Login

Join for Free!
116903 members


The Fiber Disease

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby J Jill » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:29 pm

Skipbait,

Are you saying like a lichen?


Which is in the Ascomycetes 'class' and grows
symbiotically w/algae which results in a composite organism that characteristically forms a crustlike or branching growth on rocks or tree trunks.

Pathology. Any of various skin diseases characterized by patchy eruptions of small, firm papules.

(source;answers.com)

More:


lichen (lī'kən) , usually slow-growing organism of simple structure, composed of fungi (see Fungi) and photosynthetic green algae or cyanobacteria living together in a symbiotic relationship and resulting in a structure that resembles neither constituent. There are about 25,000 species, most comprised of a sac fungus (Ascomycete) and a green alga of the genus Trebouxia or Trentepohlia or a cyanobacterium of the genus Nostoc; some lichens include multiple species of fungi.

Lichens commonly grow on rocks, trees, fence posts, and similar objects. The body (thallus) of the lichen is made up of the filaments, or hyphae, of the fungus. Its typical greenish gray color is due to the combination of the chlorophyll from the photosynthetic organism with the colorless fungi, although sometimes the thallus may be red, orange, or brown. Lichens require no food source other than light, air, and minerals. They depend heavily on rainwater for their minerals and are sensitive to rain-borne pollutants. The fungal component of lichens produces acids that disintegrate rock, giving the lichen a better hold and aiding weathering processes, which eventually turn rock into soil. Lichens usually reproduce by the breaking off of a segment that contains both components.
"When you dine with the devil, bring a long spoon."
Machiavelli
J Jill
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:58 pm

bladder

Postby FiberSymptoms » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:52 pm

---------------------------
Last edited by FiberSymptoms on Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FiberSymptoms
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:24 am

Postby skipbait » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:56 pm

It sounds similar to the plantar wart problem, but clearly a different
variety of virus.

Read here for brief description of plantars warts.

http://www.podiatrynetwork.com/document ... cfm?ID=112

Also known as a verruca, see the following:

http://www.drfoot.co.uk/verrucae.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n13681120
skipbait
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:25 pm


Postby ukguy » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:04 am

Cilla

That was a great post and you have helped explain many aspects
I struggled with.

But to accuse people of complacency?

Knowing what you know now....imagine you have these symptoms.
Now imagine discussing this seriously with your husband, your friends
and your GP. Would they believe you? How can you prove it?

I think you'd be slower to act than you may think.
Many people with this disease have been diagnosed as delusionsal
when purely stating nothing but the facts. You have a limited amount
of time to state your case and cannot refer to this post or that report.
People have a very short attention span.

That facts are not enough right now. They need to be presented
at the right time. in the right way with the right body of evidence.

That is a lot harder to do than it may seem. to understand this
disease and begin to believe takes a long time. It cannot be accomplished
within a 2 minute conversation.

I said a while back and I still maintain, this has become a PR excercise.
We need to make the most of every opportunity but it is not easy.

Cilla, please do not mistake hesitance for complacency.

And again...if anyone is reading this and wondering what
the hell is going on...please start from the beginning of this
thread, form your own opinion and discuss with as many
people as you can. Send them here...!

Best regards
Ukguy
ukguy
 

Postby Skytroll » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:40 am

There are differences between antrax and thuringiensus.

Here they are, BT goes for lepidoptera.

In our area, that would be gypsy moths.

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/Anthrax.html

........They are not the same........

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

Postby London » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:31 am

Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis—One Species on the Basis of Genetic Evidence

Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis are members of the Bacillus cereus group of bacteria, demonstrating widely different phenotypes and pathological effects. B. anthracis causes the acute fatal disease anthrax and is a potential biological weapon due to its high toxicity. B. thuringiensis produces intracellular protein crystals toxic to a wide number of insect larvae and is the most commonly used biological pesticide worldwide. B. cereus is a probably ubiquitous soil bacterium and an opportunistic pathogen that is a common cause of food poisoning. In contrast to the differences in phenotypes, we show by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and by sequence analysis of nine chromosomal genes that B. anthracis should be considered a lineage of B. cereus. This determination is not only a formal matter of taxonomy but may also have consequences with respect to virulence and the potential of horizontal gene transfer within the B. cereus group.

The only established difference between B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains is the presence of genes coding for the insecticidal toxins, usually present on plasmids. If these plasmids are lost, B. thuringiensis can no longer be distinguished from B. cereus (22).



Sky, I read a while back that most now consider this to be the same species. Look into this. If you want me to post more - let me know

Your Friend,

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

Postby Skytroll » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:26 am

London,

They are not the same. Antrax does not kill the lepidoptera because it does not have the crystalline
substance that BT has. It is this substance that causes the swellings in the insects gut or head.

Anthrax kills in a different way.

I have known this for years. I worked at a nursery and learned this.

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

Postby London » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:05 am

Sky,

Is everything okay?

This recent study shows that anthrax and Bt are virtually the same organism. In fact, it is clear that Bt could become anthrax, if the right plasmids were available.

analysis from soil taken from anthrax outbreak sites, they were found by Helgason et al. to have the same chromosomal marker as the implicated B. anthracis strains, but no plasmids. In their natural environments these species have a relatively low rate of clone formation, and it is known that all three Bacillus species are naturally able to take up plasmids. Indeed, plasmid exchange between B. cereus and B. anthracis has been verified experimentally. However, before sounding a general alarm, it cannot be ruled out that there is some other special, but as yet undetected, feature of the B. anthracis genome that makes it alone of the three species particularly adept at retrieving and retaining virulence plasmids.


and..........

We summarize the points made in the literature and remarks below:

Bt is the same cellular organism as B. cereus (causes gastroenteritis) and B. anthracis (causes anthrax). The only difference is in one "organelle" of the cell, called a plasmid, that produces proteins. Each plasmid produces a unique protein that attacks a target life form. In the case of Bt, that life form is a caterpillar or other insect life forms.

Can Bt become anthrax? Theoretically, yes - it could exchange a plasmid with a wild anthrax germ. Also, it is not easy to tell anthrax, B. cereus, and Bt apart - they look the same and grow in the same environments, and even test the same in some genetic tests. See this Seattle Weekly art]ticle for an interesting view.

When Bt is sprayed, it can and does infect many people in the target zone, setting up colonies in their respiratory tract and maybe in their intestines that live for weeks or months. The effects of this are not known. Obvious symptoms do not appear, but what could happen years from now as a result of these infections is anyone's guess. It is suspected that "symptomless" infections can challenge the immune system and cause disease later (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and lupus are some under consideration).

There is growing evidence that exposure to inhaled bacterial antigens that generate immune responses in humans (a potential for allergic reactions) can trigger skin allergic reactons of various types in some individuals. Bt falls into this category. Epidemiological studies have so far almost completely ignored dermatological symptoms. There are a significant number of anecdotal reports of skin symptoms after sprayings of Bt products in New Zealand (see New Zealand CC-PAM Health Incident Report at this link).

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

Postby London » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:18 am

In fact .....I think that yes, it has harmed us.

It has damaged our environment too.

Yep, they still use it. although it is against the Law, why don't you know it-

This is how they got away with it. They again, changed the name
from insecticides to PESTICIDES-

Simplicity here no doubt!

Who is going to get us well? Do you all think that every physician was
warned / and or instructed not to say a word to the secrecy? hmmm
London
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

fiber, lisa's, morgellans

Postby mjl » Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:10 am

have any of you cheked out qbased.com.? have any of you used their products? any success stories? i am interested in trying their products but would love input/testamonial from sources other than their website if possible.
mjl
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:05 am

Postby J Jill » Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:41 pm

Randy,

I can appreciate your position but you were hot on the trail just a few weeks ago- and TT/C 3 confirmed (as did Skytroll) that you were on the right track.

I have no idea if the DX of Protothecosis is correct across the board- IOW, if that is what every one has- but I do know that it sure 'G's' up with what a dear
friend died from this past summer. The symptoms match for him.

Unfortunately, the best doctors at the world reknown Cleveland Clinic could not
get a handle on his problem. Odd.

The greatest clue for him was the swollen elbow in combination with the other symptoms. This was a man who was otherwise healthy. The 'onset': chronic sinus infections- then nosebleeds. About 4 years later he was dead. Still no DX (but for the fact that his heart stopped).

So the above personal experience leads me to think there could be some validity
to the Protothecosis theory- whereas at first blush, I wrote it off.

C 3 posted a case summary on this board- "A 34-year-old woman presented in September 1998 with spontaneous pain and swelling of the right index finger..."

That DX was Subcutaneous Protothecosis. My friend evidently suffered from olecranon bursitis- which is caused by the Protothecosis or a part of the syndrome.


As to the 'game' element of this... aside from the obvious... it kinda reminds me of Resident Evil- the movie and the series of games.

http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic348.htm
"When you dine with the devil, bring a long spoon."
Machiavelli
J Jill
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:58 pm

Postby Skytroll » Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:17 pm

J Jill,

This thing on my arm, has lasted for over 4 months and seemed to travel from middle of forearm and down to wrist. where it has stopped now, and I have a white area slowly drying up, but left some awful scars.

This prototheca seems to be so involved.

Did your friend die from myrocardial infarction?

That is end stage in Chagas Disease. I wonder about that all the time, since Tam Tam mentioned the trypanasoma connection. In that I still am stuck on what worm-like creature is involved with that. It mentions the morphing organism, with flagella, now how did it get it's flagella?

I guess I will concentrate again on that flagella, cilia, membrane.

Thanks for the link.



Hey, Randy, hang in there.

I think Tam is discovering as he goes, but, is concentrating on recording, documenting, and gathering the facts as he discovers, as a scientist should. Give him more credit. This has been a long time developing, and he has not reached a final conclusion. When he/she does I am sure he will have the facts.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Human Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron