It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Morgellon's Identified!!!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:13 PM
Are there any links to any non-activist sites that supports this hypothesis?

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:46 PM
Okay, I know you're not going to like this, but you really should be viewing this with suspicion and not elated confirmation.

I've seen her bio, and I'm looking at her work, and it's not the sort of biomedical research work I'm familiar with. For one thing, her "papers" she gave to Rense are simply copied and pasted from other sites. And although her bio claims her research opened protenomics, etc, and cites famous universities who are exploring this... her name never appears on any papers. (perhaps under a maiden name, but I don't see that.)

As any grad student here can tell you, they kick you out of the university for that. Her conclusions aren't built on solid evidence. Read the papers again -- she hops from topic to topic in a disorganized fasion and suddenly says "voila!" She cites (but doesn't give a proper reference) that she got her information from a Fire Department (this isn't good enough for an academic paper.) You can write like that if you buy a degree, but they'd also flunk you for that if you tried it on a real PhD dissertation from any university.

Her writing is full of little quirky details like that. One might be a coincidence, but a whole platefull of them makes me suspect she isn't all she's supposed to be.

I would dearly love to know how she got the chemical analyses when the specimens she has are only a millimeter in length or so, sparse in number, and very tiny. In the things she shows, there's not enough material to do a spectroscopic analysis.

Nor do those look like carbon fibers.

I have a lot of questions about her since the picture she gives in her writing and research is VERY much at odds with all the other PhDs I know who do research in biological fields. It's also very much at odds with the style and research methods of all the medical docs I know.

Yes, I know you must think I'm a crankety old skeptic, but when I read what she writes and how she conducts her research, it's as jarring as if you saw a third grader writing about how they forged and built a locomotive in their father's iron foundery. There's something terribly amiss there and I think Morgollon's sufferers are being led down the wrong path.

Here's an old page on this. I do know the CDC is investigating and there are researchers at the Oklahoma State University Health Sciences Center who are also looking into it.

I think you'd do better to contact Randy S. Wymore, who is researching this:

His track record is a lot better than hers and he's not putting out press releases full of cut and paste information. And unlike her, people are citing his other research, so you can judge that his technique is pretty solid. I'd trust him to not fake data because he'd get caught in the peer review process.

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:05 PM
Gosh Byrd, there are alot of different links and opinions and research being discussed on this thread.

It took me a few minutes to even figure who you mean when you refer to "her and she" do you mean the first lady to come out with this, Ms. Morgellen? No one is even talking about "her" except you.

What about the emails between the member who has the disease and the communications posted between him and the CDC? There is much here to ponder. I wouldn't be so quick to jump this one if I were a super moderator.

When I clicked the link you provided I got a couple of ads attached, I didn't get that with any of the other links.

I have found the research and documentation offered on this thread to be very valuable and important.

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by kozmo

So - 66 people have visited, 2 people have flagged and NOBODY has any thoughts or comments on this!?
If what this lady is saying is true, we have a HUGE problem on our hands. This is like releasing a new type of virus on all of humanity without knowing what it will do - any NO ONE has an opinion or other information??????

[edit on 30-3-2007 by kozmo]

Well despite if this would be true it would be very important (and very frightening) I still have to remain skeptic.

So far the only "astonishing"-type news i've seen on the subject of Morgellons are from rense or other of "those" type of sites.

Why haven't I seen any of the more controversial stuff in any major journal yet? despite the researches obviously went public as rense has it.

And sorry can't help but be very skeptical of sites like rense.

It's intriguing though and scary to be honest.
But I'd like some more information before i let myself get biased


Originally posted by sardion2000
Are there any links to any non-activist sites that supports this hypothesis?


[edit on 30-3-2007 by David2012]

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:03 PM
I am tying this thread to this one.

Let's not leave any stones unturned.

Byrd, I have been noticing copious unprofessionalism in this area too. That superbug video is a prime example of shoddy documentation. Could there be another layer of deception to discredit work done on this?

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:05 PM
I first heard about this in a posting from a target that was getting electronically harassed. Apparently a lot of targets that are complaining of electornic harassment are getting the same type of symptoms.

I just don't understand it very well and have not had the time to research this portion with everything else that's going on, but I think many others will be fascinated by the article, which I plan to pass on. Thanks for the share.

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:46 PM
I'm not sold on this.

As Byrd said, the research looks suspect, or at least not properly developed in a true academic sense.

I'm not sold on the whole Moregllons thing either. I'm not saying that it's not something, or perhaps a bunch of somethings someone is lumping together, but I don't see it as a 'superbug' or what have you.

Regardless, I'd rather have Moregellons than whatever this guy has.


posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:47 PM
My poor lonely thread has been sitting here for a couple of days now. I guess my title wasn't sensationalist enough
Oh well, glad you guys are talking about it. I was hoping you'd weigh in, Byrd, as you seem to be one of the more scientifically knowledgeable people around here. I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that you've mainly focused on her credentials and academic 'manner' rather than the science involved. In terms of what equipment was used, the last analysis at least lists:

Analysis was carried out with a Dimension-P2 785 Raman Spectrometer utilizing a Dimension-M1 micro Raman Adaptor mounted on a Nikon L150 microscope equipped with 10x and 50x Plan Fluor Epi Objectives

Source as per OP

And granted a local fire department is not a solid source in terms of academia, are the facts presented there about the burning temperatures of human material incorrect?

As I mentioned in my post, I understand this person's credentials are questionable and so are her conclusions - I'm wondering if someone with a better understanding of the science can extrapolate their own conclusion from the data provided (which seems fairly extensive) so that we can see this study from another angle - a kind of peer review I suppose.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:25 AM
Interesting and worrying stuff, its going to be time for some action eventualy, what we gonna do about it??

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:13 AM
I find it absolutelly frightening how many people want to blame nanotech and villify it outright. In my opinion the most interesting thing here is how well the powers that be have conditioned people to fear new developments.
(Fake 60 minutes scare report ensues)
This is dan rather and sure those egg heads at MIT (as more and more americans hate and fear anyone who cracks a book) say nanotech can provide clean drinking water for the entire world and improve alternative energy sources to an efficiency that makes them viable replacements for oil..... But what they aren't telling you is that michael crichton wrote a book once where a colony of nanocameras goes wackity and kills a whole team of researchers!!!! (dan rather still speaking) Obviously it is clear what we must do... we must retask the internet for nothing but hollywood gossip and banner ads for free IPOD nano's (he mutters the only good nanotech they;ve ever came out with) and even though oil is expensive it's obvious that we can't risk educating ourselves because new technology is DANGEROUS!!

And as usual people buy it and applaud auto makers for plodding along ineffectually at the miles per gallon issue, Because they are just trying to make sure we stay safe!! after all new technology is dangerous....

It really is an elegantly beautiful solution to making sure people don't rise up in utter anger at how utterly wasted our tax dollars are on BS baby step projects. And the doddering ivory tower fools that control academia these days happilly hold the status quo against anyone who should dare to innovate... after all we came up with perfectly good laws of physics and god forbid we should have to change one!! Besides that if funding was based on output not tenure how would those lazy fools survive? So between the utter strangulation of REAL ideas getting funding and the willingness of brainwashed people to ridicule anyone with a new idea (because they've been taught to secretly disdain smart people anyway and it makes them feel good to take one down a peg) the true innovators throw their hands up in frustration. retreat to wherever working a stupid job that they hate and wondering if anyone will wake up in time to see these people aren't doing us a favor.

As to the morgellons thing and bizarre ailments aches and pains... heck I don't know what to think. All I know is I hurt way too bad for someone who is 25, and I occasionally wonder why my symptoms appear and disappear as they do but seem to be connected in severity with what i am focussing on that week.... WHo knows but don't blame nanotech or stem cells

That is what they want... it gives them a valid excuse for letting us strangle in the noose of technological stagnation masked by a shallow depth of "new" gadgets and upgrades.

Edit to add a post script: Oh yeah and my rant about academia isn't in any way targetted at byrd. as usual she brings up valid points, and is always a strong advocate of people actually thinking for themselves.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by roguetechie]

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:08 AM
You got the article from It might as well be Weekly World News or Pravda. Use your heads people.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:21 AM
Using your head, Red Dragon, would be to actually look at the contents rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Rense posts articles from a variety of sources and not all of them are as pravda-esque as you might imagine. And besides, this is not an op-ed piece, nor is it a report on claimed events which cannot be verified. This is a scientific study, and while the conclusions extrapolated from the results of the studies might be questionable, inaccurate or just flat out wrong - the study itself is worth considering.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 09:39 AM
gheesh i will have a shot of whatever Kozmo is having!

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:02 AM
Does anyone have an opinion on the story of the OP contacting the CDC and the correspondence between the two. Including his girlfriend contracting the disease and the baby being lost, maybe from the disease, maybe not?

None the less I felt there was some validation of the issue from the response from the communication rep from the CDC in his response to the inquiry, if not minimal in his commitment.

This is a good source, the CDC, wouldn't you say?

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:02 AM

One person drank a lot of hydrochloric something or rather (no idea, but quite acidic) and the fibers were expelled - it killed the lifeform.

That a very interesting point. In the mp3 the Dr. stated that the fibers need an alkaline pH to form the gel in which they survive in. And what to they tell us to do in our diets? To have an alkaline based diet and not an acidic diet.

I must say my diet is mostly acidic and I plan on keeping it that way until this phenomenon is fully understood.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 11:34 AM
BAM! The thread has exploded. Cool!

Obviously it is right to be sceptical of anything that you read or hear. I am, and I will remain so - however, there seems to be too many people who are far more credentialed than I beginning to unravel this mystery - at least a bit.

Byrd, I am also skeptical of her background as I cannot confirm much about her. However, after literally combing through hundreds of pages of material on this matter I am of the opinion that professional consensus is forming around the properties and nature of this material.

Could it be that there are several different types of nanorobotic mechanisms exhibiting Morgellon like symptoms? I believe so. It would certainly cloud the arena of research on the matter - of which I am fairly certain is the goal.

To those that believe that this is nothing but a scare tactic against the nano-particle industry, I say hogwash!!! There is a legitimate concern when someone engineeres a material that is capable of taking on it's own "Life" and can penetrate the human skin and become parasitic in nature - especially when those creating the organism have no long term understanding of how this material will likely evolve, it's particular toxicology on the human body or how it might interact with other environmental systems. Caution is the better part of valor when it comes to such endeavors.

My theory, from what I can gather at this point is that this nanorobtic mechanism was being developed for what appeared to be a very practical and reasonable application. There were, however unintended side-effects if you will that gave these particles to do many other unanticipated things. Then the issue clouds - either someone then took this material and continued to engineer it for the nefarious purposes that we are seeing now OR it was accidentally released into the environment and is wreaking the unintended consequences that we are witnessing in these victims.

In either case, this bears careful scrutiny and I intend to continue digging into this one until I either uncover the verifiable truth or die trying

Thanks to all of you for contributing to this discussion.
Let's pool our resources and get to the bottom if this one once and for all!

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 01:40 PM
Crazy stuff.

I was watching a program on the science discovery channel a while back about weather modification. They did mention something about using nano-bots to put up in the sky to monitor the weather better some how. So these things being in chemtrails doesn't seem too far off imo.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by TheStev
Using your head, Red Dragon, would be to actually look at the contents rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Rense posts articles from a variety of sources and not all of them are as pravda-esque as you might imagine. And besides, this is not an op-ed piece, nor is it a report on claimed events which cannot be verified. This is a scientific study, and while the conclusions extrapolated from the results of the studies might be questionable, inaccurate or just flat out wrong - the study itself is worth considering.

Well I personally read the contents and stick to my standpoint.

I've only seen this "real study" published on sites like rense. I haven't seen it in any journal.
To be blunt if it's real research and it's not being completely kept secret (rense has it?) it would be in scientific journals.

I take sites like rense with a very large grain of salt.

another reason is simple common sense:

If this is linked to chemtrails, is manufactured as opposed to natural. why would the people developing this risk testing it in public. where they can't research the affected subjects for results and risk it getting public.

testing something like this in secret on animals or even prisoners would be a far more logical approach. what's the use in testing it by delivering it to the public with chemtrails and not being able to study the effects on "infected" subjects? not to mention the risk of unforseen effects which they might or might not be able to counter?

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:03 PM
I should have clarified on my posts on page 2, that I also am sure that the findings being reported on this tread initially, are incorrect. However, I applaud any research currently underway, whether conclusions are right or wrong. at least it is being looked at.

what we are up against is a lenient collusion of industry, military, goverment, and academia, coupled with booming technology. what this issue will surely indicate, is that the same "Grand establishment" we expect a cure from, is also the cause of this(and others) to begin with. to exploit a rather healthy body has become very popular, as seen through all new and emerging ailments.

Remember, industry will protect always protect itself. Unfavorable research will never be funded without overwhelming public demand and interest. this is the reason why the CDC, NIH, and the CFID, are stalling their announced study, with the hope this issue will burn itself out. there are also many industry interests active defending their interests throught attacks and spread of disinformation.

I suuport the research presented on the site, because of personal coomunications with the scientist that did the work, and as proven by information contained in the metadata of original images provided. (equipment used, location and owners of said equipment--hospital lab and affiliated university.) also the admission by this scientist that if or when a full screening is performed on this agent, these findings will surpass his initial findings greatly. however, getting an accredited inst. to perform this work is far tougher than you may think. many professionals approached, once they realize what this is all about, turn away from it as if they where bitten. UNFAVORABABLE RESEARCH IS NEVER FUNDED and that that is goes unreported.

This agent is currently proliferating exponentially in the body it is most comfortable with, namely water and soil. saltwater and freshwater supplies alike.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:16 PM
the main reason research must begin soon is that at this time, they cannot stop this. Science cannot keep pace with the speed nature integrates this agent into every lifeform it is around.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in