The Comedy Team of Watsup The Creek

[mr potatohead]

Read THIS, essentially, one page document, Nature, April 25, 1953, by Watson and Crick and tell me that it is a solid foundation upon which to build a "science" of genetics?

It's hilarious nonsense.
DNA, a chemical acid, is assumed (as they say) to have a double helix of chromosomes (whatever those are). Right.
We are supposed to believe that their assumptions, suggestions, probable ideas, perceived inferences, associations, etc, are sufficient?

Here's their "double helix" - water, as shown in their image in their paper:

[jonrock]

It is a representation.
The article describes the structure and its optical qualities...

[mr potatohead]

I was referring to Fig. 1. which appears to be a photo of the water helix.

[mr potatohead]

We are mostly water.
The heart beats to interrupt the flow of blood and then allow it to flow again by the "high water content" (as noted by Watson and Crick in that document) which takes advantage of the liquid's natural helical vortex action.

Flat roof power drainage systems are based on this characteristic of water which "sucks" the water off a flat roof quickly due to the water itself, doing what water does, flowing in a helical vortex.
Water vortex is also used to generate power by directing stream flow into a channel that has a central drain where helical vortex created by the water flow accelerates the speed of the water.

[mr potatohead]

Second half of 3hr interview with Dr Harold Hillman, recorded 1996, 90 minutes (with a few breaks of silence) when Dr Hillman was 65.
Very interesting and well worth listening to, IMO, although it is a bit tedious since it's not an organized lecture.
He was refused peer review. Maybe his "peers" didn't want anyone to mess with their paycheck for fantasyland support?

From the first 90 minute interview:

"You would need to get down to particles so small that they are affected by what you're doing." Dr Harold Hillman

This is why it is impossible to find many of the things that "biology" claims to have ID'd.
They actually have no clue what they are looking at or what those tiny artefacts do, so they just make it up, m8s!

[mr potatohead]

"The Living Cell - a re-examination of its fine structure" by H. Hillman and P. Sartory (the copy included here was copyright 1980).

Excerpts from the Preface of "The Living Cell" (pdf):

...... A modern scientist on hearing that one is seeking 'truth', may react initially by asking one to define it; we have defined what we mean by this term (please see page 99). ..........

......  We would like to draw our readers' attention to an experience which has frequently befallen us.
Up to the date of publication of this book, we have lectured on this subject or shown a film about its main findings at fourteen national or international meetings, and at seventeen universities in Britain and abroad, and to many student undergraduate societies.

  After nearly every occasion several members of the audiences have approached us privately to indicate their acceptance of our conclusions.

  We have asked these colleagues if they would be prepared to state in public their agreement with our views and their reasons for so doing. One lecturer has kindly agreed to do so. All the others have told us that they felt unable to support us in public, because they believed that such a stand might prejudice their prospects of obtaining funds for their research work or of advancement in their own careers. We sympathise with their predicament.

   One of the commonest reactions to our demonstration of artefacts in cells has been to assert that everything one sees by light or electron microscopy is an artefact; therefore a logical consequence of our view would be that one would have to abandon the study of living tissues.

  We have listed a few examples of the enormous variety of experiments that can be done with minimal insult to the living structure or chemistry of tissue (please see page 84). Many of these kinds of experiments were carried out between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries.
  We also believe that this rather nihilist attitude is being used in an attempt to avoid the question of which of the artefacts reflect the properties of living cells-which we should be examining-and which arise only from reagents added during preparation-which are not native to the biological systems.  ............



............  In view of the unpopular nature of our conclusions, we would like to summarise briefly the philosophy behind our thinking.
We believe that the following points would be entirely acceptable to most scientists.

1. We have employed Occam's razor unsparingly and without apology.

2. When evidence derived from living cells is in conflict with evidence from
treated tissue, we generally prefer the former source (please see Appendix 2
and Hillman, 1976).

3. Geometry must be respected, however small the dimensions of the
structures one is considering.

4. The constancy of an appearance is not evidence that it is not an artefact.

5. We embrace the attitude of Popper that a useful hypothesis must be
open to disproof as well as to proof.

6. If, for a phenomenon which is central to our teaching or research, there is not sufficient evidence which we are competent to assess, we should not accept its reality.
A scientist should only adopt an agnostic position in subjects outside his own field of interest. In our view, all life scientists who teach about the fine structure of the cell are thereby obligated to take a positive stance about the present controversy, opposing or accepting our views.

7. We do not regard it as sufficient to pay lip service to all the artefacts of microscopy (Deutsch & Hillman, 1977; Hillman & Deutsch, 1978 and sources quoted there), while at the came time ignoring their effects on measurements, conclusions or theories. An experiment is only as good as its controls (Hillman' 1972).

8. A research worker has an intellectual obligation to examine not only his own experiments, but also all the previous experiments, upon which his final interpretations will depend, to see if the major and crucial assumptions stated or inherent in the latter are warranted. He may often find himself doing other people's control experiments.


We would also like to place on record the following further points:

(i) many cell biologists do not agree with our conclusions, but few have cast doubt on the evidence we have adduced;

(ii) it is our conclusion, not our assumption, that many of the structures visualised by electron microscopy must be artefacts;

(iii) so far, only one public debate of our views has taken place. Our offer to a public debate of current views about cell structure on equal terms before any scientific audience at any mutually convenient time (Hillman & Sartory, 1978 a, b) remains open indefinitely and for all countries;

(iv) no member of any audience or any reader of our publications has taken issue with our assertion that it would be impossible to construct a three- dimensional model of a living cell based on any electron micrograph of a whole cell, in which the model would show how intracellular movements could occur (Hillman & Sartory, 1977b). We wish to reiterate here this challenge;

(v) a film is available for loan from the authors summarising the main points of this book;


(vi) we undertake to respond to all serious correspondence from any quarter, however senior or junior, to modify our views, if necessary, and to acknowledge publicly that we have done so. .........

The mainstream "biology" of tiny particles that cannot be observed in vivo (as stated by Dr Hillman) seems to be a convoluted, contradictory hodge-podge of a little bit of truth, word-play mixed with lots of assumption, imagination and outright lies, thus, it has become nothing but a digitized cartoon "science" cult.

[mr potatohead]

I see that the Ray Peat forum is known.

HERE is page 3 (I hope it links to that.) of a thread titled "On The Back Of A Tiger - An Interview With The Filmmakers".

The thread concerns the unfinished film called "On The Back Of A Tiger" with links in a post by Atman on May 13, 2019 to the raw, unedited interviews with Dr Harold Hillman, Dr Raymond Peat, Dr Gilbert Ling, Dr Mae Wan Ho, Dr Gerald Pollack & Dr Michael Persinger.
These would have been edited if the movie had been completed.

[mr potatohead]

IMO, God has put limits on both the large and the small extremes of what man can directly discern currently and correctly.
We hit the wall long ago for any direct observation that could give us any reliable understanding of the minuscule in biology, so ..........
just let it go, pull the chain, flush the the turds of oppressive fantasy and good riddance.