|
| |||||||
| Register | Invite Your Friends | FAQ | ChatBox Full | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Morgellons Theories & Speculations Discussion on Theories and Speculations on Morgellons |
| |
 |
| | LinkBack (1) | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
May 1st, 2009, 05:38 PM
| |||
| |||
 Quote:
Once again, this represents how things are done from the "top-down" military heirachy... any scientist could come in here and sift through our work and easily tell what's going on with us. But, they don't come, but, we hope someday they will take an interest in what is the patient saying is happening, instead of the other way around. If I were a smart researcher given the job of figuring this out, I'd be over here looking... The problem has been - that we don't know where to start to tell ANYONE what's wrong with us. Which pathogen is doing YOU the most damage? Some might say, it's the fungus, it's the parasites, it's the bacteria... and that might be true to THEIR perceptions, however, we have to look at the way the human body operates and look at which pathogen is doing us the most damage according to what modern medicine/science says. You may feel as if the fungus is predominate, however, in the background, silently - the silicon is eating you up. Because, silicon is documented to be more of a toxic pathogen than fungus. How our bodies process these various pathogens is individual, genetic, immune systems, general health, etc., and other reasons. Ok, how would this scenario look, and let's make us minimal? You've got a group of 'backyard' scientists that have some fairly solid data/hypothesis and theories on this site and we present our data to the other scientists? Or, we present our information to the CDC prior to them publishing their report? The WHO, NIH... etc.? Now, let's pretend like we're in charge of this '1 year study mission in California' over at the CDC?... you've got a report in front of you from us - that's 'fairly' scientific and sound... you can see what the public knows. Hmmm.... well, maybe you weren't planning on divulging as much information this coming August?... you going to let a bunch of ameatuers make you look bad?... 'Oh, I can't 'blow that smoke'... they know too much'. I think our work here can inspire them and others to look a little deeper? We might even be able to answer a few questions about this disease that someone might have? Do you catch my drift? And, we ARE a voice, even though we haven't been heard and probably not seen. When the time comes for this conclusion of this one year report - we will know if what they are saying is true or false, we're what's called 'checks and balances'. It's a new concept in government - it's where one department checks to make sure the work of the other one - is correct. The CDC could come out here in August and say Morgellons is caused by the swine/duck/pygmie virus - the same as they did with the AIDS virus and we'd just had to 'eat' what they say, and take it for face value because we CHOOSE to remain ignorant? Those days are passing, we're learning more everyday. In fact, we're learning too much! So, what I'm proposing is - let someone write a synopsis/conclusion of what we know to be true about Morgellons. This is something we're going to present to the media, to other Internet sites, to our Health Care Professionals, to the other scientists, to the authorities, etc., PRIOR to August. We can take votes, talk it out and get on the same page? Form a consensus that 'yeah, we agree that this is what Morgellons is'. Of course, you can have your other opinions, as we all will - but, they won't be included in this particular report. We're not stupid, we know what's going on... we just can't come and say certain things without it making us look worse than we already do. As, I'm saying, I don't think the nano aspect should be a part of our consensus - this is damaging information at this time. We're still trying to get seen by our doctors for the first time. As soon as this disease is studied in depth - the scientists will find the nano aspect. In the meantime, we can discuss it and figure out how to deal with it. But, at this time to take a placard that tied around your neck to Atlanta, in front of the TV cameras that says, "I've been nanoteched!"... without any real proof is going to make us all look bad. Our goal - We're trying to be seen for what "it" is, for the first time by our doctors to get some basic medicines. Last edited by -----------; May 1st, 2009 at 05:41 PM.  |
| Sponsored Links |
| |
|
May 1st, 2009, 05:55 PM
| |||
| |||
| Friday, May 02, 2008 Researchers mimic bacteria to produce magnetic nanoparticles  Strings of magnetic nanoparticles within bacteria.Interdisciplinary Ames Laboratory team uses bioinspired approach When it comes to designing something, it’s hard to find a better source of inspiration than Mother Nature. Using that principle, a diverse, interdisciplinary group of researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory is mimicking bacteria to synthesize magnetic nanoparticles that could be used for drug targeting and delivery, in magnetic inks and high-density memory devices, or as magnetic seals in motors.Commercial room-temperature synthesis of ferromagnetic nanoparticles is difficult because the particles form rapidly, resulting in agglomerated clusters of particles with less than ideal crystalline and magnetic properties. Size also matters. As particles get smaller, their magnetic properties, particularly with regard to temperature, also diminish. However, several strains of bacteria produce magnetite (Fe3O4) – fine, uniform nanoparticles that have desirable magnetic properties. These magnetotactic bacteria use a protein to form crystalline particles about 50 nanometers in size. These crystals are bound by membranes to form chains of particles which the bacteria use like a compass needle to orient themselves with the Earth’s magnetic field. To see if researchers could learn from the bacteria, Surya Mallapragada, Ames Laboratory Materials Chemistry and Biomolecular Materials program director pulled together a team that included microbiologists, biochemists, material chemists, chemical engineers, materials scientists and physicists from Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University. As a starting point, former ISU microbiologist Dennis Bazylinski, now at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, isolated several strains of magnetotactic bacteria for use in the study. Based on earlier work by a Japanese research team, Ames Laboratory biochemist Marit Nilsen-Hamilton looked at several proteins known to bind iron, including Mms6 found in magnetotactic bacteria, which she cloned from the bacteria. “This protein is associated with the membranes that surround the magnetite crystals,” Nilsen-Hamilton said, “and each bacterium appears to make particles with their own unique crystal structure.” Ames Lab chemist Tanya Prozorov tried synthesizing crystals, using the proteins with various concentrations of reagents in an aqueous solution, but the particles formed quickly, were small and lacked specific crystal morphology. At the suggestion of Ames Lab senior physicist and crystal growth expert Paul Canfield, the team used polymer gels developed by Mallapragada and Balaji Narasimhan, who are both Ames Lab scientists as well as ISU chemical engineers, to slow down the reaction and help control formation of the nanocrystals and minimize aggregation. “It’s simple chemistry,” Prozorov said, “and you can judge the reaction by the color, watching it go from yellow to green to black as the crystals form. Once the crystals precipitate out, we use a magnet to concentrate the particles at the bottom of the flask, then separate them out to study them further.” Prozorov also conducted electron microscopy analysis of the synthetic nanoparticles which showed that Mms6 produced well-formed, faceted crystals resembling those produced naturally by the bacteria. Powder X-ray diffraction studies verified the crystal structure of the particles. Ames Lab physicist Ruslan Prozorov, tested the magnetic properties of the synthetic crystals which also showed striking similarities to the bacteria-produced crystals and bulk magnetite. The magnetic studies also showed that the “chains” of particles formed by the bacteria had a much sharper magnetic transition definition at a higher temperature than single crystals. “Nature found a way to beat the thermodynamics (of crystalline magnetite) by arranging the nanoparticles in such a way that they aren’t affected by temperature the way individual crystals are,” Ruslan Prozorov said. With this basic understanding of magnetotatic bacteria and the ability to synthesize magnetite nanoparticles, the team proceeded to find out if the bioinspired approach could be used to produce cobalt-ferrite nanoparticles. Cobalt-ferrite, which doesn’t occur in living organisms, has more desirable magnetic properties than magnetite, yet presents the same problems for commercially producing nano-scale particles. In addition to their previous method, the team took the added step of covalently attaching the Mms6 to a strand of functionalized polymer known to self-assemble and form thermoreversible gels. Because the polymer strands come together in a particular way, the attached proteins had a specific alignment that the researchers hoped would serve as a template for the formation of cobalt-ferrite crystals. And the way in which the gel formed would help control the speed of the reaction. “It worked rather well,” Tanya Prozorov said, “and we ended up with very nice hexagonal cobalt ferrite crystals” and added that she is studying whether the protein will also work for the other neodymium, gadolinium, and holmium ferrites.  The project is funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The research has generated fodder for a number of journal articles, including published works in ACSNano PDF, Physical Review B PDF, and Advanced Functional Materials. “This is an exciting interdisciplinary project addressing some of Basic Energy Sciences’ ‘Grand Challenges’ by bringing together materials scientists, chemists, physicists and biologists to develop new bioinspired materials of relevance to DOE's mission,” said Mallapragada. “Ames Laboratory is a wonderful environment in which to foster and grow these sorts of interdisciplinary initiatives because teamwork is really built into the culture here." Ames Laboratory is operated for the Department of Energy by Iowa State University. The Lab conducts research into various areas of national concern, including the synthesis and study of new materials, energy resources, high-speed computer design, and environmental cleanup and restoration. ### Magnetotactic bacteria Magnetotactic bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  One day I tried to pick up some particles with tweezers. They were magnetic! They attached themselves. Katinka Last edited by Katinka; May 1st, 2009 at 05:58 PM. |
|
May 1st, 2009, 09:19 PM
| |||
| |||
| Weird Katinka. I will say these Morgellons fibers are definately sticky they have a tendency to cling. For a time I wore a loadstone pendant and magnetic bracelets they seemed to help some. (LC) |
|
May 4th, 2009, 12:49 PM
| |||
| |||
| |
|
May 4th, 2009, 01:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| hmmm Quote:
Borrelia burdgorferi Kritts |
|
May 10th, 2009, 03:29 PM
| |||
| |||
| Open Letter to the FDA to Stop lacing food, etc, with dangerous nanoparticles Open Letter to the FDA to Stop Corporations from Lacing Foods, Body Care Products, & Supplements with Dangerous Nanoparticles
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Dear Commissioner Von Eschenbach, I write to express my serious concerns about the FDA's regulatory oversight of nanomaterials in consumer products. Many consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials are already available on U.S. market shelves, including food and food packaging products. Millions of dollars are being spent by government and industry to apply nanotechnology in areas of food processing, food packaging, and agricultural production. Current nano-food products on the market include a canola oil, a chocolate "slim" shake, a nano-bread, and several nano-food additives and supplements used in soft drinks, lemonades, fruit juices, and margarines. Many food packaging products use nano-composites, nano-clays, and nano-coatings. In addition, if industry observers are correct, hundreds of more new food and agriculture products are under development and many could be on the market in as few as two years. By 2010 the nano-food market will be $20 billion. Many of the world's leading food companies - including H.J. Heinz, Nestle, Hershey, Unilever, and Kraft - are investing heavily in nanotechnology applications. Scientists have found that the fundamental properties of matter can change at the nano-scale, creating physical and chemical properties distinct from those of the same material in bulk form. We know that the new properties of nanomaterials create new risks, like enhanced toxicity. Studies have raised numerous red flags, and many types of nanoparticles have proven to be toxic to human tissue and cells. Nanoparticles can gain assess to the blood stream following ingestion. Once inside the body, the super-tiny size of these materials gives them unprecedented mobility and access to the human body; they can access cells, tissues, and organs that larger particles cannot. The length of time that nanoparticles remain in organs and what dose may cause harmful effects remains unknown. It does not appear that FDA is ready for this wave of nano-food products. I am very concerned about the rapid introduction of these potentially hazardous nanomaterials into our bodies and into our environment without adequate scientific study to ensure that we understand their risks and can prevent harm occurring to people and the environment. The FDA's failure to undertake or review new testing of these nanomaterials despite these known and foreseeable dangers suggests the agency's review process is not acting to ensure consumer health and safety. For these reasons, I strongly request that FDA use its upcoming Public Meeting and its new Nanotechnology Task Force to discuss the human health and environmental risks presented by nanomaterials in consumer products, including food and food packaging products. FDA should act quickly to shore up its regulation of these substances to account for their fundamentally different properties and their associated dangers, including require new nano-specific testing and the labeling of all nanomaterial products, including nano-food products. Currently, FDA's reliance on manufacturers' assurances of safety make me and my family into guinea pigs. FDA must instead independently review all testing and assess the safety of these products as well as force manufacturers to label their nanomaterial products. Only with labeling can I make educated decisions about what I buy and put in and on my body. Until such actions are taken, I fully support a moratorium on the manufacture of nanomaterial consumer products and the recall of products currently on the market. Ronnie Cummins National Director Organic Consumers Association Finland, Minnesota 55603 Open Letter to the FDA to Stop Corporations from Lacing Foods, Body Care Products, & Supplements with Dangerous Nanoparticles SS |
|
May 14th, 2009, 01:01 PM
| |||
| |||
| Important new article on the dangers of nanotechnology As nanotechnology hits the marketplace, safety is a growing issue By Jim Dawson | Thursday, May 14, 2009 MinnPost - As nanotechnology hits the marketplace, safety is a growing issue The scientists and the audience of 50 or so people gathered at a recent science-policy forum in Washington, D.C., were engaged in a discussion that researchers would normally dread: predicting the future. One scientist talked about "gauging newly emerging waves," while another spoke of "upstream oversight." The session, "Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies," lived up to its billing – an insider's discussion of how federal regulatory agencies might develop rules to control new technologies that could pose a health or environmental threat to society. But it quickly became clear that the most worrisome "emerging technology" is already here – nanotechnology. Whether in the form of anti-bacterial panties or canola oil that claims to reduce cholesterol, products "enhanced" with nano particles are already flooding the market. Nanotechnology is "getting ahead of the environmental, health and safety issues," said Jennifer Kuzma, a biochemist focusing on technology risk and oversight issues at the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. "And it is getting ahead of the legal and social implications of the research." Kuzma was one of the researchers speaking at the meeting. Focus is on science, not safety Although the federal government spends more than a billion dollars on nanotechnology research annually, safety studies aren't getting the funding they should, Kuzma noted. The focus is on science and "safety isn't a scientific assessment, it's a value," she said. As for the hundreds of nanotech consumer products already coming onto the market, she observed that the "driving force is the marketplace, not social good." While the promise of nanotechnology can hardly be overstated, Kuzma is just one of many scientists and policy experts concerned that the enthusiasm pushing the field's development is dwarfing the safety concerns. For most nonscientists, nanotechnology still seems exotic. Yet in 2007 about $60 billion worth of nano products were sold worldwide, and that number was expected to reach $150 billion in 2008, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnolgies, a joint effort by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trust. The Wilson center's nano products database contains more than 800 items, everything from facial powder and toothpaste to baseball bats and anti-bacterial washing machines. And right around the marketing corner are nanofoods. Nanotechnology is the 25-year-old science based on incredibly tiny engineered particles. The U.S. government spends about $1.5 billion annually on nanotechnology research. Internationally about $7.5 billion is spent each year on research. Yet virtually everyone involved in nanotechnology – scientists, government officials, and industry representatives – concede that too little is known about the health effects of exposure to these particles. Nanoparticles are typically 1/100,000 the width of a human hair and exist on the scale of atoms and molecules. One of their key appeals is they are light and extremely strong. Carbon nanotubes can make a metal baseball bat up to 30 times stronger than a non-nano bat. Nanoparticles are also being envisioned as miniature containers that can deliver drugs directly into cells, and as strong, thin wires that can carry electricity over great distances. But the size of nanotubes underlies many of the safety concerns. "The fear is that somebody will introduce the material in products and it will be harmful and nobody will recognize it," said Andrew Maynard, the chief science adviser to the nanotechnology project. "It could be another asbestos, with particles [getting into the body] and having long latency periods before causing problems. That isn't likely to happen, but people fear it." Concerns about absorption, inhalation Maynard and other experts are concerned that nanoparticles in sunscreen and cosmetics could be absorbed through the skin, or that inhaled particles from facial powders could lodge deep in the lungs. "They are small enough that they can get to different places in the body, like the brain," Maynard said. Add to that the concern over the phenomenon that particles sometimes take on different properties when they become very small. Gold, for example, undergoes a "radical transformation" when it is reduced to the nano scale, Maynard said. "It turns red and becomes chemically reactive." So something that is safe at a large scale may not be safe at the nano scale. While there is uncertainty about the safety of nanoparticles in consumer products, even less is known about the use of nanotechnology in agricultural and food production, Kuzma said. She has looked at the use of nanoparticles being used as flavor enhancers in food, as anti-bacterial treatments for livestock, and as preservatives in food packaging. The health and safety issues, she said, remain "largely unexplored." The U.S. nanotechnology effort is overseen by the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative. Part of that initiative is a "working group" charged with making sure environmental and health aspects of nanotechnology are adequate. But a National Research Council report late last year found that there are "serious weaknesses" in the government's health and environmental risks program. The money for researching the risk is inadequate, the report said, and despite the existence of the working group, "there is no single organization or person that will be held responsible" for overseeing safety research. Report calls for emerging-technologies agency A report issued in April by J. Clarence Davies, a former Environmental Protection Agency official, called for the creation of a federal agency to provide the "new thinking, new laws and new organizational forms" necessary to handle the challenges of regulating nanotechnology and other emerging technologies. Kuzman and others think that the creation of an entirely new federal regulatory agency is both unlikely and unnecessary. Congress stepped into the game with the passage of a bill earlier this year by the House of Representatives that requires federal agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative to develop a plan for the environmental and safety research, and a roadmap for implementing it. A similar bill is expected in the Senate soon, and observers on Capitol Hill believe it will pass. It will be years before the nanotechnology safety issues are entirely sorted out. In the meantime, Maynard said, "I don't think the consumer should be too worried," but there is concern "with products where it can get in your body [such as cosmetics]. If nanoparticles can get on your skin, or in your food, or in sprays that you'll inhale, that would be of more concern than in a baseball bat." |
|
May 19th, 2009, 04:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Just got this: 'Nanotechnology' May Simplify Antibiotic Treatment - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors Oh, NO!! This will wreak havoc...there is almost nothing known about this technology and its health risks to humans... Wonder where this will all lead to? No, actually I don't. This will lead into CHAOS. Katinka |
| Sponsored Links |
| |
|
| Bookmarks |
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.morgellons-disease-research.com/Morgellons-Message-Board/morgellons-theories-speculations/4621-nanotechnology.html | ||||
| Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
| The Loom | Discover Magazine | This thread | Refback | April 15th, 2009 05:02 PM | |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Cotton Nanotechnology? | Lisa | Morgellons Theories & Speculations | 10 | October 29th, 2009 08:46 PM |
| For Bugsick: Consumer Reports and Nanotechnology | tcmgpt13 | Morgellons Theories & Speculations | 1 | July 12th, 2007 10:42 PM |
| NANOTECHNOLOGY FOR THE HAIR | standswfist | Morgellons Treatment | 3 | June 9th, 2007 01:20 PM |
| Broadcast at Rense cites nanotechnology as culprit | Steve Frey | Morgellons Disease (Fiber Disease) | 11 | March 30th, 2007 10:55 AM |
| Current regulations and information concerning Nanotechnology | beverlybdmd | General Discussion | 1 | March 19th, 2007 04:53 AM |
Linear Mode
