Category: Uncategorized

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.

Recently, the US president (Mr. Joe Biden) has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, like many others, including the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Justin Trudeau) and CDC official (Dr. Anthony Fauci). Therefore, per CDC guidelines, they need to protect themselves and others from the negative impact of the so-called virus. One of such (science-based) guidelines is to isolate/separate oneself from others.

On the other hand, CDC does not consider “isolation” or “isolate” to mean to separate from others; in fact, the opposite, i.e., to mix and mingle.

For example, when one requests a specimen of the isolated or separated virus (COVID-19 virus, in particular), virologists and infectious diseases experts (primarily physicians) refer to samples of snot or phlegm (swab samples) mixed and stirred or spun with multiple ingredients. This definition or practice of “isolation” is described in the publication from the CDC (1), commonly presented forcefully as supporting evidence of THE virus isolation.

Therefore, per CDC guidelines or its interpretation of isolation, people should mix and mingle freely and not be separated. Hence, people separating themselves from others violate the CDC  recommendation of isolation.

For a further detailed explanation on the topic, please see here (1, 2, 3)

The falseness of science at the CDC

A recent article describes the view of the CDC official (Dr. Fauci) “that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the virus.” (link). This should not be news, as it was expected and predicted (link).

However, another claim is made that “[vaccine] protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death” Scientifically and logically, this view is incorrect.

Scientifically and technically, vaccines are not considered medicines (such as antibiotics) to treat the infection but prepare the body to kill bugs (in this case, the virus). A vaccine (immunization) is like a protection net or wall to create a fence against the entry of the virus. However, if the net is penetrated through (as acknowledged), then there is no protection, and the virus will cause its effect, which should be treated with anti-infection treatment.

Furthermore, stating that “At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it played a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease.” This is speculation, not a scientific judgment. A scientific claim in this regard requires a lab study/experiment, which should first show that the virus causes the infection and then, secondly, the infection is treatable by the vaccine. In this respect, the vaccine should then not be considered a vaccine but an anti-infection drug. It should be used as an anti-infection drug, not a vaccine for immunization.

The observation and statement provide strong evidence against the CDC’s COVID-19 virus theory and claims. The illness, if it exists, may more likely be misdiagnosed (commonly assumes seasonal hiccups). Certainly, illness has nothing to do with the virus because, to date, no virus has been found or isolated from any ill person.

Please, reconsider “scientific” practices at the CDC. For further details, please see here (1, 2)

People often express their frustration that the wealthy gain control of people’s lives that help them further to make more wealthy and then more controlling. In this respect, a name often mentioned is Mr. Bill Gates because of his current involvement in viruses, vaccines, and pandemic episodes.

Mr. Gates made his enormous wealth through his software company (Microsoft). So, people assume that his greed for wealth generation through the vaccines business is causing the current misery of human and economic suffering. Continue here

During the beginning phase of the so-called pandemic, I evaluated two studies, one from Australia (link) and the other from the USA (CDC, link), describing that studies made false claims of virus isolation. But unfortunately, everyone likes to be on the bandwagon, as it pays high financial and personal rewards. Therefore, others make similar claims that SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19 virus) exists and has been isolated.

A similar study from India is also making a stir – promoted as evidence for SASR-COV-2 isolation in India (First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India, link). But, in short, it is also as false as others, including those two mentioned above. (continue here)

The similarity of work is evident but with different types of objects. Both types of techs are trained with primary college/university education supported by on-the-job training by peers to perform repetitious work. However, one of the techs is generally categorized as a scientist. It is unclear why this is so when they obtain no learning and/or training in science (link).

This discrepancy in training and claim of the techs causes hindrance in addressing illnesses and their evaluation (testing) such as virus-based, in particular COVID-19. Therefore, the hospital techs, such as physicians, should seek help from trained scientists to isolate and identify the “bugs” (so-called pathogens or poisons/chemicals).

It is hoped that authorities will consider this suggestion with an open mind and without hostility.