reply to post by ChemBreather
Agree with you there, go and watch some morgellons clips on you tube.
There are quite few researchers that think morgellons could be a result of the genes of insects and planets mixed with our cattle which we ofcourse
digest, so it doesnt sound good one bit
I think Morgellons is a nanotech problem this was reported today (looks like it has already been deleted though)
PARIS (AFP) - Scientists reported Thursday that nano-particles used in medical applications can indirectly damage DNA inside cells by transmitting
signals through a protective barrier of human tissue.
The stunning discovery adds to a growing body of research highlighting proven and potential health hazards from the rapidly expanding universe of
engineered objects measured in billionths of a metre.
Nano-scale products already widely in use range from cosmetics to household cleaning products to sporting goods.
But the new findings, reported in the British journal Nature Nanotechnology, could also point to new ways in which nano-therapies might zero in on
disease-causing tumours, the researchers said.
They could even shed light on how poorly understood pathogens penetrate into human organs.
In laboratory experiments, scientists led by Charles Case of Southmead Hospital in Bristol, Britain, grew a multi-layer "barrier" of human cells to
mimic specialised protective tissues found in the body.
One such barrier, for example, separates blood from the brain.
Underneath this layer three-to-four cells thick, they placed human fibroblast cells, which play a key role in the formation of connective and scar
And on top they put nano-scale particles of cobalt-chromium, an alloy that has long been used in the making of hip- and knee-replacement joints, and
more recently in drug-delivery mechanisms used inside arteries.
Earlier studies had shown that direct exposure to large quantities of the alloy could severely damage DNA is some cells, and the researchers wanted to
find out how well the lab-grown barrier would protect the fibroblast cells below.
"We never imagined that it wouldn't," Case told journalists by phone.
"But to our great surprise, not only did we see damage on the other side of the barrier, we saw as much damage as if we had not had a barrier at
all," he said.
At first, the researchers speculated that the tiny particles -- barely 30 billionth of a meter in diameter -- had slipped through microscopic cracks
in the cellular blockade.
But there was no sign of the alloy on the other side, and when the experiment was repeated with far larger particles, the result was essentially the
"We could only conclude that the DNA damage occurred after indirect exposure depending on a process of signalling between cells rather than the
passage of metal through the barrier," said Gevdeep Bhabra, a surgeon at Southmead and a co-author of the study.
For Jim Thomson of the Canada-based technology watchdog ETC Group, the findings "expand significantly the hurdles that any theoretical nano-safety
assessment would need to clear."
His views were echoed by the researchers themselves and experts not involved in the study.
"What it tells me is that the precaution with which some scientists and regulators say we should proceed is the right way to go," said Vyvyan
Howard, a pathologist at the University of Ulster who founded the Journal of Nanotoxicology