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.
And perhaps this is the crux of the issue: my work threatens the illusion of authority held by those with limited scientific grounding. Rather than engage in constructive dialogue or seek collaboration with qualified experts, they resort to personal attacks. Lacking formal training in science, they retreat into self-constructed narratives about what science is—or should be.
One glaring example is their effort to disprove the existence of viruses by denying the concept of contagion, often citing outdated or misinterpreted publications. They fail to grasp that disproving contagion does not equate to disproving viruses. Scientifically, confirming a virus requires the demonstration of a specific, verifiable material: an isolated, purified, and fully characterized sample. No such sample of SARS-CoV-2 has ever been produced.
To move forward, genuine dialogue must occur with trained scientists, not individuals operating under the guise of expertise. The real issue lies in the concept of the “virus” itself, which functions as a convenient smokescreen, diverting attention from more urgent concerns, such as the fraudulent development and unscientific assessment of vaccines. The foundations of vaccine production have received little scrutiny, despite being the most critical aspect of the process.
As I’ve consistently explained, the PCR test is fundamentally flawed—not because of its cycle thresholds or gene fragment detection—but because no valid test can exist without a properly isolated virus. Without reference material, neither a diagnostic test nor a disease can be scientifically confirmed. This is how science reveals the non-existence of a virus. Contagion, in this context, is a distraction—a red herring.
Likewise, if a virus does not exist, then the disease attributed to it does not exist either. And without a disease, the development of a vaccine becomes a meaningless and scientifically absurd exercise. Debating how to make vaccines “better” or “safer” under these conditions is like fine-tuning fiction. The newly formed ACIP committee—dominated by medical professionals lacking scientific training—illustrates the problem. Actual science can confidently predict its failure, because failure is inevitable when policy is based on flawed premises rather than evidence.
At this stage, it remains uncertain whether the so-called modern miracle—mRNA vaccines—actually contain the mRNA they claim to. The entire premise hinges on an assumption. To verify the presence of mRNA, a validated analytical method is needed, which in turn requires a reference standard: a fully isolated, purified, and chemically characterized sample of the claimed mRNA. No such standard has ever been made available. As a result, no definitive test can be developed, and the claimed presence of mRNA cannot be confirmed or monitored. In this light, mRNA vaccines appear to be a fraudulent treatment for an illness that itself remains scientifically unproven.
This mirrors the broader issue, where a swab sample is assumed to contain a virus, based entirely on the results of a flawed PCR test. Similarly, mRNA vaccines rely on the assumption that a cultured biological mixture contains mRNA, despite no valid scientific method having confirmed this. This is not science or technology—it’s speculation presented as fact. At best, it reveals a lack of scientific discipline. At worst, it exposes profound ignorance.
The only path forward is genuine collaboration with experts in the foundational sciences, particularly chemistry. Unfortunately, this poses a threat to many self-proclaimed scientists, especially in the medical and biological professions, who have kept real science at arm’s length. Under the vague umbrella of “medical science,” they have pushed aside the rigorous principles that give science its value, replacing them with narratives, assumptions, and at times, absurdities—such as the bizarre claim that medicines are simply petroleum products or their derivatives.
In short, medical experts and advisory bodies—such as the ACIP, the CDC, and the FDA—must be open to self-assessment, guided by qualified scientists. After five decades of research that has produced neither clearly defined diseases nor effective treatments or vaccines, it is time to ask honestly: What went wrong?
Continuing along the same path—seeking grants to repeat flawed research—is not the answer. One truth must be acknowledged: physicians and other medical professionals are not experts in science, nor are they scientists. Their training and credentials do not support that designation. Rather than resisting or ridiculing real science, they should welcome it, support it, and collaborate with those who are genuinely qualified in the field.
Let us, at last, talk with good faith—and with honor.
COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
CDC virus testing and isolation claims for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: Non-scientific and pure illusion! (link)
The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful (link)
mRNA Vaccine Is Not mRNA But Gunk – A Forensic Analysis (link)
An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)