➡ The traditional method of studying human biology, which involves examining dead cells and tissues, is flawed. This method can lead to misunderstandings about cell biology. A new approach involves studying living cells and tissues, which can reveal surprising and more accurate information about the human body. This method challenges the current understanding of cell biology and encourages a shift towards observing living organisms.
➡ Scientist Harold Hillman questioned widely accepted ideas about cell biology, particularly those revealed through electron microscopy. Despite facing criticism, his logical points remain unchallenged. He questioned the discovery of new cell structures, the existence of certain organelles, and the process of protein synthesis. Hillman also raised concerns about the limitations of electron microscopy, such as the inability to visualize certain elements and the potential for tissue shrinkage during preparation.
➡ The text discusses the complexities of studying cells, particularly the nuclear membrane and its ability to regulate the passage of particles. It also questions the assumption that cells remain unchanged when grown in a lab, highlighting the lack of a natural environment that provides nutrients and removes waste. The text further explores the challenges of studying cells under a microscope, noting that the processes used can alter the cells’ nature. Lastly, it raises questions about why the body doesn’t reject its own organs in autoimmune diseases, similar to how it rejects transplanted organs.
➡ The text describes a process of preparing cells for microscopic examination. It involves dehydrating the cells with ethanol, replacing it with xylene, and then rehydrating the cells. The cells are then stained with hematoxylin and eosin to make them visible. The process can cause the cells to shrink and change shape, which can lead to errors in reporting cell characteristics. The text also discusses how additional processing can create artifacts, or false images, in the sample. This can happen when the sample is treated with certain chemicals or when the temperature is changed rapidly. The text suggests that these artifacts can lead to misinterpretations of what is seen under the microscope.
➡ This text discusses the complexities of cell structures and their functions, questioning the accuracy of traditional biology teachings. It suggests that some cellular components, like the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus, may not exist or function as we’ve been taught. The text also highlights the importance of observing living cells and their movements to better understand their true nature. Lastly, it introduces a nature-based detox protocol designed to remove deep-seated toxins from the body, which has reportedly improved energy, focus, and digestion among users.

The traditional science of human biology is dead wrong because it’s based on the study of dead tissues and cells distorted by chemicals, not from observing life itself. Once a sample is stained, dehydrated, and fixed on a slide, it’s no longer alive. Artifacts are generated in this process, which are then misperceived as organelles, receptors, and even viral particles. But when you study living cells and tissues like blood, you see things that you might never believe to be possible. Tumors, pregnancies, even spinal injuries, all in real time. Today I’m going to introduce you to a new way to look at the human body, one grounded in life, not death.

This is the true health report, where critical appraisal fuels true freedom. We’re going to be talking about the myths of microscopy, unveiling the truth behind cell biology. In other words, what is and isn’t true in some of the modern theory of the cell. So I’m going to start off by just describing some of the big problems in biology before we get specifically into micro. Then I’m going to get into microscopy more specifically, and we’re going to really examine some of Harold Hillman’s work, and I’ll introduce who he is and address some specific errors in microscopy. And then we’re going to draw some conclusions from that, what we can take away in terms of what’s true about the cell.

So let me just begin by saying that what we’re going to talk about today with microscopy is, and in general is not even science. So just to refresh everyone’s memory, science and the scientific method specifically, we have starting point as we observe phenomenon, and then we come up with ideas or hypotheses about what causes the phenomenon we observe. And then we design special controlled experiments to test if there is a cause and effect relationship. But what we’re really talking about today is observation. So it’s the preliminary stage before have even a phenomena in nature that we would want to determine the cause of.

So it’s kind of like almost a little bit like epistemology of nature that we’re trying to just say, okay, what are the things in nature that we can observe? And then once we observe them, then we may generate some understanding by pursuing various additional pathways. Okay, so there are of course, errors in observation, which is really what we’re going to be discussing in more detail. And some of these apply also to scientific experiments where they are trying to determine a cause and effect relationship, such as I’ve discussed at length with germ theory. So one of the big problems has to do with looking at dead versus living cells and tissues and organisms.

And if you can imagine, as is often, you know, told by people explaining this, if you were some kind of alien entity, if, if those existed, but, you know, non human of the earth, and you were trying to look at the animals on the earth to study them, right. Would you kill them first in order to learn about them, or would you try to observe them while they’re alive? And this of course plays out in modern biology where almost all of the examination, specifically under the microscope, is done with dead cells and tissues rather than living.

So let me give you a little anecdote about Harvey Biggleson. So Harvey Biggleson was a pretty well known osteopathic physician, studied under Casey, and also developed some very unique ideas and findings. And one of those was by looking at live blood cells and what he discovered by looking at living blood under microscope, and there are regular light microscopes that are capable of doing this with various optical technology like dark field and phase contrast, et cetera. And he discovered what he called holographs in the blood, or the holographic blood is, I believe the title of his book.

And now his sons, Adam and Josh Biggleson are carrying on this knowledge and helping to spread it. And this is a demonstration. And you can see the circles in the background on all these three panels represent red blood cells or erythrocytes. And these are all viewed under different types of light microscopy. And these are all living specimens of blood. And what you could see here are these kind of irregular objects in here which resemble anatomical structures. And there are, you know, hundreds of examples of. So these are not unique, but these are just a couple of different ones.

So if we go to the panel on the left, what it claims to be showing is a cross section of the brainstem showing a tumor after radiation therapy. Now, you could actually compare this with a CT or an MRI image of the same slice to show that it’s anatomically accurate. And I would believe that this was actually done with this image, the second panel, or middle panel, right. This hologram shows a developing fetus. And this was seen in the blood of a woman who is six weeks pregnant. And lastly, on the right, we have a midline cross sectional view, a sagittal view, it looks like, of the spinal cord and vertebrae that shows a compression fracture or collapsed vertebra.

And this correlated with the clinical condition of the patient as well. So this is, you know, quite an astounding finding if you open up yourself to trust that it’s actually A real thing. And through doing this kind of live blood analysis and they were able to show countless examples of this that correlated with the clinical situation. So Harvey, Dr. Biggleson was able to garner the interest of quite a renowned hematologist at Washington University in St. Louis. And he had actually been invited by that hematologist to come and demonstrate his microscopic findings. So Harvey, I think, packed up his microscope, got on a plane, or maybe drove, I’m not sure, got all the way there, there, sat down in the room with this hematologist and the hematologist suddenly realized that they were going to be looking at living blood.

In other words, it hadn’t been killed, dehydrated and stained as is usually done. And once he learned this, he actually refused to sit down and look at the images and pursue any further collaboration or learning from Harvey Biggleson. So there is a interesting culture in the scientific and biological community community that it’s taboo to look at something living, even though from a accuracy or observational point of view it, it actually doesn’t make sense to look at things that are dead. So this is a big problem in many of the conclusions that are drawn are from pictures of dead things that are frozen in points in time.

And that’s the other aspect of this. And if you could imagine the image, for example, of someone with their hand extended right outside a door of a house and the door is partially open, and that still image, that freeze frame does not allow you to tell if the individual is entering the home or leaving the home. It’s just a freeze frame. And there could be other possibilities besides that. And this is the limitation of looking at dead tissue that’s frozen in time. You can’t observe any behavior because nothing changes unless you do something to affect it.

Now there’s another problem that is equally as big, if not bigger, and is very similar. And this has to do with what I call, call simulation, that it seems in this modern era of molecular biology that much of the research is not learned in an actual organism, but it’s learned by simulating what might go on in an organism in the laboratory, these so called in vitro molecular studies. And I’ll, I’ll give you an example of this which is quite astounding actually. And it’s in the field of toxicology, which is a, you know, it’s quite simple to understand cause and effect relationships in toxicology when you have controlled experiments that you have animals and you would of course want to use animals that are like their wild counterparts as much as possible.

So not genetically modified like many of these experiments. And you simply give different doses of the material that you’re studying the toxicity of to the animals and you observe the health effects. So quite simple. But now when I was looking for toxicity due to graphene, right, because it’s a, it’s a new substance, it was only invented. And the inventors, I believe, won a Nobel Prize in this century. So I wanted to study the toxicology. Obviously it was perhaps relevant to the injections that were given around the world. And I did find one study on actual living organisms.

But most of the studies were simulations. So what they did is they took, for example, like a culture of standardized immune cells that you could, you know, buy from a commercial cell culture supplier and they would mix a graphene and then they would do molecular assays at the expression of different cytokines or, you know, so called markers or mediators of inflammation. But of course, there are so many potential sources of errors. Why would we believe that what happens in a petri dish in the cell culture with a commercially prepared cell line represents what actually occurs in a living organism? So we have these two fundamental problems.

Now, if we put it a little bit in context for today, we want to get to what is the modern model of the cell according to cell biology. And I’m going to show you a diagram in a few minutes that’s going to be familiar to all of you. But we’re going to show you some evidence that actually debunks many of the things that we were taught, of course. So let’s start off with the first video. And this is Harold Hillman narrating. And Hillman is a scientist who is much maligned by the establishment because he challenged many of the accepted so called consensus ideas or opinions, the cell through logic.

And of course, very few people took up the challenge to try to address these questions. But he was, you know, essentially it was very hard for him to publish. He was not well accepted as talks. He wasn’t taken seriously by the mainstream scientific establishment. However, his points are, you know, purely logical and have not been explained or overturned in the duration of his lifetime. So he put together this video and it’s basically explaining a little bit about how in the modern era of electron microscopy, which can see things very, very tiny on a nanometer scale or billionth of a meter, and this technology was invented in the 1930s, how certain new knowledge, quote unquote, has come to exist about the cell that’s been accepted.

And then later on we’re going to see how these Things may not actually be true. Okay, go ahead and roll the film. The electron microscope, which was applied to the study of biological tissues in the 1940s, permits magnifications two to three orders greater than is possible by light microscopy. As a result of observations of tissues with this greater magnification, a number of new structures were seen. These are illustrated in this plasma cell from Blumen, Fawcett’s classical textbook of historical histology. The new structures are the endoplasmic reticulum first seen by Porter, Claude and Fulham. The nuclear pores by Callan and Tomlin and the unit membrane by Robertson.

The existence of the Golgi body, about which there had been much controversy up to the middle 1950s, was regarded as having been proved when it was seen on electron microscopy, as in this typical picture of Toner and Car Christae were seen for the first time in mitochondria. This well known diagram by Bracha of the generalized cell is one of two which appears in the Scientific American and have been widely reproduced in textbooks. In it the following features can be seen. Within the cytoplasm there is a Golgi body and an extensive endoplasmic reticulum which is connected to the extracellular space and to the nucleus.

Pores are present in the nuclear membrane. Here is the other diagram by Robertson. It shares all the features of the Bracha cell, but in this one the membranes all appear as double lines and therefore there are cisternae between them. Both diagrams are intended to show the living cell and both are regarded as being representative of plant as well as of animal cells. Alright, so I hope that wasn’t too technical for everyone to look at, but we’re going to re visit that a couple of times and I just want to highlight a few of the points that supposedly electron microscopy discovered some new aspects of the cell and then also confirmed the presence of the Golgi apparatus.

So we can look at here and so if we look in the middle, we see the nucleus in this pink and purple color. And you can see the nuclear pores are present around the outside represented as those circles. So that’s one of the so called discoveries from electron microscopy and we may not get into that today. Then we see in the blue all the squiggly maze lines is the endoplasmic reticulum. And you can see clearly that it does invaginate the nuclear membrane in the center, but it doesn’t clearly show it interfacing with the outer cell membrane.

But this is what the textbooks say that it’s anchored to both points and provides a channel of communication between the nucleus and the extracellular matrix. And then you see Golgi in here as well, represented by the green. And you can see that it looks quite similar to the endoplasmic reticulum. And then it also shows the mitochondria in red, the cristae, which are the orange sections internally, which were also said to be discovered by electronic microscopy. So I want to go a little bit further into Harold Hillman, because one is he did not only criticize and write about microscopy, he also wrote quite a bit about biochemistry.

But he came up with a list of, I believe it’s 47 unanswered questions in biology. And these encompass the all the principles that we’re going to be talking about in more detail, as well as several other principles that are of note. So I wanted to just go through and highlight several of the questions that I felt were of particular importance and were at the level that we could all understand without knowing more details about cellular neurobiology or other more narrower topics. So let’s start with question 7. Where do protein synthesis and acid hydrolysis occur in cells in which ribosomes and lysosomes cannot be seen? So we’re told in the textbooks that ribosomes are the site of protein synthesis, where the protein is translated from the messenger rna.

However, there are cells which have been visualized under electron microscopy which have proteins because every cell has to have proteins because they carry out all the function. So there are proteins in the cell, but no ribosomes. So how does that cell make proteins? And there are other questions also talking about the difference between prokaryotic and euk. Eukaryotic cells and prokaryotic cells have no internal organelles. They don’t have a formed nucleus. Their genetic material allegedly is freely floating in the cytoplasm. And they can, of course, undergo protein synthesis as well without having ribosomes. And lysosomes are allegedly the site where the acid hydrolysis or the hydrolysis, the breaking down of the proteins, occur to recycle the raw materials.

And there are also cells where lysosomes are not seen. So let’s go to question 12. How can one study membranes by electron microscopy when they are believed to contain lipids, which the procedure extracts? And how that’s a very interesting thing, and this is an issue with electron microscopy in general, is that the processing of the tissue and the staining procedures allow that no biological material visualized under the electron microscope, we simply see metals that have been sprinkled as the biological tissue is then removed through, you know, various methods, Freezing, dehydration, electron beam, et cetera. And we don’t see any tissue at all.

So how can we learn about those substances when they’re not actually present? So, quite an interesting question. Next is number 14. Why do those who calculate dimensions from electron micrographs not take into account the shrinkage during preparation and examination of their sections, cells and organelles? So, in other words, the process of preparing the tissue for visualization causes shrinkage, but the dimensions of the different anatomical aspects of the cell are reported as they’re seen under the microscope without accounting for any shrinkage. So, in other words, not their actual size. And you could imagine that if we sort of took, you know, mummified remains that were completely dehydrated and decomposed and, you know, didn’t account for any loss of tissue or mass and said that represented the, you know, the weight of those people in real life, for example.

So, next question 21. Why are receptors and channels, which have been characterized, sequences and their sizes measured or calculated, not seen on membranes by transmission electron microscopy? So we’ve all been told the story that much of the physiology that we undergo in our bodies is carried out by membrane receptors and membrane ion channels, like, for example, the sodium potassium pump that maintains our resting membrane potential. All of the neurotransmitter receptors which psychiatric drugs are based upon, right? Such as serotonergic receptors and noradrenalinergic or norepinephrine receptors, for example, cortisol receptors, although those are said to be nuclear, but many, many types of membrane receptors.

And we know these have been purified out of cell cultures, and they’ve been measured in terms of their molecular weight by gel electrophoresis. So that’s what he’s getting at with the size being known. So we know that these are big enough or large enough to be seen on electron microscopic images, but they’ve never been seen. You know, how could there be so many of them all over the membrane if they’re never visualized at all? Quite a mystery. Question 26. Why is it assumed that the receptors for transmitters, hormones, messengers, antibodies, drugs, and toxins are on the surface of the cell membrane? Once again, a related question.

Because they’re not visualized there. Certainly, their reaction with their ligands has been demonstrated biochemically, but that’s only after the cell has been, you know, fractionated into a million different pieces, right? But the chemistry itself has never been shown to take place on the surface of the cell. So why is that assumed so? Next One is question 32. If nuclear pores allow RNA to pass through, how do they prevent smaller molecules and ions going through at the same time? And why is there a potential difference across the nuclear membrane? Well, that’s quite interesting. So the potential difference means that there has to be a different concentration of, you know, positive or negative charges on one side of the nuclear membrane as opposed to the other.

And the concentration gradient, right, would equalize that if those ions or charged particles were allowed to freely pass through. Now, the size of the nuclear pore is said to range from about 200 Angstrom units to a thousand Angstrom units, whereas the size of the typical charged particles like sodium and potassium are less than 20 Angstrom units. So, you know, one tenth of the diameter they should be able to easily fit through. However, there is somehow that it’s maintained that they are kept separate, whereas RNA molecules, which are huge, right, too big to get through those holes, pass through easily, or so we’re told.

And this just really does not add up. Question 33. 3. What is the evidence that each cell of a particular plant or animal contains the same quantity of DNA? That’s quite interesting. And this is something that has Simply never been measured. 38. Is it warrantable to assume that growth of tissues in culture does not change their morphology, biochemistry, or immunoreactivity? Of course, it’s very, very different, especially with mammalian cell cultures, because inside the body of a mammal, for example, we have the blood supply, right? And we have the drainage and we have the lymphatics system. So there is a continual replenishment of nutrients and a removal of excretion.

There’s water balance, electrolyte balance, that is all regulated by other organs in the body and reflected in the blood flow and in the constituents in the tissue, fluids, right? The function of the liver, the kidneys, et cetera, et cetera, the pancreas, the endocrine system, to affect different levels of constituents of the blood. Now, we cannot simulate this in a tissue culture, right? We can’t even have. We can’t have a continuous flow. There’s no synthetic heart or heart in a laboratory heart that is nourishing these tissues, right? So we just add in a bunch of stuff and then every day add more.

Sometimes we, you know, take it out and put it in a new. Wash everything away and put it in a new container and kind of, you know, start fresh to keep all the stuff from building up. But this, of course, has to change the cells in some way. And there’s not been adequate research to say exactly how these procedures themselves, right, which you could generally call disruption, affect the actual physiology of the cells, which is what you’re trying to Observe and learn from.45. The last one we’ll look at. In diseases believed to be autoimmune, either organ specific or tissue specific, why does the body not reject the specific organ or tissue as it rejects incompatible transplanted hearts or blood of the wrong group, often making the patients ill or even killing them? This is an excellent, excellent question.

Of course, I think the mainstream would just say, oh, it’s a different type of reaction. But this is a very excellent example because if the body recognizes part of itself as foreign, right, it would reject that part because that’s what happens when you put a foreign organ in. And we know that we have to give very toxic immunosuppressive drugs to prevent that rejection. By the way, when we transplant the immune system, like in a bone marrow transplant, the. The exact opposite happens, and it’s called graft versus host disease. And what it means is that the transplanted immune system actually rejects the body that you put it in.

And this also has to be managed with similar immunosuppressive drugs. So you can see that I only covered a small portion of these questions, but there has not been any other observations or studies that have really addressed these problems. And I’ve really only touched the tip of the iceberg so far. So let’s now dive into microscopy specifically. And I would say that microscopy has macroscopic problems. And one of the main categories that we’re going to talk about here is disruption, right? And this is when we do things right to the materials of nature that we’re studying.

And we have to be very, very careful because any interaction, even, you know, touching, holding something, right, all these things affect the integrity of our observations. So we have to be very, very careful and be super conscious of how we’re disrupting the nature of what we are trying to observe. And with, you know, tissues and cells, they can be very, very delicate. And of course, they could be on a very, very small scale. So even subtle movements can be quite disruptive. So we talked a little bit about dead versus living, right? So one of the things that we do to disrupt a big kill the cells for microscopy.

Only a few types of folks are actually looking at living cells under the microscope, and very few of them are researchers. Most of them are naturopathic type of health practitioners who are doing this for clinical diagnostic purposes, but not for research purposes. So aside from killing the cells versus keeping them alive. The staining process itself, how the tissue’s processed once it’s already dead and removed from the body, also does quite a number of things. And you can see now from this chart that there are two diagrams here, A and B, A on the top and B on the bottom.

And they’re both alternative methods of preparing tissue to look at under a scanning electron microscope. And you can see that on the top, it’s mostly using chemical reagents to dehydrate the tissue and to stain it. And the bottom method is using a freezing and freeze drying, right? Now, we know, for example, when we, you know, freeze food, right, that we can change the taste of it. And so you could imagine that that means that a number of the actual chemicals and the organization of the matter that we’ve frozen, right, has changed such that we can detect a change in the flavor, texture, aroma, et cetera.

And so that’s really what is being represented by these processes, is that they’re changing the nature of the sample in really unknown ways because they haven’t been fully explored and researched. And then we are relying on the results of the end product to tell us about the starting material without accounting for any of this disruption. If we’re talking about basic light microscopy, one of the most common ways that human tissue, like biopsies and, of course, peripheral blood smears are prepared for microscopic examination is by staining with H and E or hematoxylin and eosin. So this is what I’m going to show you in the video in a minute, and we’re going to see how this process changes the shape and the size of the cells we’re looking at.

But I want to just describe the process before you see it so you know what you’re looking at. So first, they’re going to stabilize cellular structures by chemical fixation, and that means putting them in formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde. So this is just like embalming fluid that we would, you know, use at a mortuary to fix the tissues. And we know that these are reactive chemicals, and they change the nature. So, for example, in medical school, we did cadaver dissections with bodies that had been fixed right by formaldehyde. And they are much, much harder to cut into. For example, you go through lots of blades, scalpel blades, dissecting a cadaver.

Whereas when you’re cutting through living tissue, it cuts much easier. So, you know, you can notice a lot of difference. That’s a textural difference. Now, number Two, dehydrate and infiltrate the tissues with paraffin or plastic. Now, this is going to be omitted in the video because we’re looking at the whole process on a microscope slide. And that would, would make it so you couldn’t visualize the tissue because after it is put in the, the wax block, it has to be then sliced. So we’re looking at naked tissue here, but this is what is normally done. And then the embed fixed tissues in paraffin or plastic blocks.

So that two and three is what we’re not. We’re going to skip. But then it is cut into the slices. Number two, we are doing it’s. It’s just not with paraffin or plastic. It’s with a series of alcohol and xylene solutions. And then we are going to rehydrate as in step five, with water and with another series of alcohol or ethanol solutions and then applying the stains as described. So if you want to run the video now and we’ll see how this looks under the microscope in real time, here we see the two unfixed cell bodies filling a large part of the screen.

They are fixed with formalin. And we have outlined the original cells to view this shrinkage. We will soon see the solution coming in from the left. And the shrinkage is gradual but quite perceptible. Although these photographs have been taken in real time, they have been edited to show the important points. Now we’re focusing and we then proceed to the 70 to 100% ethanol to dehydrate the cells. But this has been left out in the editing. Here we see the cells now in 100% ethanol being completely dehydrated. And as we watch them, we will next add the xylene to replace the 100% ethanol.

Refocusing. Refocusing again. Now we see the xylo, which replaces the ethanol and makes the cells rather difficult to see. For a brief period, we have, we have not embedded the cells in paraffin wax as is usual because they could not be seen in the wax and we could not withdraw it from the chamber. But we then proceed therefore from the xylene, which we see here, back to the Ethanols, from 100% down 70% back to an aqueous solution solution. Here we see the ethanol replacing the xylene. Once again, the shrinkage is considerable. We are refocusing and the next stage consists of rehydration.

And then we stain with hematoxylin, which makes the cells go redd. We have now changed from phase contrast microscopy to bright field illumination. During the staining with hematoxylin, the hematoxylin is now being washed out, and we will shortly see this staining with eosin. The wave of eosin is coming in from the left. As the whole background goes orange, there is a precipitate formed which is gradually washed away from left to right. Now we are washing off the eosin and it is going away from right to left. A piece of debris stained with hematoxylin has arrived as we dehydrate the cells in ethanol and through Xylo, which we are editing out, and finally we embed in dpx.

We’re very short. Shortly, compare this appearance, please. Look very carefully with the original appearance of the two same neurons. Well, I think if you were paying close attention, you would be quite astonished with the difference in not only the size but also the shape. Right. The cell on the right, for example, it had a very smooth membrane boundary in the original visualization, but after all the processing and staining, it became stellate with various points on the surface. Right. And there are cells called astrocytes, for example, that have that appearance. And you wonder, is that really how they look, or is that an artifact of the staining process? So the end product was only really about two times as large as the nucleus was in the original image.

And as I was saying earlier, if you look up the sizes of these structures of various types of cells in textbooks, they are reported based on the end product of what’s seen under the microscope, which you could see, you know, maybe 20 to 25% of the original size. And of course, the morphology has changed as well. And there’s simply no accounting for this shrinkage. And, you know, it would be a difficult issue to figure out because there are all kinds of slight variations in those processes. You can tell by the slide that I put up, right, that it described things that weren’t exactly identical to what the procedure that was done in this video.

Right. Because each lab may have slight variations in how they do this. And so each time, what you’d have to do is standardize the change that occurs from that process. And it might be different if your starting materials different. So if you’re looking at mouse cells versus chicken cells, for example, or if you’re looking at brain cells versus PANC cells, there might be a difference. So it really complicates things and is a huge source of error in reporting some of the characteristics or observations of cells. Now, I want to mention something else which I call post hoc disruption or post hoc modification.

And this occurs sometimes when what’s visualized in research perhaps is not what is expected. And so additional processing is used to make it look like it’s supposed to look. And there was a SARS CoV2 paper out of Australia which did this very thing. So it supposedly did the cell culture simulations and showed particles around the surface or membrane of the cells that it, you know, put that magic arrow point and declare and said that these were SARS CoV2 virus particles. However, they did not have the characteristic spikes around them. So they said, well, we know it’s Covid even though it doesn’t have the spikes.

So they mixed it, the samples with a digestive enzyme called trypsin, which is a serine protease, and it breaks apart proteins. So they break apart the proteins in the sample, then image it that way, and then they see the so called spikes. Right. So that was not something that was actually visible or present in the sample. It was simply produced by this protein digestion. But they reported it proudly, as if they had actually found the holy grail. These types of mistakes that we’re talking about, like produced by trypsin, for example, we could call artifacts. And they’re artifacts of the man made processing parts.

So they are not, not present in the actual nature, but we see them in the sample, but they’re caused by our own interaction or disruption of the material that we’re observing. So we’re going to run another video now which talks about how some artifacts, additional artifacts can be created through preparing tissue for microscopic examination. A geometrical line is a fiction because it has position but no thickness. Any real layer has two surfaces. This layer represents a real membrane. Heavy metals like osmium, tungsten and lead are deposited on surfaces of such membranes for electron microscopy. And as we see here, the membrane appears as two parallel lines of heavy metal that Thus any stain which is a deposit like a heavy metal will never permit us to see a real membrane as one line.

This point applies equally to freezing techniques. Although freezing is used for fixation, heavy metals are also used for seeing the tissue. When a tissue is prepared for the electron microscope, it contains some embedding medium, some heavy metal, and possibly some tissue. Each of these three components is grossly different with respect to its coefficient of expansion, heat conductivity, affinity for metal, electron density, stability, vapor pressure and compressibility. Let us now look at one of these. The temperature coefficient the figure for osmium is approximately 1/10 of that of the epoxy resins. And the temperature inside the electron microscope split specimen has been measured and is several hundred degrees.

Therefore, the tissue, the metal and the embedding medium, with their vastly different coefficients of expansion, will explode if rapidly heated to high temperature, as does a piece of clay in a potter’s oven if it contains air bubbles. There is no doubt that on electron micrographs one can see the electricity appearance of an endoplasmic reticulum in the cytoplasm of most cells. So that if one believes it to be an artifact, one should be able to explain it. We can describe the cytoplasm in the living cell as an aqueous suspension containing, among other constituents, salts, amino acids, fatty acids and many metabolites soluble in water.

When the tissue is dehydrated and organic soluble solvents are added for electron microscopy, these solutes must precipitate and insoluble particles will deposit. The distinguished cryobiologist Luye and his school in Madison have shown the beautiful patterns which may be obtained when various solutions are frozen and then viewed with the electron microscope. These are the patterns made by freezing salts and these made by freezing amino acids and glycerol. When freezing to below minus 50 degrees occurs, ice crystallizes out and the solute precipitates. However, it is most significant that the particular pattern found depends upon the rate of freezing, the nature of the solutes, the purity of the constituents and their relative and total concentrations.

It is of particular interest interest. The careful examination of their precipitates by electron microscopy often reveals the two line thick appearance. And these two lines appear to be of a remarkably uniform distance apart. Is this a model for the unit membrane? So you can see several interesting things there. And they were talking specifically about electron microscopy, but he was saying that in the sample that is prepared right there, there are different materials. And you saw that diagram with the tissue, right? Which could be if it was the membrane, supposedly it’s made of lipids, right? Or it could be made of proteins or carbohydrates.

Those are the main components of tissue. Then you have the metal which was the osmium in that table. And that’s what is actually visualized by the microscope. But it has different physical properties than the biological tissue. And then you have the medium that it’s packed in, right? And that was the epoxy for electron microscopy, it’s a paraffin wax for the light microscopy. And that has yet different properties. And then he was talking about how when you have various salt solutions, right? And we saw all those patterns, all those were were solutions of chemicals, either salts or amino Acids or things like that.

And they just went through a similar process of changing the temperature, like freezing, in different ways, right, at different rates, which is similar to what’s done with a lot of electron microscopy samples then visualized under the electron microscope. And you saw the same kind of patterns that are supposedly seen in cells. And they are highly organized patterns, right, of unique geometric shapes. And we see these. But of course, there’s no biological material there at all. These are just patterns of chemicals. So are we confusing those patterns of the chemicals with actual parts of the cells, such as the organelles, like the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and other structures? There’s also artifacts that can explain nuclear pores, which essentially mean that the membrane is cracked and splits because of the dehydration process.

And that also can be simulated in experiments without any other biological materials. So we see that these artifacts add up to debunk quite a lot of aspects of the cell. But I do want to talk about one more topic, which is cellular motion. And this is a topic that Harold Hillman emphasized. And it’s, you know, noted that there are several types of motion that can be observed in cells, especially in living cells. And these include some familiar, which is Brownian motion of small particles, diffusion of Sol, their concentration gradient, phagocytosis and pinocytosis. And that’s two different ways that the cells can actually engulf things from the surrounding milieu.

One is akin to eating, and one is akin to drinking. We can observe movement of the mitochondria. We can observe the formation and disappearance of vacuoles. Those are kind of empty compartments inside the cell cytoplasm. And lastly, we can observe nuclear rotation. And I’m going to show you a demonstration of that in a moment. But nuclear rotation is very interesting because if you remember toward the beginning, when we were talking about the model of the cell, Hillman made an important point that the endoplasmic reticulum are shown to be attached both to the nucleus as well as to the cell membrane.

And they represent essentially like a mesh or a net or a lattice of tubes that allow communication and transport of different substances, is what we’re told. Now, I want you to imagine that this lattice network or net or mesh is anchored right at the nucleus and at the cell membrane. And if that was the case, what would happen to it during the nuclear rotation that we’re about to see in this video? Go ahead and roll film, Alexander. Now, you can see that the outer membrane is stationary where that arrow they showed pinocytosis, right? That that is the membrane there, but inside the nucleus is rotating freely.

So you could imagine if it were tethered to the endoplasmic reticulum, it would be wound around the nucleus tightly over and over again, right? And this would, of course, distort the shape and the mechanical properties and pretty much tells you that, you know, certainly one thing that cannot be true is that this structure cannot be anchored to the nucleus and the cell membrane and not get twisted up all in knots, right? And then if we look at the fact that the way salts precipitate and show patterns, that most likely the pattern that we see under the electron microscope that’s been attributed as being endoplasmic reticulum is most likely an artifact of simply precipitated small molecules in that pattern due to the processing of the tissue for electron microscopy.

So let me summarize what I have presented today, and what are some takeaway conclusions that we have? So, I talked about some big problems in biology, and starting with the difference between observation and scientific inquiry, I talked about, you know, looking at dead versus living tissue and cells. We talked about simulation of the in vitro studies. We talked about the accepted model of the cell and some of the discoveries based on electron microscopy. We reviewed a smattering of Hilleman’s unanswered questions and introduced Harold Tilleman’s work in general. And then we talked about specific problems in microscopy.

We focused heavily on disruption. Unfortunately, we were unable to get to solid geometry and the unit membrane. But we did talk briefly about cellular motion and what that can tell us about some of the structures. So I think we can, you know, take away that some of the cellular organelles that are in our standard textbook model are likely to not even exist at all. And if they do exist at some level, they certainly are not characterized or have the same function that we are told about. And these include, at a minimum, the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, ribosomes, lysosomes, and nuclear pores, and possibly the cristae in mitochondria as well.

Now, we didn’t get to talk about it today, but. But if we looked at the solid geometry, we did hint at it, about the issue with two lines representing one line in an electron micrograph, that we would see that the unit membrane cannot be a bilayer or a dual layer as one of the main models put forth in biology as well. So this, of course, lends itself to some things that we can do which really have to do with context of questioning everything we hear about health and biology to go back to these fundamental aspects and realize that the things that we can say for certain about what is in a cell is that it certainly has a nucleus and a nucleolus and a nuclear membrane and some kind of membrane boundary around the cell, although we don’t know exactly what the material or nature of it is, and that there are mitochondria and vacuoles that we can visualize and we can certainly observe all of the types of motion that I’ve described.

So if we start with those fundamental true principles, then we will have an accurate understanding of the cell Even if you’re doing your best to live clean, you’re still being exposed. From off gassing furniture and plastics in your food to synthetic fibers, personal care products and even medical imaging procedures, especially fat soluble chemicals. These toxins don’t respond to your average detox. They settle deep in your tissues and you need the right tools to clear them out. That’s why I created the ultimate Detox Protocol, a free 30 day roadmap that teaches you a serious nature based detox.

Using pine, targeted nutrition and a focused daily plan. You’ll choose the cleansing diet that fits your needs, support your elimination pathways and take action against the toxin load that’s been holding you back. Many people who’ve done this protocol have reported major improvements in energy, focus, digestion and even long standing symptoms they thought they’d have to live with forever. Unfortunately, I can’t share the full scope of results people have experienced using this protocol, not on this platform. If I did, the video would surely be taken down, but trust me, it is incredibly powerful. Download it for free at the link in the show notes.

Your health is your responsibility and this is the best place to start. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you in the next TrueHealth report.
[tr:tra].

See more of Andrew Kaufman, M.D. on their Public Channel and the MPN Andrew Kaufman, M.D. channel.