Be watchful of the practice of “peer-reviewed.” This word has caused enormous damage to science and brought unthinkable (financial and health) sufferings to the public. The peer-reviewed process is implied and promoted as an independent review or assessment of the scientific claims or publications, which is inaccurate. Instead, it is a review process by people having the same expertise, interest, and mindset, with or without conflict of interest – like buddies. Certainly not independent or unbiased by any means as often assumed.

For example, often suggested that tens if not hundreds of studies and publications are available in “peer-reviewed” journals describing the isolation of the virus. Indeed, numerous publications explain the procedure or process, but no isolated virus is available anywhere. Therefore, anyone who asks for the isolated virus specimen is considered an outsider (not a peer) incapable of understanding the “science.” The question asked is not about the science but a specimen of the isolated virus.

It is like inquiring about a car. An inquirer is never required to have an engineering degree or work experience in the auto industry to examine or assess/review the car’s performance. Most valuable reviews are from the users of the vehicles, not by the automakers or the government authorities. Makers of the item do not provide reviews but advertisements. Unfortunately, in the medicines/pharmaceutical area, developers of the products (peers) provide reviews. For example, the virus exists, causes the illness, the PCR/antigen tests the virus, and vaccines work. These are the claims made by peers, not by the users or any independent third party.

Anyone who asks about specimens of the isolated virus, validation report for the PCR/antigen tests, vaccines’ safety, and efficacy tested against the virus is considered a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer. Is anyone who asks questions about cars’ availability or performance considered anti-cars or anti-industry? Of course, not, but a smart buyer or consumer! The person wants the car, likes to buy it, and likes to make an informed decision.

On the other hand, in reality, “scientists,” experts, or peers (or so-called “vaxxers”) in the medical/pharmaceutical areas have nothing to show for their claims. They have simply been lying hidden under the cover of “peer reviews.”

So, in the future, if something is presented as being peer-reviewed for its authenticity, in particular medical/pharmaceutical areas, ignore it while requesting an independent audit or third-party review.

Recently, the US president (Mr. Joe Biden) has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, like many others, including the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Justin Trudeau) and CDC official (Dr. Anthony Fauci). Therefore, per CDC guidelines, they need to protect themselves and others from the negative impact of the so-called virus. One of such (science-based) guidelines is to isolate/separate oneself from others.

On the other hand, CDC does not consider “isolation” or “isolate” to mean to separate from others; in fact, the opposite, i.e., to mix and mingle.

For example, when one requests a specimen of the isolated or separated virus (COVID-19 virus, in particular), virologists and infectious diseases experts (primarily physicians) refer to samples of snot or phlegm (swab samples) mixed and stirred or spun with multiple ingredients. This definition or practice of “isolation” is described in the publication from the CDC (1), commonly presented forcefully as supporting evidence of THE virus isolation.

Therefore, per CDC guidelines or its interpretation of isolation, people should mix and mingle freely and not be separated. Hence, people separating themselves from others violate the CDC  recommendation of isolation.

For a further detailed explanation on the topic, please see here (1, 2, 3)

The falseness of science at the CDC

A recent article describes the view of the CDC official (Dr. Fauci) “that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the virus.” (link). This should not be news, as it was expected and predicted (link).

However, another claim is made that “[vaccine] protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death” Scientifically and logically, this view is incorrect.

Scientifically and technically, vaccines are not considered medicines (such as antibiotics) to treat the infection but prepare the body to kill bugs (in this case, the virus). A vaccine (immunization) is like a protection net or wall to create a fence against the entry of the virus. However, if the net is penetrated through (as acknowledged), then there is no protection, and the virus will cause its effect, which should be treated with anti-infection treatment.

Furthermore, stating that “At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it played a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease.” This is speculation, not a scientific judgment. A scientific claim in this regard requires a lab study/experiment, which should first show that the virus causes the infection and then, secondly, the infection is treatable by the vaccine. In this respect, the vaccine should then not be considered a vaccine but an anti-infection drug. It should be used as an anti-infection drug, not a vaccine for immunization.

The observation and statement provide strong evidence against the CDC’s COVID-19 virus theory and claims. The illness, if it exists, may more likely be misdiagnosed (commonly assumes seasonal hiccups). Certainly, illness has nothing to do with the virus because, to date, no virus has been found or isolated from any ill person.

Please, reconsider “scientific” practices at the CDC. For further details, please see here (1, 2)

People often express their frustration that the wealthy gain control of people’s lives that help them further to make more wealthy and then more controlling. In this respect, a name often mentioned is Mr. Bill Gates because of his current involvement in viruses, vaccines, and pandemic episodes.

Mr. Gates made his enormous wealth through his software company (Microsoft). So, people assume that his greed for wealth generation through the vaccines business is causing the current misery of human and economic suffering. Continue here

During the beginning phase of the so-called pandemic, I evaluated two studies, one from Australia (link) and the other from the USA (CDC, link), describing that studies made false claims of virus isolation. But unfortunately, everyone likes to be on the bandwagon, as it pays high financial and personal rewards. Therefore, others make similar claims that SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19 virus) exists and has been isolated.

A similar study from India is also making a stir – promoted as evidence for SASR-COV-2 isolation in India (First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India, link). But, in short, it is also as false as others, including those two mentioned above. (continue here)

The similarity of work is evident but with different types of objects. Both types of techs are trained with primary college/university education supported by on-the-job training by peers to perform repetitious work. However, one of the techs is generally categorized as a scientist. It is unclear why this is so when they obtain no learning and/or training in science (link).

This discrepancy in training and claim of the techs causes hindrance in addressing illnesses and their evaluation (testing) such as virus-based, in particular COVID-19. Therefore, the hospital techs, such as physicians, should seek help from trained scientists to isolate and identify the “bugs” (so-called pathogens or poisons/chemicals).

It is hoped that authorities will consider this suggestion with an open mind and without hostility.  

Some information from the Health Canada (HC) website (link) with comments in italics for general awareness

  1. This information was provided by the drug’s manufacturer when this drug product was approved for sale in Canada. (implies HC may or may not have appropriately evaluated the information but approved the drug anyway) This leaflet was prepared by Pfizer Canada ULC, Last Revised June 13, 2022
  2. It is a summary of information about the drug and will not tell you everything about it. (implies the approval is granted without knowing the necessary information about the drug).
  3. Contact your doctor or pharmacist if you have any questions about the drug. (doctors or pharmacists do not know more except what is provided to them or common knowledge)
  4. PAXLOVID is used in adults to treat mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients who: have a positive result from a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral test. (There is no viral test available at present – this is false information).
  5. COVID-19 is caused by a virus called coronavirus. (There is no evidence of it as no virus has ever been found or isolated from any patient.)
  6. PAXLOVID contains two antiviral medicines copackaged together, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. (These two separate drugs (potent chemicals) are provided in a blister pack rather than as currently available in separate bottles or packing. It is like packing two tablets of Advil and one tablet of Tylenol individually in a blister pack. It is not clear why it would be called or considered a new drug with a new name. These are old drugs, apparently with a new suggested indication).
  7. To be used no longer than 5 days in a row, usually 30 tablets per course (Thirty tablets course at US$530, i.e., US$17 a pill. It could be argued that it will be far cheaper if the same drugs are obtained from a chemical supplier. However, as a result, the efficacy and marketing “claims” of PAXLOVID will evaporate in smoke quickly (link).
  8. PAXLOVID stops the virus from multiplying. (A false claim, drugs have not been tested against this claim because no virus specimen is available at present to test).
  9. This can help your body to overcome the virus infection and may help you get better faster. (Infections are usually treated with anti-infectious medicine such as antibiotics, not with antivirals. Vaccines are considered to protect from viruses)

In short, PAXLOVID is not a new drug or product but a new package or dosage regimen of two old antiviral drugs. It is important to note that, as in the case of vaccine development for COVID-19 (link), the efficacy assessment of the product is not based on the actual scientific or experimental data using the virus (SARS-COV-2). Currently, no drug or vaccine can be tested against the virus or with patients, as the virus’s presence or isolation has not been established yet.

People do not realize that “clinical trials” are a form of (analytical) testing for medicine development and assessment, i.e., it is a fancy name for testing. But, scientifically, the current practice of clinical trials is as valid as the world-known fraudulent PCR testing and other related (Rapid test/antibody test, etc.). However, for a test to be valid, one requires a reference standard (in this case, the virus) that is unavailable. Hence, all the testing and results (cases, pandemics, waves) become irrelevant and fraudulent.

Similarly, conducting clinical trials requires appropriate treatment testing, including for vaccines against an illness, in this case, the virus or patient with illness/virus, and none is available. Hence, it is impossible to conduct relevant and scientifically valid clinical trials. Therefore, relevant clinical trials for COVID-19 have NEVER been done – it is not an opinion but a (scientific) fact.

It could be argued that the medical community and experts are aware of this weakness and fraud. So, the approach is to move to the next level to hide the fraud. In this case, clinical trials (which could not be conducted) are conducted with arbitrary and unrelated markers such as (RNA, PCR-positive/negative, antibody, variant, etc.) to fool people that science is being followed. It should be understood that science has never been followed in the COVID-19 case. Again, it is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

Everything is based on a biased “peer (buddy) review system,” not on an independent third party or scientific review. Hence, in the future, some system needs to implement for critical evaluation of testing and medicine/vaccine development and assessment. It is of utmost importance to note that testing and product development, including vaccines, do not fall in the area of practice of medicine. Unfortunately, it has been misplaced, and a change is urgently needed (1, 2)