Claims of vaccine relevancy and efficacy are a big fat lie!
People, including mainstream “scientists” and “experts,” do not realize that vaccines, mRNA-based or otherwise, have never been tested for their efficacy. To test the efficacy for developing and testing the vaccines, the virus (SARS-CoV-2) must be available in pure isolated form.
This is not only a scientific requirement but simple logical consideration as well. It is impossible to establish the usefulness and effectiveness of the vaccines without the use or presence of the target, i.e., the virus.
It is a commonly known fact now that no purified isolated specimen of the virus is available anywhere in the world. Therefore, no one can test the efficacy of the vaccines, and it has not been done either. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie.
The development of vaccines is based on testing against the PCR test, which is not a test for the virus but an RNA/DNA-based marker of the unknown or imaginary virus (commonly known as SARS-CoV-2). The PCR test is an arbitrary “dipstick” type test without any link to the virus, infection, or illness. As the virus has never been isolated, it is impossible to link the marker to it and validate the PCR test for its relevancy and accuracy as well.
Testing and assessing viruses and their link to illnesses and the treatments, as currently described and promoted, reflect ignorance and incompetency of the “experts” and “scientists.” Therefore, the medical and pharmaceutical areas require urgent scrutiny and audit of their scientific claims.
The focus should be treating the illness/infection, if and when it occurs, and not developing the treatments (such as vaccines) for the imaginary virus and its mutants.
For further reading:
COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Quantifiable (link)
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.
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments. Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email ([email protected]) or Tel (+1 613 797 9815)
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
I’m not sure that I accept this. China claimed to have isolated the virus and the team at Oxford University received the genome from China and that is all they needed to work on the new types of vaccine. However, should we trust the CCP? I think the virus was created in a laboratory and most probably in the USA. Obama stopped federal funding the gain of function work because he was concerned about a dangerous virus escaping.
We have the trial results of the new vaccines and we should concentrate on this, because it is clear that we are being lied to. The efficacy reported is based on a relative risk reduction not the absolute risk which applies to healthy people having the vaccine. For the Pfizer vaccine 256 people have to be vaccinated for 1 person to benefit. The truth is that there is no justification for mass vaccinations.
Reply
Karma Singh
| #
Not so, Alan,
what they got was a “photoshopped” image of what the “virus” might look like if it could be found. This in co-operation with “Professor” Drosten at the Charité Teaching Hospital in Berlin who actually did the artwork (after receiving a substantial “donation” from Bill Gates) by cobbling together bits of the more than one thousand known corona “viruses”.
Following similar contributions from Mr. Gates, the CDC did the same.
This is not the first time that Mr. Drosten has been involved in virus fraud, in 2002 he declared that SARS was a mutant bat “virus” from a cave 40 miles North of Wuhan (again!). This without once visiting the area or testing the hypothesis in the laboratory. All data was “kindly” supplied by the Chinese Communist Party.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
Reply
JaKo
| #
Dear Saeed,
It is increasingly difficult to thread anywhere in opposition of the official narratives while claiming the obvious truth. Nobody seems to even acknowledge the weakness of ‘Contagion via Microbe Theory’ = impossibility to prove the very existence of the alleged agents and also the mechanism of healthy cells’ infection, as part of fulfilling of the Koch’s postulates. “Modern virology” even established a notion of “Limitations of Koch’s Postulates,” to excuse its own “limitations” perhaps?
Personally, I started changing my perceptions of the MSM and of the “scientific consensus” or “settled science” in late 1990’s in regards of the AGW, and I don’t envy you your position in another hijacked field — bio-chemistry. (Why couldn’t we pick our field of interest in something like Electrical Engineering or Optics? No offense, but those fields know not of even ‘politically correct’ influence, AFAIK.)
So, you are not allowed to “disseminate inaccurate information,” you say, eh? I bet that even as little as two-three years ago, NOBODY would believe that this situation, imposed upon us now, could ever happen. Yet, there’s an army of “fact-checkers” now, of very little capacity to discern a lie from truth in any field, yet of great power over people like you. This is very much reminiscent of the Third Reich or the communist regimes of our past, or, “Welcome to the Brave New World of 1984″…
I may not 100% agree with you, but I will do all I can to let you express your opinion!
You take care, JaKo
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Dear Jako:
Thank you for your feedback and support.
The censorship and “facts-checking” approach clearly show that “scientists” and “experts” are nervous and worried that the fake science of the last few decades is getting exposed. These should be expected reactions for protecting phony science. So, let them do their job, and we keep doing ours, i.e., whatever we know and consider as right be written and shared.
Sooner or later, the physical existence of the virus has to be shown. The nonsense of “confirmation” by genome/PCR with computer-generated strings of alphabet gibberish cannot last forever.
Reply
Tom
| #
Seems to me I recall reading that the injection makers used a computer generated algorithm that simulated or estimated what CoV-2 particles might be. Not exactly exact. This may be stated in their trial information presented to the FDA and CDC. If they have a real Covid sample, then why not create a more “normal” vaccine where a small sample of the virus is in the vaccine? As far as I know, the CDC cannot produce any CoV-2 samples and you would think if they existed, the CDC would have some.
As far as the PCR testing goes, they use PCR in crime scene forensics. They create a DNA profile using PCR if they can find anything at a crime scene that can produce this profile. Then they compare this to DNA profiles in the data base or try to get the DNA of suspects and persons of interest and compare DNA. A match puts the suspect at the crime scene or involved somehow.
Seems that they would create a DNA profile of the virus using PCR which would give a specific profile for the virus with certain makers. This means there would be exact particles or samples used. Then they would run a PCR test using a person’s DNA sample and compare that to the established standard. How they can determine if a virus found from a PCR test is exactly that of Covid doesn’t seem plausible. And unless the cycles are under 30 or even 25, the extraneous material generated from the PCR test is not useful.
Reply