Practice of medicine – the fatal mindset
(1) the official one, supported mainly by physicians and related establishments, believes that the virus and the pandemic are real;
(2) the rest, mostly scientists, including some physicians and alternative medicine practicing groups, believe that the virus story is unscientific and a hoax.
However, as views held by both sides remain strong, the question is which view be considered correct and be followed. Until it is not decided which view is correct, it is impossible to address the virus and pandemic situation, and such cannot be stopped or avoided in the future.
This article provides a discussion to address the issue by critically evaluating the handling of the issue by medical practitioners and establishments.
The story of the pandemic, no doubt, was initiated by government health authorities and organizations, which were supported by physicians, mostly connected to government establishments (directly or indirectly). They were all presented as subject experts, scientists, and public health defenders, in particular, through the mainstream media.
In addressing the issues, it would be helpful to consider first the underlying education and training aspects of a physician for delivering its services. As per common definitions:
“A physician is a person qualified to practice medicine.” (Definitions from Oxford Languages)”. “A physician is a general term for a doctor who has earned a medical degree. yourdictionary.com
Physicians work to maintain, promote, and restore health by studying, diagnosing, and treating injuries and diseases”. webmd.com
In short, a physician diagnoses diseases and prescribes medicines/treatment following standard and acceptable protocols and instructions.
Therefore, a physician is a professional who practices medicine.
There is no mention of the word science in describing a practicing physician. For example, consider the curriculum of a medical degree from the University of Toronto (Canada) – a highly respected and reputed institution:
“The University of Toronto MD Program is four years in length and delivers a comprehensive curriculum that prepares students for every kind of career in medicine. The first two years of the M.D. Program, called Foundations develops students’ knowledge, skills and attitudes in preparation for future learning.
Students learn in diverse settings, including classrooms for lectures and seminars, anatomy labs, in community settings and at the bedside. Students learn foundational science and clinical topics, and also begin to develop their clinical skills to prepare for workplace learning in the final two years of the program, known as Clerkship.
Clerkship involves learning while working with physicians and other health care team members in the hospital and clinic. With support from our world- class network of hospitals and clinical care sites, students delve deeper into areas such as paediatrics, family medicine, surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics-gynaecology, anesthesia, emergency medicine and psychiatry.” md.utoronto.ca
Under Education Goals and Competency Framework, it describes,
“Education goals
The MD Program aspires to prepare graduates who are:
- clinically competent and prepared for life-long learning through the phases of their career
- ethical decision-makers dedicated to acting in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism
- adaptive in response to the needs of patients and communities from diverse and varied populations
- engaged in integrated, team-based care in which patient needs are addressed in an equitable, individualized and holistic manner
- reflective and able to act in the face of novelty, ambiguity, and complexity
- resilient and mindful of their well-being and that of their colleagues
- capable of and committed to evidence informed practices and scholarship, and a culture of continuous performance improvement”
Moreover, “Further elaboration of several of the competencies (those marked with asterisks) is provided in *Appendix 1” md.utoronto.ca
Appendix 1: Details Pertaining to Selected Enabling Competencies “Medical Expert 1.2 Foundational Disciplines –
(i) Biomedical Sciences (The major biomedical sciences are: anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, histology, immunology, medical imaging, microbiology, nutrition and exercise science, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, radiology”
The part mentioned above (3-lines) represents, in a 4-page (about 100 lines) document, a description indicating that the M.D. Program provides a basic overview of some relevant scientific principles. md.utoronto.ca There is no mention of actual laboratory testing and/or experimentation relating to medicines, indicating students are not being trained for science or being scientists.
However, with few exceptions, MDs are considered and presented as scientists (with the famous phrase “we follow the science”), indicating a discrepancy between training and education vs. the claims and practice.
There is no mention anywhere that MDs are trained and educated as scientists (experimentalists). The curriculum description suggests that MDs are trained as tradespersons or technicians, i.e., reading manuals and prescribing the medicine/treatment. They prescribe medicines as per instructions following the set protocols or service manuals.
The way the curriculum reads, the MDs can easily be compared with auto mechanics as an example. A customer who comes to the auto shop with a defective car (patient) describes the problem (symptoms).
Then, as per service manuals, the mechanics perform requisite testing (diagnosis) and suggest repair (prescription). As a result, the issue usually is resolved in short order.
It is unclear how a basic (graduate) degree in medicine is considered a science degree, especially considering the insignificant science component in the overall training. Furthermore, medical degrees and training are about using medicines – mostly pure and potent chemicals.
On the other hand, the chemicals, irrespective of their designation, medicines, drugs, and pharmaceuticals, are studied in the chemistry discipline – the science or science subject without any doubt or argument.
Therefore, isolation of substances/chemicals (RNAs, mRNA, proteins, sugars, etc.), testing, and/or developing new chemicals logically fall under the chemistry subject, not the practice of medicines.
Physicians are the users of chemicals – like millions of people drive or use cars without knowing or needing to know, in any detail, the functioning or mechanical working of vehicles.
Similarly, physicians use and prescribe chemicals/medicines, mostly not part of the natural biological system, without knowing or needing to know their manufacturing and functioning details. This is the most crucial aspect to know and understand for both the public/patients and the medical professionals.
The professionals are trained to prescribe known and well-established medicines (chemicals) for clearly described symptoms with appropriate diagnostic testing. Even the diagnostic tests are done separately, and physicians use the results. Hardly ever are physicians involved in developing, qualifying, and validating tests.
Instead, they are trained to read and follow the information provided by other respective professionals.
Similarly, one should not assume that they know in detail and at the molecular level about medicines and diseases, particularly the new diseases, because they have never been trained in such exploratory aspects (scientific research).
Unfortunately, however, not recognizing this lack of training and understanding of the science subject but considering themselves as scientists, medical professionals make gross errors, declaring nonexisting pathogens (e.g., viruses) and pandemics. Moreover, creating and developing medicines (chemicals) with fancy names such as mRNA, antiviral, etc. One often hears physicians’ persistent advice and suggestions in the media and literature on how medicines are developed and work.
However, they are never trained as chemists or conducting scientific studies to develop and evaluate medicines. Hence, they make unscientific and false claims about medicines and the diseases. For example,
Believing the virus’s existence,
a. “SARS-CoV2 has been sampled millions of times over from infected people, including those originally found to be infected in China,” Dr Stephen Griffin, a virologist and Associate Professor at Leeds Institute of Medical Research, told Full Fact.” fullfact.org
A false statement. No one has seen, directly or indirectly, any specimen of the isolated and purified virus
b. “The joint research project, known as the Johns Hopkins Excellence in Pathogenesis and Immunity Center for SARS-CoV-2 (JH-EPICS), was established under a five-year grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.
The funding of more than $2 million per year will support studies — commencing immediately — of theimmune elements that determine whether people get mild or severe COVID-19 illness following exposure to the virus. hopkinsmedicine.org
The center will be jointly led by Andrea Cox, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Sabra Klein, Ph.D., professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “exposure to the virus.”
Such a study or project has to be false because it would require a physical and identifiable sample of the virus, which is not available. Even vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed without using the virus but with an imaginary and nonexisting virus. bioanalyticx.com
The (PCR) test:
“This test detects bits of the virus itself and can tell you if you’re currently infected. Swabs are used to collect samples from the mucus membranes in the nose and throat where the virus may be growing or have been coughed up from the lungs. PCR tests are considered the gold-standard of NAAT testing”. fredhutch.org
Incorrect. The PCR test does not test the virus or its variant, illness, infection, or COVID-19. bioanalyticx.com
3. “The vaccine: Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to protect our families, communities and ourselves against COVID-19. Evidence indicates that vaccines are very effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, including against Alpha and Delta variants of concern.” canada.ca
Incorrect. Vaccines have never been tested against the virus in or outside the human body. bioanalyticx.com
4. (Masks use) When questioned during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to demonstrate the effectiveness of the masks’ use, studies suddenly started appearing in the literature from medical institutions. An example of one of many such studies is provided here journals.asm.org describing such a study,
5. “Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS- CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown.
Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2- containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission.
We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader.
Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Note the wording in the last line above, “virus droplets/aerosols.”
There is no such thing as “virus droplets/aerosols.”
Exprienemts were conducted using only the “droplets/aerosols,” but the conclusion is drawn to reflect the virus particles. It is unclear how such a study would be considered a scientific study – when it is not.
All of the examples mentioned above relate to chemistry (science) and should have been done within chemistry laboratories, particularly analytical chemistry. It is the biggest tragedy that physicians gained high respect in the eyes of the public by providing needed and valuable treatment services. Unfortunately, however, they have lost it all by declaring themselves as scientists and indulging in the activities (science and research) they are never trained for or qualified for and never practice.
They may try to recover the lost respect and credibility by helping the public/patients with the expertise and knowledge they have been trained. However, at present, they may not be able to.
In this regard, they require independence to work with patients. But unfortunately, they do not have that independence but work as subordinate to (political) bureaucracy in treating patients and diseases.
When one looks closely concerning the drug treatments, developments, administration, and discussions, choices are made between the medical profession, pharmaceutical industry, and the authorities such as FDA, not for the patients.
Medications are being forced upon the patients without their consent and input. Physicians-patients interaction is almost non-existent in this respect.
Consider the example of the coronavirus pandemic. Patients are being forced (mandated) with a government-imposed disease and medication. Patients, along with many physicians, are desperately requesting different options for consideration, but only the governments/bureaucracy have been deciding for them.
For example, governments have accepted this view, with the support of select physicians, that all citizens are sick or will be sick, with some mysterious (named COVID-19) disease. In addition, they have to be treated with a specific treatment/vaccination, which is still under development or not appropriately developed or approved.
It is time to think clearly and differently about how medical and pharmaceutical-based professionals have deviated from their mandate and have indulged in a subject they have never been trained in. As a result, they make colossal mistakes and do not look caring and smart in the public’s eyes except in the eyes of bureaucrats, “experts,” and peers.
One of the options to address the situation is to consider separating the development and manufacturing of medicines from the medical profession. Allopathic medicines, in particular, are chemicals and should be part of chemical manufacturing and development.
There should not be any argument about it.
The medicines development, testing, manufacturing, and sale as part of the medical profession have created a significant conflict of interest situation. The situation is that the medical professionals appear to be acting as sales agents for medication/vaccination, i.e., anyone who likes to live their normal life must have the vaccine/medicines.
This fatal mindset needs to be changed.
See more here: pharmacomechanics.com
Header image: Inverse
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.
Trackback from your site.
GGordongoodguy
| #
You could send me a fat phuck 300 pounder and a “doctor” a 300 pounder. The “doctor” would prescribe statins, diabetes drugs, high blood pressure meds, and a basket of other big pharma trash.
I would put ole fat phuck on a healthy and proper diet, exercise, vitamins, intermittent fasting, coffee enemas and supplements. Who has a better chance?
F ‘doctors”. They are worse than nothing because first, they do harm. By design.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
I would do all the same as you except minus the coffee enemas.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
IKR? I’m not a fan having shit shoved up my ass either.
Reply
Russ D
| #
As a Cancer survivor of 12 years you are 100% correct. I stay alive by AVOIDING doctors, eating right, exercise and limiting the amount of toxins in my life.
Doctors are a FAILURE when it comes to any disease. They are ONLY good for emergencies, trauma and injuries……….PERIOD!!!
STAY AWAY FROM DOCTORS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
I would go as far as to say that bullshit such as virology is merely high-level fraud, ignorant of which it relies on. Chemistry, but even more fundamentally, physics. And that actually, none of it is justifiable or evidenced as reasonable.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
I mean are you fucking kidding me? You have actual tons of toxic shit inputs in your life, for like 8 decades, right…and you think a handful of particles that can’t fucking function as claimed…which are made up, synthetic projections caused your illness? You know what that is? Delusion, denial, insecurity, imability to take responsibility, so you project the blame of very personal illness on…a handful of mythical misinterpreted, misrepresented particles…which are suggested in totally not propagandist or exploitative industrial, media sort of shit.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
“Chemistry, but even more fundamentally, physics.” Please explain your reasoning!.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Seriously? Is chemistry not essentially quantization of physical effects?
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Or in other words, what sort of chemistry exists without physics?
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Yeah physics would encompass everything, just like environment as with the phony “Green Energy” climate change:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PXt0DIPo4yer/
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
“Seriously? Is chemistry not essentially quantization of physical effects?” Yes, certainly it is. So, at the beginning of chemistry: what did physicists fundamentally do? It seems that this contradicts you earlier statement: Now I see you wrote: “Or in other words, what sort of chemistry exists without physics?” And Mark wrote: “Yeah physics would encompass everything.” I ask: Do the ideas of chemists or the ideas of physics explain the DNA molecules? I am really confused about the HISTORY of SCIENCE with which I claim to be familiar if you two are correct.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
I see your point Jerry but my point is everything in our world is effected at least indirectly by the laws of physics. Just as environmental laws are being applied in an effort to control all land, resources and capital. We see this same scam being used in the phony climate change agenda as shown in the link I posted above.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
Thank you for acknowledging that I may have a point. An accepted law of physics is E=mc^2 where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the measured speed of light (which Einstein assumed to be constant). I accept the validity of this law because I know of no observations or measurements which contradicts this equation (law). Do you accept its apparent validity? Even if it has nothing to do with chemistry, I certain do.
Yes, I am TESTING you; based upon what you have written about Einstein here at PSI.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
I do not know if the formula is valid now or not. I do not think so however because as I have mentioned before in astronomy discussions where I have listed several reasons why I believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. No one at PSI has been able to refute these points.
My purpose in the original comment however was not to be contentious but just to use the statement as to the all encompassing properties of physics as an analogy to the way the global elite are using the environmental front (since the environment covers everything). The phony climate change is used in the same way. If this criminal conspiracy is not stopped we will lose all property rights (then all other rights) by the subterfuge of environmental concern for the “common good” and for the necessity of reducing carbon emissions scam. In Ireland they are using the fake war in Ukraine as a pretext for proposing the seizure of private homes and property for the alleged “Ukrainian refugees.” The Zionists always create a problem then use this contingency to encroach upon natural rights. That is my primary concern, not theoretical propositions of no real consequence.
The plagiarist Einstein was run out of Germany because he had stolen all his theories from real scientists. The papers he submitted in1905 were signed by his wife (of whom he later abandoned along with their child). He did however give her the money awarded for the Nobel Prize, since she formulated the papers by plagiarizing other scientists work. He would never achieved any notoriety except the Zionist Jews having failed to ever produce any notable scientist needed a front man. Since they controlled the media, as they do today, and wanted a virulent Zionist as as propaganda, they were able to insert Einstein for this role. Any real scientist who says anything was put under severe pressure, even by governments, just as is done today with any doctors or scientists who reveal the truth about the fake virus. As to the validity of this theory it has no material effect on our lives. The continued loss of our liberties will be catastrophic for all of us and our posterity.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
I had read before of the involvement of Einstein’s first wife in helping him with some math but I never read that anything was plagiarized. I have read there were other significant physicists active at that time and I have never read that they doubted his special theory of relativity or other ideas with which he was credited . And I know (read) that Newton proposed that light existed as photons but this issue was refuted and never gained any acceptability in Newton’s time. And I know that Newton.would not get involved in debate the whether matter was endlessly divisible or was atomistic (particle like) and the question if elementary matter was air, water, earth and fire.
However, I know that anybody, of that earlier time, who could have read common Italian, could have read that Galileo wrote about the dissolving of gold with ‘acque forti’ and how it could be recovered as tiny, tiny particles which could then be melted back to solid gold with fire (heat). However, it seems obvious that Boyle, as he considered that gold and other metals might be elements, never read what Galileo wrote. As I doubt if you have and I know I had not until I was 50 or more. Because none of my science professors never suggested I should. And I know that near the end of my academic career I finally suggested my chemistry students should read Galileo..
Like Galileo, I have reported some common observations and measurements that absolutely refute to common and accepted scientific ideas: the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide and Darwin’s idea about the very, very slow evolution of life without any success of convincing anyone of these facts. Just as Galileo was not successful in convincing the Pope, with his telescopic observations, that the Earth could not standstill. Why??? Maybe because people, like you, who seem to know everything without making the effort to carefully actually observe the nature world or try to understand what others are writing. However, thank you for giving me these opportunities to repeat as you repeatedly criticize others.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Jerry your “observations” are obscured by your determination to follow the establishment propaganda no matter how ridiculous. Wether its airliners flying through still structures, the age of the solar system, the evidence for nuclear weapons or the fake virus. All you ever do is cycle back to repititions about your icons of science as you condemn others when their opinions are not the same as yours. You are just going around in a self constructed academic rut as you churn out MSM clap trap including germ theory nonsense as you did with the fake Polio virus . Do you really think the Jew controlled press is going to tell the truth about the Zionist operative Einstein?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
You wrote: “opinions are not the same as yours”. How is it you seem to not see I am only trying to focus any reader’s attention upon OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS so she/he can form his/her own opinions???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
You are kinda obtuse Jerry.
“Seriously? Is chemistry not essentially quantization of physical effects?” Yes, certainly it is. So, at the beginning of chemistry: what did physicists fundamentally do? It seems that this contradicts you earlier statement…”
How did I contradict myself by suggesting that chemistry is derived from physics? I also suggested projections about virology are derived from chemistry and physics…yet divorced from that.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
You wrote: “You are kinda obtuse Jerry.” “ob·tuse | əbˈto͞os, äbˈto͞os |
adjective: 1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand” (New Oxford American Dictionary)
I plead guilty on all counts!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
You the brilliant one (your comment to John O’Sullivan) are asking me, the dumb one (multiple times) to explain something to you?
Chemistry and Physics are both physical SCIENCES. They compliment each other. However, a question is: what is SCIENCE??? So, I ask you to explain the purpose of the 56 holes of Stonehenge, dug in chalk and in a fairly precise circle), maybe about 6000 years ago, or whenever.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Virology relies on chemistry, which relies on physics. But yet, virology is ignorant of that. What is physics reliant upon? Geometry perhaps? I wouldn’t know.
I’m actually not that clever, even though I qualified for Mensa at 12 years old. Because institutional shit, certification doesn’t mean much other than conformity or indoctrination…and might be associated with why every REAL “scientific breakthrough” happens to be related to someone who buckled that trend.
And Einstein is kinda wrong, btw, and a plagiarist (as was noticed by someone else). Pasteur too. Freud was a retard…so, do you notice similarities regarding that? Like institutional “standardization”? Do you remember perhaps that Einstein relied on Maxwell (whose work was bastardized and altered), Minkowski (Einstein’s teacher that happened to introduce the idea of geometric relatively to him AND formulated the algebraic stupid shit in more elegant geometric terms), Poincare, etc? Back in the day, apparently Pythagoras was kinda clever, but they also said he was a murderous lunatic.
Did you know E=mc2 means something other than you believe (hint, there is no speed of light constant).
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Excuse my mistyping, “…bucked that trend…”.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
You wrote: “Virology relies on chemistry, which relies on physics. But yet, virology is ignorant of that. What is physics reliant upon? Geometry perhaps? I wouldn’t know.” Which I couldn’t understand. Since I knew I had no idea what the definition of ‘virology’ was I looked up its its definition: “vi·rol·o·gy | vīˈräləjē |noun: the branch of science that deals with the study of viruses.” And I still do not understand. Based upon its definition, I understand that ‘virology is a THING which can never understand anything. Only a person can understand. And I understand how it was that you concluded: “I wouldn’t know.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Okay so we got some structures in 3d (at the least), right? So, from that we figure out dynamics. Then we quantize (and lose information) about components associated with those dynamics. Then, we make shit up and call them viruses because the amount of entropy, our indoctrination has made us “experts” in vorology…yet we cannot fucking understand symplectic, implicit or explicit integrations. Because we have credentials and are in denial about how things job.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This is this morning’s report about the sky over Salem OR.
I make it because this morning’s atmospheric sounding is so rare. From the surface (61m to about 33,000m [33km]) no horizontal wind speed was greater than 20 knots). And actually up to 7800m the wind speed was less than 10knots. And there were big cumulus scattered clouds whose bases could be at 700m and tops at maybe 1800m. And they obviously were difficult to see to move.
I have urged readers to buy a inexpensive IR thermometer with which to measure the temperature of sky and clouds. So I did this about mid-morning. Straight up (no clouds) the temperature was neg 19F, Some bases of the clouds were about the air temperature, which were being conventionally being measured to be about 50F. I had forgotten to measure the surface temperature of street in front of my house, but it is now about 70F with no direct sunlight on it and the air temperature is now 54F. And while the clouds are still scattered, they are tending toward overcast. The relative humidity is now 71%.
I will explain, my opinion, how it is that the morning’s quite scattered clouds are tending toward overcast. The scattered clouds cast shadows on the earth’s surfaces. So these surfaces do not warm as the surfaces right next to them in full direct sunlight, So there is a sharp temperature difference between the shaded surface and the sunlit surface. So the more dense cool air flows under the warm, less dense surface air and lifts the warm surface air from the surface. Of course, this is a beginning of vertical convention and we generally understand that, as the warm air rises, it should cool because of the action of gravity upon it. Hence at some point this rising warm air will cool to its dew point temperature and the water vapor, as part of the atmosphere, will begin to condense and form more cloud.
Readers, I hope you follow what I have tried to simply explain.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The discussion about physics and chemistry here is irrelevant and seems to have defeated the article’s purpose. These are science subjects of great importance and usefulness. Therefore, there is no point in arguing the preferential use of one or the other.
If one deals with subatomic particles (protons, electrons, neutrons), then physics is the subject to follow.
Otherwise, if one deals with molecules (protein, sugars, DNA/RNA, vitamins, etc.), one must consider the chemistry part. Chemical subjects (PCR, Antigen test, isolation, molecules characterization, etc.) do not require physics, theory of relativity, or Einstein’s equation E=mc2 to understand. However, the equation (E=mc2) has its place and use when things cannot be explained by particles’ nature, so they may be explained with their energy/wave form, whether the speed of light is assumed constant or not irrelevant.
In the medical/pharmaceutical world, one talks of very well-defined and established chemical compounds and their reactions, such as sugar, cholesterol, salt, and vitamins, and their interaction with body/cell chemistry.
Medical/pharmaceutical areas claim to deal with this aspect, but unfortunately, without appropriately studying the subject or science. Hence experts make colossal mistakes in diagnosing and treating body functions/illnesses. This is the intent of the article to highlight this weakness of the subject, experts, and their “science.”
The current example is the existence of the coronavirus. The experts claim to have isolated the virus and its RNA, but the question is, where is the “isolated” virus or RNA. So instead of showing the samples, they draw pictures with crayons (OK, using Photoshop or other computer programs) and show them as “isolated” viruses. That is all they can show from the 40 years of research and billions of dollars of investment. Certainly, some auditing is needed!
Please study some science/chemistry subjects to know that you (experts) have been lying or lied to. This is the intent here to have an open discussion about the flaws of the current claim made by medical/pharmaceutical science. Not to have the chicken/egg debate (physics/chemistry), i.e., which came first.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Practically all medicine today is “Germ Theory” medicine that originated with the con man Pasteur and his fraud of pathogenic transmission. This is the foundation of all allopathic medicine as well as the fake science of virology which basically calls any thing isolation. With unlimited funds and a controlled media this medical fraud was super charged by the Rockefeller Foundation with the founding of the CDC, control of the AMA and the creation of big Pharma. It should be noted that without the power of big government corruption behind it and constantly pushing it, none of the germ theory allopathic fraud of viruses, pathogenic transmission and the fraud of vaccines would have ever got off the ground. And without massive support from government and the MSM it would die out.
Not only has the government and medical system been pushing the fake germ theory narrative now for over a hundred years but has also led the way in promoting Ancil Keys Lipid hypothesis which led to the low fat high carb disaster that has killed millions with heart disease which used to be rare in this country.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Well, the point I was trying to make, though I’m fairly sure you understand, was that virology relies on some fundamentals (chemistry and physics) as a higher level…uhm…swindler’s (or cultist’s) avenue. A thorough understanding of physical systems and processes requires a thorough understanding of the fundamentals. Virology fails at that, but the supposed importance of its relevance to physicality, physiology is projected…while it is completely divorced from reality.
I don’t want to harp on to much but a short comment about that is for instance, internally, there are for instance loads of varying elements interacting or factors to consider, very complicated physical processes, electromagnetic, piezoelectric, thermal etc effects. People seem to ignore that and tend to think of their body as some kind of discrete fixed state which is then magically “infected” and their health dictated by 3 unseen suggested in-silico particles of phantom sorcery. It’s quite insane and that lack of understanding allows perpetuation of scam garbage.
Now, because of significant ignorance of those fundamentals by virologists (and not only), rather poor understanding and methodology results. And you get backwards reasoning because of that. An example would be the interpretation of results as causes. “Look, I took this white paint, then I added blue paint, then some yellow paint and some red paint…and this super accurate classification turns that into 0 or 1, which means the paint is ACTUALLY brown because of a virus”.
It is absurd to suppose a specimen of snot which is massively altered, repeatedly deviating exponentially from that snot, using a tool to essentially make up shit or target results (and those results happen to be near irrelevant, common, miniscule fractions) is indicative of anything relating to health status. If the understanding of the underlying chemistry and physics wasn’t so lacking, it would be plainly obvious.
In virology (though not only), seemingly, the further you deviate from fundamental functionality, the more convoluted and the less realistically relevant it is…somehow that makes it more “scientific”.
Reply