The Redox Theory

As I venture deeper into the realms of chemistry, I felt the need to reacquaint myself with an overarching theory developed by the titan of the “No Virus” movement, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos. When I say reacquaint, I really mean acquaint, because in the 2 years since I first became aware of her theory and gave it a very quick skim over, my mind and general outlook about a lot of things has drastically changed. Not really so much as changed, but rather reduced in terms of how I see things in their constituent parts and how I interpret the taxonomy of “Bio”Chemical agents and “Particles”.

I was aware of Eleni’s theory, in the back of my mind, whilst writing my latest articles showing that the PCR and Genetic Sequencing are measuring Ionic Charge. However, I still feel that I came to the realizations I had and the conclusions I made completely independently. They are my genuine beliefs and so on reviewing the papers attached to this Theory, it came as a great comfort to see that the core essence of what Eleni was proposing, largely matches up to what I was finding in my investigations.

Despite this, I view her work through a slightly different lens, a more reductionist lens, that I believe is a more simplistic approach to the broad topics to which she writes. It is beneficial to me to break these topics, the nomenclature and the processes down in simplistic terms, not only because it is easier to understand but for me, fortuitously I believe it is closer to the the truth. I tend to want to only deal in things that are certainties or as close to certainties as possible before moving forward with these things as assumptions. It maybe seen as obtuse by academic standards but I think that this type of critique and general outlook is actually what is missing in modern science.

So I want to go through these papers step by step and give you feedback on what is going through my mind to reduce these quite heavily Scientific Jargon filled papers (No more than any normal peer-reviewed paper, certainly less than most genetics papers) to A. Appraise the theory in and of it self and B. Reduce the fear of reading and interpreting these papers yourself:

Redox Reaction

Off the bat let’s describe what Redox Reactions are in terms of what the textbooks say:

So the textbook interpretation of what a Redox Reaction is when you have two elements that chemically react to give different products, they do this by exchanging charge.

If an element is Reduced it gains Electrons which means that it becomes more negatively charged. I think this is a perfect example of where I like to be reductionist in thinking. The term “Reduced” should mean “diminish” or “decrease”. In atomistic terms though they like to confuse you and say that some particle you can’t see or isolate or quantify called an “electron” is gained. But if you cut all of this invented story line out, the net result is that they are MEASURING Negative charge, so the charge is REDUCED….vica versa with Oxidation.

A Mitotic Theory

When entering into debate in the area of genetics, my go to resting place to start from a position of certainty rather than assumption is to say “Show me the nucleotide”. It doesn’t matter to me what story comes after of how these are supposedly aligned in a code or transfected or sequenced or whatever. Unless you can actually show me the thing, the raw visceral, isolated and quantified thing that you are measuring, the rest is conjecture.

Obviously people cannot show me a photo of an isolated and quantified Nucleotide, because that evidence doesn’t exist (and was only verified with a test for piss) . They then have to reify their belief with something in the real world and someone caught me out the other day and said ‘Well, what do you think of Chromosomes, you can see them divide when cells divide?”.

Now there is a big, obvious problem being that you have to assume there is DNA inside a Chromosome for it to be accepted as evidence when you view Mitosis occurring. But the interesting thing to me is you can certainly see a cell dividing and you can see these sausage/bunch of banana type appendages multiply and “replicate” all in real time with a light microscope, hence is a certainty that it is occurring.

To note, what has always been of interest to me when being involved with the Cell Culture Experiments was the sheer notion of growing Cells . They can cut a piece of tissue out of someone, freeze it for 50yrs (In the case of HEK cell line which was originally taken in 1973), thaw it out and then regrow it indefinitely just by adding some Fetal Bovine Serum.

Involved in these cells growing is Cell Replication or Mitosis. According to text books ALL of the hugely complicated cellular processes as well as an exact genetic code for life can be replicated at the blink of an eye by defrosting one and squirting some cow’s blood on it.

Now, call me a skeptic but I would say that if it is so easy take, store and clone the very fundamentals of the building blocks of a human, it stands to reason that either it should be incredibly easy to grow and clone humans or fix and repair any tissue in the body OR the cell isn’t a hugely complex thing doing all of the claimed functions the textbooks tell us and hence why it is so easy to replicate.

My money is on the latter. If it weren’t clear already.

Let’s go through this slowly.

• “Cellular processes have a cyclical nature… controlled by a periodic charge exchange” This is fairly self explanatory and for me is exactly the fundamental truth that I see in this theory, cellular processes are governed by charge.

• “between actin and myosin, regulated by the oxidation and reduction of sulphydryl moieties.” Here is where my thinking deviates as when I see any proteins listed (Actin & Myosin) I immediately look to the test that defines what a protein is i.e Gel Electrophoresis. This is the same for nearly ALL of the “bio”chemical (DNA, Hormones, Antibodies, Amino Acids etc etc). So when proteins are mentioned I also just think quite simply of charge. Oxidation and Reduction is just exchanging of charge. Sulphydryl Moieties also known as a Thiol group is S-H. This is a functional group usually found in Amino Acids (So replace this with charge).

• Molecular and Atomistic Chemistry, where you see S-H bonds for instance is all measured with varying themes on Mass Spectrometry. I will do an article specifically on Mass Spec because Actually it is the *Real* end of the line test past sequencing. But to make it brief it is IONIZING a sample and then measuring the presumed weight of molecules based on how much it is charged as a magnet bends the trajectory of the particles. Hence once again, it is quite simply just measuring charge.

  So here we have defined all of the scary nomenclature and it is all just flowery words for the same characteristic.

In the first section Loeb’s theory is now an accepted phenomenon that for fertilization of an egg to occur a charge is needed in nature from Calcium, this can be mimicked in IVF with a literal voltage shock to start fertilization (Are they using very tiny defibrillator paddles? lol)

Following this, a whole raft of scientists are cited Lille, Heilbrun, Berridge, Rapkine and Szent-Gyorgyi. They all have the same idea that charge through ionic concentration gradient changes induces Mitosis and also say it controls numerous things like blood Clotting, Muscle contraction and even involved in cancer formation.

This next section when you replace the term “Protein” with Ionic Charge is pretty eye opening. I want to focus in on the sentence “In 1965, Sandborn, Szeberenyi, Messier and Bois proposed a cellular model with a FILAMENTOUS network within the cell containing contractile”

For me this screams a proposed and easily explainable model for what a Chromosome is. If the whole cell is a contractile, muscle like entity, squeezing and pinching out to “replicate” in mitosis, then these packed filaments are just basic sacks of higher concentrations of ionic fluid. When you look at the phases of mitosis these sacks group together in a line and almost seem to squeeze out before “replicating”. Is this just a natural movement almost like iron filings to a magnetic pole, where ionic concentration moves to one end then disperses as the cells divide. To me this is the best explanation of what is happening.

They then cite these Contractile “Proteins” (Ionic Charge) playing an essential role in a whole boat load of stuff from cellular morphology, to Microvilli but most interestingly to me is Phagocytosis. I have often wondered about this; it is the process by which things like Macrophages and Neutrophils “Clean up” waste, toxins and cellular debris.

As per the video which should be familiar to most it is a Neutrophil “reaching out”in the direction of the toxin to engulf it. Now science likes to anthropomorphize this like it is some sort of cognizant animal that goes and hoovers this stuff up. We are lead to believe it is like a Basset Hound sucking up biscuit crumbs fallen off the dining room table.

This has never quite sat comfortably with me that this could possibly be any sort of knowing process and this ionic charge theory of movement is a much better explanation. Just like a plant bending toward the light I feel that this is exactly the same, rather than a Macrophage searching out the toxins and discerning what to gobble up it is being attracted through charge gradients and almost being pulled toward the toxins that it integrates.

In the first set of conclusions that throw around a lot of jargon they introduce the term ATP, Adenosine Triphosphate which is meant to be the form of energy used in most cellular functions. It takes very little imagination to read between the lines of this and throw the concept of ATP in the bin and replace it with Ionic Charge, especially seeing as it is noted to be the cause of muscle contraction. I see this as a bit of an oversight to try and keep this in the lexicon and propose it somehow still aids these proteins in muscle contractions…

The Big C

The Mitotic Theory really culminates in a theory for cancer cell generation and ultimately a suggestion with how to “cure/mitigate/stop/intervene” in this process. The second part of this I am not going to comment on too much. In terms of health and taking something to alleviate the symptoms of disease A. I am no medical practitioner so am not licensed to recommend anything & B. Even if I were, I am not sure that this is the specific route that I would take, I am more into being reductionist with my personal health seeking to remove toxins in my food and environment and stresses rather than take “supplements” or even especially eat/take MORE “things” to try and redress my natural state of health.

But what I do find interesting and want to touch upon is the first part, the cancer cell generation, particularly how it relates to the Redox theory of Mitotic cell division.

This first section cites huge numbers of studies (this can be correlated with the experimental findings of Papadopolous-Eleopulos (Later on in the article). It shows that when known carcinogens are introduced to muscle tissues they produce contractions, they conclude that this has nothing to do with protein synthesis. They call it “metabolic” which to me just simply means it is charge based.

The conclusions of this literature review state that there is “ample evidence to show that carcinogens are oxidizing agents” as in produces positive charge. It then goes on to state that “insulin, oestrogen, sperm…” are mitotic agents. Well Insulin and oestrogen are both hormones and if we check in on our cheat sheet they are both just charge verified “bio”chems. Sperm, again is carrying that electro-chemical calcium charge to start the fertilization of an egg, in this case it most certainly is positively charged.

It then goes on to say “Induce this cyclical variation is acid soluble SH groups”. The cyclical nature is from the mitotic theory of cell division by changes in ionic concentration. Being Acid soluble means that something dissolves in high H+ ions as that is what makes something acidic.

I found this basic graphic of what they said was going on in cancer cell generation and I thought it’s simplicity was very revealing. They show this misshapen cell with lots of out of line chromosomes. Logic would dictate that that means that chromosomes are structural rather than information holding units. If they were information holding units as theorized by mainstream science there would be no reason for the cell to be misshapen but because the cell division is determined by ionic concentrations and these cancerous cells are from imbalanced ions the structural components, i.e the filaments are misshapen too.

This is again displayed here. If cancer were a “genetic” mutation why would there need to be any structural differences in the cells, especially when it came to the chromosomes? All of the characteristics of what a claimed cancerous cell is, is PHYSICAL changes. The fact that they put so much onus on genetics and it coding for everything yet want you to believe that the defining characteristics are all in the physical realm.

Watch here as they fluorescent mark (I assume digitally lol) the chromosomes when a cell divides. It leaves a couple of stragglers behind as it divides and this is claimed to be indicative of a cancerous cell. To me again it just looks like structural fibres. Imagine taking a Mars bar and diving it in two pieces. When working with a good “consistency” for splitting in half it is maybe slightly colder so could “snap” the bar in two. If the consistency was out of balance so it had been left on the parcel shelf of a car in the summer sun it is all gooey. When you try and split it, fibers pull in the middle and get left behind. I believe this is all is happening is a structural manifestation of an ionic imbalance at the cellular level.

EXPERIMENTATION

Eleni liked to back up her hypotheses and literature reviews with actual experimental tests, she was a real scientist of course!

---

---

The aim of the experiment was to test oxidizing agents (Charged electro-chemicals) action on muscle contraction. This is interesting to me for a few reasons:

1. It should confirm that Ionic substances are the cause of cellular contraction

2. It can test the hypothesis that it is non specific to the type of Ion, i.e it is generally believed that it is specifically Calcium ions that do this, whereas I believe that if it is more generic charge based Ions/electro-chemicals then we should see the same results regardless to the presumed Ion put in.

3. We can infer that the process of supposed ATP generation in this process is unnecessary and hence rule it out as an actual cellular process.

---

---

The results of the experiments are conclusive in that muscle contraction occurs with all of the different Ionic agents tested from Sodium to Potassium to silver to even hydrogen. This shows that these cellular processes certainly in movement based and maybe inferred in mitosis and division terms are driven by concentration gradients of Ionicly charged substances. It may be inferred there is no need for ATP for this process to occur.

---

---

---

---

This experiment goes on to to test the reverse process of this in muscle relaxation noting that a reducing agent is needed to relax the muscle contraction otherwise the process is not able to be repeated. This suggests that it is a concentration gradient of this ionic charge as when only one side of this is applied it cannot be repeated and be cyclical in nature. This cements the theory that ATP is not involved in any of these processes as the muscle could relax over time and be re-contracted by addition of an oxidizing agent once again if it simply was releasing stored ATP, but this was not the case.

Experiment 2

Eleni carried out a second experiment in the same vein but this time contracting and relaxing muscles with Adrenalin and Seratonin.

I have posted it up a few times before, but it really is the essence of what my point is when dealing with “bio”chemistry. Here is a list of all of these claimed specific “bio”chemicals that are measured in exactly the same way by measuring charge in gel electrophoresis.

Whenever you see ANY of these claimed thing written in a paper I want it to invoke a ***SAME THING ALERT*** in your mind… These are ALL measurements of the SAME thing… charge.

---

---

So with this paper it should be triggering our ****Same thing alert**** as it is using the Hormones Adrenaline and Serotonin. Hence really this paper is effectively testing the same thing as before, the influence of charged electro-chemicals on muscle contraction and relaxation…

So surprisingly enough…. the results are near identical. This gives weight to the notion that these things are indeed all the same, at least their effects are all the same. When it comes to the tests involved in things like PCR it is building a very convincing picture that this is the way it works.

Click on the picture below if you want to read the rest of the paper.

CONCLUSION

There is a word that I like to use when describing lots of things in life, but I think it especially, perfectly fits what is going on in the body: SIMPLEX. I don’t believe that the cell is anything complex at all, how can it be when you can cut it out of someone, freeze it for 50 years, then whenever you want, unfreeze it and replicate it on demand with a squirt of some cow’s blood? No, I believe that cells must be very simple things, that work with basic concentration gradients of charged fluids. However when you have millions/billions of lots of simple things, all interacting with each other, the bird’s eye view of what is occurring is a very complex picture.

Much alike a computer, at it’s core is just binary code, the most simple of commands it is either ON or OFF, 1 or 0. Yet because millions of these commands are performed every second you can programme a computer to do exceptionally complex tasks. Hence the term SIMPLEX.

When it comes to the Redox Theory, at it’s essence it seems to give weight to my thinking on all of these cellular processes and also most importantly to how they are being measured in tests like PCR. I find that these theories are not quite reductionist enough, trying to somehow weave into the clear results she obtained, with the contradictory mainstream story-lines of things like DNA and ATP. I have little doubt that were Eleni alive today, she would have approached my line of reductionist thinking with open eyes and I would like to think she would have even amended her approach.

This is prevalent as again my feeling about the conclusions of the Redox Theory that Antioxidants may be used to reverse Cancer. In my mind this feels a lot like clinical testing in vitro, where in this case they use DMSO (a particularly noxious industrial solvent) to un-relax a muscle. That is fine, maybe you can squirt some DMSO onto a Cancer Cell at it changes the appearance. But this is just in a Petri dish with a finite restricted picture and not a COMPLEX interaction that is going on in the body.

When it is suggested that supplementing with vitamins A,C and E because they are regarded as “antioxidants” I think this is the wrong approach for numerous reasons that should be evident from my work. Could it be that changing natural dietary habits to fit this Antioxidant theory could be beneficial? Potentially, however my latest knowledge about the toxicity of Vitamin A would leave me to even distrust this approach.

Ultimately I feel that the merits of the Redox Theory are in the precise understanding of how cellular processes work through experimentation and that is what I take away from this great body of work.