Category: Uncategorized

Query:

“Dr. Qureshi, I’d love to have your views on this video by a virologist who claims there are 3 independent lines of evidence. I think Dr. Cowan/Kaufman probably addressed it but i can’t seem to locate their rebuttal.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNGKUm6Eo0

Response:

I did not find anything new in the clip. To me, it describes the same story repeated numerous times i.e., culturing is considered isolation. This is where the issue is. One requires extraction, not culturing, for isolation. Yet, there is no mention of extraction.

There is a mention of the technique “sucrose ultracentrifugation” or “gradient ultracentrifugation.” However, these cannot work here, and the interpretation is incorrect.

Using ultracentrifugation requires calibration to establish where the “SARS-COV-2” virus (particles) will fall in the gradient band. This (calibration) can only be achieved by first experimenting (ultracentrifugation) with pure isolated virus particles. As no isolated virus particles are available, ultracentrifugation cannot be calibrated or used correctly. Hence the interpretation of ultracentrifugation is false and irrelevant at best.

Considering the pictures (independent of photography type), CANNOT establish the nature of the objects, in particular in a culture or soup. I have explained this aspect here. So please, have a look.

So, in conclusion, the virus has not been isolated and/or identified, at least scientifically. I hope this will help.

The mRNA (vaccine) is described as a chemical molecule interacting with body subcellular structures and their chemical contents. Therefore, if one requires to study such interactions, one has to deal with their chemical characteristics and the chemistry subject. But, unfortunately, this has not been done.

The interaction has been evaluated under medical practices, not chemistry (or science)- hence, flawed and false conclusions. For example, medical practitioners have widely claimed that the efficacy of these mRNA-based vaccines is 95%+ while the safety profile is assumed to be good to excellent. However, this claim has purely been based on imagination because no virus or illness interaction study with the vaccine has ever been conducted. Thus the false conclusions (link, link).

Now, serious concern has been raised about the efficacy and safety of these vaccines. But, as described in this article (link), their assessment (or re-evaluation) is being suggested, and apparently, using the same approach, i.e., working under medical practices, which created the problem to start with. The chances of a valid and successful conclusion from such an exercise are about zero.

The focus is assessing the damage caused by the spike protein (directly or indirectly), a chemical compound or substance. Therefore, its assessment can only be conducted by testing based on chemical principles and practices. Unfortunately, this requires an authentic specimen of the spike protein to develop valid tests and testing, which is not available. Therefore, the adverse effect of spike protein and vaccines cannot be evaluated appropriately and accurately.

Thus, the tragedy of vaccination will continue until some sober and logical thinking takes over. I hope soon.

More information is here.

• The pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, are not medical issues or materials. Their characterization, production, and evaluation belong to chemical science or chemistry. Find a good chemist who will explain that there is no virus, RNA, or s-protein or test for them, and that science has not been followed.
• Claimed ivermectin efficacy indirectly shows that COVID-19 or its virus does not exist. Ivermectin is used to treat infection, most likely parasitic. Nothing, including ivermectin or vaccines, has been tested against the virus or COVID-19.
• Claims made by physicians and medical experts about chemicals (aka medicines) should be taken with a grain of salt, as they do not study their development, characterization, evaluation, or related science.
• Consider obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes (here) to learn the weakness of current thinking and the science of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines.

In general, science should always be reproducible because it is not based on the views of a single person, organization, or select group but on experimentation over several years by multiple people and groups.

However, the expressed view in the article (link) refers to fake science, which will always be irreproducible. Therefore, any reproducibility numbers provided in the article should also be fake because they are reported based on fake science practices.

For example, authorities and pharmacopeias claim to establish the quality of the products (such as tablets and capsules) based on “pharmaceutical science.”

It should be evident that there is no such thing as “pharmaceutical science.” It is a distorted, more like fraudulent, version of chemistry based on imaginary or fictional assumptions and principles; hence by definition, its data and results should not be reproducible or trusted.

The product quality claims have been based on the authorities’ narratives (called standards or guidance), such as FDA, USP, etc.

In this regard, one of the main tests is the drug dissolution test – a chemistry/chemical test. It evaluates the drug release from the products.

The test has never been validated to determine the dissolution of any product. It is highly unpredictable and irrelevant – shown repeatedly. The test reproducibility is that if a product shows a drug release/dissolution at 30 minutes between 55 and 100%, the product is considered of quality. Often, the test even does not provide results within this range.

Now is the PCR “test,” again a chemistry/chemical test, never been validated. Variability or reproducibility is poor and has to be. It is not a science-based test.

Both pharmaceutical and medical science mutually support each other (peer reviews), describing false chemistry and its principles.

Hence, science is not irreproducible, but fake (pharmaceutical and medical) sciences are.

For further details, please follow the link

A thought, taken from the internet (FB), worth considering!

FB (link) – with thanks to Steve Bashir.

 Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D., is an Analytical Chemist and former senior research scientist at Health Canada for over 30 years. 

There are many people who are speaking out against vaccines. Doctors and microbiologists. Even lawyers like Robert Keππedy and Reiner Fuelmich. You see them on so many podcasts. Yet, none of these people have the expertise in the science of isolation, purification, testing, and validation methods. That is necessary to show the existence/non-existence of a mi¢robe (e.g., virus). This is the domain of analytical chemistry.

Dr. Qureshi is the only scientist I know who is speaking out with the expertise to show definitively that no virus has ever been isolated and sequenced. And therefore, no test for it can be developed without a reference standard (specimen of virus).

Dr. Qureshi has been speaking out since the beginning of the fake pandemic about the non-existence of the virus. Due to the lack of any scientific evidence whatsoever. Yet, you don’t see him on these popular podcasts being interviewed. I wonder why. Everything we are hearing is riddled with fiction, whether for or against the va××iπe.

-Steve Bashir

Yesterday, someone sent me an email trail concerning a discussion/argument about the existence of the virus, for my view. I responded by considering the following two statements (in bold). I believe visitors will find my response helpful, so I am also posting it here.

____________________________________________________________________________

@ “I still have not seen a single concise, well-sourced article which makes the case that viruses don’t exist”

In response to the above, it is highly unlikely, in fact, impossible to find an article that will answer the question because the question is incorrect. For example, how can one show the existence (or otherwise) of something that does not exist?

On the other hand, the fake existence of something can be disproved. I believe this is what you are, or should be, asking for.

So, for example, if someone says that a certain dirt sample containing yellow particles is a gold ore. It can be confirmed (proven) by isolating the yellow particles and testing those yellow particles against the gold reference standard. If it matches, then the claim of gold in the ore/dirt is valid and proven the existence of gold in the ore.

On the other hand, if the yellow particles in the ore do not match the gold reference standard, then gold does not exist. The yellow particles could be from any number of things. So, the existence of the gold particle in the ore has been disproven or rejected.

The critical point to note here is that the existence or non-existence of something can only be established with the help of comparing it with an existing reference standard. If the reference standard is unavailable, one can confidently say that the thing one is looking for does not exist. The virus claim falls in this category, i.e., there is no reference standard of the virus, or its RNA is available anywhere. Therefore, the virus does not exist.

People get confused with such a statement, as noted below,

“Surely we can observe these particle under an electron microscope performing their tasks so they don’t necessary need to be physically isolated in tiny test tubes to prove that they exist!”

This is incorrect. Pictures are exactly like seeing yellow particles in the dirt and assuming them as gold, as described above. Only by isolating and testing against the reference standard can one confirm or reject the existence of the gold in the dirt. The picture would help but cannot be considered evidence of the existence of something. Only the (physical) isolation of the item can confirm its existence. As no physical sample of the virus or its RNA is available, the virus does not exist.

Further details here

Virology, and its science, are another name for the PCR test. It is well known that the PCR test is false and fraudulent (link), so virology and “the science” automatically become false and fraudulent. Therefore, there should not be any argument about it.  

If one takes out the PCR test, virology and “the science” will disappear like magic.

How to take the PCR test out? It is by getting an audit done by an independent third party, not from the virology or medical field. The external expert could be anyone trained and experienced in developing test methods (such as a chemist trained in analytical chemistry) or from organizations that develop reference standards, such as NIST.

The external expert will ask the first question to provide a report for the PCR test to show that it has been appropriately calibrated and validated. Bingo, check-mate, end of the game! No one can provide such a report because it requires a specimen of the isolated and purified virus or its RNA, which is unavailable.

PCR will be dead, and so will the virology and “the science.” Happy ending!

Further information (link)

A compilation of blog postings in two files (virus/vaccine and pharmaceutical). The posts are written by Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D., over the past 12 years, describing the lack of science and scientific methods for assessing such substances. They are written in easy-to-understand language, equally understandable for experts and others lacking relevant science backgrounds. Continue here.

They are must-reads for anyone seeking information to make informed choices about the substances – a great gift idea for those you care about.

Please, consider suggesting these Notes to the people in authority, such as members of parliament/congress, to help them make appropriate laws based on true science.

BUY the Notes here.

It is a psychological game to keep discussing an imaginary or fictitious object to indirectly convince or confuse the public that the object is real and exists.

In this respect, the gain of function (GoF) discussions and inquiries are to create a distraction from the reality of the virus’s non-existence and the fraudulent science.

A GoF means modifying the original product or process to improve its functionality. In principle, GoF itself is not a bad or wicked practice.

For example, if one likes to take a photo of a large wall painting when the distance away from the painting is limited. Then one would use a wide-angle lens. The wide-angle lens provides a gain of function for the camera with the standard lens.

Similarly, if the object is far away and appears very small, one uses a telephoto lens to bring the object near to take a reasonable-quality photo. Again, it will be considered as GoF as well.

The important point is that first, one must have a camera with a standard lens; only then improvement to it can be made and measured.  

If the product and process have deleterious properties, those properties could also be enhanced under GoF. Therefore, such studies are often conducted as a part of scientific research to learn the mechanisms of processes to control or further exploit the GoF.

In the case of virus research, it is assumed that GoF is about making a virus from dangerous to deadlier. However, it may not necessarily be an accurate assumption.

On the other hand, the questionable aspect of GoF concerning the virus is that it is a lie because no one has the “standard” virus specimen. Therefore, working or conducting research (aka GoF) with viruses is impossible.

Laboratories and experts do not show any tangible product from the research of any “altered” virus. It is hard to believe, but there is no evidence that scientific research on the GoF aspect related to the virus has ever been conducted.

The GoF research appears to be just another catchy phrase like the virus, virus-RNA, spike-protein, variant, isolation, sequencing, etc., without real-world evidence.

One can argue that experts and authorities have thoroughly fooled the public and others and wasted public and private financial resources.

An audit to clarify and settle the GoF debate is urgently needed by an independent (non-medical) third party, preferably science/chemistry-based.

However, as it stands now, the GoF research is as fake as the virus itself!

A cardiologist or immunologist (or physician, in general) is considered an expert/specialist on chemicals (medicines, including vaccines) and chemical testing (PCR, Rapid test, sequencing, etc.) without having relevant training and working experience.

However, having many years of training and working experience with chemicals, chemists/scientists are considered to have irrelevant expertise and opinions on the subjects. Why is it so?

Next time you are asked to follow the science (or advice), ensure the expert or specialist has some documented relevant working experience.

For further details, please follow the links below.

1. Science is missing – simple and clear! (link)
2.  An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
3. Science at the authorities – deceptive and fraudulent! (link)
4. Nowhere to be found! (link)
5. What is medicine? (link)