Summary: Many people feel modern biology & biochemistry & medicine are overrated and unreliable; they see lack of progress with so-called 'AIDS', so-called COVID, and with degenerative diseases with age—cancer, Parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimers.   They have concerns over dangerous drugs, vaccination, and interminable 'treatment' rather than cure; there are media panics, which people distrust; there are failed operations; dislike of animal experiments are typical areas of unease. However, most criticisms are ad hoc and have no general purchase on the problem.
      The claim of this website is that defects in basic techniques have led in some cases to seventy years' wasted work. This has been allowed to happen through secretiveness, lack of honesty probably fed by the desire for funding, and the general expense and inaccessibility of equipment, as well as excessive compartmentalisation of the subject.
      –Rae West

---

Note added 17 December 2022: As I'd expected, imitators of various types have appeared. I won't name any of them; what's the point in advertising nonentities? Let me emphasise that all the videos of Harold are online only because I persuaded Harold to relocate them in his University; their AV department didn't even know of them. If you've watched Harold online, or listened to him, it's probably because of me. - Rae West

---

Note 3 Sept 2023: Below is a sketchy article Nothing Doing prompted by H G Wells on the difficulties of voluntary co-operation. (Wells was unaware of deliberate damage and destruction by Jews).

2012 upload. My recorded interview with Harold Hillman, then aged 65 - three hours of very detailed interview.   His life's work and discoveries, and clashes with the biology establishment, in chronological order with some reference to world events.
First 90 minutes     Second 90 minutes
Taken from two 90-minute audio tapes, recorded with good equipment in 1996. There is some tape hiss. The recordings are unedited in any way; there are occasional signs of stress. The agreed interview format was to proceed through Hillman's work, and life experiences, in chronological order. Intelligent people, including non-biologists, shouldn't have much difficulty with the technical material, or the academic manoeuvres.
      Very Important Note: at the time of making this recording I was unaware of many ramifications of Jewish power, notably the money-printing scam and the Second World War. And that the 'holocaust' is a fraud, and that nuclear weapons are also almost certainly a fraud.
      At the time of recording, I had too little idea of Jewish power. Harold gave little hint of his history; I believe his father was a jeweller, and Harold and his two brothers, who were evacuees from London for part of the Second World War, were each educated, in geology and social science, though I know little of the prior history, including entry to Britain. Harold must have been aware that some Jews were involved in medical frauds, but said nothing that I know of about it.

NEW - uploaded 2022.   Four films made by Harold Hillman and his colleagues at Guildford, with the audio-visual department.
1977 film The Living Cell. Fancy higher resolution (1920x1080) version with Harry Potter style-title, my few minutes of explanatory intro, and watermarks. I'd intended to do four versions, but didn't get around to the elaboration.
1986 film on the brain: neurons and neuroglia
1986 film on the brain: synapses. And conclusion
1987 film on the effects of staining on cells yet another issue which had not been controlled

Introduction and Overview—Biology since about 1960

About two-thirds of the work done in biology in the half-century since about 1945 is fraudulent, or, more politely, based on foundations so insecure that it will have to be rejected. This has been allowed to happen through secretiveness, lack of honesty probably fed by the desire for funding, and the general expense and inaccessibility of equipment, as well as excessive compartmentalisation of the subject. And the incompetence and dishonesty of research councils, media and civil service personnel. My piece explores this process. Many people feel modern biology & medicine are disappointing: they vaguely sense the lack of progress with 'AIDS', Alzheimers, arthritis, cancer, Parkinsons, schizophrenia, and degenerative diseases; they may be concerned about dangerous drugs and vaccination; they may dislike animal experiments. However, most criticisms are ad hoc and have had no general purchase on the problem—until now. This piece is intended to be a radical examination, in a literal sense, of modern biology.
     To impose order on my account, most of my information is arranged around the work of Dr Harold Hillman, MB, BSc, MRCS, PhD, who I've known and liked for many years. In my opinion he is a very great scientist. But there must be other actors in this drama, including people who are completely unknown to me, who may have had parallel careers.
      I must stress that this piece has not been written with his approval or cooperation; it is my own work. I've often pleaded with him to put his life's work on Internet, since this is the first medium ever with this sort of freedom—a piece of luck unlikely to last. But my attempts came to nothing—I think because he was held back by a hankering after respectability in the biological/medical establishment, something incompatible with his work. I've even thought he might have sunk to the level of wanting to be a Nobel 'Laureate'.
      My narrative is largely chronological, structured around Hillman's books, in the sequence he happened to write them, and what they prove. To combine science with human interest, I've added illustrative material on related subjects in way which is adapted to Internet (separate screens each contributing a piece to the puzzle), trying to throw light on the complicated systems of motives which have led to the present unhappy position.
      Everything here is true—Rae West.

Setting the Scene: Diary Notes

What qualifications do I have to write about this subject? In theory, there are people better qualified than me; unfortunately, most of them are wankers. (Harold complained about my use of this word, but was mollified, or perhaps just puzzled, when I pointed out that Kingsley Amis had used it at least once in his novels—though the shade of meaning concerned with fraud is missing from his conventional usage. I also considered whether it was accurate to say he is a 'very great' scientist; perhaps 'stubborn' would do? Or a man who simply adhered to, or rediscovered, old views and ignored new errors? However, I decided 'very great' was right on the grounds that Whistler, looking through some drawings by Beardsley, said he'd been mistaken, and Beardsley was a very great artist; whereupon young Aubrey burst into tears. If Beardsley was a great artist, I think Harold can count as a great scientist). Over what is now almost a decade I have recorded careful conversations on biological topics, and collected printed material, and these, plus computer sources are what I'm drawing on.
      We first met, in December 1991, after I'd contacted him, tipped off by Ivor Catt, who, however, had never made any attempt to understand Harold's views. His small lab, at Surrey University, was at the extreme end of a grey-vinyl-tile floored corridor on the ground floor of a 1960s-built technical building, with a card-swipe security system which never seemed to work. One floor above was the photocopy/ lounge/ coffee area. The lab was filled with journals and shelved papers, and things like a resuscitation pump, desiccators, a fridge with samples, gas cylinders, reagents, a gut bath—more correctly known as an isolated organ bath—and boxes of microscope slides. At that time David Jarman worked with him; an amiable man, who had managed to get himself sacked from his previous job, as I understand it, by not paying attention to his union rights, and not getting onto the permanent staff of the institution where he taught pharmacology. He co-discovered beaded fibres in white matter of the brain with Harold. He was always willing to discuss such subjects as pharmacognosy. He had a different view from Harold, maintaining, in effect, according to Harold, that academics were entitled to get away with what they could.
      In 1995 Harold's lab was closed, on his retirement, which was I think more-or-less forced by the university authorities: his union representative informed him that, if he were illegally dismissed, he would have to take legal action himself. This marked the end of many years of friction over everything from foreign students being questioned inadequately in their vivas and inadequate equipment being ordered by people with a financial interest in companies, to inadequate control experiments in biological experimentation.
      Harold was and is hardworking. (For example, see my poster for his 1998 lecture tour in Canada/US - probably his last. Click here [5K]). But there was an irresolvable conflict between his beliefs and the work he found himself required to do. As with many other intellectual dissidents, he took the view that the proper thing to do is to teach the conventional view, even if it's wrong. Stepping out of line would create difficulties. So, school students should be taught the conventional views. Undergraduates should be taught the conventional views. If they became PhD students, to avoid conflict with their handlers they should still avoid questioning the received views. At any stage on the ladder there would be the risk that an outspoken attack of frankness would bring disaster. The logical conclusion seems to be that dissidents should conceal their opinions until they retired, and in fact Harold duly told me that, when he retired, he intended to "pull out all the stops." I did my best not to smile.
      Anyone would imagine that a man with decades of critical work behind him would routinely apply criticism to related subjects, but it's a strange fact, which I've noticed in other such people (see for example Gilbert Ling [25K, plus more]), that this is not the case. Harold accepted the full line on AIDS without any vestige of criticism, despite his possibly unique awareness of the shaky foundations of the 'science' which went into it. He also (e.g.) believed the 1 o'clock BBC radio news provided accurate information about the world. It's possible to construct ad hoc descriptions of such behaviour—perhaps, for example, every person carries around a quantum of scepticism, which cannot be exceeded—but the astounding psychological oddity haunts me, a baffling and incomprehensible mystery.
      This attitude is reflected in his works, which in general aren't to-the-point. A perfect example is a lecture he delivered on brain research, in which he didn't state his view that the current work is a waste of time until the very last sentence! Typically—in my view!—to avoid confronting the issue directly, he begins by outlining the traditional view, however wrong it may be. In vain I pointed out that Newton didn't include a preface on Aristotelian dynamics, Vesalius didn't include engravings of structures which Galen wrongly described, and Wallace didn't start with a description of creationism. As the years had gone by, he tried other approaches to presenting his ideas—films and lecture tours—and developed his 'unanswered questions' (below) approach, trying to prompt people into replying to his 'simple' questions. (See below for typical replies). He also planned to talk with heads of public and private research institutes and university departments, with a view to asking them what, if anything, they had achieved, but these efforts in practice amounted to very little despite some valiant attempts.
      We had endless disputes over phrasing and vocabulary; while I take the robust view that, once attention has been drawn to a problem, failure to debate it goes straight into the realm of fraud, he coined a new word, 'parafraud', to cover such activities as changing the subject, cancelling lectures, and not answering legitimate questions. He also has an understandable but exasperating habit of not naming names, though, by asking for details of the same story in different ways, I often managed to piece together what he thought had happened. In fact this difference of approach made it difficult for us to collaborate. It remains to be seen whether my approach will prove as unsuccessful as his.

Harold was for many years involved with the Quekett Microscopical Club, which met at the Natural History Museum, London

      At the time we first met, he was trying to help establish an organisation, of various suggested names and acronyms, which I'll call ICAF, the 'International Committee for Academic Freedom'. ( Click for details, below ). The ground rules were never thought out; I don't know what their group would have made of Holocaust revisionists, for example, or moonwalk revisionists. And what about military secrets? What about young people? Leafing through their documents, it's not much of a caricature to say that each of them thought his own work important, and was happy to permit the others to work for them, provided they didn't attempt to intrude their own silly ideas. Various oddities surfaced; for example, the 'National Association of Scholars', an obviously worthless organisation which sent a piece the main story of which was that in about 1980 some gays and lesbians wrote to them. A faintly relevant organisation was or is the 'Council for Academic Autonomy', with Bertie Russell's son Conrad a chairman. Russell's book shows he hasn't a clue about the issues). Eventually the embryo organisation died, if it can be said to have ever lived, partly because nobody was willing to do much work for it.
      Harold liked committees and spent much time in innumerable meetings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Surrey University's governing bodies, the BMA, Amnesty, the Quekett Microscopical Club in the Natural History Museum, and so on. He would say to me that organisations such as Campaign for Freedom of Information, more or less a one-man outfit, at least superficially, had "influence out of all proportion to their numbers." As far as I could judge, he had little hesitation in using the same tricks he disliked in others; for example, when chairman of Freedom to Care, the story of the bust-up with Dick van Steenis [99K] was never released to the mere members. This organisation also was involved with child abuse victims, but seemed just as much, if not more, concerned with damage to the careers of whistle-blowers. Again, nothing like the full story ever emerged.
      (I was impressed, not that it was any of my business, with his tricky financial condition; he would do GP locum work, and show visiting Americans around medical establishments. He toyed with the idea of writing thrillers, which I suspect will remain unpublished. Harold is a cousin of the late Chaim Herzog, twice president of Israel, and author of something like a neo-fascist recent autobiography; Harold told me he was one of the first people in Auschwitz, though in fact Harold's memory was wrong. I was moved once to contact the Israeli Embassy, worried at the spectacle of an original researcher in trouble, though I never told Harold. Naturally, the stupid fuckers did nothing).
      The reader might at this point consult Harold's piece 'What Price Intellectual Honesty?'[77K] which I edited and put into HTML format for him. This is a short version of what might have been a long intellectual autobiography. Unfortunately, many names are omitted and many judgements avoid forthrightness.
      My best guess at what will happen is that his ideas will be appropriated without credit, and the years of waste, and those responsible, hushed up. I'm reminded of an account of Thomas Hodgkin, discoverer of his eponymous disease, who was a contemporary of Addison and Bright. At Guys Hospital the latter were commemorated with statues, whereas Hodgkin had no memorial. According to his biographer, Rose, the reason was that Hodgkin was outspoken on aboriginal rights and other moral issues. I believe Hodgkin now has something like a cupboard named for him.

Harold Hillman's Publications and Work.
Book titles (as opposed to papers and articles) are in red

---

Dr. Harold Hillman has written and co-written six books and about 150 full-length papers, on biochemistry, biochemical techniques, cytology (cell structure and workings), neurobiology (the structure and functions of the brain and nervous system), histology (techniques of preparation of specimens for microscopy), and practical topics, notably resuscitation, death, and the death penalty. His work is important because it is radical and systematic.

---

1962-4  Collaboration with Prof Holger Hyden. Research into single nerve cells
1964  'The effect of visible light on ATP in solution'
1964  'The terminal phosphate bond as a transducer'
1965  'Do oscillations in biological systems originate in their substrates and nucleotides?'
1966  The Effect of Light on ATP, in Life Sciences - "When all my troubles started"
1970  'Chemical basis of epilepsy' in The Lancet
1970  'The growth of new processes from isolated dorsal and sympathetic cell bodies of rat and rabbit.' H. Hillman & Khallawan S A. Tissue and Cell .
1972  Resuscitation journal founded. Harold edited it until 1985. Elsevier. Abdominal pumping technique discovered, or rediscovered, by Rogers and Hillman. Ignored; no clinical trial.
1972  Certainty & Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques. (First book. Surrey University Press, U.K.)
1972  T.E.S. article suggesting Highlands and Islands University
1972-4  Series of articles in Teach-In ; titles included 'Architecture, Town Planning and the Doctor', 'Air Pollution and Disease Transmission', ' War and Civil Disturbances', 'Dying and Death'
1974  'A nucleolar membrane in neurons'
1974  'The Uses of Unfixed Isolated Mammalian Nerve Cells' (in Biochemical Society Transactions)
1975  'Occam Society' founded; about 25 members. Foundered in 1977: "Nobody else wanted to do any work."
1975  'Towards a Classification of Evidence in Biological and Medical Research in Respect of its Validity'. "This is my most important philosophical overview paper."
1976   'Mechanisms of Drug Action: A New Approach'
1977  Black and white film made with Audio-Visual Dept of University of Surrey: 'Fine Structure of the Living Cell.  A reconsideration.' Similar content as the 1980 book.
1977   'Value of Textbooks' letter in Nature
1979  'The Cell Re-examined' in Hospital Update
1980  'Appearance of Rat Tissues..' with Susan Sjuve in Quekett Microscopical Journal
1980  'A Re-reexamination of the fine structure of the living cell and its implications for biological education', in School Science Review
1980  'Artefacts in Electron Microscopy and the Consequences for Biological and Medical Research'
1980  'Boxing' in Resuscitation
1980  The Living Cell, Hillman & Peter Sartory. (Second book. Packard Publishing, U.K.)
1980  'An insoluble fraction of ox brain' [='brain powder'] N Ahmed & H Hillman
1981  Reply to review of 'The Living Cell' by Parish (in Quekett Microscopical Club Journal )
1981  'Simple Micromanipulation and Microdissection' (in Quekett Club Journal - Harold also gave a talk on this subject)
1981  'Vegetarianism - an alternative diet or a crazy fad?' Nursing Times
1981  Letter critical of anonymous refereeing in Biochemical Society Bulletin
1982  'Some questions not answered by the electron microscopists'
1983  'Biochemical Cytology - Has It Advanced in the Last 35 Years?' The Biologist
1983  'An unnatural way to die' from New Scientist. Capital punishment
1983  'Types of light microscopy'. H. Hillman and P. Richards in Microscopy.
1983  'Some Fundamental Theoretical and Practical Problems Associated with Neurochemical Techniques in Mammalian Studies' in Neurochemistry International . The editor would only print this alongside a 'critique' by L. Hertz
1985 *RECEPTORS1  'The Anatomical Synapse in Mammals by Light and Electron Microscopy'
1986 FILM  Colour Film 'Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Brain'
1986  Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Nervous System. (Third book. ????)
1987  Colour Film: 'Effects of Staining'
1987  'Fraud versus Carelessness', Letter in Nature
1987  'How to make medical research more successful'
1987  'The effect of haematoxylin and eosin, Palmgren's and osmic acid procedures on the dimensions and appearance of isolated rabbit medullary neurons.'
1987  Open letter to referees in Times Higher Education Supplement
1987 Three letters in New Scientist . R H Michell and G C Cox attempt to answer re electron microscopy
1988  'A Rational Approach to Elucidating the Mechanism and Location of Action of a Disease Process, or a Drug, in Vivo'
1988  *RECEPTORS2  'Critique of Current Views on Receptors, and a New General Theory of Receptor Location and Action in Vivo.'
1988  'The Eyelash and Hair Follicle of the New-Born Mouse'
1988  Hansard extract
1989  'The Effects of Transmitters on the Affinity of the Insoluble Fraction of Ox Brain for Na+ and K+' N Ahmed & H Hillman
1990  'International Committee on the Promotion of Academic Freedom' (CAFAS) founded about now (and foundered later) About sixty interested people
1990?  Article on HH in ' The Scientist '
1991  The Case for New Paradigms in Cell Biology and Neurobiology. (Fourth book. Edwin Mellen, U.K.)
1991  *RECEPTORS4  'A New Hypothesis for Electrical Transmission in the Mammalian Nervous System' in Medical Hypotheses
1991  *RECEPTORS3  'A Re-Examination of the Vesicle Hypothesis of Transmission in Relation to its Applicability to the Mammalian Central Nervous System.'
1991  'Resistance to the Spread of Unpopular Academic Findings and Views in Liberal Societies, Including a Personal Case' in ' Accountability in Research ' Volume 1
1991  'Some Microscopic Considerations about Cell Structure - Light Versus Electron Microscopy' in ' Microscopy '
1991  Atlas of the Cellular Structure of the Human Nervous System, Hillman & Jarman (Fifth book. Academic Press).
1991  'Fatty Acid Levels in the Brains of Schizophrenics...'
1992  Review of 'The Case for New Paradigms..' in Proceedings of RMS
1994  'New Considerations About the Structure of the Membrane of the Living Animal Cell' in Physiol. Chem. Phys. & Md. NMR. "It's an obscure journal and nobody will read it."
1994  Physiological Society Bulletin: letter from David F Horrobin deploring the society's decision not to publish papers by Jarman & Hillman
1995  Aug  'Awkward Questions in Biology' revised to 'Unanswered Questions in Biology' (for Internet Bulletin Board)
1995  Council for Academic Autonomy Colloquium on Academic Freedom and The HEFC(E)
1995  'Determining Ethical Practice Worldwide'
1995  'Dr Peccadillo and assorted sins' in Times Higher
1995  Jan  Susan Greenfield; Letter to & Reply from
1995  ?July: Untitled Letter in Experienta (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel)
1995  Feb What Price Intellectual Honesty? (full text)
1995  Aug  World Medicine Conference Report
1996  July 1996  Unanswered Questions in Biology
1996  Unpublished Theory of Cancer
1996  Review in Nature of Confronting the Experts (and H's reply)
1996  ' Observer' Article on Cruelty of Electrical Stunning
1996  'Neurobiology has its Unanswered Questions' Aug 1996
1996  Review of 'The Case for New Paradigms..'
1996 'A New Look at the Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Brain'
1996  Problems of Research into Schizophrenia [32K]
1997  A Study of 131 Patients with Schizophrenia and Provision for Them [52K]
1997  'Parafraud in Biology' (in Science and Engineering Ethics )
1997  Guardian obituary of Keith Porter includes Harold
1997  Honour in Academia in New Humanist
1998  23 Jan 1998 article in Science on 'cytoskeleton'

---

Added in 2012:-
1998 Internet Site
2000 'HAROLD HILLMAN...' in 'The Resuscitation Greats' series, in Resuscitation journal
2000 'Limitations of clinical and biological histology' in Medical Hypotheses
2001 'Research practices in need of examination and improvement' - in Science and Engineering Ethics
2003 'The physiology of sudden violent death' paper in Resuscitation
2003 'Electrical devices used by prison officers, police and security forces' - in 'Medicine Conflict and Survival'
2004 'Towards a Classification of Evidence in Biological and Medical Research in Respect of its Validity' - in Acta Biotheoretica
2008 EVIDENCE BASED CELL BIOLOGY, with Some Implications for Clinical Research (sixth book. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht).

2011 ONLINE VIDEOS START 2011, Feb - 'The Living Cell' film put online, with my own introduction; this may have prompted Internet activity- 2011, May - harold-hillman.com blog put online
2011, September - Hillman's three films put on Youtube by arhillman with new titles. (They seem to have been posted again later, or pirated, by 'venompangx').
2013, Jan - Link to new HD of 'The Living Cell' with my introductory material, photos, voiceover, timecode, and a 'Harry Potter'-style title sequence which might amuse people and lighten the mood (30 mins)-- [This was removed from Youtube without any warning with their usual Jewish disregard for honesty and free speech]
Try here: big-lies.org/media/hillman-1-living-cell-uncut-voiceover-1920x1080.mp4

THIRD BOOK: 1986  Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Nervous System. (MTP Press - n.b. not MIT)

Important Book on the Structure of the Brain

Some conclusions from this book...

• 'Synapses' in the brain - the model with chemical transmission between nerves - are a mistake
• The traditional structures ('oligodendrocytes' etc) are insecurely founded
• 'Neural networks' don't model the way the brain works
• We have some explanation for the fact that people even with severe hydrocephalus can have normal brain function