Category: Vaccine

Post Views: 7

People use the word “science” to describe viruses/virology, assuming science was done. This is what virologists and medical experts like people believe and assume, that science (may be shaky, wacky, etc.) is being done. However, please be clear that that “science” is not there. They are fooling/deceiving people. I repeat – there was/is NO science; virologists and medical experts (doctors) do not study or practice science. Virology and medical “science” must be thrown out as a deception and fraud. (link)

Post Views: 54

Someone wrote, “Viruses have always been imaginary. Always.” It is a correct claim.

The question is why this claim has not been accepted; even recently, some very vocal experts, including doctors and biologists, have forcefully argued against the existence of viruses.

Doctors and biologists dominate both groups and claim to be science experts, followers, or scientists. Interestingly, both groups accuse each other of being followers of pseudoscience.

The issue is that doctors/experts in neither group are science experts or scientists. The subjects (medicine and biology) are not (experimental or empirical) science subjects. The only science subjects in this regard are physics, chemistry, and/or mathematics. Medicine (primarily chemicals) and biology (isolation and characterization of biological components, which are also mainly chemicals) have to be dealt with by the science subject (chemistry).

Science can only deal with physically existing things available in pure form to work, hence absent from medical and biology areas. Medical and biological “sciences” are based on narratives and speculation, often dealing with imaginary things like viruses, vaccines, etc.

Therefore, viruses are imaginary. Doctors and medical experts need to stop claiming that they are science followers and scientists and that “viruses” exist. Such claims are simply false and fraudulent.

PS. An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link).

Post Views: 75

The article (link) that was brought to my attention describes the views of two prominent doctors on the virus and the COVID-19 aspects, notably their isolation and characterization.

In short, there is nothing new here. It is just repeating false claims about the virus and its isolation. It is clear that the authors do not understand the underlying science, thus making numerous invalid and false claims. For example:

Continue here

Post Views: 85

Different doctors suggest different chemicals (cleverly named as medicines/treatments), such as mRNA vaccine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, etc., to address the issue (symptoms/infections) of COVID-19. The claims of the effectiveness of these chemicals are based on studies (implying “scientific or experimental studies”) often published in “scientific” journals. However, from critical and logical considerations, these studies and claims are not scientific – as no virus or infection is available for testing or developing treatments. Testing a virus or its infection requires a valid test that is unavailable and cannot be developed until a physical virus sample is available [1]. Hence, all claims of testing, viruses, or treatments are scientifically fake and false.

(more…)
Post Views: 5

Someone asked how to address the issues with medicines and related medical (doctors’) sciences.

I suggest moving the chemicals-based (allopathic) medicines away from doctors and pharmacists, including all testing (diagnostic or otherwise). They are doing chemists’ work without relevant training and education, making disastrous blunders and ruining people’s health. The subject has to be managed by appropriately educated and experienced scientists/chemists. All development, manufacturing, testing, approval, and marketing of medicines/chemicals must be guided by chemistry experts.

Doctors should provide the service they are trained for, i.e., they should provide standardized prescriptions by observing symptoms and clinical test results. They should not claim to be science experts or scientists or be involved in scientific (experimental) research.

Further information link, link, and more

Post Views: 7

I commented on an article. I think the comment would also be helpful to the visitors of this blog.

@ “They are science, as best as I know it.” How? (link)

The question is which science is being followed here – presumably epidemiology. Epidemiology is “the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health.” (link)

It means it is part of medicine. Sorry to say it, but science is not part of the training or learning of medicines. For example, an M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) is a standard non-science undergraduate degree. Therefore, epidemiology should not be considered a science subject or part of it. (link).

In general, epidemiology depends on the interpretation and/or outcome of diagnosis/testing from the medical area. For example, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the whole story revolves around PCR testing, which by any standard is a fake and fraudulent test, i.e., it has no link to the virus (SARS-COV-2), illness (COVID-19) or mRNA (vaccine development). Hence, all interpretations, including those by epidemiology, will be presumptions or opinion-based, not scientific or factual.

The actual science of medicine is chemistry, particularly analytical chemistry (link). Please consider this.