How People Can Be Blinded by Publications That Are ‘Peer-Reviewed’
Discussions about the non-existence of viruses, the validity of viral testing, and the scientific basis of vaccines often trigger hostile and dismissive reactions
The response is predictable: You are not trained in medicine or microbiology, so you do not know what you are talking about. Go back to your test tubes—real science happens in clinical medicine.
This attitude is not merely arrogant—it is telling.
It reveals a fundamental contempt for science itself and a profound ignorance of how genuine scientific knowledge is established.
Cloaked in credentials and institutional authority, it replaces evidence with entitlement and rigor with deference. Worse still, it renders its proponents blind to their own incompetence, allowing demonstrably false claims to persist unchallenged under the illusion of legitimacy.
The damage is not incidental: it is systemic, harming the public and corrupting science at its core.
When challenged, defenders of medical and biological claims often retreat behind “peer-reviewed publications,” presenting them as unassailable proof.
The implication is clear: if something is peer-reviewed, it must be true; questioning it is evidence of ignorance. This tactic works remarkably well, particularly when combined with intimidating language, complex terminology, and excessively long, technical titles designed to discourage scrutiny.
A striking example is a recent paper titled: “Increased phosphorylated tau (pTau-181) is associated with neurological post-acute sequelae of coronavirus disease in essential workers: a prospective cohort study before and after COVID-19 onset.” (link)
The title alone functions as a deterrent. It signals complexity, authority, and intellectual elitism. Few dare to ask a basic question—What does this actually mean or prove?—for fear of appearing uninformed.
Like the Emperor’s new clothes, the illusion persists because no one wants to admit they see nothing of substance underneath.
In reality, such publications often operate as smoke and mirrors. They are written within a closed intellectual framework, reviewed by peers trained in the same assumptions, and rewarded with funding, prestige, and institutional approval.
Whether the authors themselves fully understand the implications of their own work is almost irrelevant. The system rewards conformity, not scientific rigor.
From the beginning of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, I have consistently highlighted a fundamental scientific problem that remains unresolved and repeatedly ignored.
The article cited above—and countless similar publications—rests on inaccurate science. My position is grounded in formal education and professional experience in analytical chemistry (B.Sc. through Ph.D.), along with decades of hands-on work in analytical method development, test development, and validation.
Based on this background, I have clearly and consistently stated that there is no scientifically demonstrated COVID-19 virus and, therefore, no scientifically established pandemic.
COVID-19 is claimed to be caused by a virus, SARS-CoV-2. However, the existence of this virus has never been demonstrated according to fundamental scientific requirements. The claims rely almost entirely on assumptions rather than direct evidence.
What is routinely presented as “proof” consists of electron microscopy images of unpurified, contaminated cell cultures. Circular shapes or dots are labeled as “viruses” based on expectation and assumptions, not demonstration.
There is no image of an isolated, purified virus itself. From a scientific perspective, this is unacceptable.
Images of a claimed entity must be obtained after that entity has been isolated and purified. Since no such purified viral sample exists, neither the virus nor its alleged components—such as RNA or spike proteins—can legitimately exist or serve as reference materials.
As a result, no valid reference standards are available to work with. Without reference standards, test development and validation are scientifically impossible. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a foundational requirement of analytical science.
Anyone trained in chemistry and scientific methodology should recognize this immediately.
With this background, I examined the cited paper and went directly to the methodology section, where the authors state:
“We verified the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infections either using polymerase chain reaction testing or antibody testing among those whose symptom onset predated test availability.”
This single sentence is sufficient to invalidate the entire study. PCR and antibody tests cannot be validated without a verified reference standard. Since no such standard exists for SARS-CoV-2 or its components, these tests are, by definition, invalid.
Consequently, all results and conclusions derived from them are null and void.
There was no need to read further. Research built on invalid testing rests on a false premise and can only generate a false narrative.
Such work is routinely defended as “scientific” and shielded by the label “peer-reviewed.” Peer review, however, does not correct a false foundation. It merely amplifies it.
When reviewers are trained within the same flawed framework of so-called biological and medical “science”—fields labeled as sciences for institutional and commercial reasons rather than methodological rigor—the error is simply multiplied.
Thus, while such publications may appear scientific and authoritative, they are fundamentally unsound. Their claims are unsupported, misleading, and ultimately deceptive.
If anyone would like further details, you are welcome to visit my blog, https://bioanalyticx.com, where I examine these issues from multiple angles. Several articles there provide additional context regarding my scientific background and the perspective from which I approach these questions, including:
True science does not hide behind authority, intimidation, or jargon. It welcomes scrutiny—especially from those trained to recognize when fundamental principles are being ignored.
See more here bioanalyticx.com