MICROBIOLOGY SEEMS TO BE ERRONEOUS, SO DNA & VIRUS THEORY ARE ALSO UNCERTAIN
Dr. Harold Hillman (who died in 2016, I think) warned that Electron Microscopy etc do not show living cellular material, but only dead material that has been stained, "fried", or otherwise distorted. It appears therefore that the contents of cells and tissues are not nearly as well understood as the establishment supposes. Therefore, I'm not confident that the contents of DNA/RNA as well as viruses etc are truly understood. Virus theory seems plausible, since DNA/RNA seems similar to computer code and computer codes can be damaged by computer viruses etc. However, if the research on DNA/RNA required staining or other distorting procedures, it seems unlikely that its conclusions can be definite.
NOTE THAT BRAIN TISSUE IS ALSO LIKELY NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD (See below)
However, I’m an amateur at this, so I could be wrong.
VIDEOS
(Excerpts from papers are below video links.)
.1. HAROLD HILLMAN DEBUNKS THE OFFICIAL BIOLOGY NARRATIVE
with Dr. Tom Cowan (4+ minutes)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zGrGpyxrmBkJ/
.2. Dr Harold Hillman Exposed The Scientific Fraud of Western Medicine 1977: Cell Biology (1 hour & 16+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=j4U6wiVcw-o
.3. Harold Hillman on the Fine Structure of the Living Cell - 1977 (26+ minutes)
(Note: At 5’ 19” fluid motions within live cells and tissues are shown.)
youtube.com/watch?v=tTsPFGRCNoo
.4. The Fine Structure of the Living Cell - Harold Hillman, 1977 (26+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=h1DKp2c7KAg
.5. Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Brain - Harold Hillman, 1986 (33+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=fiKbO_QrRfs
.6. The Effects of Staining Procedures - Harold Hillman, 1987 (16+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=GCz78qqMRm0
.7. Real Scientist vs Corporate Science: Harold Hillman Interview (1996)
(3 hours & 13+ minutes) youtube.com/watch?v=1yxAWtDM3Dw&t=731s
.8. Harold Hillman on the Effects of Staining (15+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=zao6_VwGFz4&t=3s
.9. Harold Hillman on the Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Brain (32+ minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=MTOWSXQ_qaI
Following are important excerpts from 2 papers at https://www.harold-hillman.co.uk/events
Difficulties with Current Research in Cell Biology [1973?]
By Harold Hillman,
One may define the aim of cell biologists, as to elucidate the structure and chemistry of cells of animals and plants, in such a way that the measurements are not affected significantly by the procedures used to examine them.
…
A. The Problems
...
2. Subcellular fractionation
... has been ... very widely used for characterising the chemistry of the organelles, the nuclei, mitochondria and cell membranes, and the location of particular chemical reactions within them. Reactions measured in the subcellular fractions are assumed to be the same reactions at approximately the same rates, as they occur in the ... original intact cells in the living animals. The main steps in the procedure to examine the chemistry, for example, of the nuclei of rat liver, are: the animal is restrained and killed; its abdomen is opened; the liver is excised; sucrose is added; the liver is homogenised in a cooled tube; the homogenate is centrifuged and separates into layers; the layers are examined under a microscope to determine which contain the most nuclei; the chemical properties of that layer are examined. The overall assumption of the use of this procedure – rarely stated – is that none of the reagents or manoeuvres alters the rates or equilibria of the reactions being studied. In 1972, I identified 18 different assumptions inherent in the use of this procedure, and by 2008, the list had grown to 23. These included that:
homogenisation and centrifugation would have no significant effects on the chemistry;
that the same g force is exerted on different parts of the centrifuge tube;
that diffusion does not occur during homogenisation and centrifugation;
that agents such as sucrose, edta, tris and deoxycholate have no significant effects on the chemistry of the fractions;
that the contents of the fraction, other than those by which it is designated, or believed to be enriched, make no significant contribution to the chemistry of the fraction, etc, etc.
The trouble is that the validity of the whole procedure depends upon the warrantability of all, including the weakest assumptions, as the strength of a chain depends upon its weakest link.
3. Electron Microscopy
The electron microscope was first applied to biological tissues in the 1940’s. Since then, it has been widely regarded as superceding the light microscope in providing information about cell structure. Under optimum conditions the electron microscope has a resolution of about 1-10nm, whereas the resolution of the light microscope is 200-250nm. However, the electron instrument has important disadvantages. Living tissue could not survive low pressure, electron bombardment and irradiation, so that the living tissue must be fixed (killed), dehydrated, stained with heavy metal salts, cut into very thin sections, embedded, subjected to low pressure, and bombarded by electrons. The electron micrograph gives an image of those parts of cells upon which the heavy metals has finally been deposited. Structures would not be seen: if they did not react with the stain; if they were liquid; if they were broken down by, or soluble in, any of the reagents used in the preparation of the tissue for electron microscopy. In addition to the parts of cells seen, the electron microscopists also see[] some of the reagents used, and the products of the reactions of the reagents with each other, and with the cell contents.
...
[T]he membranes around the cells, the mitochondria and the nuclei, are [not] artifacts, but ... the trilaminar appearance as seen by electron micrographs is.
In addition to the description of the ‘unit’ membrane, the use of the electron microscope led to the following findings:
confirmations of the existence of the Golgi body as a cytoplasmic organelle;
the discovery of networks in the cytoplasm, called ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and a ‘cytoskeleton’ (some authors use the latter term to include both); the naming of granules lining the endoplasmic reticulum as ‘ribosomes’;
the description of the cristae in the mitochondria; the description in the cytoplasm of lysosomes and peroxisomes;
the identification of several filamentous systems, such as microtubules, microfilaments, microtrabeculae, tubulin, actin, spectrin, dynesin and others.
Some of these systems have been detected by fluorescence microscopy. They all occupy a substantial proportion of the volume of the cytoplasm. They are only seen in fixed dehydrated tissues. Biochemists have isolated fractions enriched in these particular cytoplasmic structures, and have studied their biochemical properties by subcellular fractionation.
However, if one examines living unicellular organisms or cells in tissue culture by fairly low power light microscopy (x200 to x400), one sees the following movements of relatively large particles in the cytoplasm: Brownian movement; streaming; diffusion; convection; nuclear rotation; phagocytosis; pinocytosis; meiosis; mitosis, secretion and movements of bacteria. Such movements are used, for example, to determine if cells in tissue culture are alive. None of these movements would be possible if the cytoplasm were filled with endoplasmic reticulum, cytoskelecton, Golgi bodies, lysosomes, peroxisomes and mitochondria. The mitochondria are the only one of these structures clearly identifiable in living cells. Before lysosomes and peroxisomes had been described in stained sections, apparent structures in the cytoplasm were usually called ‘Golgi’ bodies.
The viscosity of cytoplasm in living cells has been measured by several different techniques, including, centrifuge microscopy, intracellular injection of fine particles such as ground glass or carbon black; application of magnetic fields and electron spin resonance. They have all shown it to be low. If it were filled with solid networks and filament systems, it would be much higher. When fine particles are injected into cytoplasm, they appear to move freely and not to be obstructed by filamentous systems, or invisible relatively large bodies, such as Golgi bodies, lysosomes or peroxisomes. It has been suggested that moving particles secrete lytic enzymes which dissolve the cytoplasmic bodies and filamentous systems in front of them, and the latter then re-form by themselves in real time. While this is just possible for the mitochondria and, -if they existthe lysosomes and peroxisomes, it is extremely unlikely that iron filings or ground glass particles would produce such enzymes, and the mechanisms for secreting them. Paricles in Brownian motion would have a particular problem in ‘deciding’ which part of them would secrete the enzymes after determining fairly rapidly upon which direction they were to take next. Intracellular movements occur in living cells to which no reagents have been added, while the cytoskeleton is only seen after fixation, addition of heavy metal salts or fluorochomes, sectioning and embedding. Thus conclusions from living cells are more likely to be true, when the information from the two sources is [not] contradictory. I think that one must conclude that all the structures seen in the cytoplasm by histology or electron microscopy – with the exception of the mitochondria – are artifacts of dehydration and the reagents used to demonstrate them.
Nevertheless, one may still ask what the endoplasmic reticulum, the cytoskeleton and the filament systems are, when one sees them under the electron and fluorescence microscopes. They consist of cytoplasm minus some of the contents, soluble in water or any of the reagents used, plus some of the reagents used. In the 1960’s, an[] American group led by AbbÉ Luyet and others, including Rapatz, Tanner, McKenzie, and Meryman, dried out solutions of potassium chloride, alanine, glycine, ethylene glycol and others. They saw all sorts of crystalline patterns, some described as ‘spherulites’, ‘dendrites’ and ‘spicules’. Living cytoplasm contains water, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, polypeptides, fatty acids, glycerol, metabolic intermediaries, etc. When the cells are dehydrated, the contents will precipitate, and some crystalline forms will be seen. It is a reasonable question[] to ask where all the non-aqueous and suspended contents of the cytoplasm go, when the tissue is dehydrated for histology or electron microscopy.
The History of Neuroglial Clumps [in Brain Tissue] [2010]
[Brain and spinal cord are currently poorly understood]
… Since HydÄn named the tissue ‘glial clumps’; the following experiments and observations have been published: (i) most of the volume of the brain and spinal cord is composed of fine granular material (Hillman and Jarman, 1991). Neurons are also present in them. The neuroglia also has nuclei floating about with it, in a syncytium (Hillman, 1986a; Hillman and Jarman, 1991). The mass of cerebral parenchyma is tranversed by axons, dendrites, fibrils, and small blood vessels….
Evidence has been brought that fine granular material was seen in the mammalian brain and spinal cord in the 19th century, mainly before histological and histochemical procedures were developed. After that, they gradually disappeared from the histological, histochemical and electron microscopic textbooks. They reappeared when HydÄn and his school dissected out fresh unstained neuroglial clumps adjacent to neuron cell bodies. They have featured in publications by several authors, and micrographs of them have appeared, but they are generally not illustrated in books on the histology of the brain, other than our own (Hillman and Jarman, 1991). The simplest explanation is that processing for histology, histochemistry and electron microscopy washes away the fine granular material or neuroglial clumps. Mr Ven Dodge, Dr Iffat Chughtai and the two authors of this paper made a film to show the effects of haematoxylin and eosin, Palmgren’s and osmium tetroxide procedures on single neuron cell bodies (Chughtai, Hillman and Jarman, 1987). We photographed the cell bodies under phase contrast microscopy, and then after they were stained, by bright field. When the cell was being perfused by xylene, we noticed a neuroglial clump swimming across the field. The clumps are friable and easily dislodged. During the flow of 10-20 reagents and several manoeuvres during procedures for histology, histochemistry and electron microscopy, it seems likely that the very small granules are washed away, while the insoluble membranes, nuclei, mitochondria and precipitates remain in situ. This would explain why the clumps are seen in unfixed nervous tissue but not in stained sections. The general philosophy of modern cell biologists seems to be that the information obtained from stained histological or electron microscopic sections is more valid that that obtained from unfixed unstained tissue. This paper concludes that fine granular mater[i]al aggregates as neuroglial clumps. It suggests that the latter be restored to the pantheon of neurobiology, where they merit further examination.
ADDENDUM #1
James Sloane at https://www.facebook.com/groups/560297341529556 made a comment here. He only commented on my brief note to him and he thinks Hillman is likely wrong and he doesn’t think viruses get distorted under electron microscopes. I hope he will discuss with me in more detail soon.
I just did a little online searching and here are the relevant results.
Electron Microscope Images (I’m looking for Live Specimens) (2020) at youtu.be/gybnwrC7JeM
_At 1' 32" a video clip of a nanobot is shown taking a sperm cell to an egg cell.
_At 2' 57" a picture of a virus is shown.
_At 12' 18" a picture of a torn capillary is shown with red blood cells starting to come out.
In summary, only one video clip of a live specimen via electron microscopy is shown and it looks like the magnification isn't very high. I suspect that high magnification would kill the specimens.
This MIT news article at https://news.mit.edu/2009/electron-microscope says as follows.
"(B)iologists have been unable to unleash the high power of electron microscopes on living specimens, because of the destructive power of the electrons. The radiation dose received by a specimen during electron microscope imaging is comparable to the irradiation from a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb exploded about 30 meters away. When exposed to such energetic electron beams, biological specimens experience rapid breakdown, modification of chemical bonds, or other structural damages."
[ADDENDUM #2: I just ran across this as a possible answer to the above, but this should have been known in 2009, so it must not be an actual answer.
SUPERCOOLED ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-genes-electron-microscopes
Electron microscopes have become much more powerful over the last 50 years. For instance, in 1981, biophysicist Jacques Dubochet discovered that tiny biological structures supercooled with ethane could be observed in their natural state under an electron microscope. That finding paved the way for cryo-electron microscopy, which scientists use to visualize proteins, viruses and bacteria at the molecular level (SN: 10/28/17, p. 6). Capturing detailed images of genes remains elusive, but scientists are inching closer. In 2021, researchers reported using an electron microscope and the molecular scissors CRISPR/Cas9 to visualize proteins transcribing DNA instructions for two genes into RNA.]
Better microscopy is under development, though. See: "Your Textbooks Are Wrong, This Is What Cells Actually Look Like" (via Lattice light-sheet microscopy) (2019) (Allen Institute for Cell Science, etc) at
_Quoting the video, "New microscopy is what's allowing us to image cells in three dimensions, in their native context without killing and hurting the cells, which is just absolutely what is needed for us to just study [each] cell as it is. But seeing biological processes inside living samples without harming them is easier said than done. One of the ways scientists image these dynamics is with fluorescence microscopy. However, harsh light from this technique can cause phototoxicity, meaning the cell can get sick during the imaging session. Lattice light-sheet microscopy was invented a few years ago to correct for that challenge." Adaptive optics was added to improve imaging further.
_At 6' a virus is shown entering a cell and releasing several strands of material. I can't tell if it's real imaging or animation. If it's real, it shows that viruses don't necessarily attach to a cell membrane and then make an opening to release its DNA/RNA into the cell. In this case the virus is moving fairly fast through the intercellular fluid and then it penetrates well into the cell and then releases several apparently separate strands of material, presumably DNA/RNA. It also shows that the cytoplasm is fluid like a gel.
_At 11" it shows immune cells moving around scooping up sugar in a fish.
That video is very intriguing, but raises some questions to me.
1. what is the input? I notice they show a LOT of moving images on screens, but they never show WHAT those images are coming from. They never show how you put a living cell into the system.
2. the scientist named Susan says, early in the video, that by learning more about the cell, they can make better drugs (my paraphrase), which to me introduces a massive bias into the mix.
3. What is the real coloration of these structures? Those day-glo rainbow colors are surely computer enhancements meant to clarify different densities or some other characteristic sensed by the computer, so how does that change what is seen on the screen?
4. What assumptions are they using to interpret what they see? the "virus entering a cell" is a case in point. We see a tiny globe entering a much larger globe, all of similar coloration, but it is impossible to tell from that moving image what the actual process is. Is it some completely normal process of cell metabolism, or nutrient dispersal? or as they interpret it, some evil outsider spewing its pathogenic contents into the cell?