Morgellon's Identified!!!

page: 4
132
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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.

For all you know the data is completely fabricated or not trustworthy at all. There's a reason it's on Rense.Com and not in Nature.

Hey guys, look at my vast, genius conspiracy conclusions based on scientific data I read in Weekly World News..




posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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.

For all you know the data is completely fabricated or not trustworthy at all. There's a reason it's on Rense.Com and not in Nature.

Hey guys, look at my vast, genius conspiracy conclusions based on scientific data I read in Weekly World News..



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
are you all talking about morgellans disease or whats up i didnt really read the post but i dont believe in that iiiiish!



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I thinks its all hype. People have skin problems, go on the net looking for solutions, come across Morgellons and self diagnose themselves,in turn ruining chances for getting the real medication they need.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragonFor all you know the data is completely fabricated or not trustworthy at all. There's a reason it's on Rense.Com and not in Nature.

Yes, and for all you know, the data is completely accurate and trustworthy. Surely it's hypocrisy to leap to one conclusion then accuse others of leaping to another.

Hey guys, look at my judgemental conclusions based on the fact that I'm 100% certain all mainstream media is completely honest and trustworthy. If they don't report it, it didn't happen.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by RedDragonFor all you know the data is completely fabricated or not trustworthy at all. There's a reason it's on Rense.Com and not in Nature.

Yes, and for all you know, the data is completely accurate and trustworthy. Surely it's hypocrisy to leap to one conclusion then accuse others of leaping to another.

Hey guys, look at my judgemental conclusions based on the fact that I'm 100% certain all mainstream media is completely honest and trustworthy. If they don't report it, it didn't happen.

Nature isn't really mainstream media. It's the most respected scientific journal in the world.

Rest assured, if this stuff was real then it would be in it. Nature has published plently of things in the past that corporations, governments, etc. don't like.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
[edit on 1-4-2007 by Southcty]



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

Nature isn't really mainstream media. It's the most respected scientific journal in the world.

Rest assured, if this stuff was real then it would be in it. Nature has published plently of things in the past that corporations, governments, etc. don't like.




^ a b Mysterious 'Morgellons disease' prompts US investigation, Emma Marris, Nature Medicine, 30 August 2006


Is this the Nature publication you are referring to? This link was in Wiki on the Morgellon's page.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by RedDragonFor all you know the data is completely fabricated or not trustworthy at all. There's a reason it's on Rense.Com and not in Nature.

Yes, and for all you know, the data is completely accurate and trustworthy. Surely it's hypocrisy to leap to one conclusion then accuse others of leaping to another.

Hey guys, look at my judgemental conclusions based on the fact that I'm 100% certain all mainstream media is completely honest and trustworthy. If they don't report it, it didn't happen.

Nature isn't really mainstream media. It's the most respected scientific journal in the world.

Rest assured, if this stuff was real then it would be in it. Nature has published plently of things in the past that corporations, governments, etc. don't like.



Pull your head out of the sand my friend. The R&D world is an extension of various industries. Industry's motivation is profit, period. Therefore industry is as self serving as can be.

Industry is also the largest primary source of R&D funding. No research which would prove unfavorable to industry will receive funding. Research that proves itself to be unfavorable, is kept behind closed doors and is rarely, if ever, published.

"Understand that many nations work on non disclosed targets in C3 environments, and that a "convenient" diplomatic protocol exists as to how to handle this type of situation.

Its all about statistical significance, and not about a relatively small number symptomatic people, and the fact that people disappear in statistic by way of unrelated cause of death(...)"


Only if major capital gain becomes a factor will the infected be informed how bad they suffer. That's another ten years to go for the people that are seriously affected.

The successful isolation of this element has also the potential to reveal that microbial resistance (anti-biotic resistance) significantly relates to experimental research done by C3; thus governmental subsidized Institutes.

If such institutes are privatized (e.g Harvard University) or not - does not matter. If consistent, it also may reveal that hospital acquired infections are the product of the same "grand medical institute" that tries to eradicate these types of infection.

Facts that can easily be gathered from this research are so confronting that nobody from the medical community dares to associate with it- simply out of fear for career damage and/ or ex- communication that for sure will result in future loss of capital gain.

But again, a research lab will never step forward to disclose (confirm). Facts will be commercialized and kept inconclusive as long as possible. Screening will only add more information to the present fact that quorum sensing made bacteria have gained the ability to grow multi cellular organisms including mammal and bird like expression.


Now please, explain to me exactly how fast anyone in the R&D world is going to write a paper for publishing concerning something of this magnitude, and where they may get their funding? Should they do so, why in the world would you think that Nature magazine, who is by and large financed by industry, would publish it?

more of the communications I have had with the scientist whom performed this work, can be read here. crossinglines.net...

The bulk of his findings are presented at:
silentsuperbug-reference.blogspot.com...
silentsuperbug-political.blogspot.com...
silentsuperbug-micro.blogspot.com...
silentsuperbug-plantinsectcelltech.blogspot.com...
www.silentsuperbug.com



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Does anyone know the range of reported cases. What cities/countries/continents have had cases reported? How wide spread is this thing? Thankyou in advance to whoever can answer these questions.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
One of the first things I do when presented with new "research" is check up on the author. It appears that RedDragon, and Byrd have both done the same.

My checkup also shows that there are questions, and historical problems with this authors research methods.

For example: If you present your research in a Court of Law, your information and methodology will be scrutinized for validity by various authorities in the field. No shenanigans allowed.

That is exactly what the author of this "Research" did, (but shouldn't have). After being examined by authorities, and the Court of Law, the research methodology was deemed "unreliable".

This is not to be taken lightly. That one court opinion permanantly stains the reputation of Dr. Hildegarde Staninger, and indicates that no research by this person should never be taken at face value.


A close look at multiple chemical sensitivity (PDF).

Benney v. Shaw Industries, Inc.
The court excluded the opinion of Dr. Hildegarde Staninger ~ as the methodology was unreliable.


Still, one cannot exempt this current research based on 1 court opinion, and the website its on. However, both together does raise questions about the current work.

In light of this it follows that this new reseach should be sent to highly respected authorities in the field with a request to investigate this work in an unbiased effort to prove or disprove this report for purposes of validation.

One other red flag I found about Dr. Hildegarde Staninger is the title, Dr. of Integrative medicine. Why is that a red flag? Perhaps a quote from the Skeptic's Dictionary will help you understand.


Integrative Medicine is a synonym for "alternative" medicine that integrates sense with nonsense. It integrates the scientific with the untested and the discredited.


I'm not trying to discredit the report, Morgellens, or the good Dr's work. I'm simply pointing out that there is quite a bit of easily accessible information that gives any reasonable person a good reason to view the work sceptically, until validated via other, more reliable means and methodologies.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I must clarify that the information I have presented in this thread is NOT the work of Dr. Hildegarde Staninger. I have posted this information here because of the high number of reads and The reality of shear difficulties in getting this information to the general public. The work presented at the www.silentsuperbug.com sites is NOT the work of dr. Dr. Hildegarde Staninger, even though I do respect highly the good doctors efforts in unraveling and ultimately solving this huge problem. Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The OP did post Dr. Hildegarde Staninger's research though.

As for silentsuperbug, perhaps I overlooked it, but can you please post Daniel Van Eeden's credentials, so that we can research his qualifications to work in this field?

From here it looks like he works in the IT field, not medicine.


Thanks in Advance.



[edit on 4/1/07 by makeitso]



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I completely agree makeitso, except for one thing. I don't think any reasonable person should need a reason to view this research skeptically. All new research, in my opinion, should be viewed skeptically, but it should be viewed.

My problem, though, is that I don't see any highly respected authorities investigating this research any time soon because of a controversial nature of its subject. I was hoping some of the highly respected authorities on these boards would investigate the scientific side of this research for us.

I would have to point out one thing though. I absolutely appreciate that you are not dismissing this research out of hand like others in this thread. But with that in mind, you say 'one of the first things' you do is to research the credentials of the author (which again is perfectly reasonable), but it seems to be the only thing you have done (in this thread at least). What are the other things you usually do when presented with new research?



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Next thing to do is the same thing you would do if posting a news article that you think should be taken seriously.

Find and post corroborative secondary links, (or in this case, secondary studies), that will stand up to scrutiny.

Use the information in the multiple links/studies to validate or invalidate the information.

Even though this is new research, there should be lots of associates, companies that do analysis of the materials, and multiple records of past studies that this one has built upon.

Generally this discovery process is to be done prior to posting the original article, so that your audence has validating evidence onhand.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Even though this is new research, there should be lots of associates, companies that do analysis of the materials, and multiple records of past studies that this one has built upon.

I can but wonder where this assumption comes from. For starters, this study is based on materials supplied by alleged Morgellons sufferers and by other members of the public. Without being supplied these same materials for independent analysis, how could there be any secondary studies? Add to that the controversial nature of Morgellons, and I think you will find that there are very few studies available of this nature.

I understand that knowledge must be built on research, and research must be built on several and varying investigations. But all knowledge must have a starting point, and that means starting with one study. Every journey beginning with a single step, or something along those lines.

I'm not saying secondary studies aren't needed - they desperately are - but without access to the materials studied initially, I'm not sure how this could be achieved. My knowledge of science is very limited, so I'm not even really sure who we could contact. NIDS perhaps? It seems as though we need to contact some kind of scientific body so they can request the samples used in this study and therefore conduct their own investigation.

Without this secondary study, all we can do is speculate based on the information presented in this study. And of course it will be only speculation at this stage, but I'm not sure what else can be done without another study. And by speculate based on the information - I'm referring to the actual chemical results supplied in these studies - not the conclusions reached by the author.

But I still think it's worth speculating - as long as it is recognised as speculation at this stage. Which is why I made the point of titling my own thread 'New Morgellon's research' rather than 'Morgellon's identified'. Way too soon to make that assertion imo.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
One thing being overlooked here is that there are a wealth of theories surrounding the origin of Morgellon's. I think that some even speculate that it doesn't exist. Let's examine this for a second... I think that the reason that no research has been funded could be obvious from two perspectives. One, this has been pushed to the fringe of pseudo-science by those who would prefer it that way (military, industry, government) so that any scientist entering into a thoughful investigation would become a pariah in their field thus effectively ending their carrer AND/OR most acedemia and research facilities are government funded - if this program is a part of a militay-industrial top-secret program, then certainly the government isn't going to throw any money into it to expose itself, right?
Also, don't expect big Pharma to touch it as there is likely no money to be made from it.

Regarding Dr. Staninger and her "Credentials"... she is a credentialed investigator with question marks in her past - given. At this point we are not admiting her or her investigation of Morgellon's into court as evidence, so let's loosen up a bit. I am excited that SOMEONE who has access to these extremely expensive tools has been able to put forth any reasonable effort to do something that that NO ONE has done yet - INVESTIGATE! Her preliminary finding, IMO are both startling and indicative of a need for there to be a cover-up... someone screwed up BIG TIME and unleashed SOMETHING into the biosphere, either intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter - we need to know more. Let's not crucify the messenger - at least not yet. Be skeptical, yes, do that.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
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?


I don't know if it's to discredit, but I would suspect shoddy work to promote a personal theory -- OR -- a well-meaning non-expert. I think it's actually the last, where the filmmaker doesn't have a deep medical background and goes along with something they were told is true.

I don't discount the stories (and I know the CDC is looking into this), but the material presented here didn't give me much confidence.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
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.


Ooops. I edited out Dr. Hildegarde Staninger's name by mistake.


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.

I don't discount the condition's existance, and I see some reasonably credible people working on it. But the original link was to Rense and Dr. Hildegarde Staninger and I do have a LOT of questions about her and her degrees.

There's a Morgellon's research foundation with folks on there who are credible. If you look at THEIR electron microphotography, you'll see a world of difference between their work and Stanninger's work:
www.morgellons.org...

And the differences really should make you suspicious of Stanninger's work.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmoByrd, 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.


Behind Stanninger? Or her research? I'm not seeing that, though I am seeing support for the work being done at SUNY.


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.


From what I read, it's been hard to get a clear set of symptoms that can be defined as "morgellon's disease." On the website, www.morgellons.org... you can see a list of what makes the diagnosis, and (as they say) it's really very broad. Things that are this hard to define become very difficult to diagnose and treat.


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.

I'm more in favor of suspecting environmental pollutants. There tends to be clusters of these, but they don't spread (as a parasitic or viral disease would.) The pattern is a bit more like a localized pollution source, and given the general distain for the EPA, it really wouldn't surprise me if a thorough soil analysis and water analysis of the area turned up some common things that were localized to the area of the outbreak.

One of the problems with nanotech (other than the issue that we haven't got anything that behaves like the theoretical nanobots) is that the things are small enough that they are more likely to trigger an immune response in the body or to be walled off by scar tissue. Engineering biomaterials is very difficult -- if you have time to listen to it, listen to UCLA Berkley's podcast lectures on biomaterials. I've been listening to this class, and it's a REAL eye-opener.

I recommend the second and third lecture:
webcast.berkeley.edu...

If you're really into math (or self-abuse) you can listen to the rest. I don't understand all the math, but I do understand the concepts. I find it completely fascinating -- never knew there was so much to creating something to fit into the body.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Byrd]





new topics
top topics
 
132
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum