The Evolution Of Medicine Not From Monkey To Man But From Serpents To Dollars
Understanding illness, what it is and why it occurs and whether it is contagious may be depicted as a 'woowoo' thing the turned from the stranglehold of devils, the poison of serpents, the sting of sin, the beginning of the path to death.
Electron Microscopy: High-Tech Guesswork Dressed as Evidence
Electron microscopy (EM) is often touted as a revolutionary tool in modern science, capable of “seeing” particles far beyond the reach of conventional light microscopes. But beneath the impressive magnification lies a methodological house of mirrors—one that conveniently allows researchers to assign meaning to shapes that might just as easily be biological debris.
Let’s take a closer look at how EM is used—not always to clarify the truth, but to reinforce a narrative.
1. Direct vs. Indirect Evidence: A Convenient Distinction
-
Direct Evidence?
Supposedly, EM provides direct “visual” proof of microscopic entities like viruses. In reality, what’s seen under EM is not raw truth—it’s a heavily processed image, a byproduct of chemical treatments, dehydration, slicing, staining, and imaging artifacts. The resulting image may look impressive, but whether it actually is what researchers claim it to be is another matter entirely. -
Indirect Evidence:
Tests such as antibody assays or PCR are often used to support EM findings. Yet these are, at best, indirect indications of something. That “something” is then interpreted according to prevailing theories—not actual observed proof.
2. Artifacts: The Elephant in the Microscopy Room
EM preparation is notorious for introducing artifacts—distortions, shrinkage, unnatural formations. Even trained researchers acknowledge that the structures imaged do not represent the natural, living state of a specimen. Despite this, entire fields of study are built around interpreting what these processed artifacts could mean.
Interpretation, however, is not confirmation. The images are only as reliable as the assumptions guiding their labeling.
3. Assigning Meaning to Morphology
Even when EM captures a clear image, scientists must assign nomenclature—naming what they think the structure resembles. A circular particle? That must be a virus. A budding form? Viral replication. In truth, many of these shapes could represent cellular debris, exosomes, or entirely different processes unrelated to infectious disease. But once a term is applied—especially one with funding, fame, and fear behind it—it tends to stick.
4. The Multimodal Mirage
EM findings are rarely allowed to stand alone. They are bolstered by PCR tests, immunochemistry, or gene sequencing—techniques that themselves rest on layers of assumptions. When combined, these are presented as a “converging body of evidence,” but the convergence often looks more like circular reinforcement than objective verification.
The result? A scientific echo chamber that validates itself through its own internal logic.
5. Conclusion: The Narrative Behind the Lens
EM, despite its complexity and cost, remains deeply dependent on interpretation. It does not capture living viruses in action, nor does it “prove” causation between visualized particles and disease. Yet this tool continues to serve as visual bait for an entire pharmaco-medical complex that thrives on public fear and unquestioned authority.
In a world where a blurry blob can be declared a deadly virus, perhaps skepticism isn't just healthy—it's essential.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” — Richard Feynman
Comments
Post a Comment