For those who believe in the current definition of viruses but also in the association-induction hypothesis I implore you to consider Rays criticism of the cell membrane, pump, channel hypothesis and consider what overlapping factors there are with virology. I'm sure you'll see how similar the issues are.
First an overview of the process from an older GE Podcast by Danny Roddy.
(Phil) Pranarupa: "Well look, there must be a lipid membrane, we've got these electron microscope images which show a bilayer pattern. You can treat cells and mitochondria with solvents to remove up to around 95% of their fat content stain them with osmium and they will still produce a characteristic two-dimensional bilayer pattern" and I think that supports Herald Hillman's criticisms of a lot of the imaging procedures used in biology and his basic point is is that the lipid
membrane seen in these electron microscope images is basically an artifact of the staining procedure. When a cell or tissue is imaged by electron microscopy it goes through a number of procedures; it's cut, fixed in glutaraldehyde, washed, fixed again in osmium tetroxide, washed, dehydrated in ethanol reducing the size significantly, propylene oxide is used to remove residual ethanol, its embedded in the mold and then it's cooked for 24 hours at 60 degrees Celsius and then subjected
to electron bombardment. I don't know, this seems like it might not be producing an accurate picture of the cell.
DR: There's something I had never thought about, but I first read about it on your site, it's not unreasonable to ask, where are the photos of
the channels pumps and receptors?
(Phil) Pranarupa: I think looking at the lipid membrane they're supposed to be around 10 nanometers in width and I think the receptors, channels, pumps they should be around 20 to 30 nanometers, so there should be some evidence for them in the electron microscope images, I don't think there is any.
That last part may even be more misleading than certain aspects of virology as the receptors, channels and pumps should be visible if so called "viruses" are visible (through EM) since they are around the same size. But the lies surrounding cells feed into virology and the lies surrounding virology feed into cell study.
A link for more explanation; Harold Hillman: What Price Intellectual Honesty?
Then, when we analyze the methods by which "viruses" are isolated, purified and shown to exist we have this;
From this article by Mike Stone The Numerous Alterations During Sample Preparation for EM Imaging
"Before the preparation of the sample for EM imaging, there is no attempt at purification nor isolation. There are billions of identical particles that could be present in the sample. Virologists pick whatever heavily altered particle fits the mold or idea of the “virus” they want to find and then share it as proof of said “virus.” They do not take into account that these particles more than likely were not a part of the original sample to begin with nor that they were created during the culturing, fixing, and embedding processes. They assume form, function, and pathogenicity without ever proving it.
This is why purification/isolation of an unaltered sample directly from a sick patient is the only way to ensure that what is being imaged has any relevance whatsoever. Even then, the various admitted alterations caused by cell culturing as well as the EM preparation process is more than enough to doubt the validity of any findings. There is nothing in that sample that was not altered in some form. There can be no validity to any claims that what is imaged was ever in the original sample taken from a sick patient before it was put through the numerous cell destroying methods. It is a guarantee that the sample will be altered from it’s original state through these preparation processes."
Also quoted by Mike Viral Infection at High Magnification: 3D Electron Microscopy Methods to Analyze the Architecture of Infected Cells
And from Cowans book, "Breaking the Spell" (free on Archive)
..."These steps are the way science is supposed to work. One isolates the variable—in this case, the virus—and then characterizes the makeup of the virus. Once one is certain of the existence of the pure virus, test animals can be exposed to it. Yet this simple, doable experiment has never been successfully done for even one so-called viral disease, and it has certainly never been attempted for COVID-19 and SARSCoV-2. Not even once. When I ask doctors or virologists why they don’t carry out this
simple, clear, logical, rational proof to demonstrate the existence of a new virus and show it causes disease, I hear one of two answers. The
first is that not enough of the virus is present in any bodily fluid of any sick person to find it in this way. I have even asked scientists whether
they would see the virus if the bronchial fluid from 10,000 people with “COVID” were pooled, but the response is the same: “There is not enough virus to find.” This, of course, begs the question: On what theory are we then claiming the virus is making people sick? To this, there is no answer. The second answer I have heard is that viruses are intracellular “parasites”—so, of course, we can’t find them outside the cells. When asked how the virus passes from one person to another, as we are told it does, virologists reply, “it buds out of the cell, goes into a droplet and travels to the next person.” In other words, the virus is transmitted when it is outside of the cell. I can only wonder why virologists can’t find it during this transmission step since they clearly think it is outside the cell.
And the one person who seemed to have done it properly (SARSCOV2 viral isolation) found nothing.
View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/yPOZywaoTplL/
First an overview of the process from an older GE Podcast by Danny Roddy.
(Phil) Pranarupa: "Well look, there must be a lipid membrane, we've got these electron microscope images which show a bilayer pattern. You can treat cells and mitochondria with solvents to remove up to around 95% of their fat content stain them with osmium and they will still produce a characteristic two-dimensional bilayer pattern" and I think that supports Herald Hillman's criticisms of a lot of the imaging procedures used in biology and his basic point is is that the lipid
membrane seen in these electron microscope images is basically an artifact of the staining procedure. When a cell or tissue is imaged by electron microscopy it goes through a number of procedures; it's cut, fixed in glutaraldehyde, washed, fixed again in osmium tetroxide, washed, dehydrated in ethanol reducing the size significantly, propylene oxide is used to remove residual ethanol, its embedded in the mold and then it's cooked for 24 hours at 60 degrees Celsius and then subjected
to electron bombardment. I don't know, this seems like it might not be producing an accurate picture of the cell.
DR: There's something I had never thought about, but I first read about it on your site, it's not unreasonable to ask, where are the photos of
the channels pumps and receptors?
(Phil) Pranarupa: I think looking at the lipid membrane they're supposed to be around 10 nanometers in width and I think the receptors, channels, pumps they should be around 20 to 30 nanometers, so there should be some evidence for them in the electron microscope images, I don't think there is any.
That last part may even be more misleading than certain aspects of virology as the receptors, channels and pumps should be visible if so called "viruses" are visible (through EM) since they are around the same size. But the lies surrounding cells feed into virology and the lies surrounding virology feed into cell study.
A link for more explanation; Harold Hillman: What Price Intellectual Honesty?
Then, when we analyze the methods by which "viruses" are isolated, purified and shown to exist we have this;
From this article by Mike Stone The Numerous Alterations During Sample Preparation for EM Imaging
"Before the preparation of the sample for EM imaging, there is no attempt at purification nor isolation. There are billions of identical particles that could be present in the sample. Virologists pick whatever heavily altered particle fits the mold or idea of the “virus” they want to find and then share it as proof of said “virus.” They do not take into account that these particles more than likely were not a part of the original sample to begin with nor that they were created during the culturing, fixing, and embedding processes. They assume form, function, and pathogenicity without ever proving it.
This is why purification/isolation of an unaltered sample directly from a sick patient is the only way to ensure that what is being imaged has any relevance whatsoever. Even then, the various admitted alterations caused by cell culturing as well as the EM preparation process is more than enough to doubt the validity of any findings. There is nothing in that sample that was not altered in some form. There can be no validity to any claims that what is imaged was ever in the original sample taken from a sick patient before it was put through the numerous cell destroying methods. It is a guarantee that the sample will be altered from it’s original state through these preparation processes."
Also quoted by Mike Viral Infection at High Magnification: 3D Electron Microscopy Methods to Analyze the Architecture of Infected Cells
- Fixation protocols will have to keep up to avoid creating artifacts that were not visible to researchers previously
- Before TEM, “viruses” were detected indirectly by means of the cytopathic effect in infected cells or through clinical manifestations
- EM is considered essential to identify unknown emerging “viruses,” for which no primers, antibodies or probes are available
- This is due to the fact that EM is a generic approach and has the potential to detect all “viral” particles (“catch-all”) present in a sample
And from Cowans book, "Breaking the Spell" (free on Archive)
..."These steps are the way science is supposed to work. One isolates the variable—in this case, the virus—and then characterizes the makeup of the virus. Once one is certain of the existence of the pure virus, test animals can be exposed to it. Yet this simple, doable experiment has never been successfully done for even one so-called viral disease, and it has certainly never been attempted for COVID-19 and SARSCoV-2. Not even once. When I ask doctors or virologists why they don’t carry out this
simple, clear, logical, rational proof to demonstrate the existence of a new virus and show it causes disease, I hear one of two answers. The
first is that not enough of the virus is present in any bodily fluid of any sick person to find it in this way. I have even asked scientists whether
they would see the virus if the bronchial fluid from 10,000 people with “COVID” were pooled, but the response is the same: “There is not enough virus to find.” This, of course, begs the question: On what theory are we then claiming the virus is making people sick? To this, there is no answer. The second answer I have heard is that viruses are intracellular “parasites”—so, of course, we can’t find them outside the cells. When asked how the virus passes from one person to another, as we are told it does, virologists reply, “it buds out of the cell, goes into a droplet and travels to the next person.” In other words, the virus is transmitted when it is outside of the cell. I can only wonder why virologists can’t find it during this transmission step since they clearly think it is outside the cell.
And the one person who seemed to have done it properly (SARSCOV2 viral isolation) found nothing.
View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/yPOZywaoTplL/
Last edited: