About an article by David Marks, “The Truth About RFK Jr. and the Samoan Measles Outbreak” (link)
@ “When the U.S. Government assures the public that any vaccine or medication is safe and effective, this must come from an independent, thorough and transparent process, rather than relying only on the words and actions of those with vested interests.”
Exactly! This is what I have been saying.
The assurance must come from the actual science/chemistry experts (scientists), not from medical science experts, who do not have education, experience, or expertise in science – the science of isolation, purification, and characterization of substances/particles, in addition to developing, manufacturing, and testing chemicals (medicines, including vaccines).
Currently, no valid scientific evidence is available for viruses’ existence and/or the relevancy and efficacy of vaccines.
Dear RFK Jr., please seek help from actual science/chemistry experts (scientists) to address the science issue in the vaccines/medicines area.
Science Fraud in Medicines – Vast Majority Does Not Know (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
People should know that PCR and PCR Tests are two completely different things. Dr. Mullis developed and worked with PCR and not PCR tests. The PCR test is an invention of medical or biology experts who do not know or understand testing science/chemistry. Hence, they created a fraudulent test, which has no value in detecting an unknown and imaginary virus. It is all fake and false.
One may explain the difference between PCR and PCR tests with an analogy. PCR is like a fermentation process. It cannot show if alcohol (ethanol) is produced. However, alcohol production in the broth is tested by an alcohol test or tester (PCR test).
A test can only be developed if the reference standard is available. An alcohol test or tester will be valid as its reference standard (alcohol) exists and is available. However, a PCR test is invalid because its reference standard (virus) is unavailable. The PCR test/testing is a fake and fraudulent concept and practice.
Laboratories would have been shut down, and people would have gone to jail if such practices had been done in science/chemistry (analytical) laboratories. Unfortunately, doctors and their science are protecting this fraudulent activity.
“I fully believe vaccines cause Autism,” Greene wrote on X, formerly Twitter. ”It’s another example of crimes against humanity. And innocent babies, children, and their families are the victims.” (link)
I agree.
However, the author of the article claims otherwise:
“On Monday, the conspiracy-mongering congresswoman declared on social media that she believes in the debunked idea that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been researched again and again and found to be baseless.”
Doctors debunk the link between vaccines and autism (watch the included HuffPost video clip by Josh Zepps – Vaccine Hysteria), repeatedly mentioning the word “science,” stating that science has failed to establish this.
Doctors assume themselves as science experts (or scientists). This is where the confusion is: doctors do not study or are not trained in actual science/chemistry and make false claims/inferences about the science. They consider their narrative, mostly personal opinions or observations, as science having no link to actual science/chemistry, which deals with medicines/chemicals.
From the actual science perspective, there is no virus, so there is no need for vaccines. The use of vaccines is irrelevant and invalid. From a vaccine development perspective, considering the example of the mRNA vaccine, it is such junk/gunk that no one with an understanding of science/chemistry will suggest taking it. Physicians do not understand this as they lack understanding/knowledge of actual science/chemistry; hence, they make false, scientifically invalid, and stupid claims.
In an article/video, RFK Jr. stated that “CDC is a dishonest organization.” (link)
I agree with his view.
However, a lack of a scientific background, like many others, makes it hard for lawmakers to pinpoint the exact reason for this dishonesty. The reason is that the CDC and other similar organizations are led and managed by physicians who falsely claim to be science experts (scientists) or science followers, which is dishonesty. Physicians do not study or are not trained in science. There is an urgent need to audit physicians for their scientific claims to address the issue of viruses and vaccination.
Physcians’ Science vs Actual Science (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
mRNA Vaccine: Mythology, not Science or Medicine (link)
@ “Before widespread vaccines, disease killed nearly half of U.S. children under 5” (link)
The article, by a physician, is full of misinformation and false claims about science. Unfortunately, doctors do not study or are trained in science, so they make incorrect claims. For example;
@ “When a vaccine is developed, it is not immediately available to patients. It goes through many years of rigorous development before it is determined safe for human trials.”
Human or clinical trials are not science. It is a gross misunderstanding.
@ “Anyone can publish their opinion that is not based on science or expertise.”
This is true for physicians who do not study science and make false claims. Sorry! Doctors, please consider correcting your information and knowledge.
Clinical trials – misrepresentation of science (link)
COVID-19 Clinical trials: be watchful (link)
Understanding clinical trials and their outcomes – fake science at its best! (link).
Doctors Lie (link)
Biology, Virology, Immunology, Medical Science, Etc. Cannot Be Considered Science Subjects (link)
The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful (link).
FINAL REPORT: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation, Issues 500+ Page Final Report on Lessons Learned and the Path Forward” (link)
Some people referred me to this report, presumably for my comments. I want to, but it is a 500+ page report. I am sorry, I do not have time to critically review and comment on it.
I also feel it may not be a worthwhile thing to do, as the report is most likely based on inputs from medical experts (and associated bureaucrats) who created the disaster by considering themselves falsely science experts or followers of science.
It is a false and fraudulent claim as doctors or related medical experts do not study science or practice science. I strongly believe this is what caused the pandemic disasters – false and fraudulent claims in the name of science. I have extensively described and explained this view through my blog (link) and book (link).
In my view, the most critical lesson one should learn from the (fake) pandemic and the development of (fraudulent) vaccines is to consider purging out the fake and false science and its experts from the agencies. Moreover, all future related work/contracts should require a prior audit by actual science/chemistry experts, as medicines are primarily chemicals and are developed and manufactured by following principles of science/chemistry.
Obtaining a specific degree or studying a subject for a limited time may not make one a scientist. For example, a chemistry degree alone would not make a person a scientist. I am often referred to as a chemist as I have chemistry degrees. However, I do not consider it a correct or proper title for me.
I worked with Health Canada for 30 years with the official title of Research Scientist or Scientist, not a chemist, even though there was a separate designation (with a separate pay scale and significantly lower compensation than the scientists’ category) for chemists, where people work with having various levels of chemistry educations. So, having a degree alone would not make anyone a scientist. This practice is not only in Health Canada but also valid in other places, including FDA.
The chemistry degree is a science degree, but it makes you a chemist, i.e., to perform well-understood and established routines and principles of chemistry for a given job. Chemists follow relatively rigid rules and instructions regarding chemistry operations.
On the other hand, in my case, having degrees with a specialization in chemistry as a scientist, I was free to pursue the study of natural or biological processes, mainly those that fall under departmental mandates. I have no set limitations to follow when adhering to a particular subject.
For example, I did projects relating to drug (chemicals) absorption (natural processes) in humans and various animal species. I knew chemicals/chemistry but had to learn several other subjects and techniques to conduct such a study. I was trying to understand the natural process, not doing chemistry based on some set rules, but to know how chemicals/drugs work or behave in the body. Hence, I consider myself a scientist, not a chemist.
When I started this project, I had 12 years of academic training in science/chemistry and almost 10 years of working experience in a science capacity. So, I believe this would require someone to be considered a scientist.
The following was posted as a comment on an FB discussion (link).
The comment responded to is at the end.
Chris, your point is well taken. You acknowledge that biology/virology/immunology make assumptions and assertions arguably exaggerated, making their work of questionable merit.
However, Steve is trying to highlight different aspects which you are missing. Take, for example, your comment,
“[They] have a wealth of data programmed into their heads. They’ve mastered techniques to interact with materials in laboratory situations and know a lot about computer number crunching. They can recite physiological pathways and have images of cell structures …”
Agreed; they do all these things. But the question is, will it make them science experts or scientists? No, they would be biologists, virologists, and immunologists, but NOT scientists. This is the confusion people have that if someone does a lot of lab work, crunches numbers, and writes reports/publications, they become science experts or scientists.
(more…)
Physcians’ Science vs Actual Science (link)
Blog Article: Fake And False Science Of Illnesses And Diagnoses (link). FB (link). For convenience, questions are copied below the response.
Response:
@ “… is vacciantion build on the simmilar principle as homeopathy / administering a small doses of alleged poison to treat the illness/”
I have some knowledge and personal experience with homeopathy. Based on this, I would say that they are not similar. To me, they are as similar to comparing electric and gas-powered vehicles because they both require a (small) battery or electric power to start the car. So, they both could be considered electric-powered. However, they are very different in operation – there is no comparison.
Concerning “small doses/amount of alleged poison,” I do not think homeopathy injects poison. On the other hand, I am certain, based on what is available in the literature about vaccines, that they are not in small amounts (compared to homeopathic doses) but certainly significantly large amounts of filth/gunk (potentially poison). I would not suggest anyone take it, considering the science/chemistry aspect of it.
