The Fiber Disease

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm

Post by Cilla » Fri May 26, 2006 2:31 pm

Hi all,

The Main Facts.

You apparently have a novel and horrible clinical condition, for which you are not being adequately treated, because evidence of it does not show up in standard clinical tests or examination.

A person, asserting that he is a scientist, has consistently and repeatedly stated, on this site, that those of you with this particular condition, have it because the causative pathogen must have been 'released' in the US in the year 2000.

He has also stated, repeatedly, that the pathogen is comprised of quorum sensing cloned microorganisms, insect technology, bird technology, squid technology, plant technology, systemic insects, lepidoptera species, and that it connects in some way to a mold or dermatophyte infection.

He said that it can bypass the affected individual's immune system, and that there is a strong relationship with stem cells.

He said that the above type of amalgamation is utilised in some university research laboratories, and that the material is obtained in culture, (but we do not yet know which specialised firms are allowed to amalgamate this, and thereafter sell it to those laboratories with the requisite permit to conduct research or experiments at the biosafety containment level of 3 or 4).

Strategy for Cure.

Randy, I did not say it was a plan of 'attack'. There is no need to adopt an adversarial position at this juncture, and maybe not at any time, although this would change if litigation had to be sought, as this is, by definition, adversarial.

Is Everyone an Expert?

Randy, you are not an expert, and sometimes people who newly develop a condition have crucial information to impart, because they are often more aware of differences occurring in and on their body.

They are not experts either, and it is potentially dangerous for an amateur to assume this role, in matters of diagnosis and treatment.

You do need the input of a range of medical experts, if you are to achieve the proper diagnosis and treatment for whatever condition you may have.

As far as I am concerned, I am on this site with an agenda to fulfil.

That agenda is to try and get this new clinical syndrome recognised, its cause discovered, and the presenting and ongoing clinical features of it adequately treated so that any dangerous progression of it can be arrested, and so people can be spared suffering and enabled to get their lives back.

Ultimately, this agenda will be fulfilled when an absolute cure for those affected has been developed and is widely available to all who need it.

If anyone finds anything objectionable in this aim, then I would suggest it is they who have the problem, not I.

I could understand some trepidation if I were an amateurish do-gooder, like the have-a-go first aid interventionists at accident sites, who can sometimes kill, or seriously worsen a victim's injuries, because a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

In any discipline in which I am not an expert, I will seek the counsel and advice of those who are, and, in turn, relate this to all of you.

If I suggest that plan a is a better potential strategy than plan b would seem to be, I will say so, and, if it is very important, I will keep saying so.

If I say that a polite formal letter, in which the appropriate authorities are asked to undertake an official investigation (that is most assuredly within their remit), should be sent by individuals, then you should do this, sooner rather than later, as this is but the first step in the strategy.

Timing is everything, and such a sharp short missive will not take long to write and post.

If I say that such a preliminary letter should ideally contain certain information, but that it should absolutely not contain specifically named university laboratories, (even if you have compiled records of those who have advertised themselves, or if their scientists have published details of, their proposed or actual research or experimentation involving biosafety at the high containment levels of 3 and 4).

If I say that this preliminary letter should not contain any accusations, and particularly not wild ones, this advice has been formulated to help, not to hinder, your cause, and the overall agenda for cure, as stated supra.

User avatar
Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:43 pm

Post by standby » Fri May 26, 2006 2:49 pm


Well stated, respectfully and proffesionaly as usual. One point I feel I need to make evident to you and that is that this indeed has been around longer and before the year 2000. Please do keep this in mind if you could with your communications.

Thanks again

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

Post by Skytroll » Fri May 26, 2006 4:18 pm


I too agree that this has been around longer than 2000, however, there could have been constructs attempted before then. Cilla, I have had this since 1991, and could have been from another lab.

There seems to be a catalyst. If there was a release, why did it begin in California? Something else could have been going on.

The NIH did not produce guidelines for recombinant gene until 1994:

However, they were looking at this earlier:

"FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information can be obtained

from Dr. Nelson A. Wivel, Director, Office of Recombinant DNA

Activities (ORDA), Office of Science Policy and Technology Transfer,

National Institutes of Health, Building 31, room 4B11, Bethesda,

Maryland 20892, (301) 496-9838.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today four actions are being promulgated

under the NIH Guidelines. These four proposed actions were published

for comment in the Federal Register announcements of August 11, 1987

(52 FR 29800); April 18, 1988 (53 FR 12752); December 30, 1988 (53 FR

53262); April 29, 1991 (56 FR 19776); November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59612);

and February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6702). These proposed actions were

reviewed and recommended for approval by the NIH Recombinant DNA

Advisory Committee (RAC) at its meetings on September 21, 1987;

December 3, 1988; January 30, 1989; May 30-31, 1991; December 2-3,

1993; and March 3-4, 1994.

In accordance with Section IV-C-1-b of the NIH Guidelines, these

actions have been found to comply with the NIH Guidelines and to

present no significant risk to health or the environment.

A revised version of the NIH Guidelines is published in a separate

section of the Federal Register following this announcement. These

revised NIH Guidelines differ from the previous version promulgated on

May 7, 1986 (51 FR 16958) by incorporating within them the major

actions to the NIH Guidelines that were promulgated on August 24, 1987

(52 FR 31848); July 29, 1988 (53 FR 28819); October 26, 1988 (53 FR

43410); March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10508); March 1, 1990 (55 FR 7438);

September 12, 1990 (55 FR 37565); July 18, 1991 (56 FR 33174); October

15, 1991 (56 FR 51784); November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58800); January 28,

1992 (57 FR 3212); April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14774); August 26, 1992 (57 FR

38734); February 18, 1993 (58 FR 9102); April 23, 1993 (58 FR 21738);

September 13, 1993 (58 FR 47906); October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53814); and

the changes that are promulgated in this announcement.

I. Background Information and Decision on Action Under the NIH


A. Amendment to Sections II, III-C, III-D, V, Appendices C-I, and G and

Addition of Appendix P, Physical and Biological Containment for

Recombinant DNA Research Involving Plants, and Appendix Q, Physical and

Biological Containment for Recombinant DNA Research Involving Animals

of the NIH Guidelines

The NIH Guidelines were originally developed to cover research in

laboratories in which recombinant DNA techniques were used. It is

recognized today that these techniques are being used by scientists

working with plants and large animals, and that procedures for

containment of these plants and animals have not been specifically

described in the NIH Guidelines. Institutional Biosafety Committees

(IBCs) have requested guidance on the containment procedures that

should be recommended for specific experiments with these organisms

since they have the responsibility of approving such experiments under

containment appropriate for the organisms. The principles of biological

safety that are used to categorize experiments involving

microorganisms, for example, are equally applicable to plants and

animals. These safety procedures have been employed successfully for

many years and have been recognized for their efficacy in biological


Appendices P and Q are the result of several years of meetings and

discussions involving research scientists and representatives from

university, government, and industrial research sectors with expertise

in several disciplines, including plant genetics, plant physiology,

plant pathology, entomology, animal (including arthropod and aquatic

species) physiology and reproduction, molecular biology, veterinary

medicine, and human biomedical research. The Federal agencies involved

in the development of Appendices P and Q include the NIH, the National

Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture


The process of developing Appendices P and Q was initiated when the

USDA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed USDA Guidelines (USDA

Guidelines) in the Federal Register on June 26, 1986 (51 FR 23367).

This notice was followed by an announcement by the USDA regarding its

intent to propose new guidelines for conducting all phases of research

with domestic agriculture species, including both plants and animals

modified through the application of genetic engineering techniques, in

the Federal Register on December 9, 1986 (51 FR 44397). At that time,

the NIH Guidelines did not include specific descriptions for

containment conditions for research involving recombinant DNA

containing whole plants and animals. The USDA convened a working group

composed of university, government, and industrial scientists on

December 13-14, 1986, with the purpose of discussing and redrafting

guidelines for physical and biological containment of transgenic plant

and animal species, and associated microorganisms. This meeting came to

be known as the ``Arlington House Workshop.''

Participants of the ``Arlington House Workshop,'' including former

members of the RAC, agreed that the USDA Guidelines should be

incorporated into the NIH Guidelines. The workshop participants noted

that merging these two documents would offer the distinct advantage of

providing a single comprehensive source of information regarding

conduct of research involving organisms containing recombinant DNA and

plants and animals exposed to microorganisms containing recombinant

SOURCE: ... action.htm

.....and then a gene therapy policy: ... Apr_02.htm

Now, the NIH is approving this, without the public knowing.

"Section III-B-1. Experiments Involving the Cloning of Toxin Molecules with LD50 of Less than 100 Nanograms per Kilogram Body Weight

Deliberate formation of recombinant DNA containing genes for the biosynthesis of toxin molecules lethal for vertebrates at an LD50 of less than 100 nanograms per kilogram body weight (e.g., microbial toxins such as the botulinum toxins, tetanus toxin, diphtheria toxin, and Shigella dysenteriae neurotoxin). Specific approval has been given for the cloning in Escherichia coli K-12 of DNA containing genes coding for the biosynthesis of toxic molecules which are lethal to vertebrates at 100 nanograms to 100 micrograms per kilogram body weight. Specific experiments already approved under this section may be obtained from the Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, MSC 7985, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985 (20817 for non-USPS mail), 301-496-9838, 301-496-9839 (fax).

If NIH provides the guidelines, who oversees what they do?

We do need to contact them, and request a full hearing in Congress if this is possible.

The people need to be heard. This has been around and it deals with all recominant constructs."

And, then there is protection of propietary data: ... Toc7261609

So, even if we went to the NIH, there would be this protections for universities, labs that would put us squarely in their hands.

So, an oversight from our representatives in Congress, who represent us, should be paramount.

We need to request a hearing. Is the NIH protecting these companies, labs, etc instead of the public?

Just some questions, it seems like we need more than just contacting them. We must know where they stand in these quidelines.


User avatar
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: bay area, ca

18th week Fetal Demise

Post by southcity » Fri May 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Hello all,

My position in this issue has become further vested as my girlfriend and I just lost our 18 week old unborn boy. All tests so far have come back unconclusive as to why this happened so far along into the pregnancy. Although there will most likely not be any way to know for certain what caused this to happen, both of us are fairly certain it was this illness 3 weeks ago everything was fine, strong heartbeat, good development, no problems. Then she began to spot lightly. A little more than a week later, we went back for another visit and ultrasound, and thats when we found out our baby didnt make it. Now its because of this I plan to turn up the heat, if you will, so that hopefully this is acknowledged as the killer it is proving to be.

Cilla, I have some things I would like to share with you and hopefully get some feedback as well Please email me or pm me and I will give you a ph. number to call me back on. I know you will find this mindboggling and infuriating as well.

Now as far as the awareness that has been created recently. I would like to point out a few things that will not only get some money behind this investigation, but is crucial knowledge for the uninfected public.

As I have said, I am certain that I acquired this from a hotel room in south san francisco. I have been told by dozens of others that they believed they had aquired from hotels and even 2 reported getting it while on a cruise. Mindfull of panic, i have been reluctant to point these things out, but after our loss, it has become that much more important. After the initial flood of interest sparked by the recent news items reported, people have largely satified their curiosity and most have dismissed this as something that will not happen to them, or called us nuts, or otherwise have forgotten about this. This cant be allowed to happen. The message that must be driven home is not only are adults taking their own lives over this, children are becoming infected also, and at a quickening pace.

The reality is that newscasts have not done their job well on this issue until everytime ANYONE goes to take a seat in a theater, stay in a hotel, fly in an airplane, take a cruise, go to a restuarant, etc etc, they are taking a chance of acquiring this nightmare from any fabric they may use.

Once the reality of this possiblity sinks in, one can really get a feel for how big this issue really is related to ecomony(global), and politics in general. Just think about the tourist industry alone. How long do you think before the hotel industry alone is going to become affected? This industry alone has a vested interest in this illness, because if the awareness of this today existed when I acquired this crap, I guarantee I would have sued them for everything imaginable. Once people realize that this possiblity exists, these hotels will empty out. While we are on this train of thought, does anyone know of anyway to ask the hospitality industry about their cleaning crews and their rates of skin disorders? This would be a good bit of insight to know. Bottom line is that people must be aware that everytime they come into contact with any fabric, upholstory, that these are potential vectors until proven otherwise. Not to mention the insect vectors that are certain to become known in the future

This must be stopped before the hospitality, tourism, airline, restuarant, Bus lines, auto rental, etc industries are ruined. These industries have the money and the vested interest to do something about this. Push this topic to anyone that will listen, because myself and other website owners concerning this illness are seeing these industries logging on and are paying attention.

Next topic will be-- What in the hell does the general public going to feel is needed to stop this from spreading. Those of us that have gone public should be very concerned about this. Lockup, isolation, quarantine? If they panic, it is sure to have a devistating affect on those already infected.


"First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm

Post by Cilla » Fri May 26, 2006 5:54 pm

Hi Standby and Sky,

Thank you for your remarks.

I am unsure of the exact timeline of this disease, both epidemiologically (accurate data is required, providing figures for both incidence and prevalence), and physiologically, (accurate data is required from a sizeable cohort, so that the clinical course of it, detailing the onset and progression of signs and symptoms, can be charted).

I think that Tam tam did previously indicate something about research prior to 2000, but he definitely stated that something must have been released in the US in 2000. He also said that things are potentially more serious now that the multi-nucleated cells of Langerhans are being utilised in this cloned culture.

He also said something about those being previously exposed becoming in some way a 'magnet' for further quorum sensing infections.

Sky, if you have had something wrong with you since 1991, did anything happen around 2000 to worsen your condition in any way? Did any new clinical features, i.e. signs and symptoms, develop?

What about you, Standby?

My advisors know all about proprietary guidelines, and the relevant similar law in the UK. Neither of these provisions is absolute in any sense, so please do not make the mistake of, not only interpreting the law yourselves, but doing so in a way that leads to a pessimistic and falsely absolute conclusion.

Sky, when talking about proprietary guidelines, you should first of all not give equal (never mind stronger) weight to guidelines vis-a-vis common law, including established and emerging case law, and legislation.

That is an error, and if your premise is legally wrong, so will your subsequent reasoning be, and you will end up with an erroneous conclusion.

This is what you have done when you said:

'So, even if we went to the NIH, there would be this protections for universities, labs that would put us squarely in their hands. '

Do you really believe that a given researcher's rights over a new experiment, especially conducted under the aegis of biosafety containment levels 3 or 4, supersede the rights of innocent individuals within American society who have allegedly been grievously injured by a 'release' of this pathogen?

The proprietary rights of the researchers, whether in the US or the UK would not, in any case, offer them anything whatsoever in the way of protection from an investigation, either by the NIH authorities specialising in high containment biosafety, or by the Health and Safety Executive in the UK.

If evidence of criminal activity (as suggested has been the case, by Tam tam) is uncovered, do you really think that this will not be able to proceed because of proprietary guidelines?

I know our laws, in both countries, are not perfect, but they are not that bad!

You have not been advised to write the proposed letter to the NIH by amateurs.

It is really very simple. If you feel that you have perhaps been badly wronged in the way suggested by Tam tam, then, as American citizens, you have every right to ask the responsible authorities to investigate this.

We cannot move to step two until you have completed step one. If you sit on your hands, we may lose the impetus. We are already too far behind in the plan.

Please do only write if you wish to do so, but please also note that you are not being logical in dragging your feet and raising nebulous objections.

Even if the authorities were to say, (and they would not):

'Sorry, even though some people have apparently suffered terrible health issues, and eyesight for some might be compromised, we must uphold the proprietary rights of our visionary scientists!'

You would be no worse off for having sent the letters, would you? And they would not allow this, as I have stated, to forestall any investigation into such a serious allegation, made by a scientist, to sick people.

In any case, the scientists or laboratory behind the release in the US that Tam tam has spoken of as being 'criminal' may not even be American, so the cited guidelines would not even apply to any rights that may in the future be asserted.

You can, if you prefer, write to no-one, and do nothing whatsoever about your suffering or apparent condition.

It is all one to me. My role is to try and help, but not to force, (although I do have to be absolutely honest about the likely consequences of doing nothing, as anything less would be unfair).

If you really do have a new condition, and it is not properly diagnosed and treated, and if it is operating in a self perpetuating way from your stem cells, (if that is an accurate depiction of what has been explained by Tam tam), and if it will always escape detection by your immune system, then, by doing nothing, it could be that you are electing to keep it.

Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:18 pm

Post by Cilla » Fri May 26, 2006 6:14 pm

To Southcity and his Girlfriend,

Oh, no, this is such sad and terrible news, I was deeply unhappy when I briefly saw your post as it was 'flashing up' when I was trying to send in my previous post.

I hoped that I had got it wrong, but when I read your post properly I saw that it was indeed true, and I give you my deepest sympathy.

It is all so horrible. Do you think that it really could be this terrible disease that is to blame? This is the worst thing of all that I have heard happen because of it, and if it really is all as a result of what Tam tam has said, then I hope they get the scum responsible, I really do. They are sheer evil, and I know that God will make sure they do not get away with it.

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

Post by London » Fri May 26, 2006 7:02 pm


I know we have had our differences in the past. I'm asking you to forget about that for a moment and please know how truly sorry I am

to hear of your loss. I don't know what else to say but I'n sorry.
This is horrible. I will follow your lead and guidance on whatever

our next step should be.

Take care South.


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

Post by London » Fri May 26, 2006 7:04 pm

well it looks like our nat.'l lab in Maryland is guilty of some stuff....

I have been looking for an article like this since SEPTEMBER !

Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment ... ter15.html


and now in England the is a militant push for animal rights ( using Dogs)

Pharma firms take on the extremists


And whoa, check this out:( read the last portion) ... xplanation
Last edited by London on Fri May 26, 2006 8:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:50 am

Post by hartuk » Fri May 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Hello All,

My version of this infection was already established by the year 2000 also, but after this date it worsened cosiderably.
The itching started, and the symetrical lesions appeared, along with the fibres and tracking.

With Respect

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

Post by London » Fri May 26, 2006 8:51 pm

We cant' forget what The Tam said about Cyanobacteria either~

Whole-cell immunolocalization of nitrogenase in marine diazotrophic cyanobacteria, trichodesmium spp

Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA.

The mechanism by which planktonic marine cyanobacteria of the genus Trichodesmium fix N2 aerobically during photosynthesis without heterocysts is unknown. As an aid in understanding how these species protect nitrogenase, we have developed an immunofluorescence technique coupled to light microscopy (IF-LM) with which intact cyanobacteria can be immunolabeled and the distribution patterns of nitrogenase and other proteins can be described and semiquantified. Chilled ethanol was used to fix the cells, which were subsequently made permeable to antibodies by using dimethyl sulfoxide. Use of this technique demonstrated that about 3 to 20 cells (mean +/- standard deviation, 9 +/- 4) consecutively arranged in a Trichodesmium trichome were labeled with the nitrogenase antibody. The nitrogenase-containing cells were distributed more frequently around the center of the trichome and were rarely found at the ends. On average 15% of over 300 randomly encountered cells examined contained nitrogenase. The percentage of nitrogenase-containing cells (nitrogenase index [NI]) in an exponential culture was higher early in the light period than during the rest of the light-dark cycle, while that for a stationary culture was somewhat constant at a lower level throughout the light-dark cycle. The NI was not affected by treatment of the cultures with the photosynthetic inhibitor dichloro 1,3'-dimethyl urea or with low concentrations of ammonium (NH4Cl). However, incubation of cultures with 0.5 &mgr;M NH4Cl over 2 days reduced the NI. The IF technique combined with 14C autoradiography showed that the CO2 fixation rate was lower in nitrogenase-containing cells. The results of the present study suggest that (i) the IF-LM technique may be a useful tool for in situ protein localization in cyanobacteria, (ii) cell differentiation occurs in Trichodesmium and only a small fraction of cells in a colony have the potential to fix nitrogen, (iii) the photosynthetic activity (CO2 uptake) is reduced if not absent in N2-fixing cells, and (iv) variation in the NI may be a modulator of nitrogen-fixing activity. ... ds=9687472

and look at the photo here of what a trichodesmium looks like: ... esmium.htm

User avatar
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:03 pm

I'm so sorry.

Post by Sabrina » Fri May 26, 2006 9:14 pm

Dear Southcity,

Once again I find myself without words. :cry:

Please except my sincere condolences and extend this to your girlfriend for me also. May the Gods bless you both and gently guide the spirit of your child into the hereafter.

I share your pain and tears my friend.

The only thing I have to offer you is my sincere promise to diligently, persistently, and relentlessly continue to advance our cause in everyway in which I am capable of. I promise you I will do this.

I am here for you and your girlfriend and offer my support in anyway you may utilize it. Please ask if I can do anything for you at all.

My prayers are with you.

With much love and sorrow,

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

Post by London » Fri May 26, 2006 9:55 pm


The Leopoldina international symposium on parasitism, commensalism and symbiosis – common themes, different outcome


The development of new methods, including genomics, which can even be applied to unculturable microorganisms, has significantly increased our knowledge about bacterial pathogenesis and symbiosis and, in consequence, is profoundly modifying our views on the evolution and the genetic and physiological basis of bacteria–host interactions. The presentations at this symposium revealed conceptual links between bacterial pathogenesis and symbiosis. The close co-operation of experts in both fields will result in significant synergy and new insights into basic mechanisms of bacteria–host interactions and their evolution. The meeting provided fascinating news about the genetic and metabolic consequences that the change in their lifestyle had for bacteria that developed from free-living to permanent host-associated organisms exemplified by intracellular pathogens or symbionts. In addition, surprising similarities but also striking differences between the strategies involved in the establishment of a symbiotic versus a parasitic lifestyle can be noted. In the long run, the characterization of such differences might lead to lifestyle prediction or to an evaluation of the pathogenic potential of newly isolated bacteria via the definition of genetic and/or metabolic signatures characteristic for pathogenic or symbiotic organisms. Moreover, it is expected that these investigations will lead to new strategies for the treatment or prevention of bacterial infections, or the avoidance of pathogen transmission.

There is more printed on this story at: ... 43.x/full/


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests