Login

Join for Free!
118293 members


The Fiber Disease

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby London » Tue May 09, 2006 2:01 pm

A mayor protozoa...................

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... 0000500002
London
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby London » Tue May 09, 2006 3:16 pm

No effect of a parasite on reproduction in stickleback males: a laboratory artefact?

Candolin U, Voigt HR.

Department of Biology, University of Turku, Finland. u.candolin@uea.ac.uk

Experiments are often carried out in the laboratory under artificial conditions. Although this can control for confounding factors, it may eliminate important factors that under natural conditions mediate the interaction under investigation. Here, we show that different results can be gained in the field and in the laboratory regarding host-parasite interaction. In the field, courting three-spined stickleback males, Gasterosteus aculeatus, were less often infected with plerocercoids of a cestode tapeworm, Schistocephalus solidus, than shoaling males. However, when a random sample of males was allowed to nest and court females in individual aquaria in the laboratory, both uninfected and infected males built nests and courted females. Moreover, while the few infected males that courted females in the field expressed less red nuptial coloration than uninfected courting males, there was no difference in redness between infected and uninfected males in the laboratory. We argue that the different results gained in the field and in the laboratory are due to differences in the cost of reproduction, due to differences in the resource pool of the males. The favourable conditions in the laboratory exclude factors such as predation risk, social interactions, and fluctuating environmental conditions that may use up resources in the field and mediate the effect of the parasite.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
London
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby Cilla » Tue May 09, 2006 3:23 pm

Hi Randy,

I hope that you have a very happy birthday.

Now, as far as the possibility of legal action goes, you will have to slow down a little bit, (all of you), and make sure that you understand exactly what is being proposed.

If you read my recent post, and that of Tam tam, you will see that we were referring to the possibility of you invoking the criminal law in the US.

The two firms that you went to see, Randy, were to do with you seeking to establish a case under the tort of negligence. This is civil law, not criminal. It is often very difficult to win a civil case in legal negligence, because the onus is on you, the plaintiff or pursuer, to prove, to the standard of law required, that the defendant had a. a duty of care, b. they breached that duty of care, either by action or omission, and c. that particular breach of the duty of care caused you a given injury.

The law in negligence, in the US and the UK, demands that the plaintiff or pursuer must prove all of the three elements, viz. a, b and c. As you rightly note, most civil actions in negligence fail because of causation. Do not forget this, because the defendants and their lawyers will do everything they can to break the alleged causal link between the breach of the duty of care, and an individual's subsequent injury.

If they are successful in disestablishing any alleged causal link, you will lose, and may have to pay costs as well.

I have posted this information, with a resume of cases from the actual case law, previously. I told you the outcome of the cases, and asked you all why you thought the particular legal decisions had been made, e.g. why the defendant was found to be not guilty of negligence. I told you that these would form part of the corpus of case law that would be referred to by the courts, (in the US too, because it is a common law system), when coming to a decision on whether any alleged defendant had in fact been negligent, to the standard at law, towards you.

Now, many reasonable people would assume that at least one or two of you might have replied, given that you would have an interest in winning or losing any proposed case, not least because of the sums of money involved. Not one reply received. I warned you all again not to skip over the concept of causation, because it is assuredly central. Most reasonable people would think that I was trying to tell you something, but no interest was displayed.

I find it hard to credit that you went to two different law firms before you grasped that the concept of causation is so important. Did you think that the second firm was going to say, hey, it's only the established law, but maybe we can do a deal?

Tam tam made a very clear distinction between the civil law and the criminal law before. So did I. It has been made very clear that it is the criminal law that we are discussing, not the civil law on negligence. Therefore, your two visits to the legal firms, and their emphasis on causation have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Cilla
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm


Postby London » Tue May 09, 2006 3:40 pm

Janet Lamb University of Rochester Biochemistry of Gene Expression 0074374
I believe I have mentioned P.aeruginosa on more than one occasion....
So maybe they created this monster that we deal with to simply clean up the polluted oceans they have let big companies cause and from the damaging runoff of their many pesticides. Just a thought-

Identification of Novel Pseudomonas aeruginosa Quorum Sensing Genes
Monitoring of surroundings by quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a gram-negative bacterium, plays an important role in its ability to grow in a wide variety of conditions. The two best studied quorum-sensing systems are the las and rhl systems. This research utilizes a fluorescence activated cell sorter (FACS)-based approach to identify novel genes positively and negatively regulated by the las and/or rhl system. Temporal induction or repression of the identified genes is examined during the growth cycle, and regulatory factors dictating the induction and/or repression of these genes are identified. In addition, the functions of these genes are examined via insertional activation and observation of the phenotypic changes.
London
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:41 am

Postby Cilla » Tue May 09, 2006 4:17 pm

Hi all.

Differentiate Between Civil and Criminal Law.

There seems to have been confusion between the civil and criminal law, with respect to possible action in the event of alleged or possible breaches of biosafety regulations.

I do not know if there was a stray target that escaped from a high biosafety containment level laboratory, or if this subsequently went on to infect some of you.

Tam tam said this happened, and has been good enough to provide us with explanations and ongoing video evidence. He also said that we should invoke the criminal law, and trust in the American penal code.

I think that, at the very least, the authorities governing health and safety of high containment level laboratories at the NIH, should be told of your possible concerns, so that they can mount an investigation. They will naturally have full access to all and any information concerning possible 'incidents' that may have occurred.

Whether this might end in possible criminal action could really rather depend on what is (if anything) uncovered during the course of any enquiries that they choose to make.

The possibilities uncovered during such enquiries could include: Nothing untoward happened, nothing untoward discovered, something happened at the level of accident, or something happened at the level of apparent criminal liability.

The accent is not therefore wholly on you establishing causation as part of any possible civil tort in negligence, (although there would be nothing in law to preclude you giving consideration to following this course, subsequent to any successful criminal prosecution. You would have established causation then, which is really rather a major part of the whole point).

However, establishing any causal link was not mentioned in the recent posts. What was suggested was that you seek to establish similar fact evidence, thereby demonstrating that a strong link exists between any untoward incident that is uncovered during the course of any official investigation, and your development of a specific and strange disease process .

Some of you think that you have a novel medical condition, characterised by infection, fibers, and infestation with helminths and other parasites.

Many of you suggest that this is more than an inconvenience, and is in fact serious enough to affect your ability fully to enjoy your lives.

Tam tam has informed you that this condition is caused by a specific stray target from an experiment in a laboratory, and he is in the process of producing yet another video, this time to substantiate the protozoal hypothesis.

The Health and Safety organisations, in the US and in the UK, have written much, warning of the dangers to laboratory personnel, and to members of the general public, if adequate care is not taken when working with genetically modified micro-organisms and insects, particularly when stem cells are utilised.

The level of care required escalates, depending on the assessed containment biosafety level. E.g., level C4 is even stricter than level C3. The information on the websites will tell you of the dangers.

Breaches of certain aspects of the applicable law could, under certain circumstances, amount to a criminal act.

Other literature will tell you of what is done should an academic or doctoral student, e.g., accidentally innoculate themselves in some way with this type of culture. Definitive records should exist, re reporting of the incident, and of any specialist treatment received, e.g. by a tropical medicine specialist.

Therefore, if this hypothetical doctoral student develops a similar condition to the one you have, (e.g. he or she might have been prescribed a course of ivermectin in the first instance), then this is known as similar fact evidence, demonstrating at a prima facie level that a stray target from this type of culture causes this novel clinical condition.

The fact that such a stray target could be injurious to health would not greatly surprise the authorities. They know this, and this is exactly why the protocols and guidance on safety have been written, and also incidentally why the law has recently been tightened up with respect to risk assessment and reporting. It is also why the higher levels of biosafety containment have been developed, and why the laboratories have to be rigorously checked with a smoking pencil, ensuring that an air-tight seal exists around the doors! They know that it is very bad if a stray target gets out, or if there are escapees from the tray of arthropods!

Which part of all of the guidance on the aforementioned laboratory health and safety sites would not, in the opinion of your scientist friends, correspond with Tam tam's theory?

Which part of the clinical features of this condition would not correspond, both with the risks warned of on these sites and in other related literature, and with Tam tam's explanation? Do your scientist friends have an alternative explanation as to why some people are apparently sprouting fibers, calluses, helminths and arthropods ?

Something strange is going on. If you lose Tam tam, and he is telling the truth, you will have lost everything.
Cilla
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm

Criminal, Civil, Federal

Postby RANDY » Tue May 09, 2006 5:21 pm

Cilla,

No I did not find it hard to grasp the causation information.(Snotty are we?)

One was for a civil case, with or without a class action and the other attorney was a friend from HS who deals in Criminal, Federal law.

Both Crimimal and Civil although the burden of proof is less in a civil case both need causation.

Now on to Federal Law:

You can not go around making up a ficticious person to bring a case against and then have them prove they did not do it.

If they prove they did not do it, the person who accused will have to pay huge dollars to everyone they annoyed and you may even get placed in jail.

So Criminal or Civil..we have to know who did this and accuse the correct person.

So.. you and Tam need to tell us who did this and then we can go after them. Anything less is more BS.

Thanks for the Birthday wish.

Randy
User avatar
RANDY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:16 am

also

Postby RANDY » Tue May 09, 2006 5:31 pm

No one I know as talked to him so I really do not know who we are losing. He does not talk straight. He does not answer questions and he makes no sense. So what are we losing..false hope?. I can risk that. If he knows what is going on and he is HUMAN then he needs to spit it out and stop being so cryptic. He is afraid of being discovered? Then who was on the video? Sometimes humanity is more important then your career. There is good and evil and if you know something that effects the bulk of the human race and you do nothing about it, you are evil.

Play straight, shoot straight, be professional or hit the road.

We do not need Red Herring providers.

That is just my opinon.

I gave him many opportunities to call me or one of my sicentists. He is a phoney baloney. A poser. A child playing with the lives of sick people. A sociopath on the computer. That is how I feel. Prove me wrong. I would love that!

Randy
User avatar
RANDY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:16 am

Postby RANDY » Tue May 09, 2006 6:07 pm

Also: It seems to hit women between 30 to 40 that have had childen. Morgellons is the only one with any medical people that say they have this.

They have not gone to a major university and applied for an NIH grant so that this can be studied and documented.

Once that happens and it gets published the NIH recognizes it and then so will the CDC. Anything else is a waste of time.

That is how you do it..plain and simple..anything else is BULL.

Hire a grant writer write and NIH grant and check with Elias to see if it passed the review, get the money, do the research, publish to research , have it recognized.

Anything else is BULL.

find out WHAT it is and then trace who COULD have done it then do something legal.

That is the procedure. All we can do now is compare blood tests to find out how we all our similar and that WILL happen if we can get our arshas in gear.

Randy
During the End Times, Good will battle Evil. Where do you stand?
http://unknownskindisease.com
User avatar
RANDY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:16 am

Postby Cilla » Tue May 09, 2006 6:20 pm

Hi Randy,

Surely, if the information provided is saying that working with such cultures at containment level 3 and above is dangerous, and that extremely careful measures must be in place to guard against 'escapees' or 'stray targets' in these specially constructed laboratories, it is worth looking into this?

You are right about the burden of proof being higher in a criminal case. There are authorities vested with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the law on biosafety. These authorities will not know that something may have happened to cause a widespread disease, (if this is indeed the cause of this), unless someone puts this to them officially.

It is not just you or I who have dreamed up a wild notion. Tam tam has made announcements and videos, attesting to the truth of this.

You are left in an invidious position, because you have a condition, as have many others, which would seem to be new. The treatment provided overall is not what I would term satisfactory, because no-one would seem to be educating the doctors.

Surely it would be a good idea to make contact with the authorities at the NIH, health and safety of the laboratories, containment level 3 and above, department?

Is there any similarity between this condition, and any reported occurrences in any laboratory accidents, or in any of the literature pertaining to these experiments?

If you can establish similar fact evidence at a prima facie level you are on the way to establishing causation. However, in a criminal investigation, it would be the job of the authorities concerned to establish precisely what happened, and if any individuals have a case to answer, or not, in the criminal courts.

It is in this court that guilt or otherwise would be established, based upon whatever evidence is presented, and the testimony of any witnesses, expert and otherwise.

In a sense, such a development, (if it ever happens, as any investigation that may take place might not uncover sufficient evidence to warrant criminal proceedings), would be easier for you all. The burden of proof re guilt and causation is not yours to establish, but that of the court system.

If such a burden of proof were established in an American criminal court, you would obviously then have established causation sufficient for the lower standard of proof required for any civil action that you might wish subsequently to undertake, if this move were deemed advisable by your lawyers, e.g.

So, your first step is to organise yourselves, and examine all of the literature pertaining to the law governing the health and safety of experiments within laboratories at containment level 3 and above.

You might be able to uncover evidence of reported incidents, perhaps by invoking the Freedom of Information legislation. You might wish to engage a lawyer to draft and send such formal requests on your behalf.

Other evidence of 'similar fact' should be considered, and used to form your overall preliminary statement of case.

As things proceed, who knows, you might be able to get an expert witness who would attest to the veracity of Tam tam's video, especially the one coming out in June that will concentrate on the protozoal element.

If you do not want to engage a lawyer as a group, then construct your own letters to the NIH. Surely you have rights as American citizens to ask if there have possibly been any stray target reports? After all, something has caused this strange new condition, and you obviously want to find out what, so that you can get the proper treatment.
Cilla
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm

Postby RANDY » Tue May 09, 2006 8:21 pm

Not one person I turst says the video is anything but garbage. I would not stand behind it or make a fool of myself by promoting it. That would be reason enough to lock me in a looney bin and throw away the key. NO thanks.
During the End Times, Good will battle Evil. Where do you stand?
http://unknownskindisease.com
User avatar
RANDY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:16 am

Postby Barz » Tue May 09, 2006 9:38 pm

Hi Randy. Happy Birthday to you. I would like to suggest, since you know the ONLY way to go about solving this medical mystery, that you join the Morgellons Research Foundation. I am sure that they would love to have you. They NEED volunteers and since you know how to solve this, or at least how to tell them all about solving this, I suggest you give them a call. I am not trying to be snotty this time. I am just glad you know so much about going about solving this. We are all in need of help here. Especially my two-year-old daughter who has NO medical help whatsoever. Sorry about the caps admin.

Happy Birthday,

Barz
Barz
Banned
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:14 pm

Postby ukguy » Tue May 09, 2006 11:41 pm

Randy

You made some excellent suggestions regarding the tests
you are urging people to look into. You are doing this because
of what you've been through and because you care about people.
A good many people are thankful for that information.

But please listen Randy: You can't and won't change people's opinions
with hostility. Please give the readers here some credit. People have
their own minds thankfully and so we'll have differences of opinion based
on many things, not least our personal experiences with this disease.

With what's at stake here we need as much help as we can get Randy.
From you, TamTam, Cilla and anyone else that can lend a hand.

You can't force people's opinions here Randy.
They'll make up their own minds.

Take care
Ukguy
ukguy
 

PreviousNext

Return to Human Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests