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 microscopy. 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. 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
is 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 we have even a phenomenon 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 told
by people explaining this, if you were some kind of alien entity, if those existed, but
non human, not 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 Bigelson. So Harvey Bigelson
was a pretty well known osteopathic physician who 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, etc. 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 Bigelson, 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 of 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 this. So these are not unique, but these
are just a couple of different ones. So if we go 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 holograph 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 collapse 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. Bigelson was able to garner the interest of a 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, 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 Bigelson. So there is an interesting culture in the scientific and biological
community that it's a taboo to look at something living, even though from a accuracy
or observational point of view, 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 simulation, that it seems in this modern area 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 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 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 where the
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,
you know, 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 about 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 was seen. These are illustrated in this plasma cell from
Blumen-Forsitz classical textbook of 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.
Christie was seen for the first time in mitochondria. This well-known diagram by Brachet or the
generalized cell is one of two which appeared 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 Brachet 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 plants as well as of animal cells.
I hope that wasn't too technical for everyone to look at, but we're going to revisit that a
couple of times. 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
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. 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. 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. Then it also shows the mitochondria and red, the chrystae which are the
orange sections internally which were also said to be discovered by electron microscopy. 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 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 seven. 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 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.
I mean 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 now 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 can be 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 and electron beam etc 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 can 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. And 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 this 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 so 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 some how 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. 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 lymph fatic 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 and the kidneys etc etc 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 auto
immune 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 a 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 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 there has not been any
other observations or studies that have really addressed these problems and I 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 can 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 one is is we 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 tissues
process 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 can 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 etc 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 in research 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 hematoxilin 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 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 xylean solutions and then we are going to rehydrate
as in step five with water and then 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 here 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 xylean to replace the 100% ethanol refocusing
refocusing again
now we see the xyleol which replaces the ethanol and makes the cells rather difficult to see for
brief period 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 xylean which we see here back to the ethanol's
from 100% down 70% back to an aqueous solution here we see the ethanol replacing the xylean
once again the shrinkage is considerable
we are refocusing
and the next stage consists of rehydration
and then we stain with hematoxilin which makes the cells go reddish
we have now changed from phase contrast microscopy to bright field illumination during the staining
with hematoxilin the hematoxilin is now being washed out and we will shortly see the staining
with eosin the wave of the 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 hematoxilin has arrived as we dehydrate the cells in ethanol
and through xyleol which we are editing out and finally we embed in dpx
we'll very shortly compare this appearance please look very carefully with the original
appearance of the two same neurons well i think if you're 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 percent of the original size and of course the
morphology has changed as well and there's simply no accounting for the 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 a slight variations in how they do this and so each time what you'd have to do is standardize
right the change that occurs from that process and it might be different if you're 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 pancreatic 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-CoV-2 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-CoV-2 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 right
like produced by trypsin for example we could call artifacts and they're artifacts of the
man-made processing part so they are 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
surface of such membranes well from microscopy and as we see here the membrane appears as two parallel
lines of heavy metal 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 a tissue
when a tissue is prepared for 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 one tenth of that of the epoxy resins and the
temperature inside the electron microscope 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 that's 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 appearance of an endoplasmic reticulum in a 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
minor acids fatty acids and many metabolites soluble in water when the tissue is dehydrated
and organic solvents are added for electron microscopy these solutes must precipitate
and insoluble particles will deposit the distinguished cryobiologist louis and his school
in madison have shown the beautiful patterns which may be obtained when various solutions are frozen
and then viewed with electron microscope these are the patterns made by freezing salts
and these made by freezing amino acids and distro
when freezing to below minus 50 degrees occurs ice crystallizes out and the solute precipitate
however it is most significant 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 that careful examination of their precipitates by electron
microscopy often reveals the two line thick appearance and these two lines appear to be
over 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 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 brownie in motion of small particles
diffusion of solutes according to 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 a 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 as what
we're told now I want you to imagine that this you know lattice network or net or mesh
is anchored right at the the nucleus and at the cell membrane and if that was a 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
uh where that arrow they showed pinosytosis right that that is the membrane there
but inside the nucleus is rotating freely so you can imagine if it were tethered to the
endoplasmic reticulum it would be a 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 and i talked about you
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 hillman's unanswered questions and introduced harold hillman'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
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
you know of course lends itself to some things that we can do which really have to do with
kind 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 nucleus 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 downloaded 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 true health report