Mr. Common Sense said:

Fellow sufferers, don’t waste your time arguing with these guys, focus on healing, you can get better, forget the cause, the blame, life is to short, start focusing on you, forget these guys. I did a long time ago.

He’s right. Stop arguing with us, focus on healing, you can get better, forget the cause, the blame, life is to short, start focusing on you, AND GO AND SEE A PSYCHIATRIST. You have a mental illness.

        robbie linkus said:

go **** yourself. i hope you get it soon, then we can all laugh at you because it is coming your way.

I can guarantee that none of the regulars here will ever get morgellons. You see, skeptics are immune to imaginary diseases, just like how skeptics are never abducted by aliens. It’s one of the many perks of being a skeptic.

        robbie linkus said:

go **** yourself. i hope you get it soon, then we can all laugh at you because it is coming your way.

Meanwhile we’ll all just laugh at you, for being a little attention whore with your make-believe disease.

        Mensch said:

DR Buzz,

You say you want to see analysis of the fibers but that has been ogoing for years without sucessful identification. At the least you must admit the substances must be very unusual since they can be matched.

Search randy Wymore’s work:

http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/research.cfm

There is nothing there! Where is the analysis report? Where is the data?

If they exist they have to be made of something! They’re made of matter, aren’t they? We’ve cataloged the elements all the way to number 114.

Can I please at least get an XRF read on them?

Okay, that’s not actually going to give you the total chemical makeup, but it could at least give you the component elements. What’s the elemental composition? Just for petes sake, can you just at the very least tell me if they contain carbon? Are they organic?

What do you mean “can’t be identified?” Are they composed of some kind of new and asyet unknown subatomic particle? Or some combination of isotopes that have never been cataloged before?

I don’t care if they can’t be matched. Just tell me the elements. Just tell me the class of chemical it is! What is it? A silicate, a carbide, a hydrocarbon, a carbohydrate, a metal oxide, an inorganic chloride salt, a metal? It has to be **something**

You say you want to see analysis of the fibers but that has been ogoing for years without sucessful identification. At the least you must admit the substances must be very unusual since they can be matched.

Search randy Wymore’s work:

http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/research.cfm

        I was a non believer too said:

This is my last post because I have other research to do. I just wanted to tell you How I know I have it and what I have tried. I have black specs, white granules,

Uh… you sure those are not black heads and white heads. I used to have some black heads, and they look pretty nasty. An acne scrub will take care of that.

Okay, so then, it is not mercury poisoning or nanotechnology or barium or any thing like that… and it’s not just a “feeling of crawling” but rather, there are actually, physically, literally, little forms of parasitic life, some kind of a small worm, larva or something else that is actually living in your skin?

Lets be clear on this. Some claim that it’s a crawling feeling, but not necessarily with an actual entity there crawling.

He knows what it is and there is no cure? Did he tell you *what* it is? If there is actually a little life form there, then it has a genius and species. What are the genius and species? If it is as yet unknown to science, then it should be identifiable to an entomologist as new species, previously undiscovered. If not recognizable by it’s structure, DNA could be used. They should be at least able to identify the branch of animal kingdom it is on (as it would clearly be a member of the animal kingdom)

Hey, if you can claim to be the first one to catalog this thing, then you might be able to name it! How cool would that be?

Now as far as treatment: If this is a parasitic near-microbial animal, then it can be cured. There are no known parasites like this that can’t. Humans and little creepy crawlies are different enough, physiologically, that there are plenty of chemicals that are inherently toxic to them and not very toxic to us.

Hell, if worse came to worse, you could dowse your self head to toe in DDT. DDT is very low in acute toxicity to mammals but to insects, worms, arachnids and most other small invertibrets, it is very toxic. Some have developed a partial resistance to it, but that’s not the same as being immune to it entirely. They are only resistant because they have proteins that can clean some of it out of their system. DDT works by opening a sodium channel in the nervous system that is inherent to that form of life.

But whatever the case with these “lesions” – there are a lot of causes of little sores on the skin. Allergies, bug bites, infections, eczema. Are you a dermatologist?

This is really not as complex as you make it out to be. If there are little “worms” meaning multi-cellular organisms causing this, then that is the transmitting agent and the root cause and it is what has to be killed to cure it. End of story. It’s a lot easier to identify a worm than a virus, they’re a lot bigger.

There’s just NO CONSISTENCY HERE.

I mean, hell, we were able to identify HIV after just a few years and it’s a tiny little retrovirus that isn’t even present in high concentrations. If there are worms coming out of you, put one of the damn worms on a microscope slide and end it right there.

Alright, fine, I’m not going to argue then. I’m asking for something simple: I want to see a analysis of one of these “worms” by a competent scientist or scientific institute. I want to see their take on the nature of the organism, whether it is consistent with known species and if not, what its characteristics are. A DNA analysis would be great too, if it’s not known.

And these fibers, which are not like “Everywhere fibers” I simply want to know what they are. What are they made of? Either they’re organic or inorganic. It should be very easy to tell. What’s their elemental composition? Carbon? Oxygen? Sulfur? Technetium? Even if they are made of entirely unknown, uncatalogued compounds (which I very much doubt), they could at least do a complete XRF analysis

        Mr. Common Sense said:

A Little more on the Mercury in Food, hardly fake, data by name brands of Mercury in our food …
http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=105026

So then… its not fungal, it’s mercury?

That report is, however, complete crap. Lets consider how it qualifies what it considers testing positive for mercury:

Our laboratory analyzed for total mercury (not methylmercury). The samples we tested contained
levels of total mercury ranging from below the limit of detection (LOD)—which ranged from 20-
100 parts per trillion (ppt), depending on the nature of the sample and the processes the laboratory
went through to adequately prepare it—to a high of 350 ppt.

Overall, we found detectable mercury in 17 of 55 samples, or around 31 percent. Quality control
measures by the laboratory meant that some items in which initially there was no detectable mercury
on re-analysis were found to have mercury above the LOD. If the latter would have been included
our results, we would have found detectable mercury in a total of 20 of 55 samples, or 36 percent.

Their detection is for any mercury at all, and their criteria is whether it is detectable, it’s surprising they only found it in 30% of the samples. I guarantee they would have found it in more if they had used a more sensitive analytical testing method. Mercury is found in the earth’s crust and therefore there will be at least a tiny trace in almost everything.

Their findings were measured in parts per TRILLION and in most cases, their level was just slightly above the limits of detection for the analysis employed.

It is also worth noting that the products they tested had a very skewed number of levels detected in certain products. For example, beverages only had 15.8 percent of samples test “positive” for mercury, but dairy products had 60%. Why could this be? Beverages use way more HFCS.

Well there’s a perfectly logical answer: cows are grazers, herbivores, they eat a lot of low density material like hay, grain-based feed and so on. These kind of things are out there growing in the enviornment, absorbing things from the air and the soil and then concentrated when a cow eats a huge amount and produces a comparative small amount of milk.

Hence, there is no evidence that it is related to HFCS.

Another thing: This PDF only gives the numbers for the detected levels without any context. In a real scientific write-up, there would be information on the confidence interval, error bars, that kind of thing. That stuff is really important because it tells you the precision of the data.

Any descent analytical laboratory should give more than the total concentration detected. They should also give the standard deviation for test runs, the expected precision of the analytical method employed, variance, error bars, the whole works. I’m very suspicious when I see a supposed scientific report that lacks those.

Their methodology is based on a presumption anyway, which is that any mercury detected must be sourced to HFCS and from that to mercury cell chloride processing. This is a huge presumption. They never should have gone to end products with this before first testing samples of the raw commercial grade HFCS.