Post Views: 10

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)

Post Views: 16

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.

Post Views: 29

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. 

Post Views: 15

I read a recent article by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, “Did Cochrane’s study on masks get it wrong?” which analyzes two views about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face masks in protecting from viruses and their infection (link).

There is no doubt that both views are presented by parties with high credentials emphasizing their expertise and experience in a write-up. Below are the two views in a nutshell:

  • Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (Cochrane Review, link)

is ” … 2023 Cochrane review which concluded that wearing a face mask “probably makes little or no difference” in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

  • What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis? (link)

Criticizes the above by stating, “The Cochrane Library, a trusted source of health information, misled the public by prioritizing rigor over reality” by Naomi Oreskes (Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University)

Reading the articles and having a background in science, especially in research, while working at Health Canada as a research scientist for 30 years, I am quite concerned about the poor quality of scientific research and reasoning provided in the publication (Cochrane Review) and follow-up discussions. Continue here

Post Views: 11

Years ago, I suggested a simple convolution approach using MS Excel Spreadsheet to predict blood/plasma drug levels from drug dissolution results. Several successful applications of such an approach have been published. A simple yet revolutionary approach! The model spreadsheet may be obtained from here.

Details of the approach are described in the publication (Saeed Qureshi (author), In Vitro-In Vivo Correlation (IVIVC) and Determining Drug Concentrations in Blood from Dissolution Testing – A Simple and Practical Approach, The Open Drug Delivery Journal, 2010, 4: 38-47 (link).

Obtain a copy of Helpful Notes (link) for pharmaceutical drug dissolution testing with several examples of using this (convolution) technique, along with articles describing the testing, its issues, and suggested solutions.

Post Views: 25

It is important to note that physicians are taught and trained to write prescriptions for well-established pharmaceuticals (aka potent chemicals and mostly physiologically irrelevant) – no more, no less.

For this purpose, they must memorize some physiology, biology, and chemistry words during the training/education.

Furthermore, they do not study or get training to invent or identify new diseases or develop new treatments (pharmaceuticals/chemicals) – scientifically.

It is unclear how they consider and promote themselves to be scientists and practitioners of science. It is hard to find the basis for their claims. There is practically none. Wrong? Prove it! 

Using the vocabulary from the subjects mentioned above, without relevant laboratory work and with the help of computer drawing software, they declared the existence of the viruses, their RNAs, and spike proteins. It is purely a fictional story without any scientific evidence. No physical specimens of these things are available anywhere. Everything is illusionary or mythical. Wrong? Prove it! 

On top of that, mysterious vaccines have been developed for the imaginary virus or illness. Sketchy details describing the vial’s content have been provided. There is a strong possibility that these vials may contain some unknown content, potentially harmful (microbial) gunk, without usual and standard scientific characterization. Wrong? Prove it! 

Every claim is based on peer/buddy-reviewed articles/”research” from journals labeled “scientific” without accreditation by any independent third party, but primarily by self or news media-proclaimed experts.

In short, the claims about the virus, RNA, spike protein, vaccines, and so-called medical science, in general, are textbook cases of quackery and science fraud. Wrong? Prove it!

It should not, then, be surprising to note that medical/pharmaceutical experts sell/promote vaccines through authorities’ sponsorship and mandates and with the highest levels of immunity. It indicates that they may be aware of the uselessness and harmfulness of the products; otherwise, they would sell directly to consumers/patients like other safe and effective products. Use caution in accepting these experts’ claims. In most cases, they are factually false or not science-based.

The above views are based on my working experience (30 years) as a research scientist at Health Canada for the assessment and evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Further information about related work may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by (Dr. Qureshi, co-author), who has extensive experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.

Post Views: 20

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)
Post Views: 8

People do not realize that it is not only COVID-19/Ivermectin, as an example of so-called clinical trials, but most, if not all, will be shown to be invalid. As I have explained several times, the reason is that clinical trials are a specific type of analytical (chemistry) test. Unfortunately, these tests/trials are done and promoted fraudulently as valid and scientific. Proper analytical tests require precise and quantifiable outcomes (endpoints) using VALIDATED analytical tests/methods.

In the case of current practices of clinical trials, there is no such thing – neither an objective and qualifiable endpoint (but mostly subjective symptoms or arbitrary markers) nor validated tests (but non-validated and irrelevant tests such as PCR, drug dissolution). Hence, a valid clinical or scientific trial cannot be conducted, particularly under the guidance of medical experts and related regulatory authorities who lack the necessary training and understanding of the subject/testing.

Do not forget the disastrous failure of the clinical trials and the vaccine development for COVID-19. The catastrophic outcome of the vaccine was accurately predicted based on the understanding of flawed PCR tests and the analytical or scientific aspects of clinical trials (link, link, link, and much more at Bioanalyticx.com).

Further information may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book 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.

Post Views: 60

Please support my ongoing effort to explain and clarify the scientific misunderstandings about COVID-19 related to viruses, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and associated testing (the most dodgy aspect). Providing the most authoritative sources of true science-based information on the subject.

You may help:

By obtaining a copy of Helpful Notes and/or the Book;

Visiting my blog (clicking your favorite info ads)

(If using, please temporarily turn off the ad blocker) and/or:

Donating

Kindly consider this request urgent and also share it with your friends. Thank you.

Post Views: 20

People should keep in mind that physicians, including specialists like cardiologists, virologists, immunologists, oncologists, etc., are not trained for chemicals (deceptively called medicines) and their development and testing.

This lack of training and practice/”research” in chemical science (chemistry) caused the fake science practices of virology/immunology. It resulted in development of harmful “medicines,” so-called vaccines, and other related claims.

If it had been seen from the scientific aspects of chemicals/substances, it would have become instantaneously apparent that there is no virus, valid test, and safe and effective vaccines. There is a lesson to be learned here.

If the chemical aspect is considered, the assessment of the diseases (diagnosis) in general would become much easier, and developed treatments would be much simpler and more efficient.

Similarly, practices requiring social distancing, face masks, and lockdowns would become unnecessary, as they would easily be shown as unscientific. Most likely, there will not be pandemics in the future, certainly not viral ones.

I suggest medical professionals and experts seek help from knowledgeable chemists/scientists in developing and assessing medicines (generally non-physiological chemicals).

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.