The Exosome Concept

Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circresaha.113.300636

During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.

With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells. While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”

I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:

“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in the sample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nanoviewbio.com/exosome-blog/2020/5/5/extracellular-vesicles-and-viruses-two-sides-of-the-same-coin%3fformat=amp

Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:

“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995926/

“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”

Click to access viruses-12-00571.pdf

“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/12/9/917/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8x6SNvcnxAhWGW80KHfVPB3EQFjAMegQIERAC&usg=AOvVaw3kccThKbbHOPZasZ_5KBWb

Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:

“Exosomes, once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161232/

“First, exosomes are thought to be a medium for cell communication and intercellular macromolecular transport.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.abclonal.com/blog/what-are-exosomes-and-why-are-they-important%3fhs_amp=true

“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”

“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-016-0268-z

As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:

“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332220304297

What is Apoptosis?

Apoptosis, a.k.a. cell death

When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:

Major steps of apoptosis:

  1. Cell shrinks
  2. Cell fragments
  3. Cytoskeleton collapses
  4. Nuclear envelope disassembles
  5. Cells release apoptotic bodies

https://www.cipf.es/science/core-facilities/electron-microscopy

The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?

“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7168913/

The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?

Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”

“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7168913/

“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”

https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/14924/html

“Exosomes were initially thought to serve simply as “garbage bags” for cells to get rid of unwanted constituents.”

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2015/657086/

This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:

“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-016-0268-z

This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:

“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-019-0362-8#:~:text=Apoptosis%2C%20a%20type%20of%20programmed,is%20not%20yet%20commonly%20accepted.

Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation.

They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.

It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:

“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”

https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-59745-399-8_13#:~:text=of%20nutrients%20or-,Apoptosis%20is%20a%20genetically%20regulated%20process%20by%20which%20cells%20can,factors%20from%20the%20culture%20media.

Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar… 🤔

Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.

The Exosome Concept

We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:

“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”

https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2018.3944#b2-ijmm-43-01-0083

As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:

  1. Established cultures
    • Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
    • Rat glioma, C-6
    • Mouse melanoma, B-16
  2. Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
    • Rat aorta, RA-B
    • Mouse astroblast, D-34
  3. Grown from biopsy material
    • Human melanoma, CL
    • Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN

The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.

Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.

Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?

Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.

The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:

Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles

“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.

Introduction

Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established. 

Methods and Materials 

Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.

Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured. 

Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C. 

Results 

We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane 
ecto-ATPases. 

The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment. The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the
ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1). The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).

Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).

Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a
pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.

That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was
suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I). Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].

The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].

Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place. 

Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived 
from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.

Discussion 

Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not 
extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of 
plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication). 

The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”

doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.

All the same particles created from the same process.

In Summary:

  • Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other (as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers:
    1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample? 
    2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
  • It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
  • To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
  • Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
  • They are now thought to be biologically active
  • Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology (i.e. it is all guesswork)
  • Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
    1. Cell shrinks
    2. Cell fragments
    3. Cytoskeleton collapses
    4. Nuclear envelope disassembles
    5. Cells release apoptotic bodies
  • Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
  • Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
  • Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
  • The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
  • Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
  • In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
  • Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
  • Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
  • Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
  • In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
  • During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
  • They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent) of moribund cells
  • The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
  • Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo (in the living body) had not been established
  • In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
  • Cell lines employed in this study were:
    1. Established cultures
      • Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
      • Rat glioma, C-6
      • Mouse melanoma, B-16
    2. Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
      • Rat aorta, RA-B
      • Mouse astroblast, D-34
    3. Grown from biopsy material
      • Human melanoma, CL
      • Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
  • Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
  • Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
  • During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
  • Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
  • Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
  • They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
  • They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
  • The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
  • With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
  • While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made  several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
  • In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
  • The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly (i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
  • The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
  • Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
  • ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous (i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
  • Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
    • One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
    • Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
  • FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
  • Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
  • They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells (yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
  • That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
  • They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
  • The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
  • The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
  • They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
  • Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
  • They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
  • After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
  • The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
  • They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells (which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
  • The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
  • The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of  plasmalemma origin
  • The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
  • In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
  • The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
  • They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or  target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
  • In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
  • It is also conceivable (i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell (sounds like a “virus…”)
  • Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
  • The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
  • In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here. 🤔

“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”

“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”

Leonid Margolis

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-talk-in-a-language-that-looks-like-viruses-20180502/

We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.

Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.

119 comments

    1. if you want to know how to definitely separate exosomes from viruses just ask the jab producing companies. the MMR inserts claim that “viral” the particles in the serum cause an immune reaction. the insert doesn´t say “but maybe the particles are just exosomes because we actually can´t separate them.” Why do we not ask big pharmafia exactly which particles in the jabs are viral particles (they should know, they put them in there , or not?) and then ask them to induce an immume reaction to measles with that particle. since there is no such thing as a virus there is no such thing as vaccines and no such thing as damage exemption for vaccines (cuz they do not exist).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That would require for the pharmaceutical companies to reveal that they do not know what they are doing and that they are lying through their teeth. 😉

        Like

    2. Tough read but I made it through unscathed and more enlightened. Lol and Thank you. As someone who learned many years ago the germ theory was bogus, I think they are developing various bioweapons of what ever pathogens they can concoct with into a single injection, using humans as Guinea pigs. Here’s the worldwide study between the correlation between flu vaccines and Covid-19 deaths. https://peerj.com/articles/10112/ Yes, I understand the difference between correlation and causation but as I say, it doesn’t prove there isn’t one either. The first cases came out at the beginning of the 2019 flu season and those people were shedding the pathogen as part of their immune system fight against them. Coughing, sneezing, diarrhea, fever, “sweating”, and vomiting are all pathogen response and elimination mechanisms and we know various studies have proven vaccine shedding.

      Like

      1. I think you are correct in that the vaccines are bioweapons (as in poisonous injections) but there has been no evidence anything sheds from the vaccinated and spreads to anyone else.

        Like

      2. The nature of nanotech operating within the biofield is at the cusp of the biofield, as a field of resonant communication in which dissonances generate self-organising patterns of charged domains in relational or dynamic ‘equilibrium’
        That we can engage in ‘blocking or distorting function’ in our own mind or field of experience is mirrored or reflected in others is evident! That we are always in in subtle communication as the quasi-physical nature of an embracing gestalt is discarded by the spotlight of a focus set WITHIN a polarised or split sense of attention and desire or intention as movement.
        So there may always be such ‘influences’ between us, but that fear sets a focus of susceptibility by resonance.
        I don’t see a ‘shedding of nanonparticles’ as any issue for myself, but I see that the fears underlying any issue can ‘jump’ to others who project their own onto the ‘vaccinated’ as ‘mutants’ or ‘pollutants’ etc. IE: not recognised in spirit as living ones that share the same life.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Well done 😉
    I would expect some recycling of elements or molecules from cell breakdown to serve living process. I had assumed genetic fragments to serve some function if indirectly via bacteria for example.
    Those who claim water can hold memory may be closer to a medium of communication that serve adaptive functions?
    In any case a hugely complex and intricate self-organising expression we call a living body also has an inner or pervading field of sensory awareness.
    I feel moved to borrow this from a current article on some actor clown being set up as Big Brother:

    “However, as is often the case, the front rarely looks like the backstage. The spotlight hides more than it shows”.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “This means that exosomes, ‘viruses,’ apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.”

    Sounds like you’ve advanced the field with this one. Nice and clean. They’re all just apoptotic debris. They blow up cells and call the shrapnel different things, including “viruses” and “exosomes.”

    You also make a bombshell observation here that the virologists found many “viruses” in healthy people so they had to call them something else – “exosomes,” etc. Isn’t this why they say they cannot find viruses directly in human tissue or fluids?

    To review, they:

    – said bacteria cause disease
    – found the bacteria in healthy people, needed a rescue device
    – something that “can only be seen if cell-cultured” made the perfect rescue device
    – they found “it” in healthy people, but to preserve the rescue device they called it by a different name
    – they of course have the old fallback rescue, device the fabled “immune system,” to rely on as well, if “viruses” were ever “cultured” from a healthy patient

    No one person or group planned it this way, but the culture of virology departments ended up settling on each step, in a process of cultural preservation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well said Clarifire! They always have numerous rescue devices to fall back onto. And yes, it is apparent to me that they find ways to destroy the cells and classify the same particles as numerous entities of importance without any direct evidence to this being the case. When you look into these particles individually, there is so much overlap between them it is amazing that people in these fields can not see that they are all looking at and claiming the same things as their own. It reminds me very much how the same symptoms of disease are commonly reclassified as new diseases under different names based on miniscule differences in symptom order and “incubation” period.

      Like

      1. Indeed on symptoms I looked at the symptoms of “monkeypox” that distinguish it from chickenpox, etc. and I found they say it involves swollen lymph nodes, “which do not occur in chicken pox.” I was like oh yeah sure good luck with that one and immediately googled chickenpox and lymph node swelling and sure enough found loads of hits from mainstream sources saying it’s one of the main symptoms. (Duh…)

        They don’t even make an effort really, because they don’t have to to defeat the average person’s (or even the average “expert’s”) level of skeptical verification of their claims.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Exactly. They tried to make the same swollen lymph node excuse to distinguish monkeypox from smallpox but if you dig enough, you find that there were cases of swollen lymph nodes with smallpox and it was a largely overlooked and undiagnosed symptom.

        Like

  3. ““This means that exosomes, ‘viruses,’ apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.”
    Seconding ClariFire’s comment, good explanation, Mike!
    And i like this,
    “We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload.”
    Steve Falconer (Spacebusters) has a good video out, The End of Germ Theory, but he ends up doing exactly what you describe here, Mike, pushing the “it’s all exosomes, folks” line.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Jeffrey! I did add that Spacebusters vid to my documentary page based on recommendations but I have yet to watch it. I’m sad to hear that he falls into the same exosome trap.

      Like

  4. “Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload.”

    Exosomes are not tied to the cell culture. Nowhere in the literature does it state that exosomes REQUIRE cell cultures in order to isolate and purify. I have already provided you several papers on this subject and think your article is disingenuous when you make this fallacious argument.

    Here is a quick primer indicating the most popular methods for isolating exosomes. Note, cell culture is nowhere to be found:
    https://bitesizebio.com/37981/beginners-guide-hunting-exosomes

    I have already asked Mike if he can provide me with a single scientific paper that achieves his 100% purification of any substance. He cannot, so instead, this article is about building the case against exosomes by linking them to viruses. He also uses the ad’hom attacks regarding people’s beliefs. Yet Mike is the one who has a belief in existence with his own requirements for 100% purification (which is never achievable in anything including gold, O2, etc).

    Can you give me a paper that 100% isolates/purifies enzymes? You claim in this paper that enzymes exist, so I would expect you to have 100% purification of them.

    Like

    1. The particles claimed to be exosomes have their origin in cell culture. That is how they were first said to be discovered in 1981. In the paper, the authors even state that the particles could not be observed in circulation in the blood. Thus, exosomes are tied to cell culturing as I stated. I never said that researchers do not claim to find the same particles without culturing today. I was looking at the foundational evidence in this paper to discover the origin of the concept which involved heavy use of cell culturing.

      Why are you stuck on 100% purification? I’ve answered your questions numerous times. It seems you feel that you can keep bringing this up in order to avoid answering any of my questions to you. Or maybe you forgot them. Whatever the case, here they are again:

      1. How can the particles picked as exosomes in EM be determined to be exosomes if there are millions of similar and/or identical particles in the sample? You realize these particles are commonly mistaken for other particles all the time in EM, correct?

      2. How is the function determined if the particles are unable to be observed alive?

      3. How are the particles not a creation of the purification and EM imaging process?

      4. What percentage of purification is acceptable to you? 99%? 90%? 80%? 50%? Lower? Why wouldn’t you need 100% in order to identify a particle you have never studied before? Remember, these are invisible entities never seen before. How would it be possible to study the particles claimed to be exosomes without completely separating them from everything else?

      As for enzymes, you are making claims I never made. I never said enzymes exist nor that they have been properly proven by purification/isolation. I was discussing the claims made by the researchers. As I have not looked into the origins of the particular enzymes (nor any enzymes for that matter), I will not make any comments as to their existence. I will say, theoretically, in order to know if your theoretical particles are secreting specific enzymes, the particles would need to be properly purified/isolated first, otherwise the enzyme results are as useless as antibody results.

      Like

      1. FWIW there are fields that can only be inferred by their interactions – such that the particle is not just matter, but an organisation of matter that participates in or embodies its terrain.
        No one has actually found a ‘self’ but then the impulse to look would generate it 😉

        Like

      2. Clarifire

        Come, now. You know very well that I’m not missing the semantic games that The Corruption is playing. A wise woman once said, “It’s not that The System is corrupt but that The Corruption *is*the system.”

        Seeing the semantic games is beginner-level stuff.

        I appreciate your placing a fundamental importance on ‘holding the line’ against the ladies and germs of virology, but it looks to me like you do so at a cost. Granted it’s a much lesser cost than Mike is paying, but it’s a cost nonetheless. A cost to Reason.

        “If they find identical particles in well people as in sick, or in cell cultures with well or sick people’s tissue added, it would be quite convenient to virologists to call them “viruses” in sick people and “exosomes” in well people. That would be a form of circular reasoning on their part.”

        They are not finding “identical” ‘particles’ as in, exact replicas. They are finding characteristically different ‘particles’ of the class of cell bodies named exosomes. See how turn about is fair play: your excellent discourse on terminology and the complexity of using quotes applies to us, too; when talking about exosomes, particle used as an unqualified, pristine, objectivist word, as we have been using it, should really be ‘particles’ because when I referred to the ‘particles’ as being “exquisitely packaged” I was emphasizing their bodyhood. The -some in exosome means body. They are cell bodies. Thus the cause for my describing them as exquisitely packaged. Remember the Forbes article I linked to that described the complex holographic obstacles that the fucked up field of biotechnology had to overcome in order to synthesize a (reportedly) functioning two-way lipid membrane that would both protect mRNA from the outside and from itself insofar as the membrane must not be allowed to chemically react with the specialized proteins called nucleic acids whose very speciality is found in their high reactivity (reactivity equals communicativity), because any reactivity alters (destroys) the fidelity of the message. That’s exquisite by any measure, whether accomplished synthetically or as an everyday fact of natural Life.

        As I recall, you were in full agreement with me when I found that, say, the human (both including and not including the microbiome) is a collective, symbiotic culture of single-celled organisms out of which a ‘human’ metaconsciousness arises; in which a ‘human’metaconsciousness nests.

        We’ve also talked about what came before these single-celled creatures. About the ‘nonbiological’ (pre-metabolic) primordial soup from which cell biology evolved. These soups were first characterized by nucleic acid formations finding natural harbors in various types of water formations/niches that they ‘could call home.’ When you are home — at home — is when you can start growing in Life. In harbor, they learned how to be harbored, and so they got harboring, which resulted in lipid membranes.

        Nucleic acids in lipid membranes but outside of cells are called exosomes. Evolution itself is toroidal, and the beginning — the primordial informationnal soup communication — obviously never ended because it is the bedrock, the first truth, the preconditions for cellular life.

        You believe that we humans evolved from primates. I agree. It’s self-evident to the patterning function and it is also self-evident from genomics. That self-evidence is reflected in your bonobo diet.

        The patterning function that you have every bit as much mastery over as myself, shows that your bonobo diet and exosomally-driven evolution are both self-evident.

        As I’ve said repeatedly, virology (and microbiology to a lesser degree) has a cultural problem. They interpret things with an imperial eye.

        They don’t own exosomes just because they named them and experiment on them – and to great controversy here on this blog. Exosomes — “outside bodies” by definition, meaning outside of metabolic Life — are the primordial creative commons out of which we come, everyday. There’s nothing more sublime that I can think of.

        When we fully realize this then we also realize that we can hold the line against those who enslave us without reject our deepest roots, in intellectual self-defeat, at the same time.

        Like

      3. I think you’re too optimistic in trying to polish up a mainstream concept that can’t be polished because it is based on the wrong paradigm and done through their typical bumbling process that lacks clarity in the places we would need it.

        I cannot say for sure that they’ve discovered nothing important, but from their usual method of observing and naming there’s every reason to expect they’ve slapped the label on a whole bunch of irrelevant things as well, since they don’t know what they’re looking for. Semantic issues are always thornier than they appear. I use the quotes to constantly show that it’s not even clear what we’re necessarily talking about, even in my own statements when dealing with their terms. That’s the insidious effect of trying to salvage their language. The position I recommend from experience is that their terminology (any mainstream terminology in any broken field) be scrapped by default. It almost invariably saves a lot of time.

        In this case you believe in extracellular communication and the mainstream claims to as well, but from the patterns so far in microbiology I think it’s very likely they have nothing usable. Thus the word “exosome” simply gets in the way. I’m open to being convinced otherwise but again it still doesn’t look like it’s worth much time investment at this point. Will stay tuned for any developments or interesting info of course.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Perhaps you need more time to digest the ‘structuralist’ examination of Life as I presented it, which lies entirely in the Terrain and entirely outside of the Establishment; I say this because you again responded exclusively to the establishmentarian, glossolalian noise surrounding the truth that only exists so as to drown it out, and not at all to the little world amid the noise.

        I’m happy to call “it” something else, brother. But if we’re to do that then I would be justified in saying we should scrap English altogether, and Japanese, and all the rest of them. Right? No more talking about fourth-phase water, plasma, nothing like that. Right? No more ‘biohistory.’ But we don’t need to do that because the (symbolic) hallmark of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time, and we’re an intelligent bunch here.

        You say they have nothing usable yet I’ve already detailed what the PCR test is, which is the farming of the primordial pre-nucleic soup with bacterial nucleases (polymerase) in order to better examine it. We can call this ‘exosome’ farming without the lipid membranes. If you can’t believe this it’s only because you’ve never heard it explained to you holistically. Maybe me being a total nobody is a subconscious headwind also, who knows. But it is true. If you read up on exactly what PCR is and cross-reference the description with what I am saying then you will see. Like I said, Mullis turned the Spiegelman’s Monster experiments into a spectacular farming tool of genomics. Perhaps it takes a farmer like myself to recognize the nature of it from the outside. Mullis obviously knew this from the inside. I wonder if he ever characterized it as a farm.

        Like

      5. Actually, they are the exact same particles and the researchers readily admit that they can not distinguish between “viruses” and exosomes.

        Like

    2. “Note, cell culture is nowhere to be found:”

      It seems you did not read your source very carefully. What you shared is only discussing the methods which I already showed in my previous article on purification are not successful at complete separation/isolation. Your article does not specifically state what samples are being used as it is only discussing the methods themselves. However, under filtration, it does state this:

      “Sequential filtration is an effective way to isolate exosomes FROM CELL CULTURE SUPERNATANT.”

      It seems clear that you are the one making the “fallacious argument” here.

      Like

      1. @reante

        On what the mainstream calls “exosomes,” I haven’t reached a final verdict but it certainly looks like they were just a rescue device for virology and I’m not motivated to prioritize looking more into the idea by anything I’ve seen so far.

        This doesn’t mean I write off the concept of intercellular communication; in fact I rather suspect it happens abundantly.

        The mainstream terminology is almost always really messed up. Are any of the things they call “exosomes” something worth studying? Maybe, but I bet if so a cleanup of the semantics is warranted, because it seems very likely that plenty of what they call “exosomes” are just dead cell debris, and as far as debunking virology that’s probably going to be the central point.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Yes.
        I noticed two points that I reflect or expand on.
        That ‘cells’ cooperate or share unifying functional attributes with a whole far in excess of a sum of seeming parts (that can be assigned or imagined BY current theories of function), is life, Jim, but not as we (think to) know it.
        So communication is the true matrix of life (and physics) as synchrony of field effects, that express as energy exchange that includes chemical and kinetic elements.
        An object model (rising from a self-imaged ‘thing-ness’ or separateness) taken out of its psychic and spiritual context, is the leaned capacity to perceive a world of broken relationship as the resource or indeed compulsion to ‘put together again’.
        If we march to the drum of All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, we will be out of synch with a prior or Given wholeness, but entrained to an off-centric or segregative attempt to maintain a split purpose, such as to generate protected dissonance as a tax or toxic burden to the individuation of the Infinite we call a life – yet is never really just a thing in and of itself.

        So the other point that came up is of the term, ‘just dead cell debris’.
        The spotlight of our mind hides more that it reveals, so relative to what we give value and focus to the label may somewhat apply, but biology doesn’t just recycle, but does so within a greater intelligence than a blind watchmaker, so that the nature of our current discards may hold more value as our understanding grows.
        While my sense of DNA dogma/theory is unsettled, the term junk DNA was later recognized key to ‘epigenetics’. I have a sense that bio-computing is vastly richer than binary, such as to be unhackable by its product. But we have always had a freedom to get in our own way AND to assign the dissonance away from a separated sense or rather concept of self.

        While we (in my view) cannot edit or manipulate our true being, we can come into a resonant alignment or coherence to a wholeness that heals, but never a thing alone, because there never was such a thing so much as a contract to reaction.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Clarifire

        I don’t see that exosomes are a rescue device for virology because I’m not starting from Mike’s false premise based on a biased assumption (pet theory) like you appear to be, which is this, as you earlier stated:

        “Sounds like you’ve advanced the field with this one. Nice and clean. They’re all just apoptotic debris. They blow up cells and call the shrapnel different things, including “viruses” and “exosomes.”

        You also make a bombshell observation here that the virologists found many “viruses” in healthy people so they had to call them something else – “exosomes,” etc. Isn’t this why they say they cannot find viruses directly in human tissue or fluids?”

        Saying that exosomes we’re ‘invented’ in order to cover for virology is just an immature reasoning process for which there’s no real justification. Virologists finding exosomes doesn’t threaten the false virus narrative. So they find exosomes in healthy people: so what? How does that threaten virology? It doesn’t. As far as they’re concerned they’re two different things – one is good and one is bad. It just doesn’t make any sense to think that virologists discovered viruses in healthy people and said to themselves, oh fuck, we’d better just make up a second non-existent entity to cover for the first, and call them exosomes. That’s just cockamamie because what they are calling viruses are disease-related exosomes in exactly the same way that way they call microbial pathogens are anaerobic disease-related pathogens; all they simply have to do is segregate them into beneficial vs pathogenic. Beneficial bacteria and fungi vs pathogenic. Exosomes vs viruses.

        Which is exactly what they have done.

        ‘We’ don’t need to ‘invent’ goofy tautological arguments based on false premises as a result of reactionaryism.

        You also appear to be walking-back something. In the quote above, which was a response to Mike, you state that “all” exosomes are apoptotis cell debris. Now you say that “plenty” are.

        Why would apoptotic cell debris be exquisitely packaged up? HOW would it be packaged up by a cell that has lost access to oxygen? The cell would only be able to make exosomes up until apoptosis. A healthy cell would make them to communicate non-disease points of emphasis as necessary, and terminally diseased cells would presumably crank out a number of disease maydays as their last focus before succumbing, as during, say, a ‘cold’ – an these get called viruses.

        I totally understand you lacking motivation regarding exosomal research. I lack it also, which is why I didn’t know about the uncultured, effective isolation of them in ‘clean’ body fluids. The exosome topic is naturally amplified on this blog for obvious reasons, so even though exosomes are nothing more than a legitimate object modeling of biological principles that humans don’t NEED to objectify and, indeed, have never objectified until late-industrialism rolled around, they are a central issue of this anti-virus blog by virtue of their ‘relationship’ to viruses.

        Lack of motivation doesn’t need to result in accepting tautologically fallacious conspiracy theories of rescue devices that aren’t based in reason, out of friendship. Maybe that’s not what you’re doing but coming from someone of your caliber that’s what it looks like to me.

        They DON’T say that they can’t find viruses directly in body fluids. They’ve done plenty of measuring of ‘sarscov2’ load in plasma.

        Regarding the Masai, they may have eschewed liver as it represented too much of a good thing given that their diet was founded on raw meat and raw dairy, and the raw blood they periodically drank has even higher concentrations of retinols. Pastoralist dairying is obviously not hunting and gathering. As previously mentioned it is the cultural technology that led to the OT Capitalist one ring to rule us all.

        Cheers.

        Like

      4. Reante, you are mistaken once again. Exosome researchers found the same particles as virologists, not the other way around (unless you are referring to Ender’s own destruction of cell culturing in his 1954 measles paper). Exosome researchers are doing the “control” experiments virologists should do by finding the exact same “viral” particles in their cell cultures without “viral” material being present. However, these researchers have claimed the particles as exosomes instead of “viruses.”

        As for my “theory,” exosome researchers also thought the particles were nothing but cellular debris. The only reason they claim otherwise now is because they have ascribed unprovable theoretical functions to these particles. However, without being able to observe these particles alive and/or doing anything, this amounts to nothing but guesswork, i.e. fiction, on their part. As the particles are unable to be separated from everything else within a sample and studied independently in order to be characterized, everything they (and you by extension) claim to be contained within these particles is pure fiction as well.

        In other words, the only one clinging to a fraudulent theory here is you Reante. Unless you finally would like to share some proof as to how the functions of these particles was proven and also where the particles were purified/isolated completely in order to be characterized biochemically and molecularly.

        Like

      5. “Virologists finding exosomes doesn’t threaten the false virus narrative. So they find exosomes in healthy people: so what?”

        I think you miss the semantic games being (probably unwittingly) played in microbiology. If they find identical particles in well people as in sick, or in cell cultures with well or sick people’s tissue added, it would be quite convenient to virologists to call them “viruses” in sick people and “exosomes” in well people. That would be a form of circular reasoning on their part.

        “You also appear to be walking-back something. In the quote above, which was a response to Mike, you state that ‘all’ exosomes are apoptotis cell debris. Now you say that ‘plenty’ are.”

        As with “viruses,” the whole reason I’m fastidious with quotes around these terms is not that the objects haven’t been shown to exist (I wouldn’t normally put quotes around “leprechauns” or “unicorns,” for example) but that what they refer to as “viruses” vary and I don’t want my own references to the term to perpetuate that water-muddying effect. (Similarly, the medical term “symptom” encompasses too many phenomena for us to cleanly say, “Symptoms are healing” as we would like; rather what they call “symptoms” are often healing (e.g., inflammation) but sometimes are communication signals (e.g., pain) or merely signs of damage (e.g., numbness), so keeping the term around is heavy baggage. “Most symptoms are healing or cleansing, or evidence of it” works, but a revamped terminology not based on mainstream conceits would allow much cleaner and more concise statements.)

        As a rule, the terminology used in a faulty paradigm is FUBAR and shouldn’t be adopted without a careful revamping, if the terms aren’t just discarded entirely.

        Thus when discussing “exosomes” we’re liable to be bringing in a categorization scheme that has no basis in reality and, while it is awkward to phrase properly, it is worth the trouble to be precise when context demands it. I wasn’t walking anything back, just being more precise in noting, in case it matters later, that they may well have given the label “exosome” to things that are not just “cell debris” (a loose and context-dependent term itself, I’ll grant) since their whole classification method is based on a broken paradigm and deeply flawed methods of apprehending nature.

        I’m just doing the ever-necessary janitorial work of cleaning up the mainstream word-dust lest we unwittingly kick up a cloud of it and find our view likewise obscured. Otherwise my every utterance that references one of their terms would end up partly serving to perpetuate their paradigm by reinforcing their usually-incorrect slicing up of conceptspace.

        “Why would apoptotic cell debris be exquisitely packaged up? HOW would it be packaged up by a cell that has lost access to oxygen? The cell would only be able to make exosomes up until apoptosis. A healthy cell would make them to communicate non-disease points of emphasis as necessary, and terminally diseased cells would presumably crank out a number of disease maydays as their last focus before succumbing, as during, say, a ‘cold’ – an these get called viruses.”

        I don’t know what you’re driving at with “exquisitely packaged up,” but you seem to be advancing a theory of intercellular communication – which I don’t find problematic to consider but I’d suggest that to build a theory on the foundation of sand the mainstream provides will likely require radical reworking later. Merely because they say they found something and hypothesize that “it” has something to do with communication among cells doesn’t mean they have anything relevant to building a useful theory of intercellular communication. Especially if “it” is just any old thing(s) they can point at on an electron micrograph and slap a convenient label on that is liable to catch on for political reasons.

        “They DON’T say that they can’t find viruses directly in body fluids. They’ve done plenty of measuring of ‘sarscov2’ load in plasma.”

        They use PCR for that, if I recall, so it wouldn’t be “finding viruses” even by their own standards; by their standards they are finding “evidence of viruses,” though I wouldn’t be surprised if some virologists word it as “finding viruses” as a bailey claim they would withdraw when pressed. (See the articles here on “viral load” and the PCR process.)

        What they definitely do say is they cannot see “viruses” directly in human tissue or fluid, whereas they claim to see them in cell cultures. Thus it’s relevant if their pattern of claims with “exosomes” differs.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. Self-correction for clarity:

        “That’s just cockamamie because what they are calling viruses are disease-related exosomes in exactly the same way that WHAT they call microbial pathogens are anaerobic disease-related MICROBES;

        Like

      7. brian

        “So communication is the true matrix of life (and physics) as synchrony of field effects, that express as energy exchange that includes chemical and kinetic elements.
        An object model (rising from a self-imaged ‘thing-ness’ or separateness) taken out of its psychic and spiritual context, is the leaned capacity to perceive a world of broken relationship as the resource or indeed compulsion to ‘put together again’.”

        As I’ve said, the hologram IS the co field effect.

        The context is not “psychic and spiritual” (consciousness). That is classic New Age thinking, and I use that term broadly and to mean civilizational thinking. All new age thinking is religious thinking because the creation of formalized, structural mental hierarchy is the function of religion just as it is the function of civilization. You elevating ‘spiritual’ (consciousness) over ‘matter’ (energy) is unjust hierarchy in action. It is new age religion. WADR.

        In truth, the context is EVERYTHING. By definition. In truth — in reality — ‘spirit’ (consciousness) and ‘matter’ (energy) ate SYMBIOTIC (holographic). You can’t have one without the other. Therefore, you can’t elevate one above the other.

        When you elevate the one above the other, by definition it results in a belief in the ability of ‘mind over matter’s and that is a profound distortion religion uses as the welcome carrot (Faustian bargain) of laziness and (ecological) irresponsibility that is proferred in exchange for the loss of personal freedom (the Enclosures). I reject that bargain. Accepting that bargain just leads to a nested bargaining – with oneself.

        Like

      8. I don’t put what I say to be believed or to persuade but as my own witness into this discussion. I don’t have a sense of being understood or engaged with in your comment, but of being told or reframed so that to further engage is to react to ‘what you said I said’.
        So in that sense I find you are reacting to or looking through your judgements as if they are self-evidently true.
        You are entitled to your own view.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. No. The reason they didn’t know what exosomes were at first is because Mullis hadn’t come up with chemical eyes that have ‘nanovision.’ Duh.

        It has nothing to do with your other ‘originalist’ tautological pet theory.

        Like

      10. On the theme of resonances – pos or neg, I often use; ‘it takes one to know one’.
        A pathological mind, set in masking over its own unhealed conflict is compelled to seek and find an ‘enemy’ to justify its own attack or withdrawal of love. To project its own intent onto ‘other’ by diversion that WANTS to ‘solve’ it ‘externally’ as a mitigation of pain or fearful or hateful inner conflict in magical thinking set in emotional intensity. Which is not wrong as a temporary measure by which to regroup or regain perspective. But sets us in error as a default that ‘solves’ its way into ever more complex dissociation from the presence of awareness itself.
        If it wasn’t germ as war it will be something else, otherwise it must address its deeper conflict where it truly is.
        In this sense human thinking is ‘primed’ to seek the basis for maintaining itself as an interpretive adjustment against exposure to a sense of lack, disconnection or denial that stem from our own unconscious or protected beliefs.
        My sense is that a complex OF collective denials are actively denying us conditions for life, (through our reactions to perceived threat).
        Without that ‘threat’ self-responsibility for consciousness is deprived of ‘blame’ or guilt as the mind of masking, manipulating & post-processing a narrative driven identity.

        Like

      11. Same old red herring, Mike.

        They read the chemicals and then they pattern the chemicals for function. We have no idea of they depth and breadth of the little world their cumulative focus explores. Just like you pattern the chicken, except with more difficulty. They overcome that difficulty with the vast structural surpluses provided by ‘fossil’ fuels. I’m once again welcoming you to reality.

        We have no idea of they depth and breadth of the little world their cumulative focus explores. Just as the CAFO operator has no idea of the depths of the multitudinous little world of the high-level grazier of his niche.

        Just as we have no idea of the depths of the 4BN year or whatever cumulative intelligence that enabled us to pattern the chicken.

        Like

      12. How is asking for validation a red herring? How can they read chemicals and determine that the readings have any relation to so-called exosomes? It seems you are just making things up at the moment. Please provide validation for your claims.

        Like

      13. brian

        If you had responded without ego — without masking — you would have remained neutral and radically honest, and simply said that you yourself are a relativist and therefore my Reason-based (truth-based) (animist) objectivism is, in and of itself, entitled to regarding your deviation from established Reason as false.

        And that would command great respect.

        Just as is respectful my recognizing your inalienable right to care not for holistic Reason, and not think less of you because of it, as the earnest, beautiful creature that you are. Knowing that we are largely products of our environment. The main difference between you and me is that I mostly put in my body what lives around me and with which I work directly in concert, therefore, I am largely a direct reflection of the state of the ecology itself, which accounts for my unitary objectivism. In reference to my previous comment on “little worlds,” you have no idea what that is. On the other hand, I have been where you are, in that disembodied separation trauma; there is no honestly relegating it to some spectacularly expressed philosophy of the mind slash religion my dear brother. That’s escapism.

        Like

      14. I see the ego as a breakdown of communication. There is no talking to it.
        I expressed the nature of life, physics & biology in terms of communication of no separate parts.
        You make of that, and me as you will.

        Like

      15. brian you say that as if there was no breakdown in communication on your part, which is just more masking. you separated mind from matter and elevated the former, in the typical manner. When I challenged that supremacism, instead of meeting that challenge one way or another, and in doing so maintaining a direct line of communication, you chose instead to frame my Reason-based challenging of your metaphysics as bossy and judgemental, and in a subsequent thinly-veiled comment went on to meditate on the pathological mind that takes his own shit out on other people.

        That’s a massive breakdown in communication on your part because you did like me challenging your sacred cow exactly because you found that Reason was not at your disposal, so you went into fear and both direct and indirect ad hominem. That’s egotism, brian. It’s not a big deal, were human, but it bears repeating. I’m not wholly immune to it either (moreso obviously IRL) but it is exactly the reason why ‘my’ ideas rarely get challenged; if we do the laborious work of always hewing to Reason then we have nothing to fear when challenged because we can know that Reason always has our back. One might even call that true faith if one was so inclined. My ‘strong argumentation’ is nothing more than hewing to Reason. There’s no ego in Reason because it’s not ours.

        Like

      16. so it appears that reante is upping the ante, on so-called exosomes: until reasoned otherwise, Reason dictates that they are incontrovertible or cellular life could not exist.

        reante means “again as before.” it’s my longtime rewinding handle. I just realized that taken dynamically, as a continuum, it’s a toroidal handle.

        the ‘Present’ doesn’t exist. Only the Past and the Future exist. The ‘Present’ is the big lie that seeks to keep mankind trailing behind – fallen, behind.

        Like

    3. Purification clearly needs to be sufficient to reliably characterize the object of study, figure out what molecules it’s made of, etc. In other words to do whatever is needed to meet the standards of evidence for whatever use to which you’re going to apply the results.

      They admit this requirement hasn’t been met for “viruses” and seems like it hasn’t for “exosomes” either.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Argh these morons.
    If viruses are dead, how do they “learn”?
    I guess I should teach the bricks on the outside of my apartment to repair themselves.
    I’m so sick of these idiot priests of “science”
    Enjoy a video from a wise man that explains how even physics does the same dumbass things…

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Also, off topic but why do Kaufman and Cowan believe in the structured water making pictures experiment? It hasn’t been verified by others, just like virology. They also think that a special wand somehow can cause the water to be more structured. Ok, cool. So do an experiment with a regular stirrer as control.
    Nope… Not going to happen.
    It’s just annoying that they do not apply the same scrutiny to alternative things as they do to mainstream things….

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not sure either. I haven’t looked into the structured water claims yet but I’m very suspicious of it. I have friends who have said that the evidence does not hold up when viewed using the scientific method.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. One facet among many – but solid in science is Gerald Pollack’s The Fourth Phase of Water.
        In fact I recommend this work not just for its content – which is fundamental to the nature of physics and biology – but also as an exemplary restatement of how science is practised – or should be to qualify as such.
        His other work ‘Cells Gells and the Engines of Life’ is more complex as an attempt to raise Gilbert Ling’s findings to a greater awareness.
        That water ‘structures’ socially is established – the nature and function of this is at the interface of matter and consciousness, but of course hampered by the magical or wishful assumptions of the mind seeking ‘solutions’ to problems that are not truly addressed externally.
        THAT is a driver for a tooling of science to mask or hide conflict as ‘solutions’ that of course resets the conflicts under a new narrative running a brief sense of security before the nightmare breaks through as it must, for we protect it and drag it with us.

        Like

    2. Falconer said that, too, and I love that guy. Probably their reasoning is that Emoto’s water experiments have been “repeated” by others, but this means little to me because it’s an utterly extraordinary claim and the experiment is easy to do. It should be repeated by many people if it did yield results and would be a huge sensation. After all these years since the initial report, common sense says the chances are very low it is true.

      Similar with some of the other water “communication” experiments.

      Far more skepticism needs to be applied to positive theories. In practice, with my own health, I don’t much care for science as it has a horrible track record from all quarters; rather I look for four requirements to be filled for anything I believe (take liver being good for you and fasting being THE way to recover from major injury or illness as the examples):

      1) It has support in either tradition (e.g., grandmas saying, “Eat your liver!”) or nature (every other animal species we know of reportedly rests and stops eating whenever it is sick enough or badly enough injured).

      2) It has widespread anecdotal support from credible people reporting that it made a big difference for them (indeed a hit of high quality liver pretty consistently gets a noticeable reaction from those you’d expect to need it, and fasters are the only people who report healing from catastrophic illness as a very normal thing…naturally you need to dig into the weeds here and read a whole lot of testimony from different eras and cultures to be sure, and I have).

      3) It fits the theory that has worked best for every other aspect of health; in my case I have a specific model of the body and under it fasting being able to heap anything makes perfect sense. For liver I can’t say it’s quite there but it has some support in theory so I don’t know if liver belongs in the absolute optimal diet.

      4) Most of all, it worked for me multiple times and I can see how the way it worked for me fits in nicely with theory, tradition/nature, and others’ anecdotes. Liver is reliable way to reduce tooth sensitivity, food cravings, all the things you’d expect, and fasting does indeed do miracles in all the ways and reasons I’d expect and the exact way this happens for me jives with reports from many eras and cultures.

      What the scientistas say is nice to check for a little extra evidence, especially as they often do do useful data gathering and find interesting correlations, such as a history of childhood poxes being correlated with several times lower rates of adult asthma, dermatitis, and cancer (IIRC).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Not sure why you are proselytizing consumption of liver here, but the liver’s job is to filter out and store a wide range of toxins, and process them into toxic bile to be excreted. There is absolutely no benefit to eating an organ filled with toxic chemicals. In fact, there is ample evidence that consuming liver causes many types of illness and even death.

        Like

      2. Definitely don’t eat liver from nornal unhealthy livestock animals. I only eat the best, and the beneficial effects are immediately obvious to me and many others. However, I usually only eat liver when I’ve been consuming starches or sugar, which I don’t normally do.

        Anyway, it was just an easy example that sprang to mind that I knew many people would recognize. If I wanted to proselytize I would’ve chosen watermelon, but that would have been more distracting since people don’t usually think of it as having obvious immediate benefits (it does, just harder to describe).

        Like

      3. All animals store toxins in their livers. Are some toxins better than others? You have been misled.

        Like

      4. @tillandsiausneoides

        What you’re doing here is a great example of what I was talking about in my original comment: you’re taking a theory and trusting it despite it going against nature, tradition, and personal experience. As a bonus, you linked a guy who doesn’t look healthy at all so clearly doesn’t have a good trial-and-error process in place for such things. Unless he’s aware of research testing many animals in nature for the toxicity of their liver, I’m not going to listen to a 45 minute video that seems to be about “vitamin A” toxicity and not bioaccumulation of toxins like you mention.

        If *every* liver were bad to eat, tigers and other predators would avoid eating the liver in their prey. That’s an argument from nature that directly contradicts your theory.

        Likewise for hunter-gatherer tribes; they tend to preferentially eat the liver. Their trial-and-error process is especially good because they lead natural lives, are in touch with their bodies, and require high performance so can much more easily tell what is helping and what is hurting. Plus tradition even in the West has liver as a superfood. That’s tradition directly contradicting your theory, a second big red flag.

        Personal experience of myself and everyone I know who eats high-quality liver also contradicts your theory. Toxic food doesn’t make one feel better, more satiated, less susceptible to stress, stronger at one’s lifts, nor give them more robust tooth nerves almost immediately. Microsymptoms are key to figuring this out, and raw liver from healthy (I don’t just mean non-sick, I mean naturally raised and vibrantly healthy) animals has never made me feel bad in any way. I

        s too much “vitamin A” (or iron) intake possible if you eat too much of it? Quite possibly, but that’s a separate issue. Does liver contain some toxins, more than other organs? I suspect so, but the question is how much in a high-quality animal vs. the unique nutrients liver provides for civilization diet eaters.

        I’m basically a fruitarian so far be it for me to extol the virtues of liver, but the principle is important. Going off theory by itself will lead one astray the vast majority of time when it comes to health.

        Like

      5. Retinoids are just one class of toxins stored in the livers of every single animal. This is one of his earlier videos, he now has evidence that there are many other toxins in livers. Keep watching his videos, he has been getting healthier since 2019 by avoiding liver and many other sources of retinoids and other toxins. And in his many videos he debunks all of your arguments about hunter gatherers and wild animals.
        He also talks about something he calls the duration paradox. That is what happens when you take a drug or other poison and it initially makes you feel better, but over time you need more to feel the benefits, and then eventually it stops working. When you take poisons/drugs, it temporarily shuts down detox pathways and stimulates the liver to retain toxins. Eventually the liver can’t hold any more, and the symptoms come back, along with additional symptoms. The body tries to store toxins preferentially in the liver and fat cells. When it needs more space it builds tumors.
        Most of what we are taught about nutrition is inaccurate.

        Like

      6. What you’re saying is correct regarding tumors and the duration paradox, as a general concept.

        With regard to wild animals, he would have to show data that wild predators actually avoid eating the liver. Nothing else would be convincing on that front. Just as the body is not dumb, nature is not dumb. No natural system is.

        Similar for tradition, another natural system albeit a much less mature one, though I’ll grant Western tradition specifically is not always optimizing only for health so is less reliable. If he wants to argue tribes like the Masai don’t (or didn’t used to) eat the liver, or that the Masai are atypical, sure I’m open to hearing that. Any other line of reasoning probably wouldn’t be convincing.

        Feel free to gloss his arguments in broad strokes and say the details that make it convincing are in his material. We’re generally pretty charitable here.

        The way to filter out the duration paradox is to look at various timescales and patterns. Poisons suppress symptoms in a certain pattern that differs from what happens when you consume much-needed nutrients and a symptom goes away.

        For example, if you have have tooth pain, all pain relievers I know of are short acting, but a good hit of liver will often stop it for weeks. It’s not instant like a pain reliever, but instead follows the pattern of a nutrient: the reduced pain happens on a time delay of a day or two, as if the body got what it needed and proceeded heal some damage. Moreover, the pattern is very similar to other foods that aid the nervous system, such as high-quality raw cream and butter, or other organ meats for that matter. There are more patterns that help disambiguate nutrient intake from symptom-suppressive poisoning, but these are what immediately spring to mind.

        A lot of it will of course be intuitive and done by taste and associations as well as examination of ensuing micro-symptom patterns. I do this for every single meal I eat, and discuss such patterns with my associates quite often, so I’m pretty experienced at noticing what is actually helping. And to be perfectly clear I don’t necessarily even think liver is optimal, but what does seem clear to me is that it’s a fantastic mitigator for those who eat a civilizational diet like most people.

        Since “vitamin A” toxicity could be a thing, eating too much liver could move the situation over to one of toxin exposure and indeed follow that pattern instead for those who have a surfeit of the nutrient, but that’s again a separate issue. Most don’t say to eat liver that often nor to push it if it’s making you feel worse over time. He may even be right that many people are messing up by consuming too much liver or other “vitamin A” foods (similar with iron). I didn’t say liver is always a good idea.

        Regarding the guy’s health, I appreciate that one may start from a lower position and improve due to newly gained superior knowledge, so it’s not fair game to say definitively that an unhealthy person is unfit to give health advice, but in this case we’re talking about the ability to read the body’s signals and this doesn’t get to a high level until one actually achieves quite a high level of health, which he hasn’t yet.

        Like

      7. tillandsiausneoides

        “All animals store toxins in their livers.”

        You don’t understand reality and you front on people who do. Notice how that ‘doctor’ has turned off comments to his videos.

        If a robust, old-breed animal — a real fuckin intact beast — is daily detoxing what it needs to detox then it is not storing toxins period. On my place the toxin load is background air pollution. Around here that’s manageable.

        Toxins are not stored in critical organs first. That would be a stupid thing to do.

        Think before you speak.

        Clarifire,

        noticed that no reasoning accompanied your verdict regarding the papers Michael S presented. 🙂

        This is a quality comment thread other than the entrenched anti-exosome bias. Pleasure to read, thank you.

        Like

      8. it is the liver’s critical job to sequester toxins away from all other tissues in the body. You don’t understand physiology. Not sure why you seem so upset by reality.
        He turns off comments because he doesn’t waste his time arguing with those who have been indoctrinated to believe that liver is a superfood, or “vitamin” A is necessary.

        Like

      9. I’m not upset; some cultures are more aggressive than others. So now it’s “sequester” and not “store.” LOL. Indeed, the liver does sequester toxins from the body. That’s why it’s called a filter. A healthy body maintains a clean filter; you’re pretending you didn’t hear that Reason dictates that healthy ecologies engender healthy livers; where is the indoctrination that first people’s were subjected to when they brought down a buffalo in a pristine ecology, and as a rule had the children, who were trailing the hunt, immediately dive in and extract the liver from the hot body that the women had opened up the minute the beast stopped kicking? Where’s the indoctrination?

        The reason the liver is the most nutrient dense food is because the liver turns the animal foods (animals are the greatest dynamic accumulators of nutrients and minerals) that were broken down in the stomach into nutrients that are immediately bioavailable to cells. The liver *does* store bioavailable nutrients for release upon demand, in order to maintain organism ‘readiness’ and also general homeostasis.

        You’re mouth wrote a check your butt can’t cash.

        Like

    3. I can join in noticing that Kaufman & Cowan – each in their own style – bring critical reasoning to bear on what they then make an identity from by reaction and resistance – or fight against. Identity will be defended as self-reinforcement and so is where a presumption to being right over wrong or good over evil, filters, distorts or block awareness.
      There is a reason J said ‘resist ye not evil!’.
      To turn from such temptation to make a self to a wholeness of being, is the basis from which to recognise, real questions and receive real answers.

      Any claim to define or arrive at truth should be absent from the tool of science, except as a distilling of truly workable and helpful models of understanding to who we are currently accepting ourselves and our world to be.This living context is fundamental, for conscious purposes can be recognised as framing the focus, while masked or unconscious purposes operate covert agenda by definition.

      I am not seeking to frame blame as a tool for arriving at outcomes, but identify where responsibility or indeed faith is misplaced by a mindset or frame of assumed authority rather than extending true witness to a reality we do not create.

      A few extra paragraphs here in the full post at:
      https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-ego-in-science.html

      I extended way past your point. But much as I appreciate their willingness to speak into the lockdown of mind under covid, I have not found resonance with the roles they are now taking up or taken in by. Nor am I surprised that as the terrain changes, so does the focus.
      I appreciate where the questioning of what is found questionably unfounded extends – such as on this site – rather than ritually running over and over a song for a choir of believers.
      It isn’t that I seek to sow doubt and disinfo to a THEM that ‘lie to us’ as a matter of course, but a desire to prepare the way for the movement of a true recognition. I don’t hold post-truth to mean anything real – though it carries connotations of a crucifixion.
      Are scientists guided by the higher faculties of thought?
      Is truth a Self-revealing to the willingness for removing or releasing blocks to our awareness?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I’ve listened to many videos about this subject and Mike has summarized it very well and even added some things that I hadn’t heard before. I think most of the comments here are right on the mark. Anyway here’s my take on it.

    Cell cultures do not simulate cells in the human body because they are not in their natural environment. The natural environment for living cells is in a unique fluid in a specific condition.

    Interstitial fluid:

    “Fluid found in the spaces around cells. It comes from substances that leak out of blood capillaries (the smallest type of blood vessel). It helps bring oxygen and nutrients to cells and to remove waste products from them. As new interstitial fluid is made, it replaces older fluid, which drains towards lymph vessels.”

    https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/interstitial-fluid

    More on the importance and function of the interstitial fluid.

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.060906.151850

    Taking cells from their natural environment and subjecting them to starvation and poisoning just proves they can be killed by starvation and poisoning in an unnatural environment.

    Once they begin to die they begin to disintegrate. Their internal components no longer function in an integrated way, which in and of itself means they die or disintegrate. Once the cell is dead its membrane breaks down and can no longer contain the cell’s internal disintegrated components. It is like breaking a mercury thermometer and finding little balls of mercury everywhere.

    Coating the dead cell’s internal components that are released from the cell with metal so an electron beam can bounce off them to produce an image doesn’t reveal anything about what was happening within the cell when it was alive and in its natural environment.

    The whole process of virus isolation is ludicrous. Virologists are suffering from a mental disorder. They are devoid of reason and suffering from an induced psychosis. What they believe to exist in reality exists only in their minds. In Bible times these people were called sorcerers. They taught the people to believe in magic and deceived them into taking poisons. It’s the same today with drugs and vaccines. Modern virology is full of unproven concepts that magically produce imagined causes. It doesn’t matter whether their intentions are good or bad, the end result is the same.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Interstitial fluid is basically just blood plasma ‘outside’ of the bloodstream. If interstitial fluid could be siphoned off it would also be a ‘clean,’ short-term medium in which sorcerers’ minions could effectively isolate exosomes in the name of ‘good intentions.’

      Like

  8. Mike,

    In the interest of accuracy, you might want to consider deleting the Hildreth image from this article. Your text flows well with or without that image.

    The alleged quote inaccurately ascribed to Hildreth in the image appears to have been taken out of context from a 2003 Wells paper in the Journal of Cell Biology where Wells himself wrote the quoted words, which are unreferenced as being a direct Hildreth quote. The two references at the bottom of the Wells paper do not contain the quoted phrase either; the second reference is a paper with Hildreth as one of the authors.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248418/

    Per Wells:

    “…Hildreth now proposes that “the virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word.” Others have found that HIV particles contain MHC, but by the exosome hypothesis they may also contain proteins that exosomes use to fuse with target cells and to avoid attack by complement. As Gould points out, an exosome makes a perfect vector for HIV, because an exosome “is not just proteins in a vesicle, it’s something that is meant to traffic.”…”

    .
    Hildreth, an m.d. mired in virology pseudoscience, was asked about it on his Twitter account in May 2020 and posted the following:

    Thus, it would appear to serve no purpose to include an image with a quote that is inaccurately attributed to Hildreth, and which he would dispute, in this article. Should you decide to delete the image, you also can delete this comment at your discretion.

    Keep up your great work!

    All the best.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the information Catherine! I have reached out to Dr. Hildreth for confirmation. I noticed in his tweets he did not deny the quote. I hope to find out for sure. It definitely fits as far as what he presented with his Trojan Horse hypothesis but I do not want to misquote him.

      Like

  9. “Actually, they are the exact same particles and the researchers readily admit that they can not distinguish between “viruses” and exosomes.”

    If by “exact same particles” you mean the same ‘class’ of ‘particles’ then I agree, with the additional caveat that viruses do not exist, and anything that gets called a virus is presumably an exosome correlated to disease.

    Like

    1. “Mice are injected with a human protein of interest, this stimulates the B cells in their spleens to produce globulins that bind to the protein and others very like it from other species. The globulin is labelled with a dye and when added to a tissue section it will bind to and stain only the target protein and leave all the surrounding proteins untouched.”

      This is a very limited explanation of how the monoclonal antibodies are created. You did not explain that they combine the mice spleen with myeloma cancer cells, PEG, and who knows what else as the recipe remains hidden due to trade secrets. You misrepresented what I stated in your comment. I never said that PEG specifically was causing the staining. I said that they add chemicals like PEG into the culture with other ingredients which remain a mystery. Monoclonal antibodies are an artificial creation that have no resemblance to anything in nature. We both know that if you took the blood said to contain antibodies directly from a mice, you would not observe the same staining patterns. You only get those results from heavily altered artificial lab-created concoctions. There is no reason to assume that antibodies are present nor that they were the cause of the staining pattern. There is nothing natural about monoclonal antibodies.

      “This precise localisation of different components of the tissue would be impossible with human made chemicals.”

      Why would it be impossible? What evidence backs up this claim? It seems like pure speculation on your part.

      “The evidence of our own eyes of the antibody staining in tissue sections and the production of antibodies that seems to occur in the convalescing phase of illness warn us not to throw out the antibody baby with germ theory bath water.”

      You are using an effect (i.e. staining) to assume a cause (i.e. antibodies). You are making the exact same mistake virologists do in their cell culture experiments where they assume CPE (the effect) is due to a “virus” (the fabricated cause).

      Like

  10. From Mike’s blog post; this is Mike drawing sweeping nonscientific conclusions to suit his own bias while characterizing the scientists’ genuine reason -based efforts to sort through the Soup as all pointing directly towards his sweeping flat-earthist conclusion:

    “Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.”

    Here the little leap into the abyss: ” This means that…”.

    That right there is a leap of ‘logic’ that’ll send a still-seeking man into the abyss. In Mike’s case, already in the Abyss, the only thing endlessly sought is self-soothing re-rationalizations of having irreversibly(?) cast oneself into the hole. WADR.

    Like

    1. Instead of claiming I am wrong, can you show how I am wrong with any study which follows the scientific method and shows that exosomes exist and function as you claim? I have asked you now numerous times and you provide nothing but fantastical stories.

      Like

      1. Red herring, Mike. My comment concerns your biased leap in logic. Your abuse of Reason. You waffling on about the scientific method is a non sequitur in service of a red herring.

        Like

    2. The only quibble I can see here is Mike arguably should have written, “This means that *they have presented no evidence that* ‘exosomes,’ ‘viruses,’ apoptotic bodies, etc. are *not* all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experiment.”

      Though like “there are no viruses” is understandable shorthand for “there is no evidence that anything worthy of the name ‘virus’ exist” in a suitable context, what he wrote is understandable in context although there’s certainly a danger of it being taken out of context.

      I understood it to be conclusorily phrased for emphasis, but I can certainly see grounds for objecting to that method of emphasis. I don’t think it changes anything for the discerning reader as obviously in science you aren’t ever going to prove a negative; the best there ever is is, “I await the evidence that this is true.” Thus it has become commonplace to use “there is no X” as snappier shorthand for “there’s no evidence for X.” I do support being much more of a stickler for semantic clarity than feels socially comfortable, as convenient phrasings have shown time and time again to lead to misunderstanding. (Dunbar’s number suggests we systematically underestimate interferential distance, especially when thinking in a more social mode as most people, even scientists and mathematicians unwittingly, do.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks 🙂

        Mike is also conveniently fixating on cell cultures while putting his fingers in his ears and mashing his eyes shut in ignoring the ‘clean’ fluids exosomal isolation papers and PCR and gene sequencing patterning.

        Like

      2. Were exosomes discovered in cell cultures? Were the characterizations and functions of these entities determined for nearly 25 years based solely on in vitro cell culture experimentation? Yes or no.

        Putting “clean” in quotations is exactly the problem when claiming PCR and sequencing patterns have any relevance as even a small amount of contamination can make PCR results meaningless. And that is assuming any meaning can be gained from PCR at all.

        Like

  11. Can do. Your logical leap is in claiming that scientists rightfully qualifying some results in a single experiment constitutes irrefutable evidence that it’s all just apoptotic debris. That’s how it comes across.

    Like

  12. Mike, because you don’t believe in genomics you’re not qualified to ask a question whose answer includes genetic testing. You asking that question is in and of itself disingenuous.

    Like

      1. Yeah well the evidence CAN’T exist for you Mike because you chose the ‘flat earth’ so you’re not really one to know whether I’m copping out or not. Your loss, friend.

        Like

      2. Another cop-out. In other words, you have no evidence, even genomic, that adheres to the scientific method, otherwise you would share it. All you are doing is engaging in logical fallacies.

        Like

  13. We’ve been here before. Of course I have no evidence that adheres to the traditional ‘scientific method’ box that you’ve holed up in. As I’ve said before holistic science first and foremost includes the reason-based patterning function without which the scientific method box couldn’t exist in the first place. The box is but a formalized tool of the patterning function. Making the box the causal driver of science is like making germs the cause of disease.

    Like

    1. Thanks for admitting that you do not have any scientific proof for the existence of exosomes. Of it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method, all you have is pseudoscience.

      Like

  14. This may be important for some who want to understand more about electron microscopy. It is about various types of electron microscopy – scanning, transmission and cryogenic.

    If you don’t have time to watch the whole video start at the 12’30” mark in the video to learn about electron microscopy on biological material.

    Exosomes are discussed at 36’30” mark.

    X-ray crystallographic imagining is discussed at the 37’45” mark where its results are combined with cryogenic electron microscopy.

    This video is 12 years old, so different methods and equipment may be in use today. But it is important to remember that virologists are dealing with artifacts and not the actual living entities.

    Like

  15. This may be important for some people who want to understand more about electron microscopy. It is about various types of electron microscopy – scanning, transmission and cryogenic.

    If you don’t have time to watch the whole video start at the 12’30” mark in the video to learn about electron microscopy on biological material.

    Exosomes are discussed at 36’30” mark.

    X-ray crystallography imagining is discussed at the 37’45” mark where its results are combined with cryogenic electron microscopy.

    This video is 12 years old, so newer methods and equipment may be in use today. But it is important to remember that virologists are dealing with artifacts and not the actual living entities. Their conclusions are also questionable as well.

    Like

    1. I just finished watching a 2 hour stefan lanka interview in german where he explicitly says that EM only show artefacts 1:05:23 (from slicing and dyeing, through a vacuum and then heated with the EM light) and the pictures have nothing to do with how our body and biology work.he recommends harold hilman for more information. Lanka says “cellular biology” as we are made to believe is false. https://www.bitchute.com/video/494eQLlXcxHC/

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, I absolutely agree. My understanding is that EM is nothing but artefacts. At best the particles are cellular debris. However, they may be nothing more than bubbles created from the various processes the samples undergo. It is nothing but pure science fiction.

        Like

  16. FYI Mike: Please search “mock” in Julian Bess’ paper, “Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations” [1]. (Note the “Contaminating” / “Purified” cognitive dissonance). In this paper Bess shows that, apart from quantitative differences in three proteins, the proteins obtained from “HIV” and “mock virus” infected cell cultures are identical. It is discussed here. http://theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf#page=24
    This (and the Gluschankoff paper [2]) are the first, (and as far as we know) the only, with EMs of “purified HIV”. Note: the “HIV” particles in Bess on average have twice the diameter of the Gluschankof particles, which are the “normal” size.
    1. Bess, J. W., R. J. Gorelick, et al. (1997). “Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations.” Virology 230: 134-144.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682297984993/pdf?md5=fad3d949cc69b6b09f677ad45e686392&pid=1-s2.0-S0042682297984993-main.pdf
    2. Gluschankof, P., I. Mondor, et al. (1997). “Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations.” Virology 230: 125-133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682297984531/pdf?md5=2a63d720274878f53145f402daff3700&pid=1-s2.0-S0042682297984531-main.pdf

    Like

  17. The so-called science of biology at the microscopic level is nothing more than a more or less objective description of what happens to tissues in the natural process of decomposition, followed by the completely unproven assumption that what happens in the living organism is identical to phenomena observed under a microscope. So-called biologists degrade tissue samples by mechanical, thermal, chemical and radiation methods to be able to observe them under a microscope, after which they emit an endless number of hypotheses, assumptions and guesses about the observed structures and their functioning. Then they claim that the same things happen in living organisms.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. No one has ever seen a structure called a cell in a living organism. Moreover, no one has ever seen in the living organism a so-called cell in the so-called process called apoptosis. In reality, so-called molecular biologists do not have any ability to see what exists and what happens in the living body. The so-called microscopic biology is nothing but a story to put to sleep the naive gullible, like the fairy tale about the invisible clothes of the emperor.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. No one has ever isolated any protein or its components. No one has ever isolated a nucleotide or its components. No one has ever isolated a molecule. Molecular Biology is exactly the fairy tale about the emperor’s invisible clothes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I was looking into the discover of proteins and it looks sort of sketchy. As for cells, there are videos floating around of what look likes cell doing stuff; are you saying those are fake or that they’re taken in vitro which doesn’t prove they exist in live humans?

      Liked by 2 people

  20. No one can bring direct, uninterpretable and reproducible evidence that what is observed under the microscope from a structural and functional point of view is identical to what exists and happens in the living organism. That is why the so-called microscopic biology was, is and will remain just another scientific scam.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. So-called molecular biology, which consists only of microscopic observation and description of dead and severely damaged tissues by laboratory procedures, is completely useless because there is no real evidence that what is observed under a microscope would correspond to what exists in living beings. In addition, the human ability to observe and understand correctly what exists and happens at the microscopic level as well as the ability to scientifically manipulate tissues at the microscopic level is infinitesimally low.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Nike you are the one idolizing some fake-mystical, great-unknown conception of in vivo ‘material’ reality. If there’s some ‘there’ there, there’s not anywhere near enough to take the ‘Tom Cowan’ scissoring of in vitro science and run across a scree field with it.

      When I cut the throat of a sheep or goat the blood doesn’t instantaneously change from what it was in vivo to what it is ex vivo now does it? No, it doesn’t change at all. The visible neck meat, the severed esophagus, they don’t instantly transform from some wondrous and seamless electro-liqui-gel field effect or whatever else might suppose. The bone obviously doesn’t change. The bone rock that holds up the heavy, wet meatbag. Even after the body has stopped kicking several minutes later nothing has changed at all for the body except that the circulatory system has stopped. Every cell in the body continues to operate until it runs out of fuel (‘ATP’) after another several minutes or more. If what you say is true then how could organ transplants exist? How could organs be extracted and put on ice for half a day, no different from a steak, and then be put in another body and it’s good to go? How could organ transplants from dead people exist? I have an anterior cruciate ligament from a dead man. How long did it spend in hospital storage before it was used to strap my knee back together? Who knows? Yet it obviously has blood flowing to it now. Ligaments have naturally low blood flow, and the studies show that for the first year or so the donor ACL receives a higher blood flow than native ones, and then the welcome wagon reverts to normal sometime after that.

      When the Indian kids traditionally dove into the buffalo to retrieve and then dole out the liver amongst themselves about a minute after it stopped kicking, they were eating a living liver. Same goes for meat or fat tissues. There’s no instant change; the idea that there is is just another kind of ‘mind over matter’ ‘supremacism’ that I talked about with brian; the idea that Life is imbued with some kind of holy special sauce we call ‘spirit’ or whatever. That’s horseshit. All we really doing when we think that is making a false idol out of our metaconsciousness, our ‘mind,’ because civilized humans think that civilization means we have something different going on upstairs than everyone else. It’s not different and it’s not holy, it’s just more. More adapted, to the point where our metaconsciousness reached a tipping point into self-awareness which is a extremely strong positive feedback loop for metaconsciousness, to the point where it sometimes seems like a runaway freight train to insanity. It’s a mixed bag to be sure, but that’s Life – pros and cons.

      I’ll say it again: multicellular eukaryotes aren’t some magical being with mystical in vivo properties. That’s false idolization. We are evolved cultures of single-celled eukaryotes. That is obvious. If you won’t believe your lying eyes when looking at single-celled organisms doing their thing under a microscope or colonies of caged, homeless peoplecells in vitro being forcefed junk food and getting-by then that’s your business but just know that that doesn’t come free. It washes you out. WADR.

      Life is energy and that (‘consciousness’) which animates energy in symbiosis. When an organism ‘dies’ only it’s metaconsciousness dies. Only the self-referential, five-sense mind function that evolved to better navigate reality stops. The applied (to energy) consciousness that is the holographic body continues but it no longer grows because metabolism stopped along with metaconsciousness. We can know that this consciousness continues because the ‘dead’ body does not disappear. It’s still lying there animating the local energy field and holding its space. This is because it reality is a continuum and the hologram EARNED that right to that space by growing into it metabolically. Remember, animism doesn’t do supremacism; that ‘dead body’s without metabolism and metaconsciousness is now an embodied ‘mineral’ consciousness only, just like a rock, or water, or air, or sun, or a dead tree. Even when ‘alive’ we are mineral consciousness, we are just mineral consciousness evolved into a more dynamic life dimension, a higher ‘density’ hologram that has learned apply consciousness more adaptively.

      In order for that still living mineral but pronounced dead body space to be displaced, other metabolic lifeforms must earn that space in combination with other mineral consciousnesses’ weathering that body by grinding it down.

      Indigenous people were using reason-based unitary objectivism when they knew that a man or woman left out in the field and seen to be stripped to the bone by vultures over the course of a few hours now had a bird or a sky spirit because their applied (to energy) consciousness had been earned by birds. If a person was buried they had an earth or a sky spirit. All dead ultimately had a sky spirits because ‘sky’ meant everything holographic, both earth and sky.

      All animist cultures had some variation of “the great spirit in the sky.” Civilization often translates spirit to mean god or some other higher power but what it meant was what today we call consciousness. The pool of
      source consciousness and the pooling of source energy become together locally in cultured yet discernable individualized lifeforms.

      Like

      1. We are talking about examining dead tissues and samples and trying to interpret any meaning about what occurs inside a living organism from the study of heavily altered dead samples. Alterations to the samples happen rather quickly hence the need for fixation:

        “The first – and perhaps most important – step in the preparation process is fixation. In this step, living tissue is chemically treated to stabilise it. This kills the tissue sample at the same time. IT’S IMPORTANT TO FIX A SAMPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE, AS SOON AS TISSUE IS REMOVED FROM ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, IT STARTS TO CHANGE. For instance, oxygen levels start to drop as soon as tissue is removed from an organism. This causes mitochondria to start to change their appearance. Another common change in the fixation process is that lipids tend to form micelles.”

        https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samples-for-the-electron-microscope

        The sample viewed in EM is so far removed from its original state as to be entirely meaningless. Harold Hillman described the process perfectly. I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with his work:

        “For example, most cytologists know, but readers of elementary textbooks do not, that when one looks at an illustration of an electron micrograph: an animal has been killed; it cools down; its tissue is excised; the tissue is fixed (killed); it is stained with a heavy metal salt; it is dehydrated with increasing concentrations of alcohol; it shrinks; the alcohol is extracted with a fat solvent, propylene oxide; the latter is replaced by an epoxy resin; it hardens in a few days; sections one tenth of a millimetre thick, or less, are cut; they are placed in the electron microscope, nearly all the air of which is pumped out; a beam of electrons at 10,000 volts to 3,000,000 volts is directed at it; some electrons strike a phosphorescent screen; the electron microscopists select the field and the magnification which show the features they wish to demonstrate; the image may be enhanced; photographs are taken; some are selected as evidence. One can immediately see how far the tissue has travelled from life to an illustration in a book.”

        https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/what-price-intellectual-honesty.htm

        Like

  22. Wrong as usual, Mike. Nike was talking about more than EM:

    “In addition, the human ability to observe and understand correctly what exists and happens at the microscopic level as well as the ability to scientifically manipulate tissues at the microscopic level is infinitesimally low.”

    To say nothing of Nike’s previous and subsequent comments.

    Like

    1. What Nike was discussing:

      “In reality, regarding the microscopic level of existence, no human knows what happens in a living organism. To believe that optical or electron microscopy reveals what exists and what happens in the living organism is madness in its purest form. Molecular biology, genetics, virology, immunology, etc … all these are just pseudo-scientific tales about things never proven to exist.”

      In what way does your quote refute what was said?

      Like

  23. „It has often been said that, to make discoveries, one must be ignorant. This opinion, mistaken in itself, nevertheless conceals a truth. It means that it is better to know nothing than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek, neglecting meanwhile everything that fails to agree with them.”
    – Claude Bernard

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Tissue and organ harvesting is done from living people who are said to be brain dead to justify surgical homicide. The process of decomposing the tissues and organs that are harvested for transplantation begins from the moment they are surgically detached from the body and takes place gradually depending on the degree of vitality of the living person who was killed by doctors to harvest tissues and organs. The faster the harvested tissue or organ is transplanted, the less degraded they are and the more efficiently the recipient’s body can regenerate them. This is why there is an approximate time limit for a certain transplant to be performed. The success of a transplant depends, in essence, on the general vitality of the man killed in order to harvest his tissues and organs, on the specific vitality of the tissues and organs harvested, but also on the vitality of the man who receives them and must regenerate what has been degraded. from the time of harvest until the time of attachment to the new organism. In reality, tissue and organ transplantation is not a proof that Modern Medicine is the most advanced form of medicine but, on the contrary, it is another proof that Modern Medicine is a total failure due to the fact that it is a total anti-medicine, from all points of view.

    Like

    1. It’s not homicide since the person gave their permission for organ harvesting under such circumstances. And the field of medicine doesn’t really apply to the field of surgery. They’re two different things.

      Like

  25. deepL translate:

    https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1262

    “ The theory of exosomes is only an auxiliary hypothesis ❗️

    💡The exosomes – why this auxiliary hypothesis is misleading from the whole point of view.

    ✅ Within the cell theory (refuted), the disintegration of isolated clumps of tissue, interpreted as cells, but
    but also excretions of humans/animals containing connective tissue are interpreted as “exosomes”.

    The disadvantage of this theory is that the participants and recipients (i.e. you) of this information believe that the virologists have found something specific that points to something.
    that would point to something (disease, excretion, 5G, etc.).

    This unintentionally distracts from the fact that no specific RNA or other molecules are detected at all, but rather that they are only mentally combined into something whole.
    but only mentally put together into something whole, for which the phages, the supposed viruses of bacteria, were the godfathers from 1952 onwards.

    Summarised exosomes:

    ✅ These structures, which are claimed to be viruses and which others are now trying to interpret as harmless but specific structures (exosomes), do not correspond to the facts.
    This is because DNA/RNA is in a constant state of change.

    ✅The fictitious construction of hereditary strands by a procedure such as sequence alignment and sequence assembly (stringing together many short RNA sequences) does not reflect reality in any way.”

    Like

Leave a Reply to reante Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: