Covid-19 according to a research scientist

Tagged:  

Dr. Saeed Qureshi is a retired Research Scientist from Health Canada, he has over 30 years of experience.

1. The initial symptoms of patients from Wuhan were presumed to be of viral origin without adequate proof.

2. Despite the CDC's claim to the contrary, the Sars-Cov-2 virus was not isolated.

"It is such a ridiculous claim that would put the modern medics at a higher level of snake-oil merchants. The point being there is no actual scientific evidence provided to indicate that indeed the virus exists. However, the medical community declared that a virus exists, which will be called SARS-CoV-2. This imaginary virus was then promoted as causing the new deadly disease, called COVID-19, without providing any verifiable link to new or unique symptoms or markers.

No scientific evidence has been provided to show that the virus causes the disease. The public has been compelled to accept the official (medical) narrative that the disease exists and the SARS-CoV-2 causing it. Also, it has been decided that as the infection is viral; therefore, a vaccine would only be an appropriate treatment, so it needs to be developed urgently."

3. PCR "test" does not test for the virus, and has NOT been validated against an isolated virus.
"As the virus has never been isolated, the PCR test cannot be validated for it or its components. Therefore, the PCR test cannot detect or quantify the virus with any degree of certainty."

"No one should, therefore, claim that a valid virus test is available at present. All claims based on the PCR test for the virus (SARS-CoV-2) must be considered false and rejected."

4. No animal testing means no proper assessment of efficacy and toxicology.

5. Lack of scientific vigor.

"This vaccine ("clinical") assessment appears to fall in a typical marketing survey exercise! From a scientific perspective, one would like to know the vaccine's (chemical) nature, the reason for selecting a particular vaccine molecule, vaccine target site, details of the mechanism of action, and then quantifiable markers of the disease. All these assessments should have based on some scientifically valid tests and associated reports. Nothing of this sort was available in the submission or the literature."

"No information is provided regarding whether the vaccine produces the expected protein, and it kills or neutralizes the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body. Such information is essential in establishing the vaccine's authenticity as treatment or usefulness.

The reason for missing information could be that an actual physical sample of the virus and disease cannot be monitored. After all, the virus has never been isolated. Therefore the claim of developing a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus becomes suspicious."

6. Quality Control is missing

"No information is available to judge the vaccine's nature, stability, presence of impurities, reproducibility of manufacturing, quality control testing, and batch-to-batch consistency standards. These are all standard requirements for any drug product development and manufacturing but were missing."

"The information that the vaccine requires storing at -65 to -80C is unusual and should be a cause of concern. One could only speculate on the instability of the vaccine requiring lo-temperature storage. Is it because the vaccine's 3-dimensional structure unstable? In that case, it may become necessary to test the vaccine just before injecting into humans to confirm the vaccine's integrity."

7. Lack of Toxicology and Safety Data

"In general, one of the critical aspects of drug or vaccine development would be to assess its safety or toxicity. These assessments are done at the molecular, cellular, tissue, and whole animal bodies-levels. No data from toxicological studies is provided.

Toxicological assessments in humans are rarely done because of ethical reasons. One only evaluates the toxicity in non-human (chemical and pre-clinical) studies, rarely in humans."

"Often pre-clinical part is the major time consuming step for new drug developments.

It appears that expeditious vaccine development may be the result of skipping the needed toxicity assessments."

8. Weak Support for Efficacy

"As noted previously, the most common symptoms described for the COVID-19 are flu-like conditions (ache, cough, fever, etc.) with clinical evaluation based on the PCR test. They both (symptoms and the test) are vague and non-specific. The PCR test has never been validated to monitor SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. However, both indicators formed the basis of the disease assessment."

"Based on this understanding, 8 and 162 volunteers in the treatment group and placebo, respectively, were found positive for COVID-19. The conclusion is drawn that as fewer infections were observed in the treatment group - the vaccine worked. The vaccine provided protection, and it protected from COVID-19 and pandemics. Such studies and conclusions are not valid but laughable. They are not scientific but speculative inferences based. To view them as science or data-based evaluation is false and deceitful.

On top of that, the way the study outcome, i.e., vaccine efficacy, has been calculated is bizarre. The efficacy was calculated as follows; the number of infected people was counted in both groups (treated and placebo, about 20000 volunteers in each group) and found eight vs. 162. An assumption is made that as the treatment group has only eight infected subjects, not 162 as in the placebo, the vaccine treatment stopped 154 (162-8) people from getting infected. It leads to the vaccine's efficacy of 95% {(154/162)*100]. How about that!

Injecting a small amount of any powder, including dirt, might have provided similar results and conclusions because it is all based on chance.

The public has great trust in the scientists and experts, including at the FDA, which is lost. Most would consider or understand that 95% efficacy means that about 19000 out of 20000 participants of the clinical trial in the treatment/infected group got protected. This would be incorrect."

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the documentation submitted to the FDA's Committee regarding the PfizerBioNTech vaccine lack appropriate scientific data to establish vaccine physical and chemical characterization. The safety and toxicology information was scarce. Efficacy data relied on irrelevant parameters and the invalid PCR test.

Virus efficacy has been construed to the desired feel-good outcome, not to reflect the absence of the illness or vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Saeed Qureshi is a retired Research Scientist from Health Canada, he has over 30 years of experience. His specialty is pharmacological safety, efficacy, and standards. A synopsis of his analysis of the Pfizer/BioNtech Covid vaccine (by Sadaf Gilani) and Qureshi's credentials are added below too. Read and investigate further for yourself.

Share this with your friends
AttachmentSize
dr-saeed-qureshi-covid-19.jpg23.39 KB