COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Identified


Written by Saeed A Qureshi PhD (edited by John O'Sullivan)

Regulatory authorities, such as the CDC/FDA all insist that their handling of the current Coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV2/COVID-19) is based on science and associated data or facts. This is especially the case in the United States.

We are told that an identified virus causes the infection which in turn causes, or may cause, deaths – potentially in the millions.

Furthermore, authorities also claim that the viral disease (COVID-19) can only be treated with a vaccine – which at present does not exist – and must be developed urgently and then made available to the public worldwide.

Let us evaluate these claims on a proper scientific basis. First of all, let us see if the virus has been proven to exist in humans. Then more importantly, determine to what extent, if any, it can be measured as the disease which causes all these alleged deaths.

The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and efficiently because of the known current technical (scientific) limitations, as explained below.

In most cases (in fact, in almost all cases) the presence/absence of the virus is established by indirect testing. These indirect tests are commonly known as PCR and antibody tests. Without going into technical details, one may consider that these tests monitor specific types of proteins or related chemicals which are produced by the presence of viruses, not only by SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19, but by all pathogenic viruses as a defence mechanism to get rid of the viruses and/or to protect our bodies from their ill effects.

It is important to note here that when someone refers to testing for a virus, one does not determine the actual virus itself but a marker (such as a protein).

The Irony Is That These Markers Are Not Specific To COVID-19, But Are Generic To All Viruses To Which We Are Exposed

Saying it differently, these tests are never sufficiently specific – and scientifically speaking should not be relied upon for declaring the presence of a specific virus – including COVID-19. Obviously, if a virus cannot be monitored reliably, then by implication the associated disease or deaths cannot be established reliably and accurately – at least scientifically.

Hence, we see confusion and the inaccuracies over the predicted death rate which turns out to be no higher than a normal to severe influenza and concurrent attrition rate. In a simpler and daily life example, one may explain the situation as akin to establishing car safety by monitoring the air pressure levels of the tires (the marker) because someone decided that deviation in car tire pressure is to be the determinant of safety.

It is quite possible (by chance) that a deviation in tire pressure could compromise vehicle performance/safety. However, it is neither accurate or logical using tire pressure alone as your safety criteria and to then label “unsafe” any and all cars with one or more tires with somewhat irregular pressure. One or more tires alone may be the problem – not the car.

Unfortunately, in the extreme, the authorities end up deciding that all car safety will be monitored only on the basis of tire pressure level. Now this would become a “Regulatory Compliance Requirement” or the law for car safety assessment.


22 views0 comments