Category: Virus

Let me try another way in the hope that it will be clearer for both the public and experts to see where the confusion lies.

Imagine that I ask to see the actual treasure. Instead, I am handed a map and told that the treasure exists. I am even declared wealthy on that basis. However, when I attempt to deposit this supposed wealth, I am told: “Bring the treasure, not the story.” A map may describe where something is claimed to be, but it does not demonstrate that the treasure itself is real.

In the same way, presenting models, protocols, genomic sequences, or culture systems is not the same as presenting an isolated, purified, and fully characterized physical entity. A description is not the entity. A procedure is not proof of existence.

You keep presenting maps — protocols, models, reconstructed sequences, and complex mixtures — and declaring that the treasure exists. But a map is not the treasure. If a virus truly exists as a discrete physical entity, then it should be possible to present it as such: isolated, purified, and fully characterized. Instead, what is often offered are descriptions and inferred frameworks, with the assumption that the entity must be there.

Science operates on demonstrable physical evidence, not narrative structures. If all that can be shown are maps — genetic reconstructions, modeled particles, or interpretive systems — then one must ask whether the field has mistaken the map for the treasure.

This may not stem from bad intent. It may simply reflect that generations have been trained to accept description as proof of existence. But from a strict methodological standpoint, claims of existence require direct, reproducible, and tangible evidence.

A map does not prove the treasure exists. It only suggests where it is supposed to be.

Link

“Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has officially joined a massive coalition of over 81,000 physicians, scientists, concerned citizens, and 240 government officials demanding that COVID-19 mRNA injections be pulled from the market.

Documented in a peer-reviewed study, this growing movement raises urgent questions about vaccine safety, oversight, and public health policy. The list keeps expanding as experts and officials continue speaking out (link).”


This development may appear to be good news, and I support any genuine effort toward accountability and scrutiny. However, it is important to recognize the implicit message within such claims and requests

Calling for the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines does not address the deeper foundational issue. It still operates within — and therefore reinforces — the prevailing framework of virology and “medical science” as established science. In my view, that framework itself is the core problem. It is the conceptual system that produced both the virus narrative and the mRNA vaccine response.

By focusing solely on stopping mRNA vaccines, the discussion indirectly affirms the underlying assumptions: that the virus is established as described, that the illness model is valid as presented, and that vaccine-based intervention is the appropriate paradigm. This, I argue, leaves the fundamental scientific questions untouched.

From a strict, foundational scientific perspective, the public should be demanding something far more substantial: a critical reassessment of the biological and medical frameworks promoted as science but, in my opinion, do not meet the standards of the physical sciences. Such a reassessment would not only halt problematic vaccine programs but also require a rigorous examination of broader claims about viruses, associated illnesses, and their proposed treatments.

Addressing only one product — even an mRNA vaccine — treats a symptom of a much larger structural issue. If the goal is genuine scientific integrity, then the focus must shift from individual interventions to the foundational assumptions upon which they are built.

Link

“Is it not interesting? Over $200 billion spent on cancer research every year — and a reported 90% increase in cancer deaths since the 1990s.”

Whether the numbers are framed precisely or rhetorically, the sentiment behind such a meme reflects a growing public unease. A massive financial investment is assumed to yield proportional scientific and health benefits. When that outcome does not appear obvious, questions begin to surface. But the real question is not whether billions are spent. The real question is whether the underlying model of disease is grounded in physical science or constructed within a self-reinforcing clinical framework.

Billions of dollars are spent each year on what is confidently described as medical research. The public hears the word “research” and assumes science in its pure form — rigorous, measurable, grounded in chemistry and physics. The label itself carries authority. Yet the deeper methodological foundation is rarely examined. Does medical research operate according to the standards of science, or has medicine developed a parallel structure that resembles science without consistently adhering to its core requirements?

(more…)

The central problem in modern medicine is not the pharmaceutical industry. It is medicine itself—specifically physicians—who have come to treat stories as science and enforce those stories as fact.

What gives medicine this power is not evidence, but classification. When physicians collectively label something as “science,” it is accepted as such by governments, regulators, courts, media, and the public. Once that label is applied, questioning is no longer permitted. Industry does not define this reality; it responds to it.

Physicians hold the ultimate trump card: the power to treat narrative as science.

How the Story Was Created

The modern story of viruses, vaccines, and mass vaccination did not originate with pharmaceutical manufacturers. It originated within medicine and biology, promoted by physicians under the banner of “medical science.”

The claim that vaccines are “safe and effective” was not invented by industry. It was—and continues to be—made by physicians, their professional associations, committees, and advisory bodies, all presenting themselves as scientific authorities.

Pharmaceutical companies simply manufactured products that physicians asserted were scientifically developed, scientifically validated, and 95% effective, despite the absence of foundational scientific requirements.

(more…)

The collapse of Theranos remains one of the clearest modern examples of what happens when bold medical claims are finally subjected to genuine scientific scrutiny. Founded in 2003 and operating for more than a decade, Theranos rose rapidly in the early 2010s, reaching a peak valuation of roughly $9 billion. At its height, the company attracted elite investors, major corporate partnerships, and extraordinary political credibility.

Its board and supporters included some of the most influential figures in U.S. public life, among them George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. Such endorsements conferred instant legitimacy. The claims were celebrated, the machines were photographed and publicly displayed, and skepticism was muted by authority rather than answered by evidence.

Theranos promised a medical revolution: hundreds of laboratory tests from a single drop of blood, performed on sleek proprietary devices presented as cutting-edge technology. These machines became icons of innovation—despite never being shown to work as claimed.

Behind the scenes, Theranos relied on conventional laboratory equipment while its own devices failed to produce reliable results. Data were inconsistent, validation was absent, and basic principles of chemistry and analytical science were ignored. When whistleblowers and investigative reporting forced independent scrutiny, the illusion collapsed rapidly. Regulators intervened, laboratories were shut down, and partnerships dissolved.

The legal reckoning followed. Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, was convicted in 2022 on multiple counts of fraud for misleading investors about the company’s technology and was sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison. Her business partner, Ramesh Balwani, was separately convicted and sentenced to nearly 13 years. Theranos did not fail because it dared to innovate; it failed because its claims could not withstand scientific validation.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

That is the core issue.

There is an ongoing debate about the role of inert placebos in vaccine clinical trials. What is rarely acknowledged is that many vaccine trials do not, and cannot, use a true inert placebo.

Arguably, the very concept of a placebo originates from classical drug development, where the intervention (drug) typically involves a simple, well-defined active ingredient. Consider, for example, a study evaluating the efficacy of propranolol, a beta-blocker used to lower blood pressure. One group of patients receives a solution containing propranolol dissolved in water, while the control group receives water alone. Neither the patients nor the drug administrators know which treatment has been given (a double-blinded design). Outcomes—such as changes in blood pressure—are measured objectively, and the results are analyzed only after the treatment codes are revealed.

(more…)

I am pleased to share some important news with you. I am introducing my upcoming book (soon to be available from bookstores and distributors worldwide) on a subject I have been deeply passionate about for many years: the meaning of true science and its misuse within the medical and biological fields. This book is written for both the general public and medical and biological specialists. It uses clear, direct language and avoids the complex and intimidating jargon that often dominates medicine and biology, making the discussion accessible without sacrificing rigor.

I kindly ask for your support by purchasing the book, reading it critically, and sharing it with friends, family, and colleagues. More importantly, I encourage you to help bring this message to policymakers and decision-makers. The continued reliance on false or unscientific claims in public health has caused serious and lasting harm. Honest discussion and scientific clarity are essential if we are to move toward better health, better policy, and a more informed society.

I look forward to your support and meaningful conversations that can lead to a healthier, happier future for all.

(more…)