His concerns about differences in g's in a centrifuge is also a perfect example of a red herring. This stuff is known (apparently not to him, which casts quite a shadow on his credentials or state of mind), for example (see fig.7.1 with all the different radii there): https://www.biologydiscussion.com/m...fugation-technique-of-molecular-biology/26504
The rest of the text suffers from the same shortcomings. For example, he questions electron microscopy. He cites papers as late as 2010, but he is horribly outdated (yet more shadows on his abilities at the time of writing, he seems stuck in the 60s and 70s, I suppose his golden times). But fine, let's suppose EM is wrong. There are now optical techniques that can actually do things on nanoscales in vivo, i.e., not what he says is possible only with dead cells. See an abstract here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28924658/ An excerpt: "TED microscopy facilitates the visualization of the highly complex and dynamic morphology of neurons and glia cells deep inside living brain slices and in the intact brain in vivo". Note the "intact brain" part, it destroys Hillman's objections. And please don't try to say that this STED paper is outlier by some lying corrupt eggheads - Nature Methods is constantly filled with such various imaging techniques (look it up, at least the table of contents should be available).
He discusses some of the criticisms of his work, the only one coming close is: "Thirdly, it was asserted that the structures which I had characterised as artefacts (Table 2) had been demonstrated by several different microscopical procedures, which they believed represented different independent lines of evidence. My response was that the alleged structures were not seen in fresh unfixed tissue, but in dehydrated, shrunken, stained preparations, which was the source of all the artifacts." As I have shown above his assertion that it is all about dehydrated, etc. preparations, does not hold water.
And he does not talk anywhere about microbes or germ theory.
OK, I had more than enough of all these "experts". Unlike you, I do not need experts, I ask critical questions that are easily testable by a layman.
I do support everybody in their efforts to improve their "territory", but would like to caution from testing the "anti-germ" theory and its approaches (why wash hands? - the Contagion Myth) on themselves - you could become one of those "Darwin award" winners (no, I am not a Darwinist, but you sure know what that award means).