Join for Free!
121590 members

The Fiber Disease

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Skytroll » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:56 pm


I hope your ears improve. I think if you can see an eye, ear specialist, maybe they would treat the ear as they would a regular infection.

I feel bad for you. I know that can effect your life so much, trying not only to deal with the pain, but the infection as well.

Take care.

A bit more on the dangers of the nanotube, the original bucky ball.

"To better understand how cells process one type of carbon nanomaterial, a team of investigators at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, used high-resolution three-dimensional electron microscopy to track where buckyballs, or C 60, travel to in cells. Using non-toxic doses of buckyballs, the investigators found that buckyballs concentrated in intracellular lysosomes, along the cell membrane, along the nuclear membrane, and within the nucleus. Finding significant numbers of the nanoparticles in these latter two locations was a surprise to the investigators. They noted that accumulation of buckyballs within the cell nucleus could lead to DNA damage."
Snippet from article:
Source: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=18787

Even the EPA has acknowledged particles and that would include the bucky ball used in bioremediation aerosol propellent spraying in early 2000.

Now, that was one excuse for spraying the skies, to change and fix the ozone hole? What happened to discussion on that. One hears nothing anymore.

But, Congress has passed the climate change initiative, which means a group of leaders decided this would be a way to fix the delusional
global warming problem.

Who is delusional?

Do you not think that particles in the air, made of gold particles, aluminum, barium titanium and whatever else, the carbon nanotubes, and fibers, could really be causing more global warming.

I think it could cause fires, heating up the ground, by way of metals and carbon nanofibers, excellent for starting fires in dry areas, and why can't the climate change cause it to rain on the fires? it could cause changes in phytoplankton, it could cause breathing problems,
arthritis, etc. the nano fibers could go right through our pores. You name it.

So environmental related.

I saw a bunny yesterday. We must look at the damage being done to animals. This is from the aerosol operations, that is what it was called in our area. They let slip something there, I assume.

The bunny was navigating around my back yard, black spots on back, looked like fungus, could barely jump and was eating weeds like trying to stop whatever was bothering him.

I know that animals will eat grass, and leafy things when their stomachs are upset.

Watch the animals. Our lovely little friends who suffer as we do.

If the bucky balls bother us, I would assume they would bother the animals.

If we are not paying attentiont to the environment, and I do not mean the contructed UN, EPA solution.

I agree natural products should be used to deter pests, but, that did not included altering the very genes, that a natural organism in the environment and in its proper location is.

An environmental naturalist in the sense of gene altered organism to fit the location or to be used in another location to solve a pest problem, is not a true naturalist.

A true naturalist, will accept what is, and use what is needed, not what is proposed and engineered to be needed.

Nature is as it is.

So, to alter any natural substance is to put foreign material in an organism where it does not belong has to be part of the problem with this skin condition we have, because it is more than just surface.

As simple as that. Common sense goes a long way.

Education is excellent in science, if all manners of thought are allowed to be expressed.

Oh, I did take philosophy once and it wasn't at a Holiday Express either. It was a bonifide university.

That was when philosophy was part of learning and becoming an educated person.

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:39 pm

Postby Skytroll » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:58 pm

Actually, I think we should call this Deconstructing
Morgellons. From the backend.

We have the results, now to go to the next step back.

We know things have been altered in the environment, something is on our skin.

Itching, a form of reaction.

Next step, anyone?

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:39 pm

Postby Skytroll » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:22 pm

Okay then, I will go to next step.

Lumps: How big are they?
What do they resemble?
Does our itching open them up?
Does more oxygen make them grow by opening them up?

Lesions: Have a doctor actually look at them.
What kind of doctor?

The only thing here we can possibly get is an allergist.

Parasitologists don't exist for humans, so it seems.
Dermatopathologists who can find anything in a lesion are banned from dermatology for political reasons. Because they know the truth, can see it.

Next, a chemical specialist who can decipher what is not organic. This would question the buckyball or any other inorganic substance, polymer, carbon,
man-made fibrils or fibrin.

Next, an epidemiologist who can determine what is infecting the natural cells in our bodies. What is foreign to the body.

DNA specialists, the FBI has these tools, can find anyone. Police have the tools, investigators of DNA. Geneticists?

Okay, anyone? Can we see where the investigation would get hoodwinked?

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:39 pm

Postby London » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:50 pm


You have been infected w/ BS and it will differentiate. The BS are stray targets of a stray experiment. Fibers have and will continue to warp the victims brain. The higher being has taken note of these BS makers and has a message for them: What comes around, goes around. :evil: :twisted: :roll: :shock: :lol:

skytroll, what is under your- our skin is a filarial worm called Brugia malyi
and that my friend is simplicity w/ no BS!

PS: don't knock yourself out doing too much research like I did. Hell, I wish I did not know b/c they all make me sick!
Did you see my brief post above re: Ms Savely writing a paper?
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby London » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:24 pm

this is what my facvorite University says about brugia M:

Use of RNA interference to investigate gene function in the human filarial nematode parasite Brugia malay

We describe the successful use of the reverse genetic technique RNA interference (RNAi) to investigate gene function in the human filarial nematode parasite Brugia malayi. We used fluorescently labelled double stranded RNA (dsRNA) to demonstrate that 300bp molecules are able to enter adult females in culture while they remain excluded from microfilariae (mf). We have developed an optimised microvolume culture system to allow the exposure of parasites to high concentrations of dsRNA for extended periods. Culturing of adult female parasites in this system for 24h does not significantly reduce parasite lifespan or mf release in culture. Three B. malayi genes, beta-tubulin (Bm-tub-1), RNA polymerase II large subunit (Bm-ama-1) and B. malayi mf sheath protein 1/mf22 (Bm-shp-1) were targeted by soaking adult female B. malayi in dsRNA complementary to these transcripts in the optimised culture system. Targeting of the two housekeeping genes Bm-tub-1 and Bm-ama-1 led to a reduction in the levels of their transcripts, as assessed by reverse transcriptase coupled PCR (RT-PCR), and resulted in parasite death in culture. In contrast, targeting of the Bm-shp-1 gene was not lethal to adult females in culture. A marked reduction in mf release was observed for shp-1 RNAi parasites compared to controls and in addition 50% of mf released did not have fully elongated sheaths. This "short" phenotype correlated with the loss of the stockpiled shp-1 transcript from developing mf in treated adult female gonads. From these data we conclude that RNAi may be a useful method for assessment of drug target potential of genes identified in filarial gene discovery projects
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby Skytroll » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:27 pm

So then, my dear London,

We would be stuck at the need for Parasitologists.

Maybe we should contacct the AMA and let them know that Human Parasitologists are needed badly in the human health discipline.

Should we contact the universities?

Awwwwwwww, hell they know the only money is in altering DNA right now, so the usual parasitology checks are off.

Sorta like oncho, aint it?

Found this to be quite interesting. SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY EXISTS!

"How much carbon is sequestered by oceans and terrestrial sinks and how much remains in the atmosphere is uncertain:
"How land contributes, by location and processes, to exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere is still highly uncertain. . . ." (p. 11)
"These estimates [of future carbon dioxide climate forcings] . . . are only approximate because of uncertainty about how efficiently the ocean and terrestrial biosphere will sequester atmospheric CO2." (p. 13)
"How much of the carbon from future use of fossil fuels will be seen as increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will depend on what fractions are taken up by land and by the oceans. The exchanges with land occur on various time scales, out to centuries for soil decomposition in high latitudes, and they are sensitive to climate change. Their projection into the future is highly problematic." (p. 18)
The feedbacks in the climate system that determine the magnitude and rate of temperature increases are uncertain:
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." (p. 1)
"Much of the difference in predictions of global warming by various climate models is attributable to the fact that each model represents these [feedback] processes in its own particular way. These uncertainties will remain until a more fundamental understanding of the processes that control atmospheric relative humidity and clouds is achieved." (p. 4)
The direct and indirect effects of aerosols are uncertain:
"The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate forcing -- indeed, the largest of all the uncertainties about global climate forcings -- is probably the indirect effect of aerosols on clouds." (p. 14)
"The great uncertainty about this indirect aerosol climate forcing presents a severe handicap both for the interpretation of past climate change and for future assessments of climate changes." (p. 14)
"Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large source of uncertainty about future climate change." (p. 13)
"Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with the sources and composition of carbonaceous aerosols, projections of future impacts on climate are difficult." (p. 12)
The details and impacts of regional climate change resulting from global climate change are uncertain:
"On the regional scale and in the longer term, there is much more uncertainty" with respect to effects on agriculture and forestry. (p. 19)
"The Northern Hemisphere as a whole experienced a slight cooling from 1946-75, and the cooling during that period was quite marked over the eastern United States. The cause of this hiatus in the warming is still under debate." (p. 16)
"Health outcomes in response to climate change are the subject of intense debate. . . .The understanding of the relationships between weather/climate and human health is in its infancy and therefore the health consequences of climate change are poorly understood. The costs, benefits, and availability of resources for adaptation are also uncertain." (p. 20)
"Changes in storm frequency and intensity are one of the more uncertain elements of future climate change prediction." (p. 20)
The nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes are uncertain:
"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." (p. 17)
"The value of indirect effect of ozone changes induced by solar ultraviolet irradiance variations "remains highly uncertain." (p. 14)
The future usage of fossil fuels and the future emissions of methane are uncertain:
"With a better understanding of the sources and sinks of methane, it may be possible to encourage practices...that lead to a decrease in atmospheric methane and significantly reduce future climate change." (p. 13)
"There is no definitive scientific basis for choosing among several possible explanations for these variations in the rates of change of global methane contributions, making it very difficult to predict its future atmospheric concentrations." (p. 11)
In response to these gaps in our knowledge, the National Academy of Sciences study also recommends, "research that couples physical, chemical, biological, and human systems; an improved capability of integrating scientific knowledge, including its uncertainty, into effective decision support systems, and an ability to conduct research at the regional or sectoral level that promotes analysis of the response of human and natural systems to multiple stresses."

Gosh, we do need to educate ourselves on this though. Would explain the chemtrails, aerosol propellent, who knows what is in that. Depends on what transformation takes place, I guess.

So, the science to correct the delusional global warming is tainted with genetic modification, which certainly transforms many things.

All based on delusion.

Or is it?

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:39 pm

Postby London » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:00 pm

All based on delusion. HAHAHA That was the funniest thing ever written on this forum!

I'm about to delete every saved document on my computer. ( I have it all store on discs anyway.) I am finally sick of this....I had a mission to find out what this was. I found out. I spent another 6 weeks studying it 12 hours a day to confirm my hypothesis. It worked. The goal was to catch it early (b/c TamTam told me it would be turnin into cancer.) HAH!

That's just not the case. I must now start working on my immune system. 1 Arrow, I'm interested. How much is the only thing I want to know.

In Dallas one can have molecular/genetic testing done at UT -Southwetsern Hospital on Harry Hines Bld.

Good Luck to all of you. I will check my pm's on Monday Arrow. Thanks!

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby tamtam » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:15 pm

I think my last post had the honor to be removed.

Could the so called "moderator" explain why he removed the post?


Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:56 pm

Postby tamtam » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:37 pm

About treatments in relation to african trypanosomiasis:

Clinical trials
The complicated and expensive trypanosomiasis screening test primarily involves taking a blood sample and a ganglion aspiration (if cervical lymph nodes are discovered during the check-up). These samples are then analysed in a mobile or fixed laboratory. The treatment for people testing positive depends on how far the disease has advanced. Two phases are singled out. During the first one, the trypanosomiasis symptoms are quite general: intermittent fever, swollen cervical lymph nodes and skin irritation, for example. A simple treatment is given in this case. In the second stage of the disease, the trypanosomes will have reached the central nervous system (the brain, the spinal cord) and the symptoms become neurological: headaches at increasingly frequent intervals, sleeping problems (sufferers hardly sleep at night but sleep a lot during the daytime, hence the name "sleeping sickness"), and confusion. The patient's loss of appetite and fever eventually leads to a "cachexia". The patient will die after a pathological development lasting about two years if left untreated.

© Francesco Zizola

"For people who reach the second stage, the frequently used arsenic-based treatment is toxic, thus causes side effects. In 5 to 10% of cases, the side effects may even result in the death of the patient", says Bertrand Draguez. "This is why MSF is taking part in a scientific project designed to streamline another therapeutic protocol, DFMO (Difluoromethylornithine). A larger quantity of product is required per patient but it is less toxic." The project is also designed to conduct clinical trials with another product, Nifurtimox, to be used in combination with DFMO.
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:56 pm

Postby canalon » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:38 pm

I did remove your post, and give you all needed explanation as Personnal message. But for everyone, I will repeat myself here:

- Post promoting the use of drugs, with all side effects attached (for individual AND public health) when the etiology of the disease is unknown can be dangerous and thus will be removed.

Tamtam ignore all requests about the proof he may have on the nature of the disease and hence cannot be considered as a valuable reference. And NO, the movies have about as much scientific value as a Madonna video, with much less musical appeal. So either you stop using riddles, and you give proofs and reasonning, or bannation will be looming closer.

I hope I made myself clear.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby tamtam » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:42 pm

Why is there rather something than nothing?
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:56 pm

Postby London » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:30 pm

Sorry, but I just have to answer that one of Tam's.......

Is it not a complete and utter mystery that there should be anything at all? That there should be nothing seems prima facie more plausible than that there should be something in view of the greater simplicity and naturalness of nothingness as compared to somethingness. And yet there is something.

King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am


Return to Human Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest