Category: Uncategorized

It is unfortunate that people often use the word “study” in describing COVID-19. Unfortunately, the use of the word “study” is a marketing catchphrase to attract people’s attention and legitimize the views expressed.

In reality, concerning COVID-19, no study has been done or can be done. Conducting an investigation/study requires an actual or physical sample of the substance and a valid test with a measurable parameter. In the case of COVID-19, none is available, including a test, the virus (SARS-COV-2), RNA and/or protein.

Even in the case of masks’ usefulness or relevance, all studies/claims have to be fake or false, as testing a mask’s efficacy requires a physical sample of the virus that does not exist [link]. Hence, all “studies” or claims in this regard will remain unsubstantiated opinions – thus requiring frequent flip-flopping.

In addition, people do not realize that opinions/stories of virus mutation are examples of the flip-flop to hide the lack of vaccine relevance or efficacy, as vaccines have never been tested against the virus [link]. It is a scientific fact and not an opinion.

Just be careful when reading the literature or listening to “scientific” or “expert” opinions.

Someone, this morning, pass it along a question to me asking a response as to

“Why would vitamins need PEG in there?”

The inquirer refers to the ingredient (Polyethylene Glycol or PEG) on the vitamin bottle label. I provided the following response. I hope visitors to my website will benefit from my reply as well.

Medicine is an actual drug (also called an active ingredient) in a product. For example, Tylenol is not a drug or medicine (but a package containing the drug). In the case of Tylenol, the actual drug is a chemical compound called acetaminophen.

So, if one needs to take Tylenol, one can take acetaminophen powder in the tablet equivalent quantity, which will have the same therapeutic effect as the tablet. Chemical manufacturers and suppliers usually sell these powders of drugs, such as acetaminophen.

On the other hand, to make a tablet or other drug products (capsules, creams, suspensions, suppositories, etc.), one needs to add several ingredients (called inactive ingredients). This addition is done to make the product STABLE for use so that the user gets the exact amount of drug as intended.  

So, one uses these ingredients to make products for the CONVENIENCE and accuracy of getting the drug from a tablet/capsule. It is not only the PEG. All others mentioned under the “other ingredients” category serve the same purpose (i.e., tablet/product manufacturing).

How toxic or safe to use are these inactive ingredients is a separate issue. Usually, such evaluations are done in animals (maybe humans, from historical data). In this regard, literature provides information about acceptable use and safe amounts for inactive ingredients. Hence they are considered safe to use.

However, on a personal note, one should undoubtedly watch their excessive use, just like excessive use of anything is not a healthy habit. The scientific studies, in this regard, are usually short-term and not thorough; hence always leave doubts about the safety claims.

COVID-19 and SARS-COV-2 are based on PCR tests, which by definition, is not valid test. In simple terms, the PCR test does not test/detect a virus or its infection – it cannot. Unfortunately, people in general,  experts/physicians in particular, are unaware of this fact. Instead, they are blindly following the fed narrative.

Suppose a thermometer (tester) shows a high temperature (fever) for an otherwise healthy and happy person. In that case, it does not mean the thermometer is telling a hidden fever or illness, but the thermometer is faulty. Unfortunately, this is how often positive PCR results are interpreted for COVID-19, e.g., see here (link) – an utterly wrong interpretation.

Therefore, as the (PCR) test is fake, the virus and its associated illness and treatment are fake too.

If you would like to discuss this aspect in further detail, please seek help from someone who is trained and works in the science of testing, i.e., test method development and validation. Professionals (such as physicians, immunologists, virologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists) would not be able to help. These professionals have no or limited training and understanding of the subject (test development and validation). They are as confused in this regard as anyone else and make false decisions and claims.

Further details (1, 2, 3)

A recent article states that Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines [which is named Comirnaty](link).

Comirnaty was a shell game to deceive the public that “now” mRNA is an “approved” product, not EUA. In one of my posts, I clearly described this deception that there can’t be an approved product because to have an approved product, the EUA product has to be withdrawn, which never happened. link

On the other hand, it appears that the vaccination days are numbered. There are two reasons:

(1) lack of efficacy/benefits of vaccination and widespread acknowledged severe adverse effects, including deaths;

(2) Full scientific data has to be submitted to the FDA (I believe by 2023) to establish the safety and efficacy of the EUA vaccines, which is not forthcoming. Safety and efficacy cannot be established without the availability of the isolated and purified virus, which is unavailable.

Furthermore, the recent (August 11, 2022) changes in CDC guidelines support this view, which states,

“COVID-19 remains an ongoing public health threat; however, high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity and the availability of medical and nonpharmaceutical interventions have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19.” link

It means that majority are immune (vaccinated or not), so obviously, there is a limited or no need for vaccination.

Secondly, per guidelines, “People who have symptoms of COVID-19 or who have had known exposure to someone with COVID-19 should be tested for COVID-19.” (link). Asymptomatic would not require testing – this is huge. This will significantly reduce testing numbers (hence positives). This would indicate fewer COVID-19 positives – which will help declare that the “battle” won against the pandemic. Hence no or limited use of vaccination and, by extension, discontinuation.

Move on to the next “project.” It does not have to be real or genuine, but a bigger and better one – must  “follow the science”!

Details (1, 2, 3, 4)

Someone sent me an email to comment, stating:

[This guy says and is willing to bet people that viruses exist, even covid 19. What do you answer to that? Thanks, If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them? (link)]

I sent my response (below). I thought it might be helpful to visitors to my blog as well.

_____________________________________________________________________

It is very difficult to argue with such people if they work with a self-developed definition (named “virology definition”). For example, saying.

“Instead, they are misled into thinking that because they claim that “no virus particle has been isolated” based on the dictionary definition of isolation (instead of the virology definition), that that is proof that viruses don’t exist.”

It is like saying the color of the sky is green (based on atmospheric science definition).  

Changing the definition to make his point is a clear indication or proof that Mr. Steve Kirsch is indirectly accepting that the virus has never been isolated in the true sense of the meaning of the word and science. So what is left to debate? Nothing! He has already lost it and should be thankful for saving his award money.

About photographs, they have no scientific meaning or relevance. If the claim is that virus is a particle, then it has to be isolated, and the sample should be available in its native/pure form in a tube or vial. Period!

ATCC samples are not virus samples but gunks. Sorry, they lack subject understanding (link).

People have seen pictures of many things that do not exist, e.g., the tooth fairy or unicorn (link). I will be happy to participate in the debate if required. However, the judge or moderator has to be from an independent third party, preferably having knowledge or experience in isolation and separation science.

I hope this will help.

Dear All:

Most likely, my professional contributions on FB will significantly be reduced if not stopped completely. I am on the FB hit list and returning from a 24-hour restriction. However, I may be permanently banned soon, as it happened on LinkedIn some weeks ago.

See (here) the messages found “misleading or inaccurate information” by Facebook and LinkedIn. Thanks.

Using or promoting an invalid test is considered criminal negligence/activity in the scientific world punishable by law. The PCR, and other related tests, such as antigens and antibodies, for the COVID-19 virus (SARS-COV-2) and its variants are scientifically invalid (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). The objection is based on my 40+ years, including 30 years with Health Canada, working as a research scientist involved in tests development and validation and their applications in different areas. Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the US FDA, Health Canada, and others, should have taken action to stop this criminal negligence activity,

Surprisingly, however, authorities are taking no action to stop this negligence but promoting and requiring the testing – why? There is something horrendously wrong here, i.e., not applying the laws of science and its practices and jeopardizing people’s health and well-being.

Therefore, the investigative and justice departments are requested to look into the situation to stop the negligence practices, i.e., requiring the invalid tests mentioned above.

Please, pass this request to anyone who would be helpful. Also, if someone requires detailed technical and scientific information on the subject, please do not hesitate to contact me at principal@pharmacomechanics.com.

Stop considering physicians as scientists, as they have never been taught and trained in science (link)

Stop relying on peer (buddy) reviews. They are biased and unscientific. Instead, seek independent third-party assessments (link).

Be watchful of the practice of “peer-reviewed.” This word has caused enormous damage to science and brought unthinkable (financial and health) sufferings to the public. The peer-reviewed process is implied and promoted as an independent review or assessment of the scientific claims or publications, which is inaccurate. Instead, it is a review process by people having the same expertise, interest, and mindset, with or without conflict of interest – like buddies. Certainly not independent or unbiased by any means as often assumed.

For example, often suggested that tens if not hundreds of studies and publications are available in “peer-reviewed” journals describing the isolation of the virus. Indeed, numerous publications explain the procedure or process, but no isolated virus is available anywhere. Therefore, anyone who asks for the isolated virus specimen is considered an outsider (not a peer) incapable of understanding the “science.” The question asked is not about the science but a specimen of the isolated virus.

It is like inquiring about a car. An inquirer is never required to have an engineering degree or work experience in the auto industry to examine or assess/review the car’s performance. Most valuable reviews are from the users of the vehicles, not by the automakers or the government authorities. Makers of the item do not provide reviews but advertisements. Unfortunately, in the medicines/pharmaceutical area, developers of the products (peers) provide reviews. For example, the virus exists, causes the illness, the PCR/antigen tests the virus, and vaccines work. These are the claims made by peers, not by the users or any independent third party.

Anyone who asks about specimens of the isolated virus, validation report for the PCR/antigen tests, vaccines’ safety, and efficacy tested against the virus is considered a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer. Is anyone who asks questions about cars’ availability or performance considered anti-cars or anti-industry? Of course, not, but a smart buyer or consumer! The person wants the car, likes to buy it, and likes to make an informed decision.

On the other hand, in reality, “scientists,” experts, or peers (or so-called “vaxxers”) in the medical/pharmaceutical areas have nothing to show for their claims. They have simply been lying hidden under the cover of “peer reviews.”

So, in the future, if something is presented as being peer-reviewed for its authenticity, in particular medical/pharmaceutical areas, ignore it while requesting an independent audit or third-party review.