➡ This webinar discusses a variety of topics, including an upcoming biology event, the existence and function of mitochondria, and the concept of ‘conjuring’ in biology. The speaker argues that many biological elements, like sex hormones and vitamins, are not naturally found but are ‘conjured’ or created through chemical processes. He also criticizes modern medicine for its reliance on these conjured substances, which he believes can lead to harmful side effects. Lastly, he warns about potential new health scares and criticizes the constant creation of new tests and treatments in the medical field.
➡ Over the years, medical advice on treating high blood pressure has changed, with different medications being recommended and then later discredited due to side effects. In another topic, scientists at CERN are planning to transport antimatter for the first time, using a special container that isolates the antimatter using magnetic traps. The author also discusses a bizarre opening ceremony for a Swiss railroad, and the topic of mitochondria, questioning whether certain health benefits are actually related to this part of the cell. The author encourages readers to question scientific claims and to focus on their own observations and experiences.
➡ The text discusses the existence and function of mitochondria, cellular components that some believe are linked to various diseases. The author questions the validity of these beliefs, citing biologist Harold Hillman’s view that only two cellular components, the nucleus and mitochondria, have been proven to exist. The author also discusses Hillman’s methodology for determining the existence of cellular components, which involves observing them in various orientations. The text concludes with the author expressing skepticism about the commonly accepted functions and structures of mitochondria, suggesting that further research is needed.
➡ The text discusses the challenges in proving the existence of mitochondria through subcellular fractionation, a process that breaks down cells into fractions. The author argues that the methods used, such as tagging enzymes with radioactive markers, are based on assumptions and can’t definitively prove that mitochondria are real. They also highlight that the conditions used in these experiments are not the same as those in a living system, which could affect the results. Lastly, they mention that despite these issues, the only evidence we have of mitochondria are small structures seen in cells.
➡ The text discusses the uncertainty surrounding the function and composition of certain elements in living tissues and cells, such as mitochondria. The author suggests that these elements may not be as important as we think, and instead, we should focus on tangible things like our interaction with real-world elements and how they make us feel. The author also warns against pseudoscience and emphasizes the importance of personal experience and observation in understanding our health and well-being.

Okay, welcome, everybody. It’s another Wednesday webinar. Today is March 18, 2026. Thanks, everybody for joining me again. And don’t forget about the new biology experience in June at Polyface Farm in Virginia. The program and the speakers and the musicians and everything and the food is all coming together and we hope to see you there. And there’s still a few places left, so get your sign up in. And we’re all looking forward to meeting and having a really great time there. Okay, so today I have a number of things, and then I’m going to ask the question, and not just ask the question, try to answer the question of whether there’s actually mitochondria.

Do they exist? And if so, what do they do? Or maybe more specifically, what do we know about what they do, if anything? So before I get into that, I have a number of things I want to share on my screen. So I’m going to get to that. Let’s do this. And we’re going to have to share the sound. And the first thing was sent to me. And it’s a little hard to read, I know, but that’s okay because I’ll read it. And I don’t know who this guy is. It says hacking 1989. I don’t know the source of this, and I don’t actually think it matters because this one or two short sentences, I think really kind of calls into focus a lot of what I’ve been talking about.

And I only would say, let me just read it here. He was talking about sex hormones. We’re talking estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, etc. So the quote is, we do not find sex hormones somewhere in a lost corner, like a desert island lost in the mist. In the mist, we ourselves called sex hormones into existence. And I would actually submit that a better word, although it’s not a bad word than called, is conjured. Because as I’m going to show you in a minute, we conjured sex hormones into existence. You can also change the word sex hormones to vitamins.

You could change it into genes or DNA sequences or a lot of other things that are omega 3 fats, omega 6 fats. A lot of the things which we are here so much about in modern biology and medicine have literally been conjured into existence. And I use that word very specifically. In other words, we didn’t actually find the sex hormones like you would be walking on the beach and find, you know, a, a star, a starfish on the beach. That’s not at all what’s. What happened we didn’t look through a testicle and then find a hormone or a chemical called testosterone or look through the tissues and find a vitamin called vitamin A.

We took the tissue and made a whole lot of witches brew stuff. And I don’t mean to be offensive to witches, but that’s essentially what conjuring means. We added this chemical and that chemical and centrifuge and filter, etc. Dehydrated it, and we end up with something and we call that a hormone or a vitamin or an enzyme or a gene or something. And in no case, essentially was that thing actually found directly. And, you know, I thought of an analogy and I don’t know if this will help people understand, but it’s like, you know, walking the beach, you find the starfish, you know, that you can go into the ocean, put your goggles on and find them swimming around.

So you have pretty good evidence that there are actually starfish. But if you’re walking on the beach and you find somebody in a tent and he’s taking sand and making little, miniature, tiny little cows out of it, so he’s mixing the sand with some chemicals and then putting it into a kiln and firing it and then painting it the color of a, of a cow, and then you don’t find the bait, the little cows just lying around on the beach or in the ocean. You, you would be hard pressed to believe that those, that there’s anything but conjuring up those tiny little cows.

And one of the arguments that we hear is, yeah, but you can’t find the testosterone or the estrogen or the progesterone or the insulin, except if you use an ovary or a pancreas or a testicle or whatever. Which would be the same argument that, that’s essentially to prove that it’s there. That would be the same argument as the guy who’s making the miniature cows saying, well, I started with grass and I couldn’t make a cow, therefore that proves that the cow is. They’re hiding inside the sand. And of course, nobody would believe that nonsense. And yet we not only believe the nonsense about the vitamins and the sex hormones and all the rest of the.

We actually make decisions based on that and then sometimes even take that same chemical, call it bioidentical, which is kind of a joke, and expect that to actually heal us. And just let me, One of our doctors sent me this to, just to drive this point home. Pharmacy is the art of, or practice of preparing, preserving and compounding substances, vegetable, mineral or animal. The purpose of occupation of an apothecary. Medicine is any substance, liquid or solid, that is a property of curing or mitigating disease in animals or that is used for the purpose simples. Plants, minerals, furnish.

Most of our medicine. We know modern pharmaceuticals are devoid of anything natural and do anything but heal. A search of Pharmacia is a Greek term found in the New Testament, generally translated as sorcery, witchcraft, or magic arts. In biblical and ancient concepts, pharmacia refers to the use of drugs, potions or enchantments to manipulate, deceive, or control others, often in the context of pagan worship or occult practices. Modern medicine is practicing pharmacia not true medicine or pharmacy. And just to give you an example of here’s one of the medicines that is conjured up and not actually found in nature or in a testicle or in a living being.

And so whenever you do that, you’re always going to have negative effects. They call them side effects, but these are not side effects. These are what happens. So if you take testosterone, that’s a chemical which allegedly is there, you get skin reactions, breast changes, hair changes, fluid retention, weight gain. Sometimes you get more serious things like heart attacks or blood clots or liver damage, or you can’t sleep, or you get prostate growth, otherwise known as prostate cancer. You become more aggressive, irritable, moody, and often depressed. So that is the actual consequence of believing in this kind of sorcery.

So that was the first thing I wanted to share today. The next thing is just to not going to say much about this, but some. So this was a story about 153 people on a cruise ship infected with norovirus. And the only reason I bring this up, not to get into the whole virus question, which we’ve done a whole lot. But some of you may remember, all of you may remember that they started the COVID thing with also a cruise ship. So when I saw that, I just thought, watch out, because they may be preparing another virus scam for us.

They seem to like to roll them out with cruise ships. And just another brief science news I saw again, a new cholesterol test you’ve never heard of is now recommended to prevent heart disease. And the main reason I wanted to bring this up is because the inevitable consequence of this materialistic, reductionistic sorcery technique that they use, which is to conjure up things which don’t exist, is that eventually it will be shown that the first one they say doesn’t exactly demonstrate what they say it will. So in this case, you know, 50, 60 years ago, they said, oh, well, all you have to do is find the cholesterol.

In other words, conjure up the cholesterol, and that will tell you whether you’re going to have heart disease. That’s not for me. Sorry about that. And of course, that gets disproven, that a total cholesterol means nothing. So then instead of ditching the whole nonsense, they say, well, it’s not the total cholesterol, of course, it’s the ldl that’s a certain type of the cholesterol. So all you now need to do is test the LDL and use drugs to lower the ldl, and then you won’t have heart disease. And of course, that eventually gets proven incorrect as well.

And so then you come to another fork in the road and you could ditch the whole thing, which of course never happens. And so now we’re at the new fork in the road. So, as they say, doctors say patients should get a lipoprotein A or otherwise known as lp, along with other screening new guidelines for managing cholesterol, because we all know the other ones don’t really work. So the new guidelines for managing cholesterol call for a more aggressive prevention and earlier treatment. Surprise, surprise. Including a recommendation that all adults be tested once for lp, a genetic risk marker for heart disease.

No surprise there. And eventually that will be proven to have nothing to do with it. And then they’ll have the next smallest marker that they conjure up. And so it goes. I told this story about how in my years in Peterborough, New Hampshire, when the doctors from Harvard used to come up and tell us about one of their favorite things, their subject of expertise, and the guy used to come on telling us how to treat high blood pressure. And originally when I first got there, so I was, it was total of 17 years, said to treat it with diuretics.

And then it came back a few years later. Well, the diuretics caused electrolyte imbalances and that gives you increased risk of heart attacks. So don’t use diuretics, use beta blockers. Then three years later comes back, don’t use beta blockers because they interfere with your glucose and make you diabetic and raise your cholesterol, and that gives you a heart attack. So use calcium channel blockers. And then a few years later comes back and says, turns out that they’re not really good either. They all have problems. They have problems with electrolytes and cramps and other things. But don’t worry, because now we have ACE inhibitors and finally one of the doctors got up and said, you’ve been telling us this same thing every year.

Why should we believe you now? But of course that’s unusual. These days, doctors will believe just about anything. So this is the next level of scam is the lp. And as I’ve said many times, I had a perfect record for curing high cholesterol, which is I never did the test again. Okay, next is a little bit different one, but still in the realm of so called science. And this was tricky to get this to look right. And this was a one of my favorite online magazines, newspapers. I don’t actually read it or subscribe. I only look at someone I see headlines like a lot of the things I look at.

The only reason like the New York Times and Mercola’s website, etc is just for the comedic value because there’s nothing funnier than science, biology, physics, etc. So this was a story called Please drive carefully. Scientists plan to transport volatile antimatter for the first time. And it goes on to say the these are researchers at CERN that, that place in Switzerland. They’re finding out ways of moving antimatter which explodes into energy as soon as it comes in contact with regular matter. So, so then they say when the truck pulls away from the building at cern, the European particle physics lab near Geneva, all eyes will be on its precious carbo cargo, a one ton device containing some of the most exotic material on Earth.

The 20 minute test run around the campus, penciled in for later this month, will mark the world’s first attempt to transport antimatter, a substance so delicate that when it meets normal matter, both are consumed in a burst of pure energy. So then it goes on to describe that and of course I asked the myself the question, I wonder what they put the antimatter in so that they can drive it around in a truck. Like if you put it in a box or a bucket or you know, a glass jar, obviously that’s in a container and that’s made of matter.

And so then they say it’ll burst into a burst of pure energy. So it made no sense to me because how could they possibly transport something? It’s got to be put it somewhere. So I tried to find out how do they do this. Of course, silly me, there’s a good answer. And so that was a paper and you can see where that’s from. They successfully transport antimatter in special container. So what was the special container? We go down here. Antimatter is notoriously difficult to handle because it annihilates upon contact with ordinary matter, even dust particles, making secure transportation extremely challenging.

To overcome this, the scientists designed a container using magnetic traps to isolate the antimatter. These traps require significant energy and highly controlled conditions to function within our 4H transport campaign. The persistent superconducting magnet system operated autonomously based on battery supplies, cryo pumping and cooling by a liquid helium reservoir. The researchers delayed detailed in their paper. And I happen to have one of those devices in my garage and I use it when I’m taking our anti dog out for a walk because otherwise obviously silly people, it would annihilate into a burst of energy and then we would lose our precious anti dog.

We of course don’t want a real dog because that would scare the cats. So it was much better to have an anti dog and then we could transport it and take it like to the anti vet, which is the only vet you should go to in a 4H transport camp system that’s cryo pumped and cooled by liquid helium reservoir. So that should be obvious to anybody. Okay. And then finally I couldn’t resist. Now we’ve heard about cern. Hang on. And you may have seen or heard that they went, they had an opening ceremony with the goat heads and everything.

And it turns out that was a hoax, at least that’s what they say. And now it’s completely scrubbed as far as I can see from the Internet. But anyways, right near cern, the Swiss of course opened a, a rail cross, you know, through the mountains. They had an opening for a new rail ceremony. And so they had an opening ceremony for this. And of course at some point I’m sure we’re going to be told this is a hoax too. So I thought I would show it to you before they take it down. And it could be a hoax.

I actually have no idea. But this is. There’s something wrong with those people in Switzerland, where a lot of the our bosses actually live. So I’ll show you this, just a few minutes and you can see just how depraved and psychopathic the rulers of the world really are. So this is a performance to celebrate the opening of a railroad, like a connection, a railroad connection in Switzerland. And of course this is exactly how most of us would organize a ceremony to open a railroad. And maybe this is AI, and maybe it’s a hoax and we’ll probably find out it is, or at least they’ll say it is.

Whether it is or not, who knows, It’s even disturbing, even just to watch it. So I’m going to speed it up a little bit. And there you get the goat head. You always have the goat head whenever they do their ceremonies. So there’s the goat head. And I think that’s enough of that. That. Okay, onward. Let’s talk about the thing that I said we were going to talk about, which is mitochondria. And so why do I want to talk about this? There’s a number of reasons, one of which is this is a particularly hot topic in the holistic, you know, alternative sort of community.

They talk a lot about, whoops, that’s better. Mitochondrial diseases and that we should be careful of our mitochondria. And you should do certain diets to support your mitochondria. And you got to do deuterium depleted water because the deuterium messes up the nano motors in the mitochondria. The mitochondria are show the lineage from your mother and allegedly they have the mitochondrial lineage all the way back to Eve, which is interesting because I’m not sure how they got a sample from Eve. But anyways, that’s probably something we don’t have to ask. And we do red light therapy because the red light supposedly stimulates mitochondrial function.

And I want to be clear that I like red light therapy. I like eating good food and not eating junk food, especially refined carbohydrates or any kind of sugars and things like that that we certainly don’t need. But the question is not that. It’s not whether red light is healthy or not, or taking saunas are healthy or whether we need energy. The question is, does this have anything to do with mitochondria? So again, as always, we’re not, we’re making, or I’m making a distinction between what you see, the actual observation, which is say doing red light therapy helps people feel better, have more energy.

They help, it helps them sweat, they maybe detoxify and have less skin problems and their heart beats more regular, they have more energy, etc. Those are actual observations. They may or may not be accurate for red light therapy, but I let’s say that they are. Or whether eating a good diet helps you live a better, healthier life. That’s not the question. The question is are there mitochondria and do these other. These things that are otherwise seem to have a very positive benefit, which I’m not doubting. Do they actually have their effect through the mitochondria? And it’s this important question, I think, because if you end up, you know, conjuring this thing into existence, Unless it’s actually there and ascribing functions to it which you don’t actually know actually belong to it, you will eventually start making mistakes and eventually also you’ll lose the thread of the main question, which is what I want everybody to ask.

So you think, okay, well, red light therapy has, you know, has certain benefits. People talk about it and I’m going to see what happens. How do I feel? What do I notice when I do it? If you end up going down the mitochondria route, my, my worry is that you’ll lose the thread and you’ll be wandering around in the, in the world of abstractions and being unable to verify what you’re experiencing, and you will slowly and surely lose your connection to yourself and how things affect you, etc. So that’s the reason for doing this. There is another reason, which is one of the.

My favorite biologists, probably my favorite biologist, guy named Harold Hillman, who I talked about a lot, he actually said, and I’ve said many times myself, that mitochondria are one of the two organelles. And organelle means things that are inside cells or tissues, right? So that’s called an organelle. There’s only two, according to Hillman, that have been shown to actually exist. One is the nucleus and the other is mitochondria. And so people have been questioning me about this. Do I really actually agree that there is such a thing as mitochondria? If so, what do they do? Or what do we know about what they do? And it was interesting to me to look into this and knowing that there is a case made by somebody who I have a lot of respect for, but I also don’t think he was always correct.

For instance, he seemed to think there were viruses. And we know now that’s not true. And so we all have blind spots and he missed it. But I thought it would be an interesting case to look at. What do we actually know about mitochondria? So the first slide, hopefully this is big enough to see. So these are the different mitochondrial diseases. And this is taken right from Hillman’s main treatise. That’s like a 600 or 700 page thing. And he talks about all the different diseases that are supposedly either linked to or actually caused by problems of the mitochondria.

So we have a lot of things here like aging and Alzheimer’s. And you will see a lot of the people who are into carnivore diets and into fasting and into deuterium depleted water. And again, I want to just make sure. Just because I may question whether deuterium depleted water works on nanomotors in the mitochondria does not mean that drinking deuterium depleted water doesn’t help. Certain things, those are different. I’m looking at the mechanism. So we have Alzheimer’s, we have cancer, and the whole Virberg effect is that there’s not enough energy in the, in the tissues, and so they then start fermenting instead of respiring, and that causes the lactic acid to build up and that causes uncontrolled growth of the tissue.

And that’s why we get cancer. And that’s so called metabolic theory of cancer. And we have heard a lot about that. And again, they call that a disease of the mitochondria. And again, I’m not saying there isn’t an energetic problem in cancer, although I’ve talked about the whole phenomena of cancer is not exactly what I just said. But the question is, is that because of a problem of the mitochondria? I’ve talked about heart disease as an energy problem. So there’s cardiac ischemia, cardiomyopathy, sick heart, the reason you get death, diabetes, eye problems, brain problems, Huntington’s disease, muscle disease, certain kinds of strokes, Parkinson’s, retina, sepsis, strokes.

So this is pretty much everything. So obviously it would be nice to know whether these things actually exist and what do they do, if anything. So I want to read this too. So this is a bit of the conclusion. So you’ll see there’s Christie, which means there’s lines inside the mitochondria. He says those are artifacts. They do appear in all electron micrographs of cells and can be used as an anatomical marker. But the fact that both light and electron microscopy, the whole mitochondria can be seen in every orientation, whereas the cristae cannot, proves that the electron microscope can show three dimensional objects.

That is there is a control for the instrument. On the other hand, the two dimensional appearance of the cristae, whether in transverse, oblique or longitudinal section, proves them to be a deposit after section. And I will show you and explain what this means. So probably the most important observation that Hillman used to see, to determine whether something was real or not, and you can see it, he alludes to it here, is whether you can see this thing in many different orientations. I mean, if you take a pencil and you chop it up in a blender, or chop it up randomly, or chop it up sometimes longitudinally or transversely, you will see a very different appearance of the pencil.

Same with an orange. If you put it in a blender, you won’t see the same image with every piece chopped up in a blender. So for Hillman, in order to say that something is real, you should be able to see it in light microscope with very little preparation, that is staining and fixing and changing of the tissue. You should be able to see it intact and you need to be able to see it in all the different orientations that any living thing or, or any fake, any real thing, not living thing, pencil isn’t real, but you can see it in many different orientations.

And anytime you see something that always looks in the same orientation, no matter how you blended it, sliced it or processed it, you know that that cannot represent a real thing. This was a hugely important part of the methodology that Hillman talked about, and I absolutely think it’s valid. Any real thing, if you chop it in random ways, you’ll see it in many different orientations. Anything that you always see in the same orientation, in the same picture, no matter the way that you processed it cannot be a real thing. It has to be an artifact. So here we go to his chapter 25 on the mitochondria.

And you see these. He says, in living cells, these filaments are several microns long, sometimes folded on themselves. They can be seen in every orientation, from transverse to longitudinal and in between. The higher resolution of the electron microscope shows extra feedback features. The membranes around appear double. Double layered cristae can be seen. But each of the double layers of the cristae, and I’ll show you those in a minute, are uniformly distant apart from its partner. Unfortunately, the two beautiful lines of cristae always appear in exactly the same orientation. Whether the mitochondria are in transverse or diagonal sections.

This shows that they are two dimensional and must appear after the section. In other words, they’re an artifact. The simplest explanation for this is that the contents of the mitochondria, sometimes called the matrix or mitochondrial plasma, are liquid in life and dry up during the preparation for electron microscopy and give a two dimensional deposit. They’re regarded as one of the locations. So in other words, you see a frog liver cell and it is stained and you see these little squiggly lines, and you see the squiggly lines sometimes end on like here, sometimes like this, and basically everywhere in between.

So to Hillman, that is a dead giveaway that there is something. This squiggly line thing is a real component of the cell. And that’s why with minimal processing, you do See it? And in the next slide you see that they try to actually isolate these mitochondria. And this is his own work and he used a phase contrast oil immersion. So it’s pretty minimal processing. He got these from. Sorry about that. He got these from a nerve. And this tells him that these squiggly things you can see in many different orientations. And that also I guess convinced him that it was real.

And by the way, somebody told me that the word mitochondria means small, like granule or small squiggly thing. So they don’t call it a small squiggly thing, they call it a mitochondria. So that means it’s more professional and more convincing. And here’s what I mean by the cristae, that means the lines inside the mitochondria. So here we see an electron micrograph of a bat mitochondria, not sure if it had Covid or not, showing the two layers of the mitochondria and the transverse cristae. Note the uniformity of distance between the two layers. This was given by this guy.

So what, what he means is you always see these in this, this appearance like this. And these two lines are always the exact same distance apart. So you never see them end on like you would if it was a real structure. And the two lines are always the same distance apart. So yeah, then he goes on, I don’t think we need to do that. So this tells him that these cristae, these lines inside these were not there in the original, in the actual mitochondria, they are basically dried up watery part inside of this squiggly line thing that is found in the cytoplasm.

So therefore we don’t know have any evidence or proof of what’s inside this thing, but certainly not this. There’s no nano motors, there’s no pumps, there’s no anything like that. Now this gets a little complicated, but this gets into what’s called subcellular fractions, like tissue slices. So this is the more modern, more biochemical or histological way of demonstrating a mitochondria. And it’s called subcellular fractionation. So basically they’ll take tissue or cells and they divide it into the fractions. And then if you find something that comes out in a specific fraction that is assumed or then proposed, maybe a better word, to be an actual structure.

And Hillman was absolutely against thinking like this. He thought that the way of demonstrating that something is real by subcellular fractionation was entirely make believe. And here’s the reasons. And this gets a little in the weeds. But I think it’s important just because one of the things I’m trying to do here, I guess, is to create a kind of library or a legacy of that people can go back to and eventually look. So what did this Cowan guy say about mitochondria? And so even if it’s a little tedious right now, I think it’s important to go through it to lay out the case.

So a fraction might compose only of mitochondria. This means that few mitochondria have been broken, made unrecognizable, diffused away, or had their chemical properties changed significantly during the separation process. But there is no way of telling whether or not these assumptions are true, but they apply to any enriched frame fraction. So you don’t have any way to control this, any way to know whether this fraction, which you basically found by tagging different antibodies. So you radio radioactively, you put a radioactive marker on an antibody and it attaches to a certain part or certain fraction of the tissue that you just basically broke down or blended.

And then you say that proves that that stuff that it binds to must have come from that fraction. And as he says, that is one possible explanation. Another one is the majority of the structures which can be seen in this fraction by light or electron micro microscopy are mitochondria. So in other words, maybe some of them are and some of them aren’t. This implies that one can identify the numerical majority of the particles one can see, while other particles do not contribute to the chemical properties of that fraction. It also implies that the quote, purification of the fraction by increasing the numerical proportion of the mitochondria in it does not affect the total activity of the enzyme believed to be located there.

In other words, you find a marker that allegedly binds with this enzyme, you then put that in and it binds with the enzyme. And you say that enzyme must have come from the mitochondria, therefore the mitochondria are real. And because I know that this fraction contains a majority of mitochondria, but you can’t get the number because you can’t actually measure it. And so the whole thing sort of falls apart. Next thing, we’ll clarify what I just said. The chemical activity of the markers of a particular organelle, say succinic dehydrogenase for mitochondria, in other words, they tag this chemical called succinic dehydrogenase with a radioactive marker.

They say that this is a measure of the purity of the fraction. However, it is Only an assumption that the later enzyme is a marker because it is found in the fraction at the end. It is a circular argument to say the purity of the fraction is measured by the activity of the marker, and a high marker activity proves the fraction is pure. In other words, that is the circular argument. So far, it has always been accepted that there are biochemical markers for different organelles, which seems to be unproven and possibly unprovable. However, it is generally agreed that many classical lysosomal enzymes have been found in other fractions.

In other words, in this one case where we have a marker for a certain enzyme which you can tag and that says, yeah, this, if it binds, that means this is a lysosome. It turns out on further investigation that you can find a sample that can’t possibly contain a lysosome and it still binds, proving that the marker is not specific, just like all the antibody markers, just like all the enzyme markers, they depend on the conditions that the marker is not specific for anything. Therefore, it can’t possibly prove that therefore there’s a mitochondria, because the marker lights up.

And finally, he says the organelles in the fraction are not incubated in a similar environment to that which surrounds them in the intact cell in the living animal, which means they will behave differently. It is not at all surprising that fractions possessing allegedly different chemical properties or even originally present in a uniform compartment when subjected to a different army of agents and reagent, would exhibit different properties. This gets into the problem of when you do these experiments with putting the tagged enzymes or antibodies in a mix that allegedly you’re trying to find out whether if it binds its mitochondria, it will never be the actual medium that would have been found in the living system.

And therefore you don’t know how much that changed the binding or the affinity or the properties. And therefore, you can’t say with certainty that the medium that you put it in didn’t affect the binding and didn’t make you see something that you couldn’t see otherwise. So again, this might have. This subcellular fractionation fails to actually prove that there are mitochondria. So at this point, all we have to go on is that we see little squiggly lines in many different orientations in the cytoplasm of cells or in tissue. And that’s the only thing we have to go on.

And then he goes through just a chart of the reasons for an enzyme activity may be found in a certain subcellular fraction or a site and could Be that it was actually in that organelle, could be that it moved to the site during the preparation. It could be that the other cofactors moved there. It could be that there’s inhibitors that moved away. It could be that the chemicals added activated enzymes or activated the reaction. The heat generated during the preparation of the sample could have activated the enzyme or denatured inhibitors. There could be proteins diffused from the site.

They could be the incubation medium of the fraction activated the enzyme, could be that there’s dehydration of a particular organelle altered its apparent activity. None of these can be actually determined, therefore essentially becomes unprovable, as he says. And therefore, again, this whole way of looking for things with subcellular fractionation using antibodies, tagged enzymes, et cetera, falls apart. And once again, we all we have is squiggly lines seen in many orientations. Now here’s another way of seeing those. And they always like to see onion cells. And so again, mitochondria means small granules or small squiggly lines. And so here you see these little dots.

So there you see a nucleus. And this is a minimally stained light microscopy, I think, phase microscope preparation of some of the biggest quote cells, onion cells. And you see these little dots scattered all over the place. And allegedly those are mitochondria. Now here comes the next problem. Nobody has ever successfully isolated, taken those little granules out and proven that they either have anything or do anything. So I would submit that any claim that allegedly proves that these little granules have been removed and have been studied for their contents and have been proven to do this or that is actually untrue.

And then finally I’ll show you this. So they’re trying to get around this problem of electron microscopy, which shows only fixed things. So I won’t go through the whole paper. And they show this, this guy moving. So this is a super resolution confocal microscope, which still involves a lot of preparation. So on my left, you see the mitochondria in an electron microscope. You see the outside there you see the imaginary endoplasmic reticulum, which are always also seen in this same orientation with the lines approximately the same distance apart. You see that in the cristae in the mitochondria.

And then you see with similar preparation but a different kind of microscope, you still see the same sort of lines. And you see a bigger version of the squiggly line granule thing. And that’s pretty much the proof that mitochondria exist. There was one other study that I wanted to show briefly. And this was a more recent thing. And the reason I got this is this is. So we want to see this guy. And so this is from 2020, Trends in Molecular Medicine, January 2020, Visualizing Mitochondrial form and function within the cell. So, thanks God, we’re finally going to be able to.

The state of the art from the NIH on how to see this mitochondria. And here we go through a lot of stuff, and all this is molecular tomfoolery, otherwise known as conjuring up stuff. And we want to see the picture. So finally we go down and down and then talks about why this is important and why they got all the stuff in it and the highlights. And finally we get to the picture. Except, as I’ve said many times, it wouldn’t be a proper medical article unless there was a cartoon. And so here we have the cartoon of the mitochondria with the imaginary sodium potassium pump and the imaginary endoplasmic reticulum and the ATP going in and out, all these different things with the cristae in it.

And there’s the squiggly thing with the cristae in it. And it’s got all these different enzymes and the lipids and the proteins and all this that it does next to the capillary. And all this is just a. Basically a cartoon which has no relationship. So here, finally we get to see the mitochondria, and it’s a fluorescent antibody labeled mitochondria in magenta. So there it is. And so this little blob of purplish stuff that’s allegedly specific, because that antibody, which we know is not specific, they claim is specific, and that proves that there are mitochondria. And we can see how it interacts with.

With the. Whatever the. Probably the endoplasmic reticulum or something. So, I mean, who. God only knows what this is actually staining and referring to. But we know that antibodies are never specific to anything. They change depending on the conditions, the ph, the oxidation levels, the temperature, and probably many other things, the level of hydration. So that’s basically what I found. So if you want a conclusion from that, I would say there is some evidence that there are these squiggly little lines and granules in living tissues and cells. We have no idea what they are. We have no idea what they’re made of.

We have no idea what they’re doing there. And my suggestion is we forget about them because they have no relevance to how you’re doing or what you should do. And as always, it goes back to if you want to do red light, which I actually do, and do red light saunas, I think it’s good stuff. You see, you look at, if you’re going to look at studies, you look at. So people who did this, they feel better, they can walk further, they live longer or whatever. It is nothing to do with the mitochondria. And as soon as somebody’s giving you the mitochondria stuff, just tune out and know that they’re talking pseudoscience.

But that doesn’t mean that certain interventions or certain things that you do may not have a benefit. And as always, the new biology way is connect with what you see. This is not a, a program of antimatter. We’re not walking anti dogs here. We’re walking real dogs and interacting with real food and real cats and real light and real sunlight, real earth and real ourselves, assessing day to day how it’s making us feel, what’s happening, how is my life going? And this will all be way more productive. And I would submit this is the fundamental attitude of healing, which is the main thing I’m trying to get across.

Okay. I hope that wasn’t too tedious for people. And again, thanks for listening and hopefully you have a good week.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.