Search Results for: lie

People often object to my views/articles, stating that I only reference my blog articles (i.e., self-referencing) and do not cite articles from peer-reviewed journals concerning the existence of the virus and its related topics. The lack of articles on the subject in peer-reviewed journals is of concern about the credibility and authenticity of my work. 

On the other hand, they argue that numerous scientific articles from various sources are available and published in peer-reviewed journals showing, that the virus exists and has been isolated. Hence, their claims for the virus’s existence are credible.

People here are confusing consensus with the true physical (experimental) science. The view is that many studies about the virus have been published in the literature, so the virus must be there and isolated. That is consensus. However, I practice and describe experimental physical science (actual science – chemistry), which requires an actual sample of a substance to work with, in this case, the virus. As no actual virus sample is available, I cannot do scientific studies, publish, or write like others, i.e., publish fake science studies (for example, see here).

This practice of fake science in the medical/virology areas is common and alarming. It cannot be addressed internally as they all believe fake science is real/actual science, causing huge damage to science and the public.

An external audit can only address the issue, which will quickly show that medical experts have been working with fake science and have never been with actual science. If not all, most of the publications will have to be withdrawn as having no merit or value. Most people who are not knowledgeable in science do not realize the disastrous fakeness of science in the medical and pharmaceutical areas.

I hope this helps clear up the concern.

Disaster If WHO Gets Total Medical Control – Dr. Meryl Nass (link).

So, what is the request/suggestion here?

To keep “control” with physicians and their national institutions, like the CDC, FDA, National Medical Associations, etc. Is it not this control by the physicians and their organizations that caused the fake pandemic, as well as the development of fraudulent medications, including vaccines?

I believe the public and experts are missing the point. It is not a ” control ” issue but considering and promoting physicians as “scientists.” This is the problem that caused the fake pandemic.

Physicians do not learn or are trained to be scientists. They are not taught to identify new illnesses, their causes, and their treatment. However, this is what they did and are doing that caused the harm – the pandemic and associated public policy disasters.

In the interview, Dr. Nass acknowledges the COVID-19 illness, which, in reality, does not exist scientifically. There is no illness of this name/nature because it is assumed to be caused by a virus called SARS-COV-2, which is now generally recognized not to exist. It is an illusion from an actual scientific perspective.

Therefore, to avoid potential future (fake) pandemics, physicians’ role must be limited to only what they study and are trained for, i.e., to prescribe medications for recognized illnesses with recommended treatments. Their classification as “scientists” needs to be reconsidered or discontinued (link).

Two days ago, I posted a link to a Substack article on FB (link), which missed or ignored an important contribution (mine). I do not understand why people felt hurt or angry with the post and comments. See for yourself. Mike Stone (ViroLIEgy fame) even started a separate Thread citing some comments (link).

I wondered what happened and what might have caused such trashy behavior and outbursts by some in the “group.”

It appears that it could be the outcome of a post by Linda (on TG), a simple and short comment supporting my views, which the group could not handle, even though she emphasizes that my views do not contradict those mentioned by non-virus camp.

So, why is so much anger against me and my views? It’s hard to know, except they are sensitive to their false claim, narrative, or science. Is it?

You be the judge. I would appreciate your thoughts on it, if possible, as to why so much anger and bad-mouthing against me.

Thanks to Linda and so many others who read my articles and provided appreciation and support. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart. God bless you all!

Last night, as an unpaid subscriber, I received an email from Dr. Meryl Nass Substack titled “The “No Viruses exist” cult has been out in force lately.”  (link)

After reading it, I am confused about whether to cry with the absurd logic presented or laugh at the arguments (hilarious science). I could not decide, so in my frustration, I am leaving it to you to decide – my thoughts or questions are highlighted in bold.

@ “I told Christine Massey over and over that her FOIAs were answered by all countries in the same manner because a) the countries lie about everything related to COVID, …” So, why is it difficult to accept that they lied about the virus existence as well?

@ “These people want everything to be isolated the way they decide it should be isolated.” No, the question is where this (the virus) has been isolated as claimed. The result of an isolation step is an isolated item, in this case, the virus – where is it?

@ “Some things require indirect measurements.” True, but those things have to exist first. Where is that thing (the virus)? Please provide (scientific) evidence of its existence. Moreover, the measuring instrument must be calibrated/validated independently to show that it can measure lengths or distances. Where is the (“indirect”) test/method independently calibrated/validated to measure the viruses? There is none, and it is a fact.

@ “But here is the kicker. Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold? Have they never had flu? No cold sores? No genital herpes? No warts? All these are due to viruses.” That is the question. How have these observations been linked to the viruses? Where are these viruses? Who has them (samples or specimens of the isolated viruses)?

Please bring these questions/thoughts to Dr. Meryl Nass’s attention. (Substack link)

Here is the time to wish you all the very best for the New Year. It is time to remember the past and look forward to hope in the New World that awaits us (not the New World Order, which is disgusting, as understood).

I wish you all to be happy and healthy and achieve genuine success.

The success is the one I worry about the most, i.e., it must be genuine. It means it must bring health and happiness to you and others. The past four years of the virus/COVID-19 Pandemic have seen a tragic example of false (non-genuine) success for some, particularly in medical and pharmaceutical areas.

They all claimed to be science experts or so-called scientists; however, they ruined the lives and livelihoods of a large world population. It is the biggest lie they told to achieve “success.”

The science in this regard is chemistry, which they never studied in significant detail. They created version after version of their “science” to promote that false science, the fraud – in the name of success.

Therefore, my hope and prayer for the New Year is that they should get out of the “science business” and return to practice what they are being taught and learned, i.e., prescribing and delivering well-established allopathic medicines. No more inventing new illnesses and their treatments and Germ and Terrain theories, please. They are all mental gymnastics without scientific support or relevance to public health.

Unfortunately, this mental gymnastic has created a new breed of even worse “scientists” who just read some articles, imagine stuff, and promote “science research.” You need to help yourself as no one is there to help you. May Almighty protect you from the false “success” chasers!

If you ask me for a suggestion to get out of the unfortunate situation, I would suggest that as allopathic medicines are chemicals or chemical-based, they must be manufactured and sold on the open market (not behind the counters) by appropriately trained chemists with a guarantee of the quality of their products with a certificate readable and understandable by consumers/patients.

With this note, I wish you all the best for the coming New Year. Enjoy your life while keeping a distance from fear and the fearmongers, especially virus promoters.

I explained this in an earlier article. However, it requires some further clarification. So, the following is based on another analogy.

Assume that people in a city noticed that many have eye infections, reflected by redness and watering of eyes (symptoms). People tried all possible treatments, including the medical one, but to no avail.

So, it is considered a new illness caused by something (“thing/agent”) in the environment, such as air or water (from a pond, lake, or river). This becomes the first observation that something in water/air is causing it. Let us find out. It means extracting/isolating the thing from the air, water, or both. Now, we are starting an isolation step.

Let’s say water (pond, lake, or river) causes more intense illness, so the water may contain a higher quantity of the thing. Therefore, water is chosen for further evaluation or isolation. Water looks quite clear, meaning whatever the thing is in there is mostly of very small size (particles or microbe, we do not know). Most likely, filtration would not help, meaning it would not isolate the thing.

In that case, people usually use adsorption technology. Assuming these are particles, let’s try some adsorbent, such as silica (a refined or specific version of sand). Put some quantity of silica in (very large) quantity of water and leave it there so that the thing may get adsorbed onto silica. Let us assume we are lucky, and that thing got absorbed onto silica. Put an extremely small amount in the eyes (humans, often). Oops, the eyes got flared up right away. So, it means we got the stuff out of water on silica. However, we do not know what it is.

Next, there are ways to get the stuff out of silica. Let us try using a small amount of alcohol. For example, shake the silica with alcohol. Filter again, remove the silica, and evaporate the alcohol part to dryness. Most likely, we will get a small amount of white powder. Reconstitute it with water and test again with eyes (extremely small amount). Wow, eyes reacted again very strongly. Let us assume we are so lucky that the powder after ethanol contains only that compound (extremely rare chance). However, let us assume it is one single component, just particles.

We have isolated the agent of interest.

Send it to the chemical lab to see if it is a chemical in nature. Let us assume it is chemical in nature. Now, the chemistry lab will analyze the chemical composition based on (for example) carbon, hydrogen,  oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and then their arrangement (joining) to establish the molecule’s structure.

If it is a commercially available compound, the chemist will get/buy it, dissolve it in water, and test it on the eyes. If it reproduces the effect, it will confirm that it is the caustic agent or agent of interest. Otherwise, it has to be synthesized (chemically or biologically) and tested with the eyes. If it reproduces the eye effect. Then, it became a new and novel toxin –  label it a “virus”).

We have isolated the new and novel toxin – virus. Label, store, and use it as a reference (gold) standard for future testing or studying.

Do you see any culturing step anywhere? No, culturing is not required for isolation. It’s a gross misunderstanding of the subject of isolation.

However, if it is microbial instead of chemical particles, the sample will be sent to the biological lab to see if they can identify it or if it is new. It will become a microbial standard.

Note it is an extreme example. In practice, a vast number of steps are usually involved (often takes years to complete), but conceptually, this is exactly how the isolation is done or should be done. Also, the chemist/biologist will have a physical sample of the thing at the end, the must requirement of the isolation step. 

I watched a recent interview (link) of Prof. Syed Sattar (Retired Professor of Virology from the University of OTTAWA, Canada), who is still active in the area. He is a great friend, and I greatly admire his academic credentials and achievements. I have known him personally and professionally, at least for twenty years.

I find the interview informative, describing the fundamental concepts of virology, notably virus isolation. That is, how the virus isolation concepts are illustrated in virology literature, which Prof. Sattar emphasized as well-established practices and routines in virology laboratories.

However, issues and confusion arise when virologists, including Prof. Sattar, describe isolation as “culturing or its part” as a virus. It is essentially their critical misunderstanding, i.e., considering “culture” and the “virus” as the same thing. In reality and scientifically, they have to be and are two separate entities. I often describe the difference between the two as being chicken (“virus”) and “soup,” which may or may not contain the chicken/virus.

To show the presence or existence of a virus, the virus (if there) must be isolated or separated from the culture. The separation of the virus from culture and its content is called the “isolation” step, which has never been done. This is the confusion or misunderstanding virologists and microbiologists have and are unwilling to take the time to consider or evaluate.

They often defend their position by arguing that viruses (particles) are minute in size and number and cannot be seen or isolated (separated) from cells (culture) to observe. Therefore, viruses and culture have to go together and side by side. Hence, it resulted in considering/calling culturing or culture a “virus.”

It is to be noted that there is no objection to the culturing step, which, in reality, is a fermentation step for growing or multiplying the viruses. However, once the viruses are sufficiently multiplied, they MUST be isolated or separated to evaluate their identity and characteristics, such as structure, RNA/DNA proteins, etc. This step is missing.

So, effectively, virologists work with cultures but make claims about them as “viruses.” It is like working with debris from a forest but selling it as novel and rare wood dust particles.

Seeing the photographs with low or high-resolution microscopes does not establish the presence of something, just like seeing small yellow particles would not confirm the presence of gold in the sample. The particles must be isolated/separated to characterize them.

It is an invalid argument that viruses are small (in size and number), so they cannot be seen without culturing or separating from cells. Smaller items like carbon, hydrogen atoms, and molecules are commonly available in isolated and purified forms with full characterization or certifications.

If the claim is that there are viruses, then these entities, considered particles, must be available in, isolated, purified, and fully characterized. Nothing of this nature is available, including for the coronaviruses. Calling or considering cultures/isolates as viruses is an incorrect understanding that needs to be abandoned.

Links to some articles for further information on the topic:

  • Buyer Beware! (link)
  • Centrifugation Does Not Isolate (link)
  • COVID Virus: Isolate, isolated, and isolation – a picture is worth a thousand words (link)
  • Gain Of Function Research – As Fake As The Virus! (link)
  • My training and expertise – people ask! (link)
  • For more (link)

Is This Vax Really Adulterated per Kirsch/Bridle/McKernan? (link)

Below is my view on the topic.

@ “Is This Vax Really Adulterated … “

There is no way to find out because no pure or unadulterated one is available. Why?

Rituals are often followed in medical/pharmaceutical practice (“science”), and things get declared based on a sellable story with some scientific-sounding jargon.

It is like a gain of function (GOF) research. Scientifically and logically, the first step is to show the baseline/reference, i.e., the original version (“virus”), followed by the tampered one, a variant or modified (link).

However, the “original virus” has never been shown, but the tampered ones have been described. Why? It promotes and maintains the non-existent “virus” story as if it is something real.

Similarly, some have started discussing adulterated (tampered) vaccines while no vaccine (unadulterated/reference) is available. It is just junk in the vial, without any control or defined content to make the story believable that an actual vaccine exists.

Note that I wrote earlier, even before the vaccine development, that it is impossible to develop a vaccine, and indeed, there is no vaccine (unadulterated or adulterated), just false claims. (link).

Obtain a copy of Helpful Notes to learn about the misunderstanding of the science behind the viruses/vaccines/pharmaceuticals (link).

A medical degree, such as M.D., is like any other four or 5-year undergraduate non-science degree. It does not provide training in science, such as for isolation, purification, and characterization or identification of substances or chemicals/medicines, which led the experts to make and believe in false conclusions that the virus exists and has been isolated.

Moreover, developing a treatment (such as a vaccine) also belongs to the experimental science subject, which requires testing the treatments against the target, such as a virus or illness. Unfortunately, lack of science and training led the experts to make false claims that treatment has been developed, while it is scientifically impossible and illogical to make such a claim. No virus (or its sample) is available to test and develop the treatment. Injecting unknown and unpurified gunk (so-called “vaccines”) in humans resulted in devastating outcomes (adverse effects without any benefit).

It is a textbook case of incompetency and ignorance—an example set for many generations to come. The only solution to address the colossal failure is to stop believing in the virus and vaccinations. Arrogance is the hindrance that needs to be addressed.

Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.