to be caused by a virus attack named SARS-COV-2.

The illness must be treated immediately with the intervention of a foreign compound (or mixture) called a vaccine. Not only is the treatment suggested to bring the body to the normal stage but implied to be used continuously forever – a clear violation of living a natural and healthy life.

As stated above, illness needs to be established using a test, and this illness and its virus are confirmed based on a test called PCR. Therefore, a positive PCR test would indicate COVID-19.

However, the biggest problem with the test is that it is scientifically irrelevant and invalid. There should not be any doubt or question about it. The reason is that for a test to be relevant and valid, it must be validated against the substance it is supposed to test, in this case, the virus (SARS-COV-2). However, it has not been because no virus specimen is available to develop and validate the test.

Therefore, people should recognize that there is no such thing as the virus (SARS-COV-2, variants, etc.) of its illness (COVID-19).

Considering your specific situation, you all recovered from your illness fairly quickly and without any serious impact. This would support the assumption that your body was going through normal wear-tear, nothing more. So, enjoy your life and health without unnecessary worries.

Concerning your link with children through DNA and the similarity of illness, this is just a fancy talk “experts” tell you to sell you the products and expertise. Scientifically, the link of DNA to illness is in its infancy stage (if it is there at all). Working as a scientist in this area, I have difficulty believing and accepting its accuracy and relevance. At this stage, it is a marketing tool to impress people and promote products and services, which are, otherwise, a waste of money and good health.

I am unsure if this explanation will help you and your children escape the fear of illness or bad health. However, it is worth the try.

For further information, please consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes, where I describe scientific aspects of modern-day medicines in simple language.

I wish you the best, and be vigilant of modern-day health experts and their advice.  

Medicines, alternative medicines, drugs, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, tablets, capsules, antibiotics, therapeutics, vaccines, minerals, vitamins, proteins, fats, sugars, etc. – all are different names (synonyms) for the word – chemicals. Independent of their source, synthetic or natural, there is no difference.

These chemicals can only be studied by conducting laboratory experiments on isolation, purification, characterization, and testing using chemistry/science principles. However, testing remains the most critical aspect, covering the other three mentioned. Therefore, ensure getting information about such chemicals and their characteristics from people who have strong knowledge of chemistry/science and related laboratory experience.

Medical and pharmaceutical experts lack academic training and work experience on the subject. As a result, they often make enormous errors and false claims (for or against) about chemicals and relevant science.

This is the main and the only cause of the current virus-based pandemic and its treatment – a false and tragic story of a non-existing virus-based illness and its vaccine-based treatment. Chemistry/Science clearly and accurately predicted the fakeness (fraud) of the virus, testing, pandemic, and vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic.

Unfortunately, significant health damage has been done, potentially for the long term, and recovery may not be possible, irrespective of the claims made.

Seek help about chemicals from experts trained in chemistry/science, not the medical/pharmaceutical practitioners who lack the relevant knowledge and experience in this area and have caused the issue to start with.

In the future, please pay attention to the testing claims of an illness (their validity and authenticity) and its potential chemical-based treatments. Then, drugs will be much simpler to understand, relevant, and cheaper to use, and life will be more enjoyable.

Please obtain a copy of Helpful Notes today to learn about the relevant science for medicines.

The (gradient) ultracentrifugation technique is often described in the medical/virology literature regarding virus separation, isolation, and purification. However, its use is misunderstood and misrepresented for virus isolation. In short, the technique is a separation technique but cannot isolate viruses, as explained below.

Centrifugation is a simple technique for separating components in a liquid solution. For example, if one shakes some sand particles with water in a test tube and leaves it on the table, the sand particles will quickly settle at the bottom of the test tube. However, if the particles are small and light, they may not settle at the bottom of the tubes quickly and often remain suspended in water. Using centrifugation machines, the test tubes are spun to pull the material down with centrifugal force.   Therefore, it is another technique for separating, like filtering the content (solid/liquid) in a flask or test tube.

The ultracentrifugation technique uses extremely high spinning speeds and gravitational force (g) in thousands of multiples. Such a force pulls the extremely small particles, even macromolecules such as proteins, DNA/RNA, etc., towards the bottom of the tubes.

A variation of this technique, i.e., gradient ultracentrifugation, is conducted where the aqueous phase is replaced by stacking different concentrations of sugar (sucrose) solutions in the test (centrifuge) tubes. Applying the test sample (e.g., treated swab sample) at the top and then spinning the tubes results in spreading particles across the tubes based on particles’ size and density. The band (position) where the specific types of particles settle is pipetted out and used for identification and characterization.

Conceptually, ultracentrifugation is similar to stack sieving, in which particles of different sizes are separated and collected in pans with different sieve or hole sizes. The critical thing to remember is that it is a separation technique but cannot identify or characterize the nature of the particles it separates.

From the virus isolation perspective, gradient ultracentrifugation’s separation or spreading ability does not isolate the virus particles but potentially collects in a band reflecting a certain size and density particle range. Therefore, it still provides a mixture of the original sample, perhaps less dense and more homogenous than the applied sample. Due to the heterogeneity in biological particles, this differential centrifugation suffers from contamination and poor recoveries. The particles’ mass, density, and shape dictate the position of the (particles) band.

However, knowing which band or section of the tubes contains the virus requires a calibration of the centrifugation step before its use. This calibration step can only be done using the isolated and purified virus specimen. But, such a virus specimen is not available. Therefore, one cannot determine which band will contain the presumed virus.

In reality, the centrifugation currently divides the original swab specimen (gunk) into smaller portions, not knowing if the virus exists or which portion (band) contains it. Thus, nothing gets isolated. Therefore, virus isolation using ultracentrifugation is a false claim and shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method/technique.

Please obtain a copy of Helpful Notes today to learn about the relevant science for medicines.

Most claims by physicians and other medical experts are considered reflective of science or science-based. However, it is critical to note that the profession is not science-based. Science has never been part of its degree curriculum, training, expertise, or research (link). Moreover, there is no such thing as medical or pharmaceutical science – it is a made-up name or brand for fakeness or deception.

Most, if not all, claims made by these professionals may be considered observations or assumptions without the involvement of science.

For example, a recent claim is that a virus (SARS-COV-2) is causing illness, but there is no virus. Amazingly, experts claim to have developed a test that can see and monitor this non-existing virus or its effects! Even more bizarre is the claim to have developed highly effective treatments (vaccines) for killing this non-existing virus and its illness. Furthermore, experts are seeking more exuberant research funding and control to “protect” the public from similar future viruses and pandemics.

The actual science (chemistry/analytical chemistry) correctly predicted the fakeness of the virus, tests, and vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic (link, link, link).

Claims are being made for the preparedness to handle future pandemics; however, scientifically, there was no virus or pandemic, and there cannot be any in the future.

Any claims made in this regard should be evaluated based on actual science, preferably seeking help from research-based chemistry experts. Further information may be found here (link). Please obtain a copy today to learn about the relevant science for medicine and direct medical and pharmaceutical professionals toward science.

Often one hears discussions about the nature of the COVID-19 vaccines, such as:

Is it a gene therapy, biologic, s-protein treatment, traditional pharmaceutical, mRNA, vaccine, or something else? It could be anything, everything, or maybe nothing. In fact, it is a fraud.

From the science or reality perspective, it is most likely a cocktail of some chemicals with one major declared, mRNA, a chemical compound.

As the detailed composition of such entities has not been disclosed (which should have been), it is safe to assume that all substances in vials would be “pure chemicals.” Further, they are most likely nonphysiological, i.e., the human body would not have them or require them for its natural functions; hence, many adverse effects (presumed and observed).

All claims and discussions about them can safely be considered mental gymnastics for escaping the science fraud that occurred in the name of advances in medical science.

On the other hand, all claims mentioned above relate to testing or interactions with the virus. However, one thing is sure, the virus and its interactions have never been studied because the virus does not exist—therefore, all claims and naming become false or lies.

There is no way out of this mess except to declare that fraud has occurred. The public has been fooled and deceived. Start with stopping the treatment/vaccination and ignoring “medical experts,” including those branding themselves now as non-virus or no-vaccine advocates. Unfortunately, their views and knowledge about substances (chemicals) are as shallow as virus and vaccine supporters. Instead, seek help from “outsiders” with training, knowledge, and research experience working with substances (chemicals), such as chemists.

Consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes to study the science behind medicines here.

For further information, please follow the link (link).