This article is a response to a Facebook follower who asked for my thoughts on the AI-generated critique of my article (link).

I must say, the analysis was quite interesting, and I am genuinely impressed — your AI did a reasonably good job critiquing my article.

Before I present my critique (see below), I want to clarify and emphasize that this is AI, not RI (Real Intelligence). AI depends entirely on what is fed into it and on how the underlying algorithms gather, filter, and present information — including what they choose to emphasize or ignore. In other words, AI is inherently biased both by the input and by the controls placed on it.

That said, I personally make extensive use of AI and often run my comments and posts through it to check for errors or illogical statements. My AI has effectively been “trained” from my side, aligned with scientific standards as I understand them. So I decided to generate a rebuttal from my AI to your AI and see how fairly it responds. The response I received from my AI is thorough, correct, and I fully support it.

For your reading convenience, I have reproduced your AI’s critique first, followed by the rebuttal produced by my AI, which I fully endorse.

I trust my AI’s response because it is based on the principles of true science, from a chemistry and analytical perspective. In contrast, I consider your AI’s response grounded in non-scientific narratives, even though it cites published literature. Its foundation lies in biology and medical science — both of which, in my view, do not qualify as true sciences.

For further convenience, I have also reproduced my original article (the one under discussion) at the end, along with the link to the blog.

Enjoy — and feel free to share your feedback.

Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Virus Isolation AI vs AI-articleDownload

I recently watched a clip of Dr. David Rasnick, Ph.D., a trained (bio-) chemist—speaking confidently about the existence of viruses (link). I must admit, it left me genuinely saddened. Here is someone with a scientific background, someone who should instinctively rely on empirical evidence, yet he has accepted the idea of viruses as real, physical entities.

Some attempt to soften the claim by saying viruses are “actually exosomes,” as if a new label resolves the scientific issue. But it does not.

Whether one calls them viruses or exosomes makes no difference. The fundamental question remains: Where is the physical evidence of their existence?

The confirmation can only occur through isolation, not through assumption, interpretation, or narrative.

(more…)

A Chemist’s Perspective on What That Really Means

Recently, Dr. Malone commented: “President Trump wants to know whether or not there’s actual science behind the entire [children’s vaccination] schedule.”

This is indeed an interesting statement. If the President of the United States is questioning whether there is actual science behind vaccination, then it deserves serious attention.

Dr. Robert Malone, often credited with pioneering mRNA technology, has participated in discussions with public health officials and working group leaders, including those affiliated with the ACIP and HHS.

Dr. Malone, often regarded as one of the key figures behind mRNA vaccine development, should have been the first to respond with confidence and evidence. As someone long associated with “science,” he should have assured the President that the science is sound, settled, and proven.

But instead, he appeared to agree — implying that perhaps something is wrong with the science itself and that it needs to be “fixed.”

(more…)

This is precisely the problem in biology and the so-called “medical science.” As I have emphasized for a long time, the work done in virology is assumed to be science-based simply because biology and virology are classified as “sciences.” This belief is both inaccurate and deeply problematic.

By its nature, biology is not a true science in the strict sense of the term. True science is founded on chemistry, supported by physics and mathematics. Consequently, all work related to vaccines, viruses, and testing (including method development, validation, and application) should rightfully be conducted in chemistry laboratories, where true scientific principles are applied.

(more…)

This is a common question, yet rarely addressed honestly. The reason is simple: people believe that sickness is real, that treatments work, and that medical experts are genuine experts. There is hardly any critical thinking applied to these assumptions.

First, we must ask — are people truly sick? If so, what kind of sickness are we talking about: temporary fatigue, emotional stress, overwork, or mild seasonal discomfort? These are natural parts of life, and recovery usually follows with rest and balance. But modern medicine has turned every sign of discomfort into a diagnosis and sickness.

Remember the COVID-19 pandemic. People were not necessarily sick but were declared sick based on a fraudulent test. Even more bizarre, many who had no symptoms (no sign of sickness) at all were labeled “infected” — the so-called asymptomatics. This was not science but institutional dishonesty on a global scale.

(more…)

A few days ago, I came across a phrase that immediately caught my attention — “procedural declaration.”

It perfectly captured what I had been struggling to explain for years: why regulatory authorities such as the FDA and similar bodies around the world appear “scientific,” yet their drug approval processes are not truly based on science.

That phrase — procedural declaration — describes it exactly.

(more…)

It is quite revealing when a cardiologist publicly describes the presence of the so-called “spike protein” in the body—doing so on the assumption that it must already exist (link). What is often overlooked is that the “spike protein” is, in fact, a chemical compound. As I have repeatedly emphasized, medical professionals generally possess limited, if any, expertise in chemistry—the very foundation of true science. Their belief in the existence of the spike protein is not based on their own analytical verification but rather on trust in what others—such as the FDA, CDC, or the pharmaceutical industry—have told them.

From a scientific standpoint, however, I have yet to encounter any validated analytical evidence confirming that this so-called spike protein actually exists. The situation mirrors the long-standing narrative of “viruses,” which most physicians have accepted as fact for decades without ever demanding scientific proof.

(more…)

The hidden aspect of the problem is that the entire pharmaceutical industry operates under the direction and authority of medical science — or, more accurately, the false belief in the authority of medical science. This so-called “science” dictates the rules, methods, and interpretations that the pharmaceutical world must follow. As long as this illusion remains unchallenged, nothing will change. Pharma will continue producing and promoting substances based on fraudulent assumptions, while presenting them as products of science.

Whenever someone attempts to expose or stop this falsehood, they are immediately confronted by physicians and their self-declared “scientific” authority. These individuals act as both the defenders and the enforcers of the same system. Naturally, they will never admit that pharmaceutical practices are built on their own unscientific foundation. Thus, the cycle of deception sustains itself — medicine validating medicine, doctors protecting doctors, and all under the banner of “science.” If this situation is ever to be corrected, the solution lies not with physicians or “medical scientists,” but with true scientists — the chemists. Medicine, after all, deals with chemicals: their composition, purity, reactions, and effects. Only chemistry — the real science — can examine and reveal what is genuine and what is false in medicine. Until chemists reclaim that role, the public will continue to suffer under the rule of false science disguised as healing.

A Plea for Scientific Clarity: An Open Letter to RFK Jr (link).

There has been a vigorous discussion lately about who truly qualifies as a scientist. I have often explained what science actually is — and, by extension, who can rightly be called a scientist. Many have reacted critically, even sarcastically. While disagreement is expected, the level of hostility is both amazing and laughable.

It is understandable, though. Challenging long-held assumptions is never easy. People prefer to describe science from afar rather than define it from within. For most, “science” has become a vague and symbolic term — something anyone can claim to represent, even without ever studying or practicing it. They often cite literature written by others, without realizing that much of it is built on a mistaken understanding of what science truly is.

(more…)

Dear RFK Jr.,

Please reconsider your position on this topic. There is no doubt that vaccines can be extremely harmful and may even trigger severe infections — sometimes mislabeled as “cancer,” which itself remains an ill-defined illness. However, such vaccine-related harm cannot logically be attributed to any “virus,” since no valid scientific evidence has ever demonstrated the existence of viruses.

Claims regarding viruses are based entirely on assumptions made by medical professionals who lack the scientific training and expertise required to isolate, purify, and characterize substances — including what they call viruses. It is only through the disciplined methods of true science — particularly chemistry — that such determinations can be made. Based on those scientific principles, no virus has ever been isolated or shown to exist.

A simple and valid requirement for proving the existence of any virus is the availability of a purified and fully characterized specimen — a tangible sample in a test tube or vial. No such sample exists.

The logical extension of this fact is that all related claims — including virus testing, so-called pandemics, and vaccine effectiveness — cannot be scientifically valid. There is no evidence that an actual viral specimen has ever been used in such investigations or research. These claims, therefore, are misleading and unsupported by real science.



Rethinking Cancer: A Mislabelled Mystery (link)
Vaccines and the COVID virus (link)
Claims of vaccines’ relevancy and efficacy – a big fat lie! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
A Simple And Direct Question RFK Jr Needs To Ask – A Suggestion (link)
Quackery in White Coats (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Critical Review of Medical Authority and Scientific Legitimacy (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)