Here is the link to my petition (the wording is below):
https://www.change.org/p/world-health-organisation-microscopes-don-t-work-stop-the-diagnosis-of-fake-diseases?recruiter=211507566&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
Some of the medical literature on disease appears inconsistent and
vague even to a person without a scientific background, and on
reflection much of it does not make common sense. If religions admit the
existence of evil, it may be possible that diseases were invented as a
programme of eugenics - in other words, to change as well as to reduce
populations - even before there was a perception of agricultural
scarcity or demand for manufactured goods.
Diagnosed diseases, including cancer, HIV/AIDS and influenza, are
fictitious, and the fact that microscopes do not do what they are said
to do confirms this. When I look into my own microscope, I usually see
the same image whatever slide is present on the microscope stage.
This is of relatively fixed and shadowy objects on a circular screen at
the end of a cylinder, as well as more translucent and moving objects in
layers further up the microscope. Both the shadowy and more
translucent images include ribbon-like objects of a similar length and
width and with similar knots in them, although there are dark spots
present on the image on the screen. The images I see remain the same
whether or not the slide is present, indicating that I am as likely to
be seeing something within the microscope as beyond it. However, even
when variations sometimes occur with different slides, or with different
microscopes, we are unlikely to be viewing the sample on the slide for
the reason that the magnifications claimed would not be able to produce a
clear image even if they were achievable and the microscope or slide
sufficiently illuminated or placed at the correct distance from the eye.
In order to view a cell on a microscope slide you need very high
magnifications, for example, 10,000 times to view an HIV cell, so that
in theory we would then be looking for abnormalities in a sample on a
slide that had been magnified so that its image measured 600 metres by
200 metres. However, although my own microscope claims a magnification
of up to 900, the focal adjustment does not alter magnification and
neither do the rotating objective lenses. Even if the magnifications
of 10 and 15 for the focal adjustment and 30 and 60 for the objective
lenses are correct, the resulting image would not be magnified by 300 to
900 times because you are not first magnifying an object and then
re-magnifying it, wherever the object is placed: you may be increasing
magnification by using more than one lens but you are not compounding
it. Also, the microscope lens tube is relatively dimly lit, and has to
be for the objects on the screen not to blur, so that it seems unlikely
one would be able to look into the eyepiece and tube and then through
the very small objective lenses to any object on a slide beyond them,
whether or not a light is shone onto the slide, and it is not in a
traditional microscope. Yet even if the microscope were able to magnify
to the extent claimed and even if the microscope, or the slide itself,
were illuminated sufficiently, the resulting image would blur unless the
microscope slide were further away from the microscope and would only
then be clear at relatively low magnifications.
All magnification blurs to some extent. There is a theoretical, in
one sense, limit to magnification in that as the distance between the
lines of an object increases all that will eventually be seen will be an
undifferentiated plane. Before this, magnification will produce a
coarsening of the object, as when one writes or draws with a thicker
pen, and this may explain why an enlarged or projected photo or slide
can remain relatively clear up to the point where it exceeds the size of
the original object.
The reason why magnification
occurs when using a lens is that one is viewing an image that has been
dispersed by the shape of the lens, in other words, a projected image,
but also because we view the object at a closer distance than we would
do with the eye alone, in other words, because closer objects of the
same size appear larger than distant ones.
Looking into a cylinder appears to bring distant objects into focus
as though we were viewing them at the appropriate focal range. It also
appears to magnify as well as clarify objects that would otherwise be
too close to be seen clearly, as when we are using a magnifying lens.
Both effects are likely to be the result of objects being illuminated,
when viewed through a cylinder, that would otherwise be obscured when
viewed against brighter surrounding ones (whether or not the eye itself
provides limited illumination), so that we are able to focus on them.
Clarity is lost when we magnify an object both because the image is
dispersed and because we are viewing it at the incorrect focal length.
Although the loss of clarity can be compensated for to a certain extent
by a cylinder that blocks out surrounding light, the extent to which an
object on a microscope stage can be enlarged will be limited by its
proximity to the eye and any lens or lenses, whatever the hypothetical
quality of the lenses. A microscope may, whether the mechanism is
lenses or projection, and given its cylindrical shape and the length of
the cylinder and positioning of the slide, allow the viewing of objects
at a greater size and, depending on the size of the microscope, with
greater clarity than if we were to view them with the eye alone.
However, the sort of magnifications claimed by any microscope, let alone
those said to be able to view a viral cell, would not be achievable.
Although there is no reference to it on my microscope, zoom usually
refers to the distance at which visibility is relatively clear. And
then magnification of the object would be limited, so that we would be
viewing a distant object as though it were closer rather than enlarging
it beyond its original size, let alone would we be seeing beneath the
object to any underlying structure. A greater magnification could be
achieved in theory by projecting the image, but, setting aside the fact
that this is not said to be the mechanism of magnification as well as
the question of what clarity we might expect if a slide were projected
onto a screen of 200 by 600 metres, the fact that the slide is placed
outside the microscope rather than inside it and that the screen is
behind it rather than in front of it indicates that we could not be
viewing a projected image of even a speck on the slide at high
magnification.
One has to account for variations when viewing different slides under
the microscope. When the microscope is lit from the mirror (which is
the only way I can now light my own microscope, although that is said to
be the only way early microscopes were lit), an opaque object will
block visibility so that nothing is seen on the circular microscope
screen. When a stain is put on a slide, it will appear as an
undifferentiated wash over the microscope screen. A slide that appears
to contain colourless and translucent material may sometimes produce a
complex image that might lead us to think that we are viewing something
at a high magnification. Instead, we might be viewing a pattern of
light and shade at relatively low magnifications: light will shine
through some parts or objects on the slide but not others, and to a
differing extent, so that there are shades of dark and light. However,
a more likely explanation for apparently striking, but comparatively
rare, variations is that we are looking at a gas streak on the slide or
lens or from a spotlight.
However, if the material on the slide is translucent and colourless
we will normally see an unvarying image on the screen. Since we are
varying what is on the slide, and since the microscope is dimly lit and
the objective lenses at the end of it fairly small and a long way from
our own eyes, this seems most likely to be of something contained within
the microscope.
The translucent and moving images I usually see higher up the
microscope when looking into it are the lenses of my own eye. That this
is certain is indicated by the fact that they are so resembling to what
one sees when looking into bright light with the eye alone as well as
the fact that they shift as one shifts one's eyes. However, the image
on the screen further down the microscope, although resembling the lens
of one's own eye, is too fixed for it to be that.
In fact, if I turn my microscope upside down, I can see just above
two of the objective lenses, possibly three when photographed, what look
like the irises of a pigeon's eye, or another small animal with orange
irises (facing into the microscope). Because the image on the screen
resembles the lenses of one's own eye that one sees when squinting into
any bright light, as well as higher up the microscope when one looks
into the eyepiece, it seems plausible that the object one is viewing is
in fact the lens of an eye. It is possible one might be seeing the
lenses contained just inside the objective lenses projected back onto
the microscope screen, although the fact that only the position of the
image relative to fixed sides changes when the lenses are rotated
suggests projection forward, rather than backwards from different
objects, as does the the opaque look to the screen (eg, we seem to see
nothing beyond it). It seems most likely that there might be a fourth
object, the lens of an eye, placed higher up the microscope, projected
onto an opaque screen further down the microscope.
Magnification and focus would be achieved by the reduction in focal
length when looking into the microscope cylinder, as well as by
projection. There may be a lens or lenses within the microscope, but
the microscope appears to be hollow in front of the screen and although I
have not yet taken my microscope apart the presence of lenses in front
of or behind the screen would not alter the conclusion that we are not
viewing an image at high magnification.
Magnification occurs as a result of the reduction in focal length as
one looks into the relatively short lens tube of the microscope which
may only be the length of the focal adjustment itself, although the
effect of the reduction in focal length is to make the cylinder appear
longer than it is and the circular screen further away, as the lenses of
our own eyes also appear projected further in front of us than we
expect them to be. The cylindrical shape enables us to focus on the
objects on the screen, which would otherwise be blurred. The focal
adjustment varies focus, for example for different users, by contracting
or expanding the cylinder. The relatively limited nature of the
magnification is indicated by the similarity in size and structure
between the object on the screen and the image of the lens of one's eye
one sees when looking into bright light with the eye alone.
Once one accepts the idea that diseases may be fictitious, one can
think of other arguments and make other observations to support this,
such as, for instance, the fact that the link between DNA and mutation
seems to be asserted rather than explained and to have no foundation in
the philosophy of science, since the link between the abstract and the
physical is not resolved. Diagnosed diseases make people fall ill or
die not because they are real but because of fear and fatalism as well
as other factors such as insufficient or poor nutrition or a restricted
diet, extreme variations in temperature, and other policies, such as the
denial of food and water in hospitals, and gassing, and perhaps even
the premature pronouncement of death. It may be that all politicians
and doctors know that microscopes, the basis of medical diagnosis, are
fraudulent, or all pathologists, or only those who make scientific
instruments.
Please sign the petition if you agree with it. However, if you are
not convinced but it raises doubts, please show the petition or ask a
question about microscope magnification to anybody you know with a
medical, scientific, engineering, photographic or optics background.
And please look back at the petition again to see improvements.
Bibliography:
Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 2002)
The Hutchinson Encyclopaedia (Oxford, Helicon Publishing, 1994)
Orrock, Louise, On HIV and Aids, Taxila Institute (institute.iqmind.org/on-hiv-and-aids-by-louise-orrock), June 8, 2015
Orrock, Louise, On Cancer, Taxila Institute (institute.iqmind.org-on-cancer-by-louise-orrock), June 8, 2015
PubMed, US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, (
www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed)
