Category: Vaccine

Question Asked:

Are particles like urea in urine, sugar in blood, and bacteria in blood different from what we call “viruses”?

Response:


Urea, sugar, bacteria, and enzymes can all be detected, identified, and even purified with relative ease. These are real, demonstrable substances. I avoid using the term particles here because “particle” refers to a physical state that may or may not be observable under all conditions. For example, table salt exists as particles in solid form, but when dissolved in water, its particulate state disappears, forming ions—yet it is still considered salt. However, sand exists as particles almost all the time, even when mixed with water. The important point is that these substances are tangible, measurable, and their testing is valid.

(more…)

Yesterday, I watched a documentary (Premiere: Inside mRNA Vaccines), about an hour long, which tells a troubling story that deserves wider attention (link). I highly recommend watching it. From my perspective, the so-called medical experts featured in the film largely rely on theoretical assertions disconnected from reality and genuine science. Their artwork (labelled “science”) is no different than animation shown in the movie. They continue to promote their version of “science” to explain mRNA technology — yet there is little to no actual technological or scientific substance behind their claims.

(more…)

After accurately predicting the non-existence of the virus, the fraudulent PCR test, and the fake vaccine, it is time for the next prediction: a safe and effective vaccine — universal or otherwise — is impossible to develop.

Without a clearly defined and measurable illness, along with validated methods for diagnosing and treating it (such as with a vaccine), there is no possibility of creating any genuine vaccine. The tests lack a proper reference, and without it, the entire framework collapses.

Medical and pharmaceutical “science” (pure nonsense) along with its associated scientists, will be remembered not for true science or progress, but for one of the greatest scientific frauds in history — a lie we have endured at a massive cost to both health and wealth.

This is not guesswork or opinion, but a conclusion drawn from the principles and practice of actual science — chemistry.

What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have recently announced what they are calling a “next-generation, universal vaccine platform.” The project, branded Generation Gold Standard, is being promoted as a major leap forward in vaccine science and safety assessment. Public figures, including RFK Jr., have spoken about it as if it were the solution to the failures of the COVID-19 vaccines — the dawn of a new, “safe and effective” vaccine era.

Before accepting these claims, it is worth examining them from the standpoint of actual science — specifically chemistry — to assess the validity of the approach and the likelihood of success (more like its failure).

(more…)

The medical community has a new trick. After decades of virus-vaccine failure, fraud, and public harm, some doctors are now rebranding under terrain theory. See the recent article by Richard Z. Cheng, M.D., Ph.D. (Editor-in-Chief, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service) promoting it (link). The motive is obvious: the virus narrative has collapsed under its own lies, so they need a new story to keep the funding flowing.

Now they pitch terrain theory as a “new” scientific model — and are already calling for funding to run clinical trials comparing vaccine-based vs. terrain-based strategies. This is audacious. After decades of massive funding, they’ve delivered nothing but damage. Before they get another cent, they must account for their record: not progress, but failure on a historic scale.

(more…)

A Facebook follower recently brought this article (link) associated with Dr. Stefano Scoglio to my attention and asked for my thoughts. I’ve heard of Dr. Scoglio and his work before and have looked into it to some extent. However, this article provides a clearer overview of his views, particularly regarding the ongoing scientific critique of viruses, vaccines, and transfection technologies. As a microbiologist, Dr. Scoglio presents his perspective from a biological standpoint, offering valuable insight from within that domain.

That said, I must clarify that I do not regard biology — as it’s commonly practiced — to be a true science (link). In this case, one of the article’s subheadings is particularly striking: “When Biology Meets Physics: The Transfection Paradox.” It’s unclear whether this title originated from Dr. Scoglio or the article’s author, but either way, it’s deeply problematic. Why invoke physics when discussing proteins, mRNA, and complex biochemical interactions — all of which clearly belong to the domain of chemistry?

(more…)

Terms like “science,” “scientific research,” “science experts,” and “scientists” are frequently used in the medical field — especially when discussing viruses, diagnostic testing, vaccines, or drug approvals. But in this context, such claims are often false and deeply misleading. Modern medicine, particularly in these areas, has little to no connection with actual science.

Physicians who invoke scientific language typically do so to secure government funding or promote their services — not because they possess genuine expertise in scientific disciplines like method validation, analytical chemistry, or test design. In reality, most have no formal training in these critical fields.

This is not a matter of opinion; it is a demonstrable fact. As such, any report or publication that uses the veneer of science to support medical claims — even those appearing in so-called scientific journals — should be approached with deep skepticism and rejected as lacking true scientific credibility.

Mr. Elon Musk recently sparked an important and timely debate by commenting on the overlap between research and engineering. While his observation may seem benign on the surface, it actually highlights a much deeper issue: the misuse—and often complete distortion—of the words science and research.

As Musk aptly noted: “This false nomenclature of ‘researcher’ and ‘engineer’, which is a thinly-masked way of describing a two-tier engineering system, is being deleted from @xAI today. There are only engineers. Researcher is a relic term from academia.”

Although Musk was addressing internal structures at xAI, the broader implications of his statement resonate across many fields. The casual use of the word research to describe development work not only confuses the public—it also erodes the credibility of real scientific research.

(more…)

What is medical science?

Medical science is a narrative constructed by medical professionals—primarily physicians—to explain illness and treatment according to their own interpretations and preferences. These explanations are not necessarily grounded in reality; many are speculative, hypothetical, or outright fabricated.

Crucially, medical science does not meet the standards of true science. It bears little to no connection with the actual sciences that deal with measurable substances—such as particles, atoms, and molecules—or with disciplines like chemistry that rigorously study them.

In essence, medical science is a belief system, propped up by ritualistic practices and unverified assumptions. At its core, it is a distortion of science—if not an intentional deception.

What are pharmaceutical and pharmacological sciences?

These are subdisciplines of medical science that claim to focus on the body’s chemistry—studying substances introduced into or produced within the body. However, they are largely practiced by individuals with limited training in real science, particularly in chemistry.

Although these fields claim to deal with compounds and molecular interactions, they operate without the scientific rigor found in true chemical sciences. Instead, they follow a medical science mindset that lacks depth in both theoretical and experimental chemistry. At best, these disciplines are superficial approximations; at worst, they are misrepresentations of actual science.

What is virology?

Virology is presented as the study of viruses—microscopic particles said to cause disease. Yet, there is no solid evidence that these viruses exist as physical entities, either in laboratories or in nature. They remain hypothetical constructs—mythical agents without direct scientific confirmation.

Virology, therefore, resembles a modern form of medical folklore—a narrative grounded more in belief and assumption than in empirical evidence. It remains detached from the hard sciences, which are based on observable and measurable entities. Despite its scientific appearance, virology operates outside the framework of real science, often in a ritualistic and uncritical fashion.

Practically all medically dominated panels—especially those claiming to represent “science”—need to be dismantled, without exception. There is no such thing as “medical science” in the true, rigorous sense. Medical professionals (physicians) neither study nor practice actual science; they lack formal training or credentials in it.

What they do practice is based on flawed or false interpretations of science. As a result, we are left with a healthcare system that is not only enormously expensive but often ineffective—and in many cases, outright fraudulent.

This is not merely an opinion. It is a fact, grounded in my education and training in science, as well as my work experience (30 years) at Health Canada.

As I’ve explained previously, one of the central issues is medical testing, which underpins diagnosis. Most of these tests are developed either by medical professionals or under their guidance. The fatal flaw is that these tests are rarely, if ever, scientifically validated for their intended purposes—this includes tests related to viruses, cancer, and associated treatments.

In an earlier article, I stated that if actual scientists, trained in disciplines like analytical chemistry, where testing of chemical compounds is a rigorous and exact science, evaluated such tests—the entire structure of modern medicine would collapse. I wrote:

“This is equivalent to a scientific checkmate against the claim of virus existence. There is no escape from it. The entire scenario of viruses, vaccination, virology, medical science, and pandemics collapses, as all depend on testing and testing methods that are not valid or validated. Game over!”

Indeed, the game would be over—immediately. There would be no need or demand for further so-called “research.” The cycle of fear, driven by false testing and imaginary diseases, would come to an end.

And arguably, many of the illnesses attributed to viruses or even cancer begin to disappear—simply because the unvalidated testing that “discovered” them would no longer be in use.


Separating Science From Filth (link)
 Explaining My Disagreement With Non-Virus Camp Medical Experts (link).
Is Cancer An Illness Or An Imaginary (Misdiagnosed) Thing Like Viral Infections? (link)
PCR testing and the viruses (link)