Dismantling The Virus Theory

[yerrag]

Some argue that colds being more common in winter is proof that viruses cause them since people supposedly spend more time huddled together in winter and so pass their viruses onto each other more easily, which is complete bogus in modern society, when people actually tend to be far more isolated during the winter than the summer.

-hypothyroid people have lower temperatures, which the cold weather makes worse and the body can't raise temperature to kill pathogens. also, when hypothyroid, one is sensitive to insults from the environment like allergens
-heaters make the air very dry, and our mucous membranes become dry as well, and function less in the ability to trap foreign particles; these foreign particles need not be pathogens, some cause an allergic reaction that helps weaken the immune system. if one's hypothyroid, he is much more susceptible to the allergens
-people living in apartments with a common heating system or a common ventilation system are not living in isolation from each other, as far as sharing the air they breathe; I lived in one before, and every year I was helpless against the flu. perhaps now I would survive the winter, since I'm no longer hypothyroid and I can take the insults from sharing the same air as other people

 

[Noodlz2]

-heaters make the air very dry, and our mucous membranes become dry as well, and function less in the ability to trap foreign particles; these foreign particles need not be pathogens, some cause an allergic reaction that helps weaken the immune system. if one's hypothyroid, he is much more susceptible to the allergens

Could you elaborate on this? Since peating, one of the benefits I've experienced is a disappearance of a nasal drip, of phlegm, and of colds. But the main problem my body is tackling at the moment is that chemicals and particulate matter affect me more noticeably than ever.

I wonder if the constant wetness was a defense rather than a liability. Even so, I don't know if I would return to that if I could. Despite how bad particulate matter and chemicals are for me now, it's nice to not always be sniffly.

 

[yerrag]

Could you elaborate on this? Since peating, one of the benefits I've experienced is a disappearance of a nasal drip, of phlegm, and of colds. But the main problem my body is tackling at the moment is that chemicals and particulate matter affect me more noticeably than ever.

I wonder if the constant wetness was a defense rather than a liability. Even so, I don't know if I would return to that if I could. Despite how bad particulate matter and chemicals are for me now, it's nice to not always be sniffly.

A very dry environment is what I was referring to, which would lead our mucous membranes to become drier than it normally is, and this reduces its effectiveness in trapping allergens. When it does trap allergens, the immune system eats up that allergen and expels it. Hence, there are more boogers produced when we go to a very polluted place.

If you have a strong metabolism, you are less susceptible to allergies from exposure to allergens though. When instead of simply producing boogers, you'd have another reaction to it such as allergic rhinitis. I'd have runny nose before that would lead to a sore throat or coughing or a bad case of hiccups. The next day I'll be down with a fever, if not the flu.

 

[Literally]

@sugarbabe your argument is full of factual errors. Skipping over most of that...

If rabies virus isn't the cause of rabies, for example, why does microscopy allow us to film infected cells filling up with distinct looking structures?

If these commonly photographed structures aren't rabies viruses, why do they appear only in infected organisms? Please provide photographs of what is commonly misidentified, according to you, as rabies virus, in normal human cells.

More specifically, how do account for the fact that we have microscopy of rabies viruses infiltrating human endothelial cells?

Please explain also how we can reliably identify proteins from the rabies virus using gel electrophoresis (a process you bizarrely, describe but don't name) to measure their presence only in infected subjects.

Random example: Structure and function of rabies virus glycoprotein. - PubMed - NCBI

If viruses aren't real, except those infecting bacteria, why can we can insert them into hosts and then measure the increase replicated proteins over time using standard techniques, including those you mention?

Granted, it took until 1972 -- Visualization by Immune Electron Microscopy of a 27-nm Particle Associated with Acute Infectious Nonbacterial Gastroenteritis

This article describes a method for culturing Norwalk virus (norovirus) in vitro, in human cells.

The unfortunate truth of this forum is that in among those people open minded enough to look at Ray's evidenced based work, there is a significant contingent of folks whose standard of evidence is extremely poor, and mainly like theories because they sound contrary to mainstream ones.

 

[Whichway?]

@sugarbabe your argument is full of factual errors. Skipping over most of that...

If rabies virus isn't the cause of rabies, for example, why does microscopy allow us to film infected cells filling up with distinct looking structures?

If these commonly photographed structures aren't rabies viruses, why do they appear only in infected organisms? Please provide photographs of what is commonly misidentified, according to you, as rabies virus, in normal human cells.

More specifically, how do account for the fact that we have microscopy of rabies viruses infiltrating human endothelial cells?

Please explain also how we can reliably identify proteins from the rabies virus using gel electrophoresis (a process you bizarrely, describe but don't name) to measure their presence only in infected subjects.

Random example: Structure and function of rabies virus glycoprotein. - PubMed - NCBI

If viruses aren't real, except those infecting bacteria, why can we can insert them into hosts and then measure the increase replicated proteins over time using standard techniques, including those you mention?

Granted, it took until 1972 -- Visualization by Immune Electron Microscopy of a 27-nm Particle Associated with Acute Infectious Nonbacterial Gastroenteritis

This article describes a method for culturing Norwalk virus (norovirus) in vitro, in human cells.

The unfortunate truth of this forum is that in among those people open minded enough to look at Ray's evidenced based work, there is a significant contingent of folks whose standard of evidence is extremely poor, and mainly like theories because they sound contrary to mainstream ones.

I’ve worked in a modern biological research lab, and as well as the microscopy images of viruses and bacteriophages, we can detect and sequence their DNA in cultures that are infected as opposed to cultures that are not. It is also much easier to work on living cells and to examine their cellular functioning in real time than anything that was possible back in 1954.

I’m willing to concede that viruses may be nature’s way of assisting to clear out poorly functioning cells and tissues, but to argue that they don’t exist and that they are the result of bacteria changing stages is a bridge to far for me.

 

[InChristAlone]

@sugarbabe your argument is full of factual errors. Skipping over most of that...

If rabies virus isn't the cause of rabies, for example, why does microscopy allow us to film infected cells filling up with distinct looking structures?

If these commonly photographed structures aren't rabies viruses, why do they appear only in infected organisms? Please provide photographs of what is commonly misidentified, according to you, as rabies virus, in normal human cells.

More specifically, how do account for the fact that we have microscopy of rabies viruses infiltrating human endothelial cells?

Please explain also how we can reliably identify proteins from the rabies virus using gel electrophoresis (a process you bizarrely, describe but don't name) to measure their presence only in infected subjects.

Random example: Structure and function of rabies virus glycoprotein. - PubMed - NCBI

If viruses aren't real, except those infecting bacteria, why can we can insert them into hosts and then measure the increase replicated proteins over time using standard techniques, including those you mention?

Granted, it took until 1972 -- Visualization by Immune Electron Microscopy of a 27-nm Particle Associated with Acute Infectious Nonbacterial Gastroenteritis

This article describes a method for culturing Norwalk virus (norovirus) in vitro, in human cells.

The unfortunate truth of this forum is that in among those people open minded enough to look at Ray's evidenced based work, there is a significant contingent of folks whose standard of evidence is extremely poor, and mainly like theories because they sound contrary to mainstream ones.

I didn't write this article, a virologist did. So.. not sure where you are getting this idea that someone with a PhD just wants to go against mainstream. Also maybe you should study Dr. Gilbert Ling to know that sometimes electron microscopy gets things very wrong. He is featured in a film alongside Ray Peat called 'On the Back of a Tiger'.

 

[InChristAlone]

I’ve worked in a modern biological research lab, and as well as the microscopy images of viruses and bacteriophages, we can detect and sequence their DNA in cultures that are infected as opposed to cultures that are not. It is also much easier to work on living cells and to examine their cellular functioning in real time than anything that was possible back in 1954.

I’m willing to concede that viruses may be nature’s way of assisting to clear out poorly functioning cells and tissues, but to argue that they don’t exist and that they are the result of bacteria changing stages is a bridge to far for me.

I'm not sure I got that from the article. It's more so that to say something is a virus necessarily means that it is pathogenic. So what the article is saying is prove that viruses are always pathogenic. This virologist discovered the ocean's first mega virus that was not pathogenic to anyone. Here is an interview he did:

My name is Stephan Lanka
yes and you are a virologist
I'm a virologist

Okay Mr Lanka what made you come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the measles virus after all?

SL: Well mainly two things I recognized how biology works, how life forms ,what mechanisms brought us into being, what makes a disease form, how we can get back to health again and there is no room in there at all for something like a pathogenic virus. That would be the answer to your question how I came to this conclusion and why I'm positive about my findings. The second part of the answer I myself am a virologist I am discoverer of the oceans first mega virus which did not do anything bad to anyone and today we know that life emerges from precisely these structures. So naturally with this competency as virus Discoverer I reviewed contemporary medicines claims whether these pathogenic viruses exist at all and I came to the conclusion that that simply isn't so.

You recently put out the offer of 100,000 euro prize money to anyone who can prove you wrong why this competition ?

SL: Well I want to achieve a Reformation in medicine that is long overdue everybody knows that there is something fishy about the SARS epidemic the bird flu the swine flu that there's something wrong about it and well I'm simply the first to have the courage to go public with this Martin Chavez can you like a hint now I do have enough people behind me who support me this also includes a Nobel Prize winner of course but somebody simply has to start talking about it it's kind of like when humanity discovers that the earth is round that it spins and so on and we have to think about pathogenic viruses in a similar manner. We need a Reformation in medicine the costs are not payable any more at the same time people are growing sicker the Dutch are showing us right now how it could be done they recognized something. There the people are healthier grow older and at the same time the Dutch managed to reduce the expenses for the healthcare system drastically we have to do the same thing only more consequential which means we have to start working on something central and that is the question of vaccines in general.

We were talking about this earlier if there's no such thing as the measles virus how do you explain the symptoms that are normally cited in reference to the measles?

SL: Well the same way one would have explained it in the past before the idea of a measles virus came into being. The same way other medicinal cultures such as the Chinese or the ancient Indian Ayurveda medicine tradition have explained it where there is no material contagion but the skin is poisoned from the outside through crude oil products the toxins that are in them as well as the poisoning of our skin from the inside so this is the reason why people visit the sauna so all that stuff can come out. If the kidneys cannot get rid of these toxins if the urine is white and substances like urea uric acid and creatinine and then stay inside the body all that stuff will work itself to the outside through your skin. The skin nurtures us the skin detoxifies us and once that mechanism is compromised we will get the inflammation of our skin which is then usually referenced as measles.

SL: There's also a third thing that I have reviewed and determined to be scientifically exact and correct and that is that psychosomatic effects can come into play when one is separated through violence from something or somebody. In that case we literally get thin skin which one can also feel and when the trauma has been processed the skin will repair itself again, this process is precisely the one we usually call measles.

How do you explain the danger of contagion?

SL: Well I think that's pretty clear the question of contagion if I drink the same water if I eat the same toxins if I wrap the same toxins onto my skin if the same toxins are working their way out of my body I will show the same symptoms at the same time or shortly thereafter. Also the fact that is very well known why do measles in school generally popup in merely one classroom at a time? If you look at it you will find that in most cases a deeply loved teacher has just left the class in question a teacher that might have been some kind of substitute for the kids mothers and they had a really strong bond to her and then the strong contact suddenly breaks off well once a new teacher comes in she forms when you bond with the kids and they trust her the skin will repair itself and we will see the measles emerge.

Well there is one young physician from Hamburg who purports that he has proven the existence of the measles virus after all and is now demanding you pay him the 100 thousand euro price, why do you not recognize his proof as such, what is the problem there?

SL: Well the term evidence is defined in Germany and only in Germany. This is the reason I opened this contest under German law because nowhere else in the world is science defined. Neither is scientific fraud part of the usual statutes of criminal law and this is basically the reason they can say and do whatever they want. I just want to remind you of the sad case of Mr. Herman which anybody can research for himself who has outright fabricated nearly all of his publications pertaining to high dose of chemotherapy in women with breast cancer, yet this man enjoys a high reputation today but nothing really happens. However out of the tradition of legal positivism in Germany beginning with Immanuel Kant and so forth, legal positivists have quietly created a law that is part of public health specifically the German infection protection law. So when these questions are decided our laws of Constitution the basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany and specifically the infection protection law apply. The competition is adhering to the exact requirements of the infection protection law and has informed Mr. Barnes of this in writing as well when he claimed to have contrary evidence. Unfortunately he suppresses this information in public and once the civil law process is over we will ask a court to determine legally what exactly this Mr. Barnes has done here. It could simply be that this young physician who by the way does not have a PhD has never worked in the laboratory and has never published any scientific work is emotionally and intellectually stuck on this matter and so he revolts. I have to insinuate that he takes this topic very seriously and in earnest but so do I. However I do expect a certain level of discernment contemplation and tranquility of a young adult specifically a physician moreover I do expect that he does not take his use into the public prematurely I don't like that at all. The court should make their decision without pressure so that they can weigh facts and law against each other the way it should be.

But what information did he submit specifically that you do not recognize as evidence?

SL: He has sent me publications that firstly anyone who is capable of the English language can verify because they are all published in English. And you will find that there is no evidence in there for the existence of a virus, for the isolation of a virus, nor for the characterization of the actual elements of a virus. This can be confirmed by any non-professional in a matter of hours who will take the time to read the publications. Furthermore and this is another reason these publications did not originate within the German domain of law nor do they come from the Robert Koch Institute itself which was cited as the central source including the contact person there in charge of measles. So it would actually have to be published by that Institute because in Germany all matters of infection are subject to our legislation laws and constitution ie the right of physical integrity. And I have told the gentleman the same but it's being ignored and it will also be ignored in public until tomorrow at about 1 p.m. then the world will look very different again.

So what do you expect to happen tomorrow in court, are you really sure you won't have to pay the 100,000 euro to this man ?

SL: Well of course! I want to achieve a reformation in medicine to question whether I am sure has to be answered with yes I am positive. As a virus discoverer as scientist that our common explanations for health and sickness this old neo-darwinian model of war and conflict and suppression contagion viruses and so forth, there is no room in there for it it's a medicine of yesterday and I represent the medicine of today and tomorrow. So yes I am absolutely positive.

Ok so you are not against the designation measles you are against the claim that it is caused through a virus.

SL: Exactly

Because the sickness that emerges seems to be really real obviously

SL: Yes your question about the pathology of measles about the designation is very correct it is one of the diseases that has been very accurately defined in the medical sense very exact it's maculopapular inflammation. However viruses are always cited as the exclusive single cause of it but scientifically speaking that was not true in the past nor today. By now it has also been positively refuted because the models that we have today there is no room in there for war and attack all of that stems from historically antiquated thinking and there is no such thing in reality. Your question was correct and helping to clarify what measles are thank you very much yes of course measles exist as a sickness and if it affects the whole body it can become too much for the organism so that one is obligated to be treated all of that is correct. Thank you again for this clarification because sometimes people claim that I would deny the symptoms or even the very existence of the disease.

okay you're not doing that?

SL: I'm not doing that you understood me very correctly.

Right so treating measles with antibiotics is not really your issue then or is it how do you think measles should be treated?

SL: well no, measles should generally not be treated with antibiotics only many physicians do not know that and do it anyway. Officially it is a viral disease, but those physicians who did not pay any attention or all the physicians will simply treat it with antibiotics which is even wrong according to our contemporary school medicine model and does not make any sense. And how should it be treated well you have to look for the causes the question cannot be answered in general, any human will have individual causes is it a poisoning from the outside, from the inside, in what condition are the kidneys? this is always the most important thing to look for and just like within Chinese medicine how are the kidneys doing because they tend to enlarge small symptoms tenfold and what are the psychosomatic effects that contributed. All of this has to be looked at and you will find the cause and hence the perfect therapy and treatment.

(Lanka won the court case on appeal)

 

[Literally]

Am I to understand that you think a PhD would never "go against mainstream" unless he or she was... correct? I'm thinking I might have that wrong, because it seems crazy.

I think to understand my criticism you'll have to take most of it as directed against the quoted narrative, while the last point addresses the contingent of alt health community who are attracted to an idea because it sounds contrarian.

Gilbert Ling did *not* promote the idea that viruses (excepting bacteriophages) don't exist, he believed they play a causal role in pathology (through unlike many modern health practitioners he also stressed the role of immunity and general health). Here is a quote from the HOME PAGE of gilbertling.org. I'd like to stress how incredibly easy to find this was.

Great as they had been, these old routes of progress alone are no longer adequate. Viruses like HIV have learnt to destroy our immune system. Without an intact immune system, vaccination is very difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Literally]

I'm not sure I got that from the article. It's more so that to say something is a virus necessarily means that it is pathogenic.

So when the author says over and over again that supposed viruses other than phages have "never been isolated", it really means they aren't pathenogenic?

The measles virus guy seems to have a break with reality. The cause is that "the skin is poisoned from the outside, from crude oil produce, the toxins that are in them," as well as similar toxins from the inside. This is represented as "the same way one would have represented it in the past, before the idea of a measles virus came into being." This you see, is the same way ancient Chinese and Ayurvedic traditions explained it. You know, the ancient theory of crude oil skin poisoning.

I can remember as a kid when chicken pox was going around, and some parents sending their kids to sleep over with infected kids so they get it "out of the way" and avoid a severe case when one is older. Almost invariably the visiting kids became infected. Then they never got chicken pox again.

This quack explains the contagion factor by saying that it's caused by something like a teacher leaving, which makes all the kids sad at once. How he would explain the fact you can only get it once, or that transmission without skin to skin contact has been demonstrated over and over, we do not get to hear.

 

[InChristAlone]

Am I to understand that you think a PhD would never "go against mainstream" unless he or she was... correct? I'm thinking I might have that wrong, because it seems crazy.

I think to understand my criticism you'll have to take most of it as directed against the quoted narrative, while the last point addresses the contingent of alt health community who are attracted to an idea because it sounds contrarian.

Gilbert Ling did *not* promote the idea that viruses (excepting bacteriophages) don't exist, he believed they play a causal role in pathology (through unlike many modern health practitioners he also stressed the role of immunity and general health). Here is a quote from the HOME PAGE of gilbertling.org. I'd like to stress how incredibly easy to find this was.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I did not mean to bring Gilbert Ling into this theory, but I brought him up because he talked about structures being found on electron microscopy that turned out to be just remnants of the procedure itself. I believe it was the endoplasmic reticulum not even being a real part of the cell. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But he also does not agree with mainstream on membrane pumps. We need to be careful with microscopy and theories. Sometimes things are not as they seem.

Also, I'm sad Ling hasn't studied HIV more. There is no proof of a virus in what is known as HIV or AIDS. Please see the documentary "House of Numbers" for more info.

 

[InChristAlone]

So when the author says over and over again that supposed viruses other than phages have "never been isolated", it really means they aren't pathenogenic?

Yes because phages aren't the cause of disease. So he is asking for proof these particles are the cause of the illness.

 

[Literally]

And when he say, for example,

The six papers provided by Dr Bardens in the course of the “measles trial” as proof for the existence of the measles virus describe in a didactically ideal way the various steps of the chain of misinterpretations up to the belief in the existence of a measles virus.

That he's NOT actually talking about the existence of measles virus. He's totally saying, "so-called measles viruses exist," but actually doesn't cause the symptoms of measles?

Just out of curiosity, exactly how much crack does one have to smoke before this interpretation becomes clear?

I don't see the point in investing any more in this thread.

 

[InChristAlone]

So when the author says over and over again that supposed viruses other than phages have "never been isolated", it really means they aren't pathenogenic?

The measles virus guy seems to have a break with reality. The cause is that "the skin is poisoned from the outside, from crude oil produce, the toxins that are in them," as well as similar toxins from the inside. This is represented as "the same way one would have represented it in the past, before the idea of a measles virus came into being." This you see, is the same way ancient Chinese and Ayurvedic traditions explained it. You know, the ancient theory of crude oil skin poisoning.

I can remember as a kid when chicken pox was going around, and some parents sending their kids to sleep over with infected kids so they get it "out of the way" and avoid a severe case when one is older. Almost invariably the visiting kids became infected. Then they never got chicken pox again.

This quack explains the contagion factor by saying that it's caused by something like a teacher leaving, which makes all the kids sad at once. How he would explain the fact you can only get it once, or that transmission without skin to skin contact has been demonstrated over and over, we do not get to hear.

Virus is translated as "poison, slimy liquid". So yes it could be just a poisoning of the system. And no some kids will not get chicken pox just by having a pox party. My Mom never had the pox and all three of her kids had it. And no pox isn't just a one time deal, they claim the virus turns into shingles in later life. lol. Such ridiculousness this germ theory.

 

[Literally]

And no some kids will not get chicken pox just by having a pox party.

I didn't claim otherwise, I said that most would.

Bringing up shingles isn't an explanation for why (communicable) chicken pox symptoms occur only once. Is it a specific type of petroleum goo, and then the immune system builds up an immunity to that specific kind of petroleum? According to the Ancient Chinese wisdom.

You're a moron @sugarbabe. It's not like on TV, where it's easy to tell, you know? Morons can make the semblance of rational sounding arguments, just like you. They simply don't change their view when people point out unanswerable flaws.

There is no proof of a virus in what is known as HIV or AIDS.

Guy literally cannot even keep straight on whether he believes the viruses don't exist or don't have a causal role, from post to post. All the questions that have been raised around this question fit into the latter category, you dimwit. [/quote]

 

[InChristAlone]

The more you look into the germ theory the more you find that it's based on assumptions and there's no true scientific evidence to support it. It is not a proven fact. And you haven't brought any facts into this discussion. Thanks for using ad hominem attacks to reveal your true prerogative. Whenever something goes against our beliefs we get very defensive. It's okay to feel uncomfortable when something you believed your entire life gets questioned. But it is not okay to call people quacks, that they have gone insane, and that they are morons for asking for proof of the germ theory.

 

[InChristAlone]

For anyone else looking in to this, German New Medicine would be good to look into for more information. So even if Dr. Lanka seems crazy to you there are plenty of other doctors practicing German New Medicine who agree with him.

 

[Steven Bussinger]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I did not mean to bring Gilbert Ling into this theory, but I brought him up because he talked about structures being found on electron microscopy that turned out to be just remnants of the procedure itself. I believe it was the endoplasmic reticulum not even being a real part of the cell. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But he also does not agree with mainstream on membrane pumps. We need to be careful with microscopy and theories. Sometimes things are not as they seem.

Are you sure that you're not talking about Harold Hillman?

Hillman questions whether the electron microscope really shows what cells are like, because of what is done to the cells beforehand. The electron microscope can't be used to look directly at living cells in the human brain, for example. The cells have to be prepared. That means they are cut from the organism, treated with powerful chemicals, subjected to a very low pressure and bombarded with electrons, thereby heating the cells to several hundred degrees.

According to Hillman, the electron microscopist is looking at an unnatural "mask", usually composed of osmic acid. He argues that some of the things seen through the electron microscope could not really exist in living cells. In other words, they are artefacts of the process for preparing cells for the electron microscope. Among the structures which Hillman says do not exist in life include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, ribosomes and synaptic vesicles (and lots of other complicated sounding objects).​

Biology as Dogma

Harold Hillman is also featured in On The Back of a Tiger, but anybody endeavoring to view it will be sorely disappointed since it's never been released. I don't think we will see it before 2025. That is enough time for the filmmakers to have gone on and done other things for a long time and then they will revisit unfinished projects. But it could be much longer. My hope is that they "open source" all recorded footage and then someone in the community can patch together a film. I hope the footage isn't lost in the meantime. It's invaluable; many of the interviewees (including Hillman) have since passed away.

 

[Whichway?]

Are you sure that you're not talking about Harold Hillman?

Hillman questions whether the electron microscope really shows what cells are like, because of what is done to the cells beforehand. The electron microscope can't be used to look directly at living cells in the human brain, for example. The cells have to be prepared. That means they are cut from the organism, treated with powerful chemicals, subjected to a very low pressure and bombarded with electrons, thereby heating the cells to several hundred degrees.

According to Hillman, the electron microscopist is looking at an unnatural "mask", usually composed of osmic acid. He argues that some of the things seen through the electron microscope could not really exist in living cells. In other words, they are artefacts of the process for preparing cells for the electron microscope. Among the structures which Hillman says do not exist in life include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, ribosomes and synaptic vesicles (and lots of other complicated sounding objects).​

Biology as Dogma

Harold Hillman is also featured in On The Back of a Tiger, but anybody endeavoring to view it will be sorely disappointed since it's never been released. I don't think we will see it before 2025. That is enough time for the filmmakers to have gone on and done other things for a long time and then they will revisit unfinished projects. But it could be much longer. My hope is that they "open source" all recorded footage and then someone in the community can patch together a film. I hope the footage isn't lost in the meantime. It's invaluable; many of the interviewees (including Hillman) have since passed away.

That assertion seems far fetched. I’ll have to look into it. I’ve regularly used fluorescently tagged molecules to visualize compartments in cells like mitochondria. I’ve sat in with researchers using super resolution light microscopes to visualize proteins being trafficked in cells through compartments like the golgi and endoplasmic reticulum.
These are in live cell cultures or in living cells of C elegans a small see through nematode (worm) so no cryo processing was involved as in electron microscopy.

 

[Attakai]

This thread

 

[InChristAlone]

Are you sure that you're not talking about Harold Hillman?

Hillman questions whether the electron microscope really shows what cells are like, because of what is done to the cells beforehand. The electron microscope can't be used to look directly at living cells in the human brain, for example. The cells have to be prepared. That means they are cut from the organism, treated with powerful chemicals, subjected to a very low pressure and bombarded with electrons, thereby heating the cells to several hundred degrees.

According to Hillman, the electron microscopist is looking at an unnatural "mask", usually composed of osmic acid. He argues that some of the things seen through the electron microscope could not really exist in living cells. In other words, they are artefacts of the process for preparing cells for the electron microscope. Among the structures which Hillman says do not exist in life include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, ribosomes and synaptic vesicles (and lots of other complicated sounding objects).​

Biology as Dogma

Harold Hillman is also featured in On The Back of a Tiger, but anybody endeavoring to view it will be sorely disappointed since it's never been released. I don't think we will see it before 2025. That is enough time for the filmmakers to have gone on and done other things for a long time and then they will revisit unfinished projects. But it could be much longer. My hope is that they "open source" all recorded footage and then someone in the community can patch together a film. I hope the footage isn't lost in the meantime. It's invaluable; many of the interviewees (including Hillman) have since passed away.

Yes there it is! I couldn't remember if it was Ling or one of the other scientists interviewed. They did put out an update saying they will make the film into a series and that the first installment should be out soon. Who knows what soon means though.