The Fine Structure of the Living Cell - Harold Hillman, 1977

Submitted by Corpop on June 14, 2021 - 11:57am
 
Approx 27 min, cracking sound .
 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h1DKp2c7KAg

 
Summary
During a research career lasting more than 50 years, I have concluded that the following procedures are unsuitable for studying the biology of living cells in Intact animals and plants: subcellular fractionation; histology; histochemistry; electron microscopy; binding studies; use of ligands; immunocytochemistry; tissue slices; disruptive techniques; dehydration; deep freezing; freeze drying; boiling; use of extracellular markers; receptor studies; patch clamp measurements; inadequate calibrations. The main objections to these procedures are: (i) they change the properties of the tissues being studied grossly and significantly; (ii) they ignore the second law of thermodynamics;(iii) they produce artefacts, many of which are two-dimensional; (iv) adequate control procedures have never been published for them. I have described alternative procedures, and suggested that unsatisfactory ones should be abandoned.
I have put forward the hypothesis that the poor quality of cell biology in the 20th century and since is the reason for the failure of medical research to discover the chemical changes initiating diseases, so that a rational approach to intervening in the chemistry early on has not resulted.
 
7
Average: 7 (2 votes)
  •
  • Log in or register to post comments

Comments

Corpop

June 14, 2021 - 12:23pm

Basic primary science principles. If you make up A and you use A to produce scientific research B,C, D etc all you produce is scientific garbage.
Dr Stefan Lanka has the right idea trying to figure out the history of some of the science in biology , where did the initial hypothesis came from , was it true , based on golden principle of science and reproducable?


So if hypothesis is false all the science based on that hypothesis is false or fraudulent.

Scientist would be better off just being honest , we do not know or we got it wring, but that does not make money , win awards and bring in funding for the institutions

Seems that part of what masquerades as science , ie consensus in science is also defending false or fraudulent research .

 

<p>CP</p>

Corpop

June 14, 2021 - 12:28pm

There is a Lot of  Science + Much of It May Not Be Reliable
Reading” a Clinical Trial Won’t Get You There
(Posted on April 27, 2015 by es)

http://delfini.org/blog/?p=723

' There is a Lot of  Science + Much of It May Not Be Reliable

Each week more than 13,000 references are added to the world’s largest library—the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Unfortunately, many of these studies are seriously flawed. One large review of 60,352 studies reported that only 7 percent passed criteria of high quality methods and clinical relevancy [McKibbon]. We and others have estimated that up to (and maybe more than) 90% of the published medical information that health care professionals rely on is flawed [Freedman, Glasziou].

 We cannot know if an intervention is likely to be effective and safe without critically appraising the evidence for validity and clinical usefulness.

 https://www.medicdebate.org/node/1476

<p>CP</p>