my cat has worms and ear mites....

[tcmgpt13]

I believe there are many insects which have not been seen before but which may at some later date be identified as an insect. I have seen insects, quite large ones at the beginning, and they were not anything I could find on the internet as parasitizing man. Still they did move. Some even flew or swam. I believe that any insect could have the ability to parasitize humans, as not all parasites have been identified. I think that saying that Morgellons symptoms are nanobugs with no scientific proof of such critters is going too far. People are saying a lot of things about Morgellons and most of what has been said has not had any reproducible proof to back it up. Here is a google book page where it mentions that "Remarkably, the species richness of tropical forests is so enormous, particularly in insects, that most of it has not yet been described taxonomically."

Environmental Ecology: The ... - Google Book Search

How can anyone declare that just because an insect has not been identified as yet, it therefore has to be a nano bug? If this was presented as being a nano bug with no replicatable proof (meaning other scientists could duplicate the experiment with the same results as proof) at a scientific conference it would be laughed right out of the room.

Meanwhile, until proven otherwise, I think this sort of speculation causes those who have Morgellons a great disservice. Those who would label us all DOP have even greater reason to dismiss our affliction as "all in our heads" when such statement are made with no proof to back them up.

BTW, videos (as can photos) can be faked and in no way offer valid proof of anything. I do not think anyone will take this position seriously until or unless Staninger et al can offer valid scientific proof which holds up under scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Sadsack

TCM -
The point that Ruth (and Dr. Staninger) are saying is that these things that really look like bugs (yes, I've seen them, too...I even had a tiny moth fly out of my leg) is that these are MADE by nanotechnology, are not true biological entities.
That is not to say that REAL bugs, scabies and the like might not also co-exist, but what generally appears to be the type of insect that never has been known to be human parasites are "nanobugs".
It is totally freaky, but when Ruth's videos are ready, view them and you be the judge of what you see.
I not only had some "bugs" but I had lots of seeds that looked exactly like the bird seed I was feeding my birds...they came out of my skin...three of them HAD SPROUTED in my skin. I would've put a bullet through my head if I had one when I saw that.
SS

[Sadsack]

TCM -
Ruth is a sufferer for 11 years, a nurse, and a lovely lady. If she had the kind of FX skills to produce those kinds of videos, she'd be raking in big bucks in Hollywood.
Dr. Staninger has used the most reputable labs in the country, including MIT.
Unbelievable, yes. But no more unbelievable than we are when we tell our doctors about our symptoms. Think about how stretched the credibility already is.
Trisha Springstead has been extracting these "things" for a couple of years. When she uses traditional methods of preserving the samples (such as formaldehyde), they dissappear. "Bugs" gotten from the environment are well preserved in these media. What does that say about OUR critters? They are different from anything else on the planet, just as the fibers are completely unknown, and their chemical composition is also do not match any of the 90,000 substances in the FBI database.
Here are 3 reputable scientists, and several independent and trustworthy labs that cannot identify any of this stuff as something previously known.
Are they all full of crap and doing us a disservice? Or do we not want to look at the evidence, just as the doctors don't want to look at us.
An "inconvenient truth", to borrow a phrase.
SS

[tcmgpt13]

Since when has obtaining an RN license also bestowed on that person credentials as a scientist? Some RNs do not even obtain a Bachelors Degree, only an associate’s degree , while yet others train in a hospital to obtain their licenses. An RN license does not qualify the person in any way to be called a “qualified scientist.” Being a “lovely lady” or a sufferer for 11 years does not qualify one as a scientist either. For all we know this person could have had help in altering videos, though I am not saying this was done. What I am saying is that there is NO verifiable proof the videos are about what the person says they are about (nano bugs), because no verifiable research has been conducted. Until there is actual scientific proof these sorts of homemade videos are without merit to anyone in the scientific world. This is why so many scientists and doctors doubt we are sick at all, because people keep insisting that unscientific proof done by a non-scientist is proof positive of Morgellons symptoms and/or Morgellons nano bugs. To repeat what I said above, this sort of evidence would be laughed right out of the room of any real scientific conference.

Most RNs do not know how to conduct scientific research nor is that sort of research part of their training for licensure as an RN. That immediately eliminates two of the alleged scientists you mentioned in your post. Just because people say that sample material has disappeared when they tried to preserve it does not mean this is a scientific fact. It has to be proven by other qualified scientists and similar samples need to undergo similar tests by more than one “qualified” scientist for this to mean anything at all. As it stands now we just have the word of two people who would not seriously be recognized as scientists, because their background as scientists would be challenged by serious scientists. We also have absolutely no proof that any of what has been said/oberserved/ studied has any validity whatsoever.

Requirements to sit for the nursing degree in the US:

Nursing Studies in the US - Fulbright

“Registered Nurse (RN)

There are three types of training programmes available for those wanting to be an RN: an associates degree in nursing (ADN), a bachelor of science degree in nursing (BSN), and a diploma programme. All successful graduates are prepared to begin general nursing duties in hospitals, clinics, etc. Upon completion of a training programme, students must sit the state licensure exam to become a registered nurse.”

Here is what I could find out about Staninger’s qualifications. On the National Registry of Environmental Professions she is listed as having just a basic registration (CIET) in environmental Toxicology, not the highest one obtainable. At least that is what came up in a search. I am unable to locate her CV with a named school where she obtained a Ph.d. Most of the info about her CV is self-reported. One of the Associations she founded and still lists as having founded is now inactive in the state of Florida and was opened under another last name (Sacarello).

www.sunbiz.org - Department of State

Here is what 2mf said about what he found out (just part of the post) about the research and the laboratory samples, which appear to be similarly flawed as to consistency and specificity (sort of a requirement for any serious scientific research):

Interesting Theorie

“All I can go by is the information I have available to me including what was written by Jan Smith on her own web site. If there is information saying that Jan Smith’s samples were examined by MIT, I haven’t been able to find it anywhere. Maybe you have access to information I don't. However, it is Jan Smith that said on her own website that her samples were given to Dr. Staninger and that Dr. Karjoo examined them - she made no mention of MIT herself.” ....

“I have found very little if any independent information available on Dr. Staninger’s background and credentials and in the only “published papers” I have found from her, she uses herself and her own work as scientific references an awful lot (which is generally not considered to be valid references in the scientific realm – citing your own work doesn’t provide independent validation). The “reports” she posted on Rense really don’t hold up to critical examination based on accepted scientific principles if you look at them objectively. The first time I read her “reports” on Rense, they did seem to have an air of credibility, but the more I read the information the more I realized that it really wasn’t very credible based on any stringent scientific perspective. Here are a few things I noted from her “reports” on Rense that cannot be considered to be valid from a scientific perspective:

• Sample integrity was basically non-existent in most cases – samples collected and mailed in by anyone using no established criteria based on the information available.

• In most cases she doesn’t state which lab examined the individual samples. She lists 4 labs including MIT as being used but only one sample was noted to have specifically been tested by MIT. I personally think listing all four labs in the “heading” of every “report” was to give the impression that MIT was involved in the testing more than they actually were. If she thought the meteorite sample was contaminated, why did she send it to MIT for testing? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

• EVERYTHING being “tested” was compared to what she called the “original golden-head” – there is no mention where the “original golden-head” came from or why everything was compared to it. Comparing everything to such an imagined “gold standard” prevents objective analysis and inquiry (no valid scientific experiment searching for something would use a predetermined outcome for comparison). Apparently the decision had already been made by Dr. Staninger that the “original golden-head” (whatever it is and wherever it came from) was the culprit in Morgellons before the experiments were even carried out. Her “reports” seem more to me like she is trying to prove her own conclusions about the cause of Morgellons rather than actually trying to objectively determine what is the cause or characteristics of Morgellons.

• Conclusions are drawn and assumptions are made by Dr. Staninger without real evidence or complete information (for instance, assuming that fiber optic cable rather than the host of other products that contain these substances is the cause of the HDPE and silica that Staninger associates with Morgellons is a prime example of this). Many samples were mostly made of things common to human biology like oxygen, sulfur, silica, carbon, etc. – this seems to be ignored for the most part by Dr. Staninger in favor of highlighting substances (even in very small amounts) that fit into her own predetermined notions about what Morgellons is or isn’t.

• Dr. Staninger and Dr. Karjoo apparently collaborated on the testing but they apparently reached different conclusions on how to treat Morgellons based on the same testing. Dr. Karjoo appears to have started recommending nutrasilver as a treatment (which seems to indicate he thinks that Morgellons has a “natural” biological component) while Dr. Staninger appears to have started recommending oxyopaline among other things including Far Infrared (FIR) Sauna treatments (detoxification appears to be her real focus for every condition).”

After poking less thoroughly than 2mf for info about Staninger's background and research I have to conclude that there is very little, if any, scientific validation for Morgellons nano bugs from any of your cited three sources.

Originally Posted by Sadsack

TCM -
Ruth is a sufferer for 11 years, a nurse, and a lovely lady. If she had the kind of FX skills to produce those kinds of videos, she'd be raking in big bucks in Hollywood.
Dr. Staninger has used the most reputable labs in the country, including MIT.
Unbelievable, yes. But no more unbelievable than we are when we tell our doctors about our symptoms. Think about how stretched the credibility already is.
Trisha Springstead has been extracting these "things" for a couple of years. When she uses traditional methods of preserving the samples (such as formaldehyde), they dissappear. "Bugs" gotten from the environment are well preserved in these media. What does that say about OUR critters? They are different from anything else on the planet, just as the fibers are completely unknown, and their chemical composition is also do not match any of the 90,000 substances in the FBI database.
Here are 3 reputable scientists, and several independent and trustworthy labs that cannot identify any of this stuff as something previously known.
Are they all full of crap and doing us a disservice? Or do we not want to look at the evidence, just as the doctors don't want to look at us.
An "inconvenient truth", to borrow a phrase.
SS

[Sadsack]

TCM -
I will be honest with you. I skimmed half of your response, and that's it. Read Dr. Staninger's research. Read Wymore's, too, and trash them as well.
If you disregard every bit of research by finding ANYTHING to discredit them, then there is nothing to talk about and we might just as well hang it up. Why even bother if nobody seems to satisfy your "standards". Pick apart the fringes, and ignore the big picture.
I prefer to support these efforts and I put my money where my mouth is and donate for research.
You sound like you write for Morgellons Watch.
SS

[Jo]

Hello all,

SS this was gonna happen hey- especially with TC terrier on the case! (no offence TC, hope you're good)

I've followed Ruth's work over the last year as we've observed some similar fly stuff. I'd love to see her vid. Is that why she's not posted on Lymebusters for a stretch?

I can appreciate some of the Staninger obs she's made and the protocol, but I still reckon, where the bugs are concerned, its more altered parasites, rather than man made. Time will tell!

I might email Trish about her samples cuz i wonder if she's used 70% + ethanol to keep them as thats certainly recommended for stuff like fly larvae instead of formaldehyde http://new.eafe.org/Program/Best%20Practise.pdf

When did life get so strange?

Love and peace out

Jo xxx

[tcmgpt13]

SS,

I guess you really don’t read thoroughly then. As far as I know Morgellons Watch is now inactive, if not defunct, as a site. While I do not agree with them that Morgellons does not exist, I do feel that asking people to act in a rational rather than an emotional manner when discussing Morgellons would help to forward the cause of this affliction. It is just such unproven, unscientific information conducted by less than qualified research scientists which makes us all look like a bunch of kooks, especially when venturing into the totally unexplored area of nano technology and its “bugs.” This is an area which would definitely require a qualified researcher to have anyone look at it seriously.

SS, I do not question whether you have Morgellons and never will, but apparently you feel that insulting another forum member by insinuating s/he is not sick is fair game. It is, however, not a rational rebuttal to the points I have presented. In fact it is not even an opposing viewpoint, but simply lies there as mud slinging. Congratulations.

I am asking and will continue to ask for scientific research to be presented about Morgellons nano bugs, especially clinical research. I have heard many assertions from people, some of whom you mention, but so far, other than Dr. Harvey, Dr.Stricker and Savely nothing has been published in any reputable scientific journal about Morgellons. None of it is clinical research. Asking for facts about Morgellons nano bugs does not mean I support Morgellons Watch. I am all too keenly aware that it is easy to fool people who are sick and that includes me which is why I think it is important to have valid, scientific sources of information. I do not see that asking for correctly conducted research and credentials which are verifiable is “picking apart the fringes ,and ignore the big picture.”

The reason I bother (bother?) to talk about this issue is I truly feel people should become aware of different ideas. They hopefully will question sources of information, as without doing this anybody can tell anyone anything. It will be believed without question. There are a lot of holes in Morgellons nano bug information so far, most of which needs to be answered by scientifically conducted research.

Quote from Jo:

"SS this was gonna happen hey- especially with TC terrier on the case! (no offence TC, hope you're good)"

Jo, frankly, my dear, I don't care what you call me (I would like this to be closer to what Rhett said but it would be censored here and therefore sounds a bit milder in this online version). I will continue to ask for information which makes some kind of scientific sense when it comes to Morgellons. So far I have seen little of that except from too few in the field or on the forum.

Originally Posted by Sadsack

TCM -
I will be honest with you. I skimmed half of your response, and that's it. Read Dr. Staninger's research. Read Wymore's, too, and trash them as well.
If you disregard every bit of research by finding ANYTHING to discredit them, then there is nothing to talk about and we might just as well hang it up. Why even bother if nobody seems to satisfy your "standards". Pick apart the fringes, and ignore the big picture.
I prefer to support these efforts and I put my money where my mouth is and donate for research.
You sound like you write for Morgellons Watch.
SS

[Jo]

Youre tenacious TC - thats what i meant. You dont hold dear to a particular theory and want the truth (like we all do) and will go the extra mile to question the unvalidated reports we get. I admire that.

Jo xxx

[Sadsack]

You are right, TCM - I don't read carefully - SOME THINGS. If I get the drift from the first paragraph or two and there's nothing in it but rhetoric and criticisms, I stop reading. If I find logical substance then I read carefully and thoroughly.
There is one consistency in all of this. The "denialists" at whatever level of denial, never offer substantive arguments or alternatives. Only criticize the science and technical procedures used when they haven't a clue what they are because they aren't scientists, just people who (for whatever reason) just don't wanna believe.
That said, I will CONTINUE to support the MRF, CHF, OSU, and Dr. Staninger. When real science is used by real scientists using real procedures, then they have my support. I don't support people who try to divide the community and trash the scientists.
If people haven't yet understood, this Morgellons thing is the most baffling and complex thing to ever have affected human beings. I have been on every type of medication made - antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasiticals, and none of them touched this. It's not a "normal" biological disease.
If you can't buy that it is manmade, at LEAST accept Citovsky's findings that agrobacteria is part of this - and what is agrobacteria? A BIOENGINEERED bacteria used to change the dna of the host.
Do you accept that tiny piece of EVIDENCE of man's fingerprints on this? It's just the beginning.
With that said, have a field day, TCM. I am not posting on this thread again.
Jo - Trish found that vodka will preserve these things. But the fact that the substances that NORMALLY preserve NORMAL critters makes them melt and dissappear should raise up the red flags that this AIN'T NORMAL.
I done - have fun.
SS

[Kritters]

Synthetic Biology 2.0

"...Generating biological structures/life forms from the bottom up by designing artificial DNA and new artificial letters for the standard four-letter DNA (A,C,G,T) -- allowing for more complex organisms than exist today -- is certainly a big part of the synthetic biology field...."

[kelley]

hello all---
this goes back to my original post on this---regarding the diagnosis of ear mites in my cat.

i just returned from a follow-up visit. the vet found one egg. she took quite awhile at the microscope and apologized upon return--explaining that they are trained to look at the mite itself, not eggs, but that this was clearly an egg, yet one she had not before encountered.

she's pretty fresh outta vet school---2-3 years--but she showed it to the lead vet and he had never seen it before either.

they offered to send it on to some lab--but we're gonna wait and try another month of medicine, before doing this. she emphasized that the tech she would send it to was not a parasitologist (sp?) but that they look at a lot of slides.

meanwhile--i'm going nuts with crawling and itching--it's the worst since i first contracted this, several months ago.

it's been raining tons here in california for a few weeks now---i'm wondering if the humidity is making it worse.

kelley