“Procedural Declaration” — The Hidden Trick Behind Drug Approval
A few days ago, I came across a phrase that immediately caught my attention — “procedural declaration.”
It perfectly captured what I had been struggling to explain for years: why regulatory authorities such as the FDA and similar bodies around the world appear “scientific,” yet their drug approval processes are not truly based on science.
That phrase — procedural declaration — describes it exactly.
Procedure vs. Science
Most people assume that when the FDA or other regulatory agencies approve a drug, the decision must be based on solid scientific evidence. However, in reality, such approvals are
based on procedural declarations — meaning the process simply follows a set of internal procedures that the agency and its medical experts define as scientific.
The key misunderstanding is this: following a procedure is not the same as following science.
The procedures may sound “scientific,” but they are often science-sounding rituals rather than genuine scientific demonstrations. They rely on checklists, compliance forms, and
documentation — not on verified chemical evidence or reproducible analytical results.
Who Makes These Declarations?
Most of these decisions are made under the authority of medical and pharmaceutical experts — professionals trained primarily in clinical or biological reasoning, but rarely in chemistry, the foundation of real science.
Medicines are primarily dealt with interpretation and observation, rather than physical measurement or chemical verification. As a result, when these experts declare a drug “safe” or
“effective,” or of “quality,” they are doing so procedurally — not scientifically.
They follow standard protocols, meet statistical and administrative requirements, and file documentation that gives the appearance of scientific rigor.
The collection of these procedural declarations and activities is promoted as “science” — such as medical science, pharmaceutical science, or health science — yet they have nothing to do with actual science, which in this case is chemistry, the true and fundamental science.
Extending the Problem: Viruses, Tests, and Vaccines
This issue goes far beyond drug approval.
The claimed existence of viruses, the PCR testing procedures, the development of vaccines, and their assessment for quality, safety, and efficacy — all of these are likewise based on
procedural declarations, not on true science.
Why? Because these activities are conducted without ever working with actual, isolated samples of the viruses in question. Without a verified, purified reference sample, none of these
processes — not testing, not vaccine formulation, not safety validation — can be scientifically proven.
Yet regulatory and medical authorities continue to make declarations as though they were supported by solid evidence, when in reality they rest entirely on procedural compliance and
assumption.
The Real Risk
Since almost all medicines and biological products are chemical substances, judgments made by professionals without a deep understanding of chemistry are inevitably flawed. That’s why so much of what is called “scientific approval” in the pharmaceutical world is, in truth, a procedural declaration (approval) — a bureaucratic process dressed in scientific language.
The public, as well as most professionals, often fail to recognize this distinction. They assume that “FDA approved” means scientifically proven, when in fact it means the agency has
completed its internal procedure — its procedural declaration — nothing more.
The Takeaway
So the next time you read the phrase “FDA approved” or hear that a “vaccine is safe and effective,” pause for a moment. Ask yourself: was the product or claim proven through true
science, or merely declared acceptable through procedure?
More often than not, what you’re seeing is not the result of scientific validation, but rather a procedural declaration.
This paper-based confirmation follows the rules of bureaucracy, not the laws of chemistry (science).
Tom
| #
Since the FDA is owned by big pharma, it is up to the FDA to fast track all poison drugs to market no matter how dangerous. The FDA never tests any drugs and relies upon the lies of big pharma. They will handle the fallout later after many have died and no one cares if drugs murder the patient.
Reply