Was Dr. Qureshi reading my mind, or was I reading his?
On the rituals of virologists
I just discovered (or rediscovered) Dr. Saeed Qureshi via Christine Massey’s “germ” FOI Newsletter.
I couldn’t help noticing Dr. Qureshi’s use of words in relation to virology that I thought I had come up with on my own, like “soup” and “rituals/ritualistic”.
Wherever one looks for the virus, one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., "virus isolate," "virus culture," "virus lysate," etc., (which are soups, mixtures or gunks), never "virus" alone; however, it is presented and promoted as pure "virus."
Dr. Qureshi is an expert in analytical chemistry with 35+ years experience and worked for Health Canada for 30 years. By professional focus he has expertise in evaluating medical products such as tests or therapeutics. He asserts that physicians, microbiologists, virologists are not trained in the science necessary for evaluating claims about viruses, tests, vaccines, etc. and are led astray by their own assumptions that don’t follow standard procedures for isolation and chemical analysis. When virologists use the word “isolation” they appear to refer to either
a) separating a patient sample (i.e. unpurified gunk) from a patient, or
b) culturing something (same gunk) and finding something that looks like what they think a virus should look like in the culture (i.e. more unpurified gunk, soup, etc.)
He lays most of the blame on physicians who misinterpret the statements of virologists. (I would add that the media misinterprets even more.)
Here’s his challenge to physicians:
He concludes that the techniques of virologists are mindlessly “ritualistic”:
Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the work starts with the assumption that it exists. Without validating the techniques, some experiments are being conducted following ritualistic steps (SOPs) to generate "data" and pretty pictures to show that it exists. It is hard to believe that such deceptive practices can occur in modern day science and escape authorities' scrutiny and audit.
Strikingly similar to what I wrote many months ago:
“Meticulously, the priests and their researcher acolytes record their observations and feed their hungry analysing machines with data. But the question remains, who is this God they ostensibly slave for called “Science,” how did it originate, and are its virologist priests faithful to its spirit and precepts? Or do they, like so many religious leaders of past and present, simply mouth worn out phrases and extol their religion’s altruistic ideals with no intention of letting these obstruct the well-established rituals and creeds of their mystical cult, or weigh upon their consciences?”
—Is Virology Science, by Tobin Owl
.
Tobin Owl is an independent researcher/writer. Over the past three years he’s conducted in-depth investigation focusing on the history of modern medicine, medical science and the environment.
Here's Andrew Kaufman's point by point response to Jeremy Hammond's claims that the no-virus crowd is naive and unscientific.
Kaufman is thourough, level headed and methodical
https://odysee.com/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Virus_Isolation_Is_It_Real_Andrew_Kaufman_Responds_To_Jeremy-Hammond:9
Thank you, Tobin, for the write-up and kind words about my views and work.
The ritual aspect is very relevant to the current practices and regulatory approval of medicines. At the regulatory level, medicines get approved under the guidance of physicians and pharmacists, considered subject experts in the “science of medicine.” However, as noted, science is hardly part of their curriculum and practice.
This is often evident from the regulatory evaluation of the medicines. For example, as noted in one of my blogs, describing,
“ ... certain practices (“rituals”) have to be suggested to come up with some standards, any standard, that everyone has to follow. Presently, this standard is called Q-Value (to make it sound professional!), which is 80/30, i.e., 80% of the drug should dissolve within 30 minutes. Where did this number, 80/30, come from? One is not expected to ask or know! One just has to accept it. However, based on one’s negotiating skills, one can negotiate this number to get another number for one’s product, say, 70/45 or 75/20 or any other.” (https://bioanalyticx.com/current-practices-of-dissolution-testing-are-not-about-developing-or-evaluating-products-anymore-they-have-become-campaigns-to-continue-using-the-flawed-apparatuses-with-made-up-qualification-and-val/) . Sounds familiar (PCR test?).
It is from my “previous life” (so to speak, i.e., it relates to pharmaceuticals and drug dissolution testing). I copy here the part to describe how the regulatory authorities set the standards. This is from the USP/FDA, CDC/FDA version for pharmaceutical evaluations.
Furthermore, the technique mentioned above, i.e., drug dissolution testing, has never been validated for the intended purpose. From a scientific perspective, there is a serious lack of understanding of using non-validated tests or testers. It amounts to scientific fraud (https://bioanalyticx.com/covid-19-open-letter-to-physicians-pharmacists-and-laboratory-managers/). However, authorities use and require the testing routinely. It is because of a lack of appreciation of science and the rituals “sell” very well.
So, current ritual-based practices (considered “science”) in setting regulatory standards and evaluations must be urgently addressed.