In recent discussions, particularly on social media, I have encountered a recurring response to my critique of virology: “Stay within your field. Your chemistry knowledge does not translate to virology.”
At first glance, this may sound reasonable. Specialization matters. Expertise matters. However, this response fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the issue being raised.
This Is Not About Virology — It Is About Scientific Claims
I am not attempting to practice virology. I am not describing clinical medicine. I am not proposing alternative biological models.
The issue is far more basic.
The claim under examination is the existence of viruses as physically isolated, purified, and fully characterized entities. That question does not belong exclusively to virology or medical practice. It belongs to science in its strict analytical sense — particularly to chemistry and the physical sciences.
A recent Scientific American article argues that a year of RFK Jr.’s influence has “changed American science,” particularly within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The underlying claim is that science at HHS has been disrupted, politicized, or undermined. (link)
That framing assumes something that deserves closer examination: that HHS is, in fact, a center of foundational science.
It is not.
HHS is primarily a clinical and regulatory institution. It is staffed and directed largely by physicians and public health professionals. Their training is clinical and applied. They diagnose, prescribe, regulate, and manage programs. That is a professional function — not foundational science.
The term “bioweapon” is often repeated with dramatic certainty. Yet it should be read with sadness and concern, because it hides a serious deception: it projects the appearance of advanced science and expert authority where neither has been demonstrated.
Calling something a “bioweapon” implies that rigorous, high-level science is being conducted — that defined biological agents are understood, controlled, and intentionally weaponized. It suggests precision, expertise, and a legitimate scientific foundation. But the uncomfortable reality is that this framing can be used to legitimize a practice that has not met basic scientific standards.
True science — physics and chemistry — begins with defined objects: substances that are isolated, purified, characterized, and measurable, with methods that are reproducible and transparent. Without that foundation, “advanced research” becomes a performance: sophisticated language wrapped around assumptions, mixed materials, and unverified claims.
A strong legal case can arguably be constructed against Anthony Fauci. However, winning such a case is far from straightforward. Legal proceedings are easily diluted by bureaucratic complexity—government protocols, institutional guidelines, contractual language, jurisdictional ambiguity, and procedural loopholes. History shows that this approach often leads to endless circular arguments, leaving virology, vaccine policy, and related medical practices effectively untouched for decades.
This pattern is not accidental. It is precisely how contentious areas of medicine have been insulated from meaningful scrutiny—by shifting the debate away from science and into a fog of administrative and legal matters.
Yet there is another way to approach this issue—one that is not only clearer but far more decisive.
That way is science.
The Fundamental Scientific Claim
At the core of modern medical authority lies a central assertion: that medical experts and virologists are acting as scientists and that their conclusions are grounded in science. This claim is rarely challenged, yet it is foundational to every downstream policy decision.
From a true scientific perspective, this claim is fundamentally false.
Yesterday, one of my Facebook posts reached nearly 80,000 views in just over 24 hours (link). The volume and intensity of the responses suggest that a nerve was touched. When deeply held beliefs—particularly those labeled as “unquestionable” or “settled” science—are challenged, emotional reactions are inevitable. Such responses are entirely predictable.
Most replies did not engage with the argument’s substance. Instead, they relied on insults, ridicule, and attempts to dismiss my credentials. This is a common tactic when belief systems are threatened: attack the messenger rather than examine the evidence.
The most frequent rebuttal is familiar: “Read the medical literature—there are thousands of papers proving viruses exist.”
The problem is not the quantity of papers. It is how they are read—and what they actually show.
Medical and biology/virology papers do not work with isolated or purified viruses. Instead, they rely on what is termed a “virus isolate,” which is a complex mixture of cell debris, genetic fragments, proteins, additives, and other contaminants derived from cell cultures—without demonstrating that any presumed virus is present within that mixture. Labeling such material a “virus” does not establish its existence. Repeating an assumption does not make it evidence.
In true science—particularly chemistry—existence requires isolation, purification, and physical and chemical characterization. Without these steps, claims remain presumptive. This is not a minor technical detail; it is the foundation of scientific validation, which is absent. The reason this error persists is that many working in medicine and biology are not trained in science, where material identification is mandatory and rigorously enforced.
This leads to a conclusion that many find uncomfortable but unavoidable when scientific standards are applied:
Viruses do not exist; therefore, they cannot cause infection. Medical and biological experts do not work with isolated or purified viruses; they presume them. Consequently, vaccines are irrelevant and invalid as treatments or products. This is not an opinion, but a scientific claim based on the principles of true science—chemistry.
Insults will not change this. Appeals to authority will not change this. Pointing to medical or biology (peer-reviewed) publications will not change this.
The reality is that modern medicine and biology routinely borrow the language of science while ignoring its standards and requirements, using chemistry as a tool while disregarding its rules. From this misuse emerges an imagined entity called “the virus.”
This practice of false science needs to stop. The sooner true scientific rigor is restored, the sooner meaningful progress—rather than belief-driven consensus—can begin.
“Former ICMR Director General Soumya Swaminathan has warned that unchecked health misinformation on social media, especially related to vaccines can spread fear, mislead the public, and trigger the return of preventable diseases. She urged stronger regulation and swift removal of harmful medical claims online to safeguard public health.” (link)
When I read such comments from senior physicians, I take them not as evidence of confidence, but as evidence of concern. These reactions suggest that the information now circulating publicly appears logical, internally consistent, and difficult to rebut using traditional medical talking points.
We are seeing this increasingly in paediatrics, and similar patterns are evident in the United States. This shift became especially visible after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly challenged long-standing claims made by medical authorities—particularly regarding childhood vaccination.
The response from many physicians has been revealing. Rather than addressing the substance of the questions raised, they assert authority. This reflects a deeper problem: physicians are not accustomed to being questioned on foundational assumptions. Their training positions them as decision-makers whose claims are expected to be accepted as valid, logical, and scientific—without challenge.
In public discourse, the words science, scientists, and research are used constantly. In the context of health and medicine, these terms are almost automatically assumed to refer to medical professionals, particularly physicians, and to what is commonly called medical science. This assumption is so deeply ingrained that it is rarely questioned. Yet it is categorically incorrect.
Neither the public nor most professionals stop to ask a basic question: what exactly is meant by science? And more importantly, who is actually trained to practice it?
This confusion lies at the heart of modern medicine’s claimed authority.
Allopathic medicine—the so-called modern medical system—is widely promoted as superior to alternative traditions such as homeopathy, Ayurveda, and naturopathy. This claimed superiority rests almost entirely on the assertion that modern medicine is “science-based” and supported by “scientific research.” However, this assertion collapses once the term science is defined correctly.
A very telling—and revealing—comment was posted by Rense Rozeboom on Facebook:
“Saeed Qureshi, I see you weren’t trained in (micro)biology, so I understand you don’t ‘believe’ in viruses (or bacteria?). But I’ve seen and worked with them, and I can say your idea is very wrong—and worse, you mention things without personal experience. That’s dangerous! Someone claiming to be an ‘expert in chemicals/pharmaceuticals’ should know to remain silent on other fields.” (link)
This comment illustrates exactly why the problem—the persistence of false claims in virology and medicine—continues. These fields operate within a closed framework, promoting internally generated assumptions as “science,” while insulating themselves from external scientific scrutiny.
Microbiologists, biologists, and medical professionals often fail to recognize that I am operating squarely within my field, while they are not. Their claims rely on scientific and chemical methodologies that are incorrectly attributed to their disciplines. Isolation, purification, characterization, test-method development, and the purification and characterization of vaccine or pharmaceutical contents—including the establishment of quality standards—do not belong to microbiology, biology, or medicine. They belong to science in the strict sense: chemistry, which is my area of education and expertise.
Yet these fields routinely appeal to chemistry without proper training or comprehension, drawing conclusions that chemistry itself does not justify. The result is a fundamental scientific error.
From the perspective of true science—chemistry—the methodologies cited and the conclusions drawn do not meet established scientific (chemistry) standards. Claims of viral isolation, validated testing, and authentic purification and characterization of vaccines fail the most basic requirement: the availability of an isolated, purified, and fully characterized physical virus sample in a test tube. Instead, what is presented are mislabeled “virus isolates,” or lysates—complex biological mixtures (having known or unknown components) implied to be pure viruses.
Without isolated, purified, and fully characterized physical entities, such as these viruses, the narrative remains unsupported. From a scientific standpoint, it is not evidence-based.
