Time to Cut Ties with Junk Science—Woke or Otherwise

Written by Saeed Qureshi. Ph.D. on July 31, 2025. Posted in Current News

Dr. Robert Malone wrote in a recent post on his blog (link), who was recently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to address vaccine safety in general, with a particular focus on mRNA-based vaccines

I read the article by Dr. Robert Malone—an M.D., not a Ph.D.—criticizing Nature and other high-profile journals for publishing what he calls “junk science.”

While I share concerns about the quality and bias of modern scientific publishing, Dr. Malone’s critique is ironic. He condemns biased, politically-driven science while defending the very institutions and funding streams that enable it.

That contradiction deserves scrutiny.

Let’s be clear: An M.D. is not a science degree. It’s a professional credential, not evidence of training in fundamental scientific approaches for substance (chemicals) isolation, measurement, reproducibility, and theoretical reasoning.

Physicians are trained to practice medicine—not to conduct or evaluate science in the rigorous sense. This distinction matters because much of what now passes as “medical science” is not science at all—it’s narrative, authority, and assumption wrapped in scientific language.

Dr. Robert Malone is a physician and researcher known for his early contributions to mRNA vaccine technology. He is often credited as a pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology.

In fact, he co-authored a landmark paper in 1989 describing mRNA delivery using liposomes (Malone et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1989), which has since been widely cited in vaccine development circles.

However, his association with mRNA platforms has led to a broader—and problematic—claim to scientific authority. His research has been aimed at developing vaccines against agents such as viruses, which have never been directly isolated, physically defined, or characterized through robust analytical procedures.

Working with unverified assumptions, interpreting data through indirect tools like PCR, and building global health policies around them is not science. It is, in fact, the definition of junk science.

Take, for example, the ongoing debate over the lab-leak theory concerning the origins of the COVID-19 virus, as described in the article. Despite multiple retractions across its journals, Springer Nature has consistently downplayed the lab-leak hypothesis and has refused to retract blatantly flawed publications that promote the idea of a purely natural origin, as described in the article.

This raises a fundamental question: if two groups of medical experts are actively debating the virus’s origin, why is there a debate at all? Why hasn’t anyone presented a verified sample from the alleged source—especially from the lab that has been implicated and supposed to have worked with the virus?

The answer is simple and troubling: no one has a physical sample of the virus from its point of origin. All parties involved have been working with abstract models, indirect tests, and imaginary constructs.

In essence, they are arguing over a fictional object—something that has never been isolated, purified, or physically confirmed.

How, then, can any of these individuals or institutions claim scientific authority in this matter? This is not a scientific dispute—it is a clash of narratives built on assumptions, not evidence. And when both sides are constructing arguments around something that cannot be materially verified, the entire conversation shifts from science to storytelling.

Such a debate is not just logically flawed—it is intellectually absurd.

What’s needed is honesty. Those involved should acknowledge the lack of verifiable data, step back from their claims of scientific credibility, and admit that no real science—by any meaningful standard—has been done.

Continuing to dress speculation as science does nothing but erode public trust and corrupt the scientific enterprise. It’s time to call this what it is: a manufactured debate built on fiction, sustained by professional interest and institutional inertia.

Science, by its nature, deals with observable, measurable, and testable phenomena. It does not deal in imaginary agents or undefined mechanisms. To claim scientific authority while working with objects that have never been verified through direct means is, frankly, fraudulent.

That fraud exists not only among the so-called “woke” scientists, but also among their critics—who often operate within the same flawed framework.

Let us not forget that Nature has retracted a growing number of publications in recent years. But the issue is not limited to just bad papers or authors. If properly reviewed by experts with genuine scientific research backgrounds—physics and chemistry—most of this literature would likely be deemed invalid.

The problem extends across the board, affecting journals, research institutes, universities, medical institutions, and regulatory agencies such as the CDC, NIH, and FDA, along with their advisory committees, where the line between science and professional storytelling has all but vanished.

Science should not be evaluated or defined by political labels—woke or otherwise. Nor should we confuse professions that use science (like medicine) with the practice of science itself. There is no such thing as “woke science.”

There is only one science—rooted in physics, chemistry, and disciplined inquiry—and then there are distortions of it.

It’s time to stop pretending that medical narratives, especially those unsupported by rigorous, empirical data, qualify as science. It is time to bring real scientists back into the conversation—those trained in the core disciplines and methodologies of science.

Until that happens, we must seriously reconsider how public funds are allocated.

I propose a complete moratorium on funding science-related research in hospitals, medical institutions, and health policy organizations until those involved can demonstrate proper scientific credentials and adhere to actual scientific practices.

The public deserves more than high-budget fiction dressed up as evidence.

Let’s stop the charade—and start restoring science.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

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.