Macroscopic Problems

You’ve been told that the microscope reveals the hidden workings of life: trillions of cells, ribosomes, Golgi bodies, and even deadly “virus” particles. These images serve as the mainstay of modern biology.

But the truth is far more unsettling; most of what you’ve been shown in the textbooks doesn’t display anything close to being “alive.”

What’s passed off as the microscopic world of cells and molecules are actually distortions created by staining, freezing, dehydration, and chemical fixation. Simply put, tissue is ruined, then rebranded as reality.

In this episode of The True Health Report, I unpack the many myths of microscopy and highlight the extraordinary work of Harold Hillman; the man who raised 47 unanswered questions that still haunt molecular biology. 



Together, these discoveries decimate the dogmatic idea that cell biology equals settled science, and reveal just how many fallacies have been mistaken for facts.

Artifacts Disguised as "Viruses"

From the notorious “spiky virus” images to the diagrams of complex cellular structures, modern biology relies on pictures that come not from direct observation of living tissue (such as in live blood analyses), but from heavily altered, chemically treated tissue samples.

Various dyes and disruptive chemicals have been used to produce the structures scientists are starving to find (for a big reward).

For instance, in one curious case I call attention to in my presentation, SARS-CoV-2 “spikes” only appeared after researchers submerged their sample in trypsin, yet this fabricated finding was put forward as proof of a “virus."

This is not a harmless error; it is meant to drive fear, sell suspicious solutions, and dissuade people from researching the real causes of illness. Instead of aiming upwards towards healing, these distorted depictions of our anatomy keep people anchored in anxiety, and ceaselessly chasing imaginary invaders.

Buried Questions for Biology

Scientists like Harold Hillman, Gaston Naessens, and others tried to draw attention to these distortions decades ago. They showed how artefacts, shrinkage, and chemical contortions were being confused for organelles and “viral” particles. Hillman went so far as to publish 47 questions that cell biologists still cannot answer.

Instead of confronting these concerns, mainstream science buried them. 



The result? Entire generations have been deceived by textbook diagrams that have nothing to do with the inner world of the human body.

The truth is simpler: living cells show nuclei, membranes, mitochondria, and motion. Beyond that, we’re seeing our body’s reaction to a plethora of poisonous substances, such as glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, lead, paraffin, trypsin, and many more.

We’re not mechanical automatons teeming with various disparate and divorced parts. Our bodies are brilliant beyond the grasp of modern science, and the myths that have been unveiled in this episode of The True Health Report distract us from that reality.

Finally, once we start looking at the elephant in the room, and refuse to buy into the “gain-of-function” gibberish, we can focus on what we really need to keep our body healthy, strong, and resilient (and no, it’s not ivermectin or HCQ).

Free Resource: Dr. Kaufman’s Ultimate Detox Protocol

The real threats to your health are not “viruses,” microorganisms, or nanotechnology seen under a microscope (along with its numerous ruinous additives). The true culprit behind most people’s ailments (that mainstream science refuses to acknowledge) are fat-soluble toxins.

Lurking in your food, your clothing fabric, and your cookware, these hidden pollutants embed into your tissues, disrupt your hormones, and slowly erode your resilience. And they remain stuck in your body, unless you learn how to flush them out.

Which is why I created the Ultimate Detox Protocol: a free, 30-day roadmap that shows you how to:



• Reduce toxic exposures (plastics, pesticides, heavy metals, PFAS, and other modern pollutants).
• Support your natural elimination pathways (sweating, liver and bile flow, kidney and bowel health).

• Rebuild resilience and restore balance with nutrient-dense foods and simple daily practices.

Forget Ivermectin, HCQ, and every other substance they’ve invented to kill nonexistent  “germs.” Flushing out what’s actually harming you is the key to optimal health.

Download the protocol for free here: https://akmd.co/cell-debunked-blog 

Links:

Holographic Blood: A New Dimension in Medicine by Harvey Bigelsen:
https://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Blood/dp/097742149X

Nuclear rotation and endocytosis in CHO cell: https://youtu.be/Pajltc8e3g0?si=SO5S7Zk4ciyDrF-i

The 47 questions that terrify molecular biologists: https://big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/harold-hillman-47-unanswered-questions-in-biology-emails.html

Spikes didn’t exist until this lab chemically manipulated samples with trypsin to make them appear: https://sci-hub.st/10.5694/mja2.50569

‘The Fine Structure of the Living Cell’ by Dr. Harold Hillman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1DKp2c7KAg 

Timestamps 

00:00 – Biology’s biggest fraud

01:02 – What live blood shows that terrifies mainstream science

11:27 – Why most organelles are artifacts, not reality

13:31 – 47 unanswerable questions that demolish cell biology

29:54 – How stains and chemicals fabricate fake cell structures

38:02 – How heavy metals create the organelles you were taught to believe in

41:22 – Exposing the lies of textbook diagrams 

46:31 – Why peering through a microscope blinds you to living reality

Transcript

We’re going to be talking about the myths of microscopy and what it reveals about cell biology. In other words, what is true, and mostly what isn’t true, in modern theories of the cell. I’ll start by describing some of the big problems in biology before getting specifically into microscopy. Then we’ll look at Harold Hillman’s work, who he was, and the errors he identified in microscopy. Finally, we’ll draw some conclusions about what we can actually say is true about the cell.

To begin, much of what we’ll discuss isn’t really science in the strict sense. Science, by definition, starts with observation of a phenomenon, then forms hypotheses, and tests those hypotheses through controlled experiments. But what we’re really talking about here is the preliminary stage: observation. Errors in observation are the central problem we’ll be examining today, and many of these same issues apply even in experiments that attempt to establish cause-and-effect relationships, such as those related to germ theory.

One of the biggest problems in modern biology is that most of the examination under microscopes is done with dead cells and tissues, not living ones. Imagine you were studying animals on Earth as an alien scientist. Would you kill them before observing them, or would you study them alive? The obvious answer highlights the problem. Almost everything in modern biology is based on looking at dead material.

Dr. Harvey Bigelson, an osteopathic physician who studied under Edgar Cayce, discovered something remarkable by looking at living blood under light microscopes. He observed what he called “holographs in the blood”—images that correlated with real anatomical structures. For example, he could see what resembled a brainstem tumor in one patient, a developing fetus in a woman six weeks pregnant, and a collapsed vertebra in another patient. These observations correlated with their clinical conditions. His work was compelling enough that a renowned hematologist at Washington University invited him to demonstrate his findings. But when the hematologist realized Bigelson was examining living blood—blood not killed, dehydrated, or stained—he refused to proceed. This reveals a striking cultural taboo in science: it’s almost forbidden to look at living material, even though accuracy demands it.

The reliance on dead tissue introduces another issue: frozen images capture only a moment in time. For example, a photo of someone’s hand on a door handle doesn’t reveal whether they’re entering or leaving. Dead tissue offers the same limitation: no behavior, no motion, no dynamics.

Another major problem is simulation. Much modern molecular biology relies on in vitro studies—simulations in laboratory dishes—rather than on living organisms. For example, when I looked into the toxicology of graphene, I found only one study in living organisms. The rest used standardized cell cultures bought from commercial suppliers, then mixed them with graphene and measured markers of inflammation. But why should we assume that what happens in a petri dish represents what happens in a living organism?

With this context, let’s look at Harold Hillman. He was heavily criticized by the establishment because he questioned consensus ideas about the cell. His criticisms were logical, and to this day, they haven’t been refuted. Hillman showed how electron microscopy, invented in the 1930s, produced images at the nanometer scale that became accepted as discoveries of new cellular structures. Yet, these “discoveries” may not actually exist.

Hillman compiled a list of forty-seven unanswered questions in biology. For example, ribosomes are said to be the site of protein synthesis, but cells have been observed that contain proteins while showing no ribosomes. How do those cells make proteins? Another question: electron microscopy cannot visualize lipids because the preparation process extracts them, so how can membranes be studied at all? Another: preparation causes shrinkage, yet reported dimensions of cellular structures ignore this, presenting distorted sizes as if they were real.

He also questioned why receptors and channels, which are supposedly essential for cell function, have never been seen under electron microscopes, even though they are large enough to be visible. Or why nuclear pores are said to allow RNA to pass through while somehow preventing smaller ions from crossing, which defies basic logic. These are not trivial details—they strike at the foundation of cell biology.

Moving to microscopy itself, the problem of disruption looms large. To prepare tissues, scientists typically kill the cells, fix them with toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, dehydrate them, and then stain them. Each step alters the natural state of the tissue. For example, formaldehyde-treated cadavers in medical school were much harder to cut than living tissue. Freezing also alters the chemical nature of a sample, just as frozen food tastes different once thawed. Despite these changes, scientists interpret the altered samples as though they represent the living starting material.

A demonstration shows how stained cells shrink and change shape dramatically compared to their living form. Textbooks report the altered size and shape as fact, without accounting for the distortion caused by processing. Laboratories often use slightly different preparation methods, introducing further inconsistencies. These differences complicate interpretation and introduce massive sources of error.

Sometimes, when results don’t match expectations, additional processing is applied to make them look correct. For example, an Australian study claimed to show SARS-CoV-2 particles but didn’t see spikes. To “fix” this, they treated the sample with trypsin, a digestive enzyme, which produced the appearance of spikes. They then declared this as proof, even though the spikes were an artifact of processing, not a natural feature.

Electron microscopy is especially prone to artifacts. What is visualized isn’t biological tissue at all but metals like osmium that bind during preparation. Patterns seen in micrographs often result from salts or chemicals crystallizing, not from genuine cellular structures. Nuclear pores, for example, can be explained by cracks caused by dehydration. Structures like the Golgi apparatus or endoplasmic reticulum may simply be artifacts mistaken for anatomy.

Yet living cells, when observed directly, reveal dynamic motion: Brownian motion, diffusion, phagocytosis, pinocytosis, mitochondrial movement, vacuole formation, and nuclear rotation. Nuclear rotation alone debunks the idea that the endoplasmic reticulum is anchored between the nucleus and cell membrane—if it were, the motion would twist it into knots.

So what can we actually say with certainty about cells? They have a nucleus, nucleolus, nuclear membrane, a boundary membrane of some sort, mitochondria, and vacuoles. We can directly observe motion within them. But structures like the endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, ribosomes, lysosomes, nuclear pores, and even mitochondrial cristae may not exist at all, or at least not in the form or function described in textbooks.

If we return to these fundamentals—what can be directly observed without distortion—we can build a more accurate understanding of the cell.