This article is a response to an intense discussion on FB (Link, link, link, link). Considering its length, which may not be suitable for FB, I am posting it as a blog article. My blog visitors, who may not follow FB, would also benefit from the post here.

Wow! Very interesting comments here on this thread and others.

To me, the most interesting ones are the comments concerning my (unacceptable) behavior and (poor) writing and communication skills. It is laughable; many clearly understand what I write about the science and the virus/virology. So, what is the issue? Do you expect that I should have writing skills like competing against a Harry Potter Novel writer or some linguistic expert? Sorry, I write simply using direct words, often science and scientific demands, not in sweet or double-meaning wordings or narratives. Continue here

Two days ago, I posted a link to a Substack article on FB (link), which missed or ignored an important contribution (mine). I do not understand why people felt hurt or angry with the post and comments. See for yourself. Mike Stone (ViroLIEgy fame) even started a separate Thread citing some comments (link).

I wondered what happened and what might have caused such trashy behavior and outbursts by some in the “group.”

It appears that it could be the outcome of a post by Linda (on TG), a simple and short comment supporting my views, which the group could not handle, even though she emphasizes that my views do not contradict those mentioned by non-virus camp.

So, why is so much anger against me and my views? It’s hard to know, except they are sensitive to their false claim, narrative, or science. Is it?

You be the judge. I would appreciate your thoughts on it, if possible, as to why so much anger and bad-mouthing against me.

Thanks to Linda and so many others who read my articles and provided appreciation and support. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart. God bless you all!

If someone has not studied and practiced chemistry, physics and/or mathematics in exhaustive detail and does not have hands-on experience but claims to be a science expert or scientist, in that case, they are fake and must be ignored. (link)

Viruses and their existence and isolation, RNA, spike protein, sequencing, PCR testing, and developing vaccines resulted from fake science/scientists. The science (chemistry) does not support any of these claims. There should not be any debate or argumentation about it.

Furthermore, whenever you see the word “study” or “research,” including those published in peer-reviewed “scientific” journals concerning the virus and its RNA, spike protein, mRNA and/or vaccine, consider that you are presented with false and fraudulent information.

Nobody can do such studies or research as none of the above items are available. No study has ever been done or can be done until they are available in physical form and pure from somewhere. It is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

You are not a fool, but fake scientists have fooled and tricked you with scientific-sounding jargon.

Medical experts, particularly physicians, are often presented as science experts or scientists, which is categorically a false and invalid claim. It is not just my claim or observation; anyone can form this opinion by studying the curriculum of any medical/medicine (M.D.) degree program. (link, link)

You will quickly observe an absence of science teaching and training. The medical degree emphasizes memorizing some physiological and chemical terms to associate with the patient’s symptoms to prescribe well-established allopathic medicines (mostly pure chemicals and non-physiological). There is no actual science or its research anywhere.

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that medical experts can not follow the concepts and practices of isolation, purification, and characterization of viruses, RNA, spike protein, and vaccines. These are chemistry-based substances or molecules. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that they do not even try to understand the shortcomings (link) but demean the others, the genuine and actual scientists. The real tragedy!

Unfortunately, the public suffers from fake and false science propaganda, and so do the countries. The tragic mindset needs to be addressed – and quickly.

Information on my training, expertise, and experience is provided here.

I explained this in an earlier article. However, it requires some further clarification. So, the following is based on another analogy.

Assume that people in a city noticed that many have eye infections, reflected by redness and watering of eyes (symptoms). People tried all possible treatments, including the medical one, but to no avail.

So, it is considered a new illness caused by something (“thing/agent”) in the environment, such as air or water (from a pond, lake, or river). This becomes the first observation that something in water/air is causing it. Let us find out. It means extracting/isolating the thing from the air, water, or both. Now, we are starting an isolation step.

Let’s say water (pond, lake, or river) causes more intense illness, so the water may contain a higher quantity of the thing. Therefore, water is chosen for further evaluation or isolation. Water looks quite clear, meaning whatever the thing is in there is mostly of very small size (particles or microbe, we do not know). Most likely, filtration would not help, meaning it would not isolate the thing.

In that case, people usually use adsorption technology. Assuming these are particles, let’s try some adsorbent, such as silica (a refined or specific version of sand). Put some quantity of silica in (very large) quantity of water and leave it there so that the thing may get adsorbed onto silica. Let us assume we are lucky, and that thing got absorbed onto silica. Put an extremely small amount in the eyes (humans, often). Oops, the eyes got flared up right away. So, it means we got the stuff out of water on silica. However, we do not know what it is.

Next, there are ways to get the stuff out of silica. Let us try using a small amount of alcohol. For example, shake the silica with alcohol. Filter again, remove the silica, and evaporate the alcohol part to dryness. Most likely, we will get a small amount of white powder. Reconstitute it with water and test again with eyes (extremely small amount). Wow, eyes reacted again very strongly. Let us assume we are so lucky that the powder after ethanol contains only that compound (extremely rare chance). However, let us assume it is one single component, just particles.

We have isolated the agent of interest.

Send it to the chemical lab to see if it is a chemical in nature. Let us assume it is chemical in nature. Now, the chemistry lab will analyze the chemical composition based on (for example) carbon, hydrogen,  oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and then their arrangement (joining) to establish the molecule’s structure.

If it is a commercially available compound, the chemist will get/buy it, dissolve it in water, and test it on the eyes. If it reproduces the effect, it will confirm that it is the caustic agent or agent of interest. Otherwise, it has to be synthesized (chemically or biologically) and tested with the eyes. If it reproduces the eye effect. Then, it became a new and novel toxin –  label it a “virus”).

We have isolated the new and novel toxin – virus. Label, store, and use it as a reference (gold) standard for future testing or studying.

Do you see any culturing step anywhere? No, culturing is not required for isolation. It’s a gross misunderstanding of the subject of isolation.

However, if it is microbial instead of chemical particles, the sample will be sent to the biological lab to see if they can identify it or if it is new. It will become a microbial standard.

Note it is an extreme example. In practice, a vast number of steps are usually involved (often takes years to complete), but conceptually, this is exactly how the isolation is done or should be done. Also, the chemist/biologist will have a physical sample of the thing at the end, the must requirement of the isolation step. 

I read a recent article by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, “Did Cochrane’s study on masks get it wrong?” which analyzes two views about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face masks in protecting from viruses and their infection (link).

There is no doubt that both views are presented by parties with high credentials emphasizing their expertise and experience in a write-up. Below are the two views in a nutshell:

  • Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (Cochrane Review, link)

is ” … 2023 Cochrane review which concluded that wearing a face mask “probably makes little or no difference” in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

  • What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis? (link)

Criticizes the above by stating, “The Cochrane Library, a trusted source of health information, misled the public by prioritizing rigor over reality” by Naomi Oreskes (Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University)

Reading the articles and having a background in science, especially in research, while working at Health Canada as a research scientist for 30 years, I am quite concerned about the poor quality of scientific research and reasoning provided in the publication (Cochrane Review) and follow-up discussions. Continue here

It is important to note that physicians are taught and trained to write prescriptions for well-established pharmaceuticals (aka potent chemicals and mostly physiologically irrelevant) – no more, no less.

For this purpose, they must memorize some physiology, biology, and chemistry words during the training/education.

Furthermore, they do not study or get training to invent or identify new diseases or develop new treatments (pharmaceuticals/chemicals) – scientifically.

It is unclear how they consider and promote themselves to be scientists and practitioners of science. It is hard to find the basis for their claims. There is practically none. Wrong? Prove it! 

Using the vocabulary from the subjects mentioned above, without relevant laboratory work and with the help of computer drawing software, they declared the existence of the viruses, their RNAs, and spike proteins. It is purely a fictional story without any scientific evidence. No physical specimens of these things are available anywhere. Everything is illusionary or mythical. Wrong? Prove it! 

On top of that, mysterious vaccines have been developed for the imaginary virus or illness. Sketchy details describing the vial’s content have been provided. There is a strong possibility that these vials may contain some unknown content, potentially harmful (microbial) gunk, without usual and standard scientific characterization. Wrong? Prove it! 

Every claim is based on peer/buddy-reviewed articles/”research” from journals labeled “scientific” without accreditation by any independent third party, but primarily by self or news media-proclaimed experts.

In short, the claims about the virus, RNA, spike protein, vaccines, and so-called medical science, in general, are textbook cases of quackery and science fraud. Wrong? Prove it!

It should not, then, be surprising to note that medical/pharmaceutical experts sell/promote vaccines through authorities’ sponsorship and mandates and with the highest levels of immunity. It indicates that they may be aware of the uselessness and harmfulness of the products; otherwise, they would sell directly to consumers/patients like other safe and effective products. Use caution in accepting these experts’ claims. In most cases, they are factually false or not science-based.

The above views are based on my working experience (30 years) as a research scientist at Health Canada for the assessment and evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Further information about related work may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by (Dr. Qureshi, co-author), who has extensive experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.

People do not realize that it is not only COVID-19/Ivermectin, as an example of so-called clinical trials, but most, if not all, will be shown to be invalid. As I have explained several times, the reason is that clinical trials are a specific type of analytical (chemistry) test. Unfortunately, these tests/trials are done and promoted fraudulently as valid and scientific. Proper analytical tests require precise and quantifiable outcomes (endpoints) using VALIDATED analytical tests/methods.

In the case of current practices of clinical trials, there is no such thing – neither an objective and qualifiable endpoint (but mostly subjective symptoms or arbitrary markers) nor validated tests (but non-validated and irrelevant tests such as PCR, drug dissolution). Hence, a valid clinical or scientific trial cannot be conducted, particularly under the guidance of medical experts and related regulatory authorities who lack the necessary training and understanding of the subject/testing.

Do not forget the disastrous failure of the clinical trials and the vaccine development for COVID-19. The catastrophic outcome of the vaccine was accurately predicted based on the understanding of flawed PCR tests and the analytical or scientific aspects of clinical trials (link, link, link, and much more at Bioanalyticx.com).

Further information may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.

People should keep in mind that physicians, including specialists like cardiologists, virologists, immunologists, oncologists, etc., are not trained for chemicals (deceptively called medicines) and their development and testing.

This lack of training and practice/”research” in chemical science (chemistry) caused the fake science practices of virology/immunology. It resulted in development of harmful “medicines,” so-called vaccines, and other related claims.

If it had been seen from the scientific aspects of chemicals/substances, it would have become instantaneously apparent that there is no virus, valid test, and safe and effective vaccines. There is a lesson to be learned here.

If the chemical aspect is considered, the assessment of the diseases (diagnosis) in general would become much easier, and developed treatments would be much simpler and more efficient.

Similarly, practices requiring social distancing, face masks, and lockdowns would become unnecessary, as they would easily be shown as unscientific. Most likely, there will not be pandemics in the future, certainly not viral ones.

I suggest medical professionals and experts seek help from knowledgeable chemists/scientists in developing and assessing medicines (generally non-physiological chemicals).

Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.

Have you ever wondered why most medicines are kept behind the counters, obtainable through prescriptions only, and sold by pharmacists only, while the products are approved by authorities such as the FDA, Health Canada, and others as safe and effective?

The reality is that they have never been shown appropriately safe and effective but are only presumed to be by the authorities. In general, physicians and pharmacists do not know this either. They also assume that the authorities have (scientifically) tested and validated the claims of safety and effectiveness. They do not. No one does! The debacle of COVID-19 and vaccines has provided glaring proof, which I  have been trying to tell for at least 20 years. Continue here

Is This Vax Really Adulterated per Kirsch/Bridle/McKernan? (link)

Below is my view on the topic.

@ “Is This Vax Really Adulterated … “

There is no way to find out because no pure or unadulterated one is available. Why?

Rituals are often followed in medical/pharmaceutical practice (“science”), and things get declared based on a sellable story with some scientific-sounding jargon.

It is like a gain of function (GOF) research. Scientifically and logically, the first step is to show the baseline/reference, i.e., the original version (“virus”), followed by the tampered one, a variant or modified (link).

However, the “original virus” has never been shown, but the tampered ones have been described. Why? It promotes and maintains the non-existent “virus” story as if it is something real.

Similarly, some have started discussing adulterated (tampered) vaccines while no vaccine (unadulterated/reference) is available. It is just junk in the vial, without any control or defined content to make the story believable that an actual vaccine exists.

Note that I wrote earlier, even before the vaccine development, that it is impossible to develop a vaccine, and indeed, there is no vaccine (unadulterated or adulterated), just false claims. (link).

Obtain a copy of Helpful Notes to learn about the misunderstanding of the science behind the viruses/vaccines/pharmaceuticals (link).