The idea, furthermore, that bacteria exist as single viable organisms, which can exist alone without any other life forms, is incorrect. In isolated form, they automatically die off after some time.
This never occurred to the scientists, because after a successful “isolation” of a bacterium, a part of it is frozen and can be worked with in the lab decades later. The idea of bacteria being living independent structures which can survive by themselves is a laboratory artefact, a misinterpretation.
Thus, the claim that is made on the basis of that myth, that bacteria are immortal, is therefore untrue.
Bacteria are immortal only in symbiosis with a huge number of other bacteria, fungi and probably many more unknown life forms which are difficult to characterise, such as for example the amoeba. Amoebae, bacteria and fungi form spores as soon as their living environment disappears and re-emerge once the living conditions return.
If one compares that with humans, we have the same perspective: without a living environment, from and with which we live, nothing can exist.
However, these discoveries go much deeper. not only the entire species concept is dissolving, but also the idea and the claim about the alleged existence of dead matter. observations and conclusions about a living “active matter” (as physicists call it) are dismissed as unscientific vitalism.
There is considerable evidence, however, that all those elements which the “dominant opinion” in “science” does not consider as being alive, actually originate and develop from the membrane of water, i.e. the “Ursubstanz”( 10) or primordial source of life. These elements then create the nucleic acids, and around the nucleic acids they create the biological life in the form of amoebae, bacteria, tardigrades and ever-more complex life forms.
We have two distinct confirmations on this perspective. One of them can be observed by every person for himself as well as for other people, i.e. that biological life in the form of our body is actually a materialisation of the elements of an existing conscience.
We can name them and we know the exact way in which our organs and psyche interact and influence each other through information.
It is known, for instance, that a single word can either do damage or solve a conflict. We can verify all these aspects because they are predictable.
Thus, the three criteria of scientific research are fulfilled.(11 )
This is important, because these findings and the knowledge on how they relate to each other free us from fear as well as from the fear-inducing “good versus evil” mentality and what is even more important: the sick-making behavioural patterns derived from it.
These revealing scientific discoveries clarify as well the processes of disease, healing, the “healing crisis”, the suspended healing and the phenomenon of subsequent diseases (aka the old concept of “contagion”). Virus, it’s time to go.(12)
The nightmare of materialistic science, then, seems to come true: even apparently dead matter is alive, it is vital.
The vitalism, according to which there is a life force in all things, was contested by the Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurius and the followers of their doctrine. Their main argument was that they wanted to castigate any abuse of faith and prevent its repetition.
Their intention was apparently good. However, they ignored that by denying the concepts of conscience and spirit and all the levels of manifestation of these forces, they turned involuntarily into destroyers of life and enemies of the people.
These “good versus evil” interpretations are constantly increasing due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences, which were discovered and described by Silvio Gesell(13) (in general) and Ivan Illich( 14) (in medicine), are constantly increasing ( 15) due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences.
The consequences of our money system’s inherent compulsion to even more growth, to permanent growth even, which generates cyclical catastrophes and brings about ever more powerful winners and simultaneously a constantly increasing impoverishment and suffering, is interpreted by all the people involved as proof for an independent principle of evil, because these people don’t know the mathematically determined, tenacious inherent mechanisms of the money system.
It appears that the people on the winning side, who are ethically correct, regard the mathematically obligatory generated profit as evidence of their godliness and exceptionality.
This was not just the basis for Manichaeism (Mani was the Babylonian founder of this religion, whose followers are called Manichaens), but has always been the driving force of the dangerous aspects and effects of industrialisation, as Max Weber and others discovered.
Comments
Corpop
April 25, 2023 - 10:59am
Permalink
What price intellectual honesty?
What price intellectual honesty?” asks a neurobiologist
Harold Hillman
Published in Brian Martin (editor), Confronting the Experts (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 99-130
https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/96ce/5_Hillman.pdf
See Fig 1. The consensus unproven structure of the cell and Dr Hilman's findings
"Figure 1. The structure of the cell, at the left as agreed by most modern cytologists and at the right as believed by me. In the structure on the left, u is adjacent to the double cell membrane, g to the Golgi apparatus, and ser and rer to the endoplasmic reticulum, a network in the cytoplasm. m is a mitochon- drion containing the ‘shelves’ of cristae. np represents holes in the nucleus, the ‘nuclear pores.’ In my publications,
I have shown that the double cell membrane should not always appear to be cut at right angles, and the reticulum or network would prevent intracel- lular movements which are characteristic of living cells. In the structure on the right, the mitochondria appear in the cytoplasm smaller and are oriented randomly. Further details are given in references."
Present situation
I have shown, to my own satisfaction that (i) at least some popular important biochemical research techniques have never been controlled, (ii) most of the new structures in cells apparent by electron microscopy are artifacts, (iii) there are only nerve cells and naked nuclei in a ground substance in the brain and spinal cord, (iv) there are no synapses, (v) the transmitter hypothesis is doubtful. I have published all the evidence for these state- ments, although this has not always been easy.
"If we leave aside my hypothesis that basic medical, biological and pharmacological research has not been successful because it has not addressed the fundamental problems and assumptions inherent in most of the tech- niques, the current situation is dangerous because it suppresses free thought, without which the advance of knowledge can only be slow."
"Message for the future
Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of my views in biology, I believe that it would be generally agreed that there is an international tendency to increases in: size of research units; complexity of research; cost of carrying it out; competition for academic positions; power of those who decide on the allocation of research funds; influence of those who control prestig- ious research journals; and censorship by the establishments of access to the popular media. It would also be agreed that knowledge can only advance when the current consensus is challenged. This is usually a consequence of thought by one or a few individuals, who by definition constitute a minority. Thus it is reasonable to be concerned that current trends will increase conformity and decrease individ- ual or minority challenges, which will slow down the advance of knowledge.67
In addition, the large number of mecha- nisms discouraging the dissemination of challenging and new ideas will discourage intellectual honesty,68 which is the overwhelm- ing force which advances knowledge. Thus, the present situation will discourage academ- ics from free thought. I would like to give a historical warning to all biologists that, unless they address some of the fundamental ques- tions which I have raised69 they are in danger of spending the whole of their research careers, using thermodynamically illegal procedures, studying artifacts, repeating uncontrolled experiments, indulging in intellectual casuistry or becoming cynical — none of which is good for science."
<p>CP</p>
Corpop
April 25, 2023 - 12:18pm
Permalink
Viruses" on Electron Microscopic Images
<p>CP</p>
Corpop
April 25, 2023 - 12:21pm
Permalink
Viruses" on Electron Microscopic Images
<p>CP</p>