Nexus - 0702 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

optics. Back in France, Naessens created the first working model it. It is difficult to see how millions of artifacts could suddenly be of an entirely new kind of microscope, which he eventually created by such a simple, virtually sterile procedure. dubbed "the Somatoscope". Another, more intelligent objection is that somatids are merely A major advantage of the Somatoscope is that it reveals the lipoproteins of various densities, including chylomicrons, HDL, dynamic behaviour of living materials. Using this unique instru- LDL, etc. The confusion is natural, since after a fatty meal there ment, one can see right into the interior of living cells. For exam- are a great number of chylomicrons in the blood. These often ple, its view of the movement of some white blood cells is mes- give it a turbid, milky appearance for a few hours. However, merising: not only does one see the amoeba-like movement of Naessens has repeatedly examined blood samples and heated these cells, but every individual granule (lysosome) within the them to as high as 70°C (158°F). This certainly immobilises all granulocytes, moving, vibrating, pulsating. What you see ina chylomicrons and lipoproteins, yet large numbers of dancing conventional microscope is just dead matter. somatids remain just as active after this procedure. (This is visi- It seems obvious that Naessens has made a major advance over _ ble on the 1992 AIDS videotape from COSE.) This demonstrates conventional microscopes—one that would boggle the mind of that the somatids are not chylomicrons or other lipoproteins. any sincere biologist who looked through this instrument. Yet It is also sometimes stated that the ceaseless, lifelike dance of this remarkable tool—and the inexpensive condenser derived the somatids can be explained as "Brownian movement", which is from it—remains unknown to the vast majority of scientists. the erratic, non-directional, zigzag motion of particulate matter. The reasons for this are complex. On the one hand, Naessens is Even if somatids did move by Brownian motion, this would hard- not interested in publishing in scientific journals because he feels ly rule out their biological activity. (Red blood cells, by analogy, that completely new ideas cannot sur- have no independent means of locomo- vive the so-called peer-review process. tion.) However, this explanation of On the other hand, academics some- On 1 July 1963, Naessens the somatid dance hardly accounts for times are unduly sceptical about the Fi A Fi some of the distinctly non-random work of independent laboratories, such registered his theory of somatids properties one easily observes. as Naessens's Centre Expérimental de with the French Academy of Under the Naessens microscope or Recherches Biologiques de l'Estrie, . . . the condenser, one can routinely see Inc. (CERBE). Another reason is that Sciences In Paris. the somatids repelling one another. the Somatoscope's mathematical con- Naessens once captured a somatid stants have not been elucidated up until There was then, and is today, under the electron microscope and now, despite much difficult work found that it had a positively charged expended on this question. Thus, nei- no conventional recognition, nucleus and a thin, negatively ther Naessens nor anyone else is yet much less explanation, charged outer coating. one can also able to give a rounded explanation o . see that somatids are attracted to the the physics or mathematics involved in of this phenomenon. positive pole of a magnet placed on this remarkable invention. That it does one end of the slide. In addition, in work, however, is indisputable. videotaped experiments one can see Once Naessens had invented the Somatoscope, he was able to somatids (as well as their extended forms) emerging from red see more clearly the "dross" that he had first noticed in human blood cells when these are stressed by heat. One can also fre- blood. This "dross" turned out to be dancing particles, some no — quently see somatids "refusing" to emerge from red blood cells larger than "viruses", normally present in tremendous profusion. and, instead, "parasitising" those cells in little nests—which look Naessens calls these particles somatids—a word he coined, mean- highly abnormal, and seem to be a sign of present or impending ing "little bodies". In fact, on 1 July 1963, he registered his theo- illness. ry of somatids with the French Academy of Sciences in Paris. In our opinion, the least likely explanation of somatids is that There was then, and is today, no conventional recognition, they are just unidentified garbage—cellular debris with no possi- much less explanation, of this phenomenon. It is one of the most ble significance. We should recall that, a century ago, platelets extraordinary facts of modern science that such a prominent fea- (now known to be a crucial element in the blood) were considered ture of blood, which can be seen by anybody using a Naessens simply "debris derived from the degradation of other blood cells" condenser, is non-existent according to every orthodox textbook. (W.S. Beck, ed., Hematology, MIT Press, USA, 1994, p. 542). The best hypothesis at the moment remains that of Naessens SOMATIDS AS LIVING ENTITIES himself: that somatids are living entities of tremendous impor- When Naessens was put on trial in 1989, this forced some doc- tance to medicine, and in some fundamental sense are an element tors to confront the somatid. One explanation offered for these necessary for the reproduction and growth of normal cells. particles was that they were simply "artifacts". This explanation Certainly, many questions remain about the exact nature of is illogical. Webster defines an "artifact" as a "product", such asa __ these fascinating entities, their internal structure and their chemi- structure on a prepared microscope slide, of artificial character cal makeup as well as their relationship to cancer and other dis- due to extraneous (e.g., human) agency. Thus, artifacts by defini- eases. And just because Naessens discovered and named them, tion are not natural occurrences, but are things created in the act _ this does not mean that all his current explanations are necessarily of staining or otherwise preparing tissues for microscopic exami- correct or could not be modified with new information or explana- nation. tions. (Even Galileo at first thought that the moons of Jupiter However, remember that Naessens uses fresh blood—no stains, were "four planets...which have their orbits around a certain bright dyes or colourants at all. After carefully rubbing the skin with star".) Naessens believes we are just at the beginning of under- alcohol, he pricks the finger and then deftly touches the slide to standing a vast new era. But a fuller explanation of somatids will the resulting drop of blood. He then quickly places a cover slip —_ go hand in hand with the development of ever more sensitive over that, and examines it for about 20 to 30 minutes. And that's tools. There was then, and is today, no conventional recognition, much less explanation, fab ae SOMATIDS AS LIVING ENTITIES When Naessens was put on trial in 1989, this forced some doc- tors to confront the somatid. One explanation offered for these particles was that they were simply “artifacts". This explanation is illogical. Webster defines an "artifact" as a "product", such as a structure on a prepared microscope slide, of artificial character due to extraneous (e.g., human) agency. Thus, artifacts by defini- tion are not natural occurrences, but are things created in the act of staining or otherwise preparing tissues for microscopic exami- nation. However, remember that Naessens uses fresh blood—no stains, dyes or colourants at all. After carefully rubbing the skin with alcohol, he pricks the finger and then deftly touches the slide to the resulting drop of blood. He then quickly places a cover slip over that, and examines it for about 20 to 30 minutes. And that's NEXUS - 31 Sciences in Paris. of this phenomenon. , FEBRUARY — MARCH 2000