Upcoming Online Panel Discussion

Link for the meeting: https://meet.google.com/zpq-euzs-mqr

My LinkedIn account is blocked

This is to inform you that, a few days ago, LinkedIn blocked my account. My contributions probably have been considered influencing readers’ views not in line with some. LinkedIn provided a list of my comments, which were found offensive (see here).

I have appealed the decision. In the meantime, you may read my articles and contact me through my blog (link) for scientific information. Thanks.

Correcting science at the authorities, including FDA

Recently, a petition has been filed with the FDA (link) requiring appropriate scientific data and support, as outlined in the Petition, before full approval of any COVID-19 vaccines be granted.

People do not realize that the FDA and other similar organizations worldwide are not science organizations or authorities on science. Instead, they are administrators of medical and pharmaceutical practices. In this regard, medical and pharmaceutical professions are also not science professions either. Instead, they are users of science or its outcome. (link, link).

As an analogy, chefs prepare meals to make their customers happy and healthy. They hardly ever invent or manufacture the ingredients or tools required to prepare the meals. Instead, they are dealt with by experts from other groups, such as agriculture, farming, manufacturing, etc.

Similarly, the medical and pharmaceutical experts make their customers (patients) happy and healthy by providing the diagnosis and treatment using already well-established ingredients (tests and pharmaceuticals) developed by experts from other faculties such as chemistry and engineering. They never develop or are trained to develop or invent the diseases and their treatments.

So if a Petition is made to the FDA to correct the science or its interpretation, it may not be an appropriate agency for such a request. The FDA cannot correct or fix science because science is not done there. The FDA has already approved the vaccines under the disguise of EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), which the Petition is indirectly challenging.

The FDA decision was never based on science. Scientifically speaking, it is impossible to test a treatment against a target (virus) that is not available. Even at the EUA level, approving such treatment clearly indicates a lack of science at the agency.

The Petition, most likely, will sit there without any response, as is the case with my Petition (link). Scientifically speaking, my Petition is far easier to understand and address than vaccines’ safety and efficacy evaluation. The lack of science and its practice at the FDA is causing the hindrance in moving ahead.

Perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to seek an audit of the practice and understanding of science at the FDA by a third party and information on how vaccines have been developed and evaluated against the virus when isolated virus specimens are not even available. The FDA, and other similar regulatory authorities, can’t provide a valid answer to such a query. Therefore, the vaccine approval process may stop, and science gets a chance to get fixed.

COVID-19: Science has not been followed

Claims vs. reality or facts!

  1. The virus has been isolated – not correct. The virus has never been isolated. (link)
  2. The virus caused the COVID-19. No scientific or experimental evidence has been provided in support of this claim. (link)
  3. The test detects or monitors the virus or infections. Not correct. The test has never been scientifically validated for the intended purpose. (link)
  4. Masks protect from the virus – not valid. There is no scientific evidence available showing that the masks provide protection – none! (link)
  5. Social distance provides protection. No scientific or experimental support is available in support of this claim. (link).
  6. Vaccines are efficacious – not correct. No therapeutics or treatments have been tested (scientifically or experimentally) against the virus. (link)
  7. For further details, see here (link) or (link).

Virus (SARS-CoV-2) origin discussions – a clever approach for hiding the scam

It appears that the current media indulgence with finding virus origin is not related to the public health policy or benefit but to divert the attention from the fake story of the virus existence. The news or debate about the virus’s origin is indirectly establishing the view that the virus exists. However, science provides no evidence of the existence or presence of the virus.

No scientist or “medical expert” worldwide has provided any valid evidence supporting the existence of the virus. It is a well-known fact that the virus (a ball with spikes) is an imaginary and computer-generated artifact, not physically found in a patient, laboratory, or specific geographical area. Therefore how could its origin be determined – it cannot be. The media discussion legitimizes the virus’s presence so that its fear in public should continue and the recommended “treatment” could be promoted.

A more appropriate focus of the discussion or probe should be that if the virus never existed, what have “medical/health scientists” been doing for the past many years with all their “work” and money/grants they received for the virus or the virology work?

Donate

Your support is needed in providing free and unbiased scientific work. Please donate (any amount). Thanks


Archives
Links

PharmacoMechanics