Category: Virus

I have written several articles on PCR for my blog, but it seems many readers may not have understood them fully. So, here is another attempt to explain.

PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. Breaking it down, polymerase is a combination of two parts: polymer and -ase. Polymers are chemical compounds that can come from natural or synthetic sources. Examples of natural polymers include cellulose, starch, glycogen, proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, while synthetic polymers include polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC, Teflon, and nylon. All of these substances are well-characterized, certified, and widely available, mostly from chemical suppliers.

The suffix “-ase” indicates an enzyme, a protein that acts as a catalyst in biochemical reactions. For instance, hydrogen and oxygen will not combine to form water on their own; a spark or catalyst is required to initiate the reaction. Similarly, in biological systems, enzymes trigger countless reactions essential for life.

(more…)

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…)

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.

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.

“The Trump administration can not stop Springer Nature from publishing, nor should they. But they can and should stop financially supporting their operations.

It is not a First Amendment issue, as some claim. Stopping payments that support woke science is a fiscal policy grounded in doing what is right for science (and science workers) in America.”

Dr. Malone wrote in a recent post on his blog (link), who was recently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to address vaccine safety in general, with a particular focus on mRNA-based vaccines.

I read the article by Dr. Robert Malone—an M.D., not a Ph.D.—criticizing Nature and other high-profile journals for publishing what he calls “junk science.”

While I share concerns about the quality and bias of modern scientific publishing, Dr. Malone’s critique is ironic. He condemns biased, politically-driven science while defending the very institutions and funding streams that enable it. That contradiction deserves scrutiny.

(more…)

The idea that vaccines were deliberately designed to harm or kill may sound extreme—but it only makes sense if we assume the developers actually understood the science needed to do so. The truth is, they don’t. Most come from medical or biological fields, not from core scientific disciplines like chemistry. That’s not just a gap—it’s a fatal flaw.

This isn’t so much a case of malicious intent as it is a blatant fraud: people falsely claiming scientific authority they don’t have. They parade as scientists, yet lack the training, understanding, or qualifications. This deception has pulled in massive funding and driven the deeply flawed narratives around viruses and vaccines.

Pretending to be a scientist without real scientific grounding isn’t just dishonest—it is the root of the crisis. And it’s time we called it what it is: scientific fraud, hiding in plain sight.

An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
Biology vs Science (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

Response to the FB discussion (link)

This is an excellent and timely topic—actually, several questions wrapped into one. If even a trained pharmacist feels confused by the endless claims about supplements, nutrients, and health advice, imagine the situation for the average person constantly bombarded with contradictory information and marketing.

“I wanted to ask you what your opinion is on dietary supplements? Especially about what they call vitamin D, and the promotion that is made for minerals, trace elements? I am a Pharmacist in Greece, I know that all of these are chemicals, I am confused by the fact that they have a lot of promotion even from alternative doctors while we all know that their production is in the hands of big pharma.”

This is not just a valid question—it is a crucial one. I offer the following scientific perspective, which I hope helps clarify the confusion and cuts through the noise.

(more…)

I was genuinely surprised to see a photo of Dr. Aseem Malhotra—a widely promoted UK cardiologist—posed in front of glass flasks and labware commonly used to symbolize a chemistry lab (link). It struck me as both ironic and misleading.

Physicians often distance themselves from chemistry, dismissing it as irrelevant to medical practice. Rarely do they study, engage with, or publish in actual scientific literature—particularly in fields like chemistry. So why pose with the trappings of a science they neither practice nor understand? It seems like a deliberate attempt to cloak medical opinion in the authority of science—especially when addressing issues like vaccine safety and toxicity.

(more…)

Recently, I’ve received an increasing number of hostile messages via Facebook and email—accusations of arrogance, of being a self-proclaimed and self-centered scientist, and of disrespecting others by insisting on my interpretation of science. These reactions largely stem from my critical evaluation of certain physicians’ and biologists’ work, including members of the so-called “no-virus group”—individuals some see as sincerely trying to help.

Unfortunately, some of these responses have taken on a disturbingly aggressive tone, with some bordering on intimidation and veiled threats.

The reality, however, is quite different. A careful review of my public commentary over the past five years—particularly my work challenging the existence of SARS-CoV-2—shows that my conclusions are grounded in rigorous academic training and decades of experience. They are not casual opinions but the product of over thirty years of scientific work at Health Canada. I have never been affiliated with individuals who present themselves as scientific authorities without the necessary credentials or expertise.

(more…)