MORG: The dismissed epidemic [Archive]

View Full Version : MORG: The dismissed epidemic

proseros

Dec 6, 2008, 10:13 PM

I am just wondering...

whether any of the lot of horndogs have gotten enough of thinking about sex to have become aware, of the "new" epidemic that erupted all over the planet, is HIGHLY contagious, and infection which may ALREADY involve-

YOU. That's right, you may be infected and not know it yet.

Here take a look...

Here (http://www.morgellons.eu/)...

and especially, here (http://www.morgellons.eu/).

And if you have heard of it of it, your dismissive opinion means nothing until you have taken the time to roll up your sleeves and get ALL the inforamtion about what seems to be happening to not only people but the entire ecosystem.

DiamondDog

Dec 6, 2008, 11:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_Syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic_illness

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/investigation.html

proseros

Dec 7, 2008, 12:22 AM

I knew it I knew it I knew it.
And it figures it'd be you DD.
So tell me DD since I see you've done your homework so well [NOT]

What sort of psychosomatic/fake illness kills plants, lizards, insects, cats, dogs, and infects children all with the same symptoms?

This is THE MOST typical reaction to news or information about this. The first thing people do is try to find a "top authoritative source" [Like the CDC, which did a complete snowjob of investigating the epidemic]to explain it. If they don't see a need for any concern-they dismiss ALL of the standing data, testimony, evidence and anything else they are too unwilling to bother with, and find any reason to say it's all bull simply because they haven't heard of it on their television or radio or from their neighbors or freinds or from the "local authority on everything" that they trust. That's not a bad thing-That's just a condition of the human psyche actively denying that anything should change their perspective so radically against what they understand as fact-Even when they don't know beans to begin with, because they haven't looked and are comfortable NOT KNOWING [Like UFOs for example: They don't exist because they aren't reported on the news or in the paper-so the testimony of half the planet means squat (until it happens to them-Then they get it)].

The first three links you post have NOTHING to do with Morgellons.
So for anyone who is relying on those links for accurate information-DON'T.
That's why I titled this "the dismissed epidemic", because noone but the people who have it and who have thoroughly investigated and disclosed their findings [And this is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS] admit that it exists.

This is NOT a disease, nor is it DILLUSIONAL [if it IS then we have an epidemic of insanity on our hands, and given the fact that several people with this problem have sommitted suicide I'd say that alone is cause for concern]. It is an infestation. And you have to dig MUCH deeper than what the CDC says to know that.

So don't just skim the surface of things and come back with 20 minutes of research and Investigation. It's not enough. If you want to convince yourself theere can't be anything to this, fine-But trust me, you're in for a very RUDE AWAKENING.

Or do you even know what the term "GREY GOO (http://www.nanotechdisease.com/JanSmithLetter.htm)" means?

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Dec 7, 2008, 12:45 AM

Did anyone bother to check this out on Scopes.com?:rolleyes:
Cat

Randypan

Dec 7, 2008, 1:08 AM

And?:cool:

DiamondDog

Dec 7, 2008, 1:40 AM

Edited for length of huge quote.

I think that you should heed CherokeeMountaincat's first signature.

Maybe bust out the tinfoil hat too? You wrote about chemtrails in another post.

I'm not going to get started on your just plain badly written and theorized writings about open relationships and bisexuality you write about here that don't take into account kink/SM or fetishes.

As far as nanotechnology goes that's been around since the late 1980s and early 1990s since I remember reading articles about it then as a kid in magazines, and I do have a biologist friend that deals with it and it's nothing like the Jan Smith link you posted.

FalconAngel

Dec 7, 2008, 1:52 AM

I'm with DD on this one.

What conspiracy theory website did you originally find this ludicrous story from?

Falke

Dec 7, 2008, 1:57 AM

There seems to be a much more pressing epidemic on our hands...

People who use glass objects around the house as sex toys.

*Warning...graphic video of what could happen*
http://www.efukt.com/2339_The_Worst_Sex_Accident_Of_All_Time.html

Do yourself a favor... go to the local porn dealer and get a big plug or the 16 inch dong-o-death thats on display. Your ass/vagina will thank you!

*This as been a public service announcement from Zwitter*

proseros

Dec 7, 2008, 2:37 AM

Maybe bust out the tinfoil hat too? You wrote about chemtrails in another post.

Yeah and...what about Chemtrails? Oh- I see.Yeah The United States, Canada, and Europe [Where quite a few people have gotten sick and reportedly died after weeks of this]-I suppose we all should put on tin foil hats then?

I'm not going to get started on your just plain badly written and theorized writings about open relationships and bisexuality you write about here that don't take into account kink/SM or fetishes.

Interesting; though since haven't read everything so badly written and theorized, otherwise doesn't take into account anyone's specific kinks or fetishes.

As far as nanotechnology goes that's been around since the late 1980s and early 1990s since I remember reading articles about it then as a kid in magazines, and I do have a biologist friend that deals with it and it's nothing like the Jan Smith link you posted.

How much would you expect an electrician to know about plumbing-besides that water and electricity do not mix.

What conspiracy theory website did you originally find this ludicrous story from?

Bravo. FYI- The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/OSA/nanotech.htm), for starters. You'll find plenty of conspiracy theorists there whose word is as good as gold-"The voice of reason, authority and expertise". Why don't you pop on over there and have a look.

Lissen. It's no sweat. When the voice changes-as it has done in the past-and returns and points out the same things, then and only then will it not be conspiracy, well written and theorized, and authoritative.

Hilarious...

Oh and BTW DD? At least if that happens, I'll know I have some.

FalconAngel

Dec 7, 2008, 1:59 PM

Yeah and...what about Chemtrails? Oh- I see.Yeah The United States, Canada, and Europe [Where quite a few people have gotten sick and reportedly died after weeks of this]-I suppose we all should put on tin foil hats then?

Interesting; though since haven't read everything so badly written and theorized, otherwise doesn't take into account anyone's specific kinks or fetishes.

How much would you expect an electrician to know about plumbing-besides that water and electricity do not mix.

Bravo. FYI- The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/OSA/nanotech.htm), for starters. You'll find plenty of conspiracy theorists there whose word is as good as gold-"The voice of reason, authority and expertise". Why don't you pop on over there and have a look.

Lissen. It's no sweat. When the voice changes-as it has done in the past-and returns and points out the same things, then and only then will it not be conspiracy, well written and theorized, and authoritative.

Hilarious...

Oh and BTW DD? At least if that happens, I'll know I have some.

A few points that you are missing here, assuming that there is no conspiracy to cover this up;

1. No word from the CDC on the subject.

2. No word on the news about it (local or national).

3. Not one single magazine article, that I have seen, anywhere, from any reliable periodical.

If you have an article on the disease, that has been published in a reliable news source, then let's see the link.

As Cherokee Mountaincat asked earlier, have you checked it out on Snopes.com yet?

I did, and they have nothing on it at all.

Rudy75

Dec 7, 2008, 2:57 PM

Actually, ABC News did a 20/20 story on this a few years ago.

It was presented as an oddity, not a serious disease.

MaybeSayMaybe

Dec 7, 2008, 3:20 PM

I've never heard of this one, but I looked at the pictures, and the first thing that comes to mind is that they look like chemical burns. Let me elaborate.

We all come in contact with a great many chemicals that are mildly toxic. They are in processed foods, the air, water, plastic containers, etc. To my astonishment about a year ago I got a chemical burn all over my groin from a combination of a cheap bleaching detergent, and lack of rinsing of gym clothes after a prewash. Apparently the detergent was building up in the gym underwear, and it transferred to me while working out. When I switched to one of those "sensitive" detergents, the problem receded.

Apparently detergents contain many chemicals to prevent UV bleaching, premature cloth aging, etc. These chemicals are not only toxic - they are hormone activators which can multiply the cancerous effects of other chemicals. The cross effects don't add to one another - they multiply one another. Radon gas and cigarette smoke also do this. By the way if you ever have weird and sudden swings in your sex drive, you may think you are walking on the wild side, but hormone activators do this stuff to you and they are highly toxic. Doesn't reality suck sometimes? Pay now, or pay later.

If you ever see funny lesions like this, they may or may not be a disease, but there is a nontrivial chance that whatever is wrong is being antagonized by exposure to some chemical. The first thing to do is pay careful attention to detergents, shampoos, soaps, etc. They all have problems. Also note that many commercial "sensitive skin" products use the same chemicals. They just mislead you. Ditto for known carcinigens used in foods. Some companies care, most don't give a shit.

There is a name for what I am describing - it's called general toxicity. We are all coming in contact with many things that are either mildly toxic or of unknown toxicity. Companies got burned real bad for pouring their toxic waste down the sewer back in the 1970's. They are now much smarter - they fold the toxicity into the product and sell it to you.

Each person has some tolerance threshold for various things, whether it be psychological stress, environmental stress, or whatever. Once that threshold is reached, FUNNY things start to happen.

Whatever this thing is, is is not in their heads. This whole planet is showing the effects of general toxicity. The number of exotic chemicals in use is going up. So we'll being more of this in the future. What you don't know can kill you. So start learning.

proseros

Dec 7, 2008, 3:58 PM

No a few things YOU are missing, since you believe that everything in the world is so straightforward and ready to tailor itself to your notice:

A few points that you are missing here, assuming that there is no conspiracy to cover this up;

1. No word from the CDC on the subject.

If you start seeing people die all around you what are you gonna do look for the CDC to tell you whats going on? Understand something: Morgellons is not heard of because it has not been defined as a "disease", not even by the CDC, and that hasn't happened because dermatology-not epidemiology-is saying it' s not a disease. And as long as it remains something presumably industrial, chemical or technological in nature the CDC has no reason to investigate it, or at least in their own course.
Because most of the people who have it are examined by dermatologists, it is being classified as a 'skin disorder' which it certainly is not. IT IS A SYSTEMIC INFECTION much like mycoses- but is clearly not [if you know anything about that at all]. And as long as the source YOU rely on to educate you doesn't say its a disease, it won't be.

2. No word on the news about it (local or national).

There has been PLENTY of news about it. It's coming from the people sick with it. And since you think Jan Smith story is ludicrous and that nano is nothing like what whoever's biology friend says it is-I'll tell you what:

If it's ludicrous, if it is a lie-instead of dismissing things you have not bothered to investigate, ask Jan Smith yourself. Go to her site, go to the contact link and send her an e-mail and ask her why she is faking having a fake disease, if in fact that is what you think. GO find out for yourself.

3. Not one single magazine article, that I have seen, anywhere, from any reliable periodical.

If you have an article on the disease, that has been published in a reliable news source, then let's see the link.
As Cherokee Mountaincat asked earlier, have you checked it out on Snopes.com yet?

Is that where you go when you want to know something-A rumor site? And yet you ask me about consiparcy sites.

I did, and they have nothing on it at all.

You didn't do anything since if you had you couldn't possibly have missed THIS (http://www.newsweek.com/id/108819).
AND THIS (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health_medicine/1662162.html)
AND THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/17/DI2008011701435.html)
AND THIS (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1084223.ece)
AND THIS (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/19/science/sci-morgellons19)

What "reliable" news sources have you been looking at and just how do you define a "reliable" source?

As long what people want to know doesn't come to them in a way that they are comfortable with or suits their taste, or belief or matches what they think they know-people dismiss and ignore it. If we need the right source to give usinformation before accepting it as fact God help us because by the time it becomes "profitable news" we'll all be DEAD or dying.
Stop chokin yer chicken and get on the ball buddy. Something is going down.
It may be something. It may be nothg. But if nobody takes a real hard close look we'll never know and when we find out it could be too late (If it isn't already (http://www.morgellons.org/)).

Bluebiyou

Dec 7, 2008, 4:58 PM

nothing on
www.snopes.com
regarding Morgellons disease.
It certainly is not well represented as a serious disease by the advertisment alongside space aliens, Lock Ness monster, and con trails.
My favorite point about 'con trails' is the thought that unoxidized aluminum (to reflect sunlight) is going to be run through fuel tanks, suffer the burn (and near certain oxidation) of the jet engine, just to try and increase the albedo of Earth (as if increasing smog isn't enough?). Maybe a soft metal like lead might remotely/possibly be introduced into jet engine fuel (and thus jet engines). But aluminum oxide?!?!?!? Take a look at the back side of some standard light brown sandpaper, see what substance is used for abrasive? You might as well add battery acid flakes/powder to your gasoline in your car/truck.
Aliens, near certainty of existance (numbers). Their interest in Earth - plausible. Perhaps more like Jane Goodall's observation of chimps (or National Geographic). Is all that conspiracy people say about aliens true? No way. Is it all false? Probably not.
Morgellons disease. Probably needs to be further checked out. Might be a well performed hoax like crop circles. May be an alternate infestation that modern science cannot accept (something other than fungal, viral, or bacterial). Lord knows it took a hundred years for doctors to wash their hands (transition from unknown to accepted/known).
Once it gathers twice AIDS 1983 numbers/prevalance in a wealthy country (twice because AIDS was deadly). If morticians start pulling fibers in brain clog/stroke victimes, there will be some notice.

DiamondDog

Dec 7, 2008, 6:01 PM

Yeah and...what about Chemtrails? Oh- I see.Yeah The United States, Canada, and Europe [Where quite a few people have gotten sick and reportedly died after weeks of this]-I suppose we all should put on tin foil hats then?

Interesting; though since haven't read everything so badly written and theorized, otherwise doesn't take into account anyone's specific kinks or fetishes.

How much would you expect an electrician to know about plumbing-besides that water and electricity do not mix.

Bravo. FYI- The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/OSA/nanotech.htm), for starters. You'll find plenty of conspiracy theorists there whose word is as good as gold-"The voice of reason, authority and expertise". Why don't you pop on over there and have a look.

Lissen. It's no sweat. When the voice changes-as it has done in the past-and returns and points out the same things, then and only then will it not be conspiracy, well written and theorized, and authoritative.

Hilarious...

Oh and BTW DD? At least if that happens, I'll know I have some.

I'm not going to tell you the painful mistakes in your flawed theory about bisexuality that you seem to enjoy writing about on here.

That's up for you to find and you're not going to listen to me anyway, and you'll just flip out and go apeshit over anyone who dares question you.

Lay off the psilocybin mushrooms you have as your pic, they're not helping you.

To quote allbi:

Sounds to me as if you want some sort of "rules" set up to fit your own desires and then use the presumed authority of those rules to shove them down the throat of someone else.

As far as 'chemtrails' go, they're just contrails like BlueBiyou wrote.

You realize that more people die daily and worldwide from dysentery than they ever will from a fake disease right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons_Disease#Proposed_causes_and_pathophysio logy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_parasitosis

proseros

Dec 7, 2008, 6:46 PM

MAN LISSEN. IF YOU HAD AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN THOSE THREADS YOU SHOULD'VE STATED IT THEN AND THERE. YOU DAMNED RIGHT IMMA GO APESHIT, BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONALLY PETTY ABOUT WHAT I THINK. I DON'T GIVE A DAMNED ABOUT WHO AGREES WITH ME OR NOT AND WHAT I THINK IS MY RESPONSIBILITY AND YOUR OPINION.

I'm here talking about SOMETHING ELSE. You will either have enough interest in it to take a look at it or you won't. If you want to have a discussion about it, I'm cool with your differences of opinion-BUT LETS DISCUSS IT. IF YOU WANT TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION AND IN TURN DISMISS ME, THEN DO THAT, AND DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME CHALLENGING ME ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY IN ANOTHER THREAD.

You are NOTORIOUS for inciting disagreements in UNRELATED THREADS ON UNRELATED SUBJECTS. STOP IT.

If you want to argue with me about my views on bisexuality then send me a private message and we can go back and forth as much as you want. I don't have a problem with that, I'm not hung up on being agree with or recognized and love a good debate. But DD I'm not going to argue with you. I never have and I'm not gonna start here.

FalconAngel

Dec 7, 2008, 11:11 PM

From everything that you have posted, It still does not appear to be of epidemic proportions. When it starts hitting 35% or more of the population, then it is epidemic. As of right now, it is not that high.

Aids has a higher infection rate and even that is not, technically, an epidemic (even though it is treated as an epidemic because of the severity of the virus).

We cannot go overreacting to every virus that comes along. Let cooler heads prevail so that we don't fall back into the panic and misinformation that we fell into during the black plague or the height of the aids crisis.

Even the articles that you qoted, state that not enough is known about this disease to make any difinitive determinations about it.

so STOP FREAKING OUT (said in large friendly letters) and just stay alert. The way that you are reacting to the whole thing sounds a lot like the doomsayers just before year 2000 or the doomsayers just before year 1000. All this epidemic/end of civilization/end of the world type of reaction that you are giving us all just makes it sound worse than it is.

Just relax. Fact is, whatever happens will happen and panicking and blowing things out of proportion (now or in the future) will do nothing but make things worse than they need to be.

Falke

Dec 7, 2008, 11:24 PM

Just relax. Fact is, whatever happens will happen and panicking and blowing things out of proportion (now or in the future) will do nothing but make things worse than they need to be.

Thank you.

Running around like Chicken Little is not going to get you anywhere, if anything else it will turn off any audience you have.

Now, I asked my wife to have a look as she is in the medical field. This is legit, however it isn't life threatening. As she put it, this is like panicing over acme. Sure, it's inconvenient...but there are sooo many more threatening diseases and viruses to be worried about catching.

jem_is_bi

Dec 8, 2008, 12:16 AM

Unwelcome, health problems happen to everyone, usually at a greater rate as we get older. The true causes of many acute problems (those that are of sudden onset and short duration) are never known. The causes and mechanisms of many chronic diseases are unknown or poorly understood.
Our ignorance generates collective paranoia about all that goes wrong with our health that is not perfectly diagnosed. Many, many people will not get flu shots because they are sure the shots cause them to get the flu. Some people refuse to have their children vaccinated against very bad diseases because of fears of very unlikely problems.
We have enough knowledge such that we no longer assign bad health to “God’s will” but not enough knowledge to know what constitutes good or bad health.

So you are unhappy that modern medical science has many more problems to solve?
Well, you can create your own theory of all that is wrong with your/our health.
But, you will just have to wait for science to confirm or debunk the musings of your mind.

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 12:51 AM

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 1:35 AM

I'm sorry but I can't get ready fast enough for some things and anticipate sometimes that I may need to be a bit sterner than usual about presentation. So when I bring it I bring it with enough "Umph!" in hopes that people will AT LEAST look at what is being presented before responding or reacting to it. It is sometimes a very careful balance between offering something in goodwill and coming right out and saying (lol!) PUT THE DAMNED GLASSES ON!

You get my meaning there (Roddy Piper, Cripple Fight blahblahblah).

The reason for sternness in this case has nothing to do with freaking out or End of the World or any of that. It has to do with the fact that as far public information we are already handicapped because the general public tends to accept only what it relies on. And after that people then apply their personal bias and taste and are handicapped even more from getting information, and finally then only accept whatever is left that they are comfortable with and rationalize the rest away.

I already anticipate how people are going to respond. How do I know? I'm just as objective as everyone else and I don't believe everything I see and hear. I couldn't make this up and I've got a hell of an imagination! It took me weeks to find enough of this information to be confident enough to even think I should present it here of all places.

You can't even panic if you aren't-even-informed and you didn't have the information before now did you?

Falcon-

This HAS been investigated thoroughly. It is very clear what it is. What those articles say - is the same thing; Nothing. The mainstream media is not reporting any of this completely or accurately.

But when you find Dr. Hildegarde Staninger and Dr. Karjoo's reports and you listen to what they are saying, they not only explain what it is, but they also explain what it does and can do to us [And it is certainly not nice]. And if that information is out there and I have it and this thing is as real as it appears to be-

I'm sorry, but I'm gong to make sure you have it too. Okay?
So yeah-Stay alert. Peace.

FalconAngel

Dec 8, 2008, 3:50 AM

Noone is freaking out. And please-

Don't patronize me. PLease. That, makes me freak out.

Never said a damned thing about the end of the world. I only question in response to YOUR ATTITUDE when you think what is being presented to you NOW will be important enough for YOU not to scoff at. So don't come at me with that condescending BS.

I AM ALERT. I'VE BEEN ALERTED. NOW I'M ALERTING YOU.
TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE.

You respond with comments of the information being "ludicrous", and "conspiracy sites" and you response with comments about "tin foil hats" and you dis-miss the information before you investigate. And now that you've investigated you've allowed yourself to accept the inforamtion as relevant enough to see that yes there may be cause for concern-somewhere, but want to decide now where how and when the cause for concern is legitamate and appropriate for your attention.

Thank you. For your input.
Peace.

-------------------------------------------
Now Imma sit here and watch and wait for the next thread about this-And if it happens I guarantee you it won't have been started by me, and noone will dismiss it.

I've been taking my own advice, but I am looking at the timber of your posts, even from the start, and it all comes off as someone who is decrying this problem as a major epidemic, which it isn't, and the feel that many of us are getting from your posts is that this is a life-threatening condition, which it also is not.

I have approached this whole thing the same way I approach conspiracy theorists; with calm skepticism.

Oh yeah, one other thing. I watch the news every morning and every evening. It may have made some of the national weekly news shows, but where I am at, not word one, locally.

I guess it isn't as bad as you have made it out to sound.

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 4:50 AM

I've been taking my own advice, but I am looking at the timber of your posts, even from the start, and it all comes off as someone who is decrying this problem as a major epidemic, which it isn't, and the feel that many of us are getting from your posts is that this is a life-threatening condition, which it also is not.

I have approached this whole thing the same way I approach conspiracy theorists; with calm skepticism.

Oh yeah, one other thing. I watch the news every morning and every evening. It may have made some of the national weekly news shows, but where I am at, not word one, locally.

I guess it isn't as bad as you have made it out to sound.

It's never that bad when you don't know just how bad it is. That's the thing. I don't know, and as it seems you've just got wind of this you certainly don't know.

It is not proven to be life threatening because there is no statistical data on how many people have died due to complications of this specific type of infection.
Once again you do not consider all the information available. It's funny because I have had to convince people myself it is not a conspiracy to destroy the world since if it were we'd all have it and we'd all be dead and there are plenty of other things that could wipe us out much faster. That's not the point.

The point is this:

[1] The condition IS identified as some form of nanotechnology
[2] Human infection has proven systemic-NOT a skin condition as it is widely being touted; that pre-conception alone is dangerously misleading.
[3] Infection has been detected in other organisms besides humans [and is killing them]
[4] It is communicable [widely vectored]-possibly water/soil/airborne and has a latency period before symptoms manifest.
[4] Given the fact of [1] no one knows exactly what form of nanotechnology this is or where it came from, and considering that nanotech today is literally an open market, without any identifiable source, this could go on for quite some time, and obviously has been-since some people have had it more than 10 years, without ever knowing what the exact source is.
It could be your food, your unbderwear, your toothpaste or mouthwash, your socks, or your water heater or boiler. Noone knows.

As far as life threatening goes-Noone knows exactly how threatening it is or not nor will as long as no post-mort investigation that looks for it is ever conducted [on every suspect casuality]. That, as far as we know isn't happening. And if it is-we are not being told.

I'm not telling you the world is doomed. It's obvious that it is anyway. All I'm saying is that it is quite a matter to want to pay very close attention to and not wait too long before you actually do start hearing more from more "reliable" sources. If Hildegarde Staninger was able to get out as much information as she did about this then the CDC should have 10x as much information, and the EPA and WHO should've mentioned it way back in 2005/06. Again- it is occurring GLOBALLY, not just down the street. And I of course question a lot of the data that talks about the generation of more than 1000 cases a day of this, yet again if there's no news I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It may be.

I'd love to know that this is all a big elaborate hoax. But the more I look around I only see more information accumulating, more websites in different countries popping up talking about it. And that to me is an uncomfortable red flag.
Dude I don't care if its life threatening or not. Hell Clusterheadach isn't life threatening at all but I bet you don't ever want to have a single episode of it! So as far as I'm concerned we've got enough problems without worrying about exuding nano-materials. It just aint cool I'm sorry I aint feeling it.

Doggie_Wood

Dec 8, 2008, 8:02 AM

How much would you expect an electrician to know about plumbing-besides that water and electricity do not mix.

Actually - water and electricity do mix given the right settings. I do it all the time (in the course of my vocation). I mix both DC and AC with water(demineralizes or deionized), from 500V to 2500V. From 2.5 to 200K Watts of power.
FYI

:doggie:

nothings5d

Dec 8, 2008, 11:23 AM

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 12:04 PM

Right now I don't see anything to worry about with this disease. Nothing is known about it yet. It could be something that's been around for a while that is experiencing a temporary rise for some reason. It could be a new disease that is only just rearing it's head for the first time. Or it could simply be a multitude of diseases, infections, or poisons with similar symptoms that appear to be a single disease. Until a valid study is done on it there's no reason to even really be worried about it. Until the cause is known you can't do anything to prevent it, and trying preventative medicine based on conjecture could inadvertently increase your chances of getting it. I don't see why you even posted this without a cause being even remotely known. It's not like it's going to do anyone any good.

And once again another respondant who does not appear to have investigated the information themselves-nor it seems has even read the points outlined above; the results of VALID study and investigation. Though since not from any source recognized or qualified as "valid" [according to their standard of what qualifies as "valid"]instantly rejected as false or spurious or otherwise of no value or concern. Nor has anyone said there should be any worry or any attempt to treat one thing or the other [blatantly inventing statements that were not stated]. The OP asked whether or not anyone WAS AWARE OF IT AND THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

This is why there is no discussion about the issue more than just berating the poster-Because noone has anything to contribute to any discussion other than their desire to berate the poster.

Weeks of digging up data about this is gleaned over in a few minutes and following that then berating the poster of the information for raising undue alarm and automatically draw on all kinds of conclusions that have more to do complacency, taste and plain ol ignorance of facts [and if you'd look at ALL of the information especially surrounding the issue of nanotechnology it would be very clear that there is something amiss here].

There is nothing anyone has said that I have not already considered as a variable and am still considering about this. The reason for this posting IS PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT IT. YOU WILL EITHER GO FIND OUT WHAT THAT INFORMATION RELATES, OR YOU WON'T.

But I will say again: I bet if the voice changes the attitude will change. It always does.

allbimyself

Dec 8, 2008, 12:06 PM

"When in doubt run in circles, scream and shout."

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 12:12 PM

"When in doubt run in circles, scream and shout."

WHEN IN DOUBT, GO FIND OUT.
Which you obviously choose not to do.

You know what soooo funny about all of this?
It's the same attitude here the reason why-The World Trade Center [along with some 3000 people] no longer exists. Quite frankly, "arrogance".It is also the same reason AIDS has spread like wildfire because everyone depended on valid inforamtion [it's a 'gay' disease; uh no wait, it's Haitians who get it; uh, nah it won't bother everyone [me] else] So in the meanwhile we forget everything we were ever taught about STDs wanting the thing to be something 'convenient' that we don't need to concern ourselves with.

allbimyself

Dec 8, 2008, 12:53 PM

WHEN IN DOUBT, GO FIND OUT.
Which you obviously choose not to do.
Well, I read your links, assuming (perhaps stupidly) that you would point to proof rather than innuendo and vague conspiracy theories about what appears to be one of MANY unknown medical conditions.

You know what soooo funny about all of this?
It's the same attitude here the reason why-The World Trade Center [along with some 3000 people] no longer exists. Quite frankly, "arrogance".It is also the same reason AIDS has spread like wildfire because everyone depended on valid inforamtion [it's a 'gay' disease; uh no wait, it's Haitians who get it; uh, nah it won't bother everyone [me] else] So in the meanwhile we forget everything we were ever taught about STDs wanting the thing to be something 'convenient' that we don't need to concern ourselves with.HIV/AIDS and other STDs are real. Suggesting that I, or anyone else that doesn't freak out about someone else's delusions doesn't take proper precautions to protect ourselves and our partners is libelous and shows just how much of a crackpot you are. Disinformation, similar to what you've linked to here, is VERY MUCH responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS ("cures" such as beet root and having sex with a virgin).

Best advice to you is to not take everything that you read at face value and don't disregard those that don't support your paranoia.

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2008, 1:22 PM

Take me health very very seriously Pros hun.. is in my an every 1 e3lses that we all do.. wos a film 1ce (wich me has nev seen cos its olda than the hills) Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment.. Morg dus indeed remind me of it.. but thats a lil digression... the prob wiv this hun is that every year ther r new diseases for us 2 fret bout... sum r dangerous sum aint... in time.. if this as bad as u reckon we will find out bout this 1..an wen me has a mo will even do summa me own research.. but am not gonna freak out bout it..cos it jus seems daft 2 me..we hav enuff stresses in our lil lives wivout stressin out bout this.. ther moren enuff pressin concerns for us 2 worry bout..in time this mite b anotha.. but for now...chill..ta for the warnin.. if we stressed out bout everythin a rite frazzled mess we wud b in

FalconAngel

Dec 8, 2008, 4:12 PM

It's never that bad when you don't know just how bad it is.

Circular logic, such as that statement, is the venue of people with no logical or sensible argument.
You are still professing this in a way that makes this whole thing come off sounding like the makings of "conspiracy theory"

That's the thing. I don't know, and as it seems you've just got wind of this you certainly don't know.

It is not proven to be life threatening because there is no statistical data on how many people have died due to complications of this specific type of infection.
Once again you do not consider all the information available. It's funny because I have had to convince people myself it is not a conspiracy to destroy the world since if it were we'd all have it and we'd all be dead and there are plenty of other things that could wipe us out much faster. That's not the point.

The point is this:

[1] The condition IS identified as some form of nanotechnology

By your own admittance, you don't know. You have been coming off like a panicked expert, which you are not an expert in that particular field, are you?

Nanotechnology? so you are saying that this is a man-made tech-disease. Sure sounds like conspiracy theory, when you bring up that point. If it is fact at all, and not just conjecture on the part of some conspiracy theory nut.
Particularly since nano-technology is not naturally occurring, like the flu, common cold, malaria, polio and all of the millions of diseases that are either eradicated, being worked on, or limited to certain regions of the world.

[2] Human infection has proven systemic-NOT a skin condition as it is widely being touted; that pre-conception alone is dangerously misleading.
[3] Infection has been detected in other organisms besides humans [and is killing them]
[4] It is communicable [widely vectored]-possibly water/soil/airborne and has a latency period before symptoms manifest.
[4] Given the fact of [1] no one knows exactly what form of nanotechnology this is or where it came from, and considering that nanotech today is literally an open market, without any identifiable source, this could go on for quite some time, and obviously has been-since some people have had it more than 10 years, without ever knowing what the exact source is.
It could be your food, your unbderwear, your toothpaste or mouthwash, your socks, or your water heater or boiler. Noone knows.

So, if this condition is so virulently contagious as you claim, have the medical facilities where the cases have been reported quarantined the patients? If so, then they have done their job and no need to panic. If not, then why not? It is covered in a number of regulations, both professional and governmental, to quarantine contagious individuals; particularly when it is a "new" or particularly virulent disease.

As far as life threatening goes-Noone knows exactly how threatening it is or not nor will as long as no post-mort investigation that looks for it is ever conducted [on every suspect casuality]. That, as far as we know isn't happening. And if it is-we are not being told.

That contradicts you implication earlier, where you said;

It is not proven to be life threatening because there is no statistical data on how many people have died due to complications of this specific type of infection.

That statement implies that you are saying that it is, in fact, life-threatening, when it is more likely to not be so.

I'm not telling you the world is doomed. It's obvious that it is anyway.

Actually, you are, quite factually, saying that the world is doomed. You just said it, in almost the same breath as the one in which you said that you were not saying it.

It makes you seem as if you are making a much bigger thing of this than it is, or maybe even should be.

All I'm saying is that it is quite a matter to want to pay very close attention to and not wait too long before you actually do start hearing more from more "reliable" sources. If Hildegarde Staninger was able to get out as much information as she did about this then the CDC should have 10x as much information, and the EPA and WHO should've mentioned it way back in 2005/06. Again- it is occurring GLOBALLY, not just down the street. And I of course question a lot of the data that talks about the generation of more than 1000 cases a day of this, yet again if there's no news I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It may be.

Exactly how does the EPA fit into this? They do not handle medical epidemiology, nor do they have any say on the subject. That is the job of the CDC.

As far as the big deal that you are making it; are there medical people working on it? If not, then why not? If they are working on it, then nothing more needs to be said on the subject, since it's being handled as medical research is able to.

I'd love to know that this is all a big elaborate hoax. But the more I look around I only see more information accumulating, more websites in different countries popping up talking about it. And that to me is an uncomfortable red flag.
Dude I don't care if its life threatening or not. Hell Clusterheadach isn't life threatening at all but I bet you don't ever want to have a single episode of it! So as far as I'm concerned we've got enough problems without worrying about exuding nano-materials. It just aint cool I'm sorry I aint feeling it.

If you don't care if it's life threatening, then why are you sounding as if it is the end of the world, bigger than HIV, bad, then?
It isn't any of that and you have been blowing it all out of proportion.
Step back, take a few deep, relaxing breaths and approach this with a bit more skepticism and practical logic. Then re-read your posts as if you were reading someone else's posts. Then you might see what we have been trying to say to you about sounding all doom profit-like.

darkeyes

Dec 8, 2008, 4:18 PM

*Tells Pros 2 go 'ome an sends Morg 2 bed wiv no suppa*

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 10:03 PM

Well, I read your links, assuming (perhaps stupidly) that you would point to proof rather than innuendo and vague conspiracy theories about what appears to be one of MANY unknown medical conditions.HIV/AIDS and other STDs are real. Suggesting that I, or anyone else that doesn't freak out about someone else's delusions doesn't take proper precautions to protect ourselves and our partners is libelous and shows just how much of a crackpot you are. Disinformation, similar to what you've linked to here, is VERY MUCH responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS ("cures" such as beet root and having sex with a virgin).

Best advice to you is to not take everything that you read at face value and don't disregard those that don't support your paranoia.

There you go again putting words in my mouth and twisting things to make your attack more efficient. And of course still berating, and in addition to that you are personalizing things. So I am going to set your ignorant ass straight about what I STATED:

The general attitude of the general population when news of HIV emerged, was that it was a 'gay' disease. So the rest of the world didn't care about it because the MEDIA SAID IT WAS A 'GAY' DISEASE and threw common sense to the wind regarding any sexually transmitted disease. Then-When Haitians started turning up with it, it became a BLACK disease and you couldn't bruise your arm without someone assuming you had kaposis sarcoma when noone even knew what the hell it was to begin with except those that had it and those educated and trained to identify it; and there was all of this talk about closing the doors to Haitian immigrants and all of that other kind of nonsense. By the time Rock Hudson died-and that's what it took for people with YOUR ATTITUDE to pay attention, millions of people were already infected and millions more were in the works all over the planet.

What the f**** kind of World do we live in where people are so complacent and arrogant that they can reserve the right to dismiss any information they haven't learned enough about or because they disagree with the person providing it-or because it doesn't suit their tastes or beliefs. You are free to disagree all you want but you NO RIGHT tell the rest of the world that they should not consider the information you haven't because you think they are a crackpot. THE INFORMATION IN THIS THREAD, FOR ALL YOU KNOW MIGHT BE HELPING SOMEONE UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT BE WRONG WITH THEM. IF YOU'VE NEVER HAD A CHRONIC ILLNESS, I GUESS YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT.

As far as dis-information goes, yes you are correct-But I've pointed out for the third time where the disinformation came from; IT CAME FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DISMISS ANY INFORMATION AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND BERATE PEOPLE WHO BOTHER TO GET ANY INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING AT LEAST INTO PUBLIC VIEW. As a result of that what we have is a bunch of ignorant people-LIKE YOU-WHO DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING running around with their reactionary opinions using every opportunity they can (just as DD did in this thread) to DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE REAL ISSUE. THAT IS DISINFORMATION. If YOU think it is disinformation don't tell me about it-TELL NEWSWEEK, AND TIME, AND POPULAR MECHANICS, AND THE EPA, AND JAN SMITH, AND DR. STANINGER THEY ARE CRACKPOTS. But you're not gonna do that because you are happy being ignorant and it is easier for you to call me a crackpot than it is for you to go find out anything for yourself.

PROPER DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IS HAD THROUGH DISCUSSION, NOT DISMISSAL. ANYTHING ELSE-IS DISINFORMATION AND DEBUNKING. IT IS UNOBJECTIVE, IT IS SELFISH, AND IT IS IGNORANT.
If you've gotten so much-of what is linked-down, then tell me what you understand about what I've posted here.

I bet you can't. I bet you won't. You'll either drop out of the thread altogether or come back with more ignorant, berating distorting name calling.

And finally- NO YOU DIDN'T READ A DAMNED THING BECAUSE WHAT I LINKED HERE JUST SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS OUT THERE. YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ALL OF THIS DOWN IN A DAY FROM SKIMMING THROUGH A FEW LINKS. Telling me you read the links and coming back and calling me a 'crackpot' is only telling me you our not objective enough to hold water long enough to get to the toilet. Whether I think something is real or not I KEEP LOOKING UNTIL I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KNOW WHAT IT IS I'M DEALING WITH. You cannot tell me you have done that in the past 12 hours.

I already told you I spent weeks following up on JUST THE INFORMATION I LINKED HERE, AND BELIEVE ME YOU'VE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE IT DAWNS ON YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE FACTS ARE. IF I WERE PARANOID YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THIS THREAD 6 WEEKS AGO, FIVE MINUTES AFTER I SKIMMED THROUGH THE FIRST THREE LINES OF AN ARTICLE. IF I WERE PARANOID I'D BE TELLING YOU TO SCRUB YOUR FLESH OFF AND BATHE IN BLEACH TO KILL THE GERM [Much like those who drank bleach to kill the HIV virus once discovering they were infected].

I may be the 'crackpot' you believe I am-But I am not the idiot you think you can say anything to.

proseros

Dec 8, 2008, 11:19 PM

proseros

Dec 9, 2008, 1:06 AM

An Excerpt from Dr. Hildergarde Staninger's (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=Hildegard%20Staninger) report on involvement of Nanotechnology in Morgellons infection.

Some examples of this technology that applied to a private research study addressed the composition of the fibers used current terminology to address the researcher's findings.10

Carbon nanotube injectors * a nano carbon nanotube, conjugated with streptavidin-coated quantum dots. Developed by Xing Chen, Andrax Kis, Alex Zetti, and Carolyn Bertozzi fromt eh University of California at Berklely. Unique feature is its ability to deliver genes.

Nano motor - Carlo Montemagno of Cornell University made a molecular motor less than one-fifth the size of a red blood cell. The key components are protein from E. coli attached to a nickel spindle and propeller a few nanometers across, which is powered by ATP, the energy-intermediate that the body itself uses to power all living activities. But this molecular motor works with the efficiency of only 1 to 4 percent, comparing poorly with those in living organisms that could work at close to 100 percent efficiency.11

Nanobombs - Researchers in Michigan have designed smart "nanobombs" that are said to evade the immune system, to hone in on diseased cells to kill them or deliver drugs to them.11

Nanoelectrosensor - Electronic devices that can tell cells to make specific hormones when the body needs them, and electricity generators that self-assembling inside the cell. 11

Nano-pharmaceuticals * Another idea is to interact directly with cells, so they can be harnessed as pharmaceutical factories to produce drugs on demand. Milan Mrksich, chemist at the University of Chicago, plans to hook up cells to electronic circuits by tethering them to a carpet of molecular arms. Carbon chains between 10 to 20 atoms long attached to a gold-plated glass plate with sulphur atoms. The strands are packed so tightly that they have to stand upright on the surface. That creates a thicket of free sticky molecular ends to capture and manipulate cells.11

Quantum dots, nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes (in microelectronics) and other throw-away nanodevices may constitute whole new classes of non-biodegradable nano-junk and nanosmog, environmental pollutants that could make cancer-causing asbestos seem tame.11

The prospect of adverse immune reactions has already been pointed out. Scientists have yet to develop artificial materials that don't cause at least some problems when inserted into the body, starting with silicone breast implants.11 Nanoscale devices are worse. As David Williams an advisor to the European Union on problems of public perceptions of medical technologies says, "The human body is best designed to repel or attack things the size of a cell." Worse yet, the devices could clog up our immune system for good.

FalconAngel

Dec 9, 2008, 1:13 AM

So I scroll a little bit and see Falcon I gotta answer you as well...
Here we go, point for point.

[1]Find the word "conspiracy" in anything posted by me in this thread, other than in this sentence. You are using circular logic to dismiss the information by using "spooky language"-which I as a rule do not use.

[2]This is THE craziest thing I've heard all day-at LEAST so far today. Do you hear the words you are forming in your mind?

[a] Where did I say it is a "man made disease"?
[b] Even if I did-Where's the conspiracy? There are such things as industrial, biological and technological eventualities. Bopol India for example.
[c] Okay smarty pants you tell me since you know so much about nanotechnology-If you wanted to find nanotechnology, where would you look for it? I can give you 500 places you might want to start poking around, starting with your underwear-and ending with your dinner plate.

[3]Another silly assertion forcing me to repeat the same answer to the same question. How many times do I need to tell you that if no authoritative agency-like the ones you are looking for to qualify all your grandiose logic- has regarded it as a 'disease' it won't be treated that way, and it is being treated as a skin disorder with no attention to peripheral effects or symptoms-Just like any other disease, a person can go on for a long time and be diagosed according to established symptom sets before they find a physician who can point out exactly what the problem is. Like my cluster attacks [for example]. It took me almost 3 years to get diagnosed and another 9 before I received any effective treatment [Wow! I can't believe how little thinking you are doing!].

[4]I dunno - can you read? I mean is what I'm writing showing up in another language or something ? Lemme try again...

See the bold and italics? Well that word actually defines the context of the statement. See the underline? Once again-If you don't look for the problem you won't find it and so death DUE TO complications of a condition that remains unknown or has previously been misdiagnosed as something else, is not reported.

Hey I'm not responsible for what you read into and even if I were it's taken a hell of a long time-since you wasted it picking apart what I say and replacing it with what you think I said-for to ask me any questions about it.

[a]
And guess what my man?-Until the CDC does THAT, IT'S YOUR JOB TO GET INFORMED. And that's all I asked you to do, and you still won't do it. Wanna know what the EPA has to do with it? Read the white paper and any number of hundreds of documents on nanotechnology. And until you do that, you don't have much to gripe about or worry about. Cross examining me don't mean a thing baby cuz I aint the CDC.
[b]
Glad you asked that-And when you find out let me know. When I find out I'll let you know, okay?

[6]What you ought to want to know is why you want to hear that and can't get together the presence of mind to do more than argue with me cause I never said none o that. Right here I don't know what you're taking about. All I did was give you some information. And you still haven't put any time into that yet. Otherwise I already explained that when I said [Man! You don't get nothing right do you?]:

Lastly...

BTW "profit" here is spelled p . r . o . p . h . e . t. I don't make a dime off of putting myself for this shit-I need all the freinds I can get and right now I seem to be batting zero as far this forum is concerned. Yeah man I'm way ahead of you and beat you to your own point from the start-That's why I was sure to make myself clear about where and why I present the information that way. I already know I am handicapped by a lack of information that anyone will find reliable unless and until they take the time to investigate it for themselves. And the same people challenging me on this are the same people who are dismissing the information and have dismissed it from the very beginning.

Hope that answers your questions. Peace.

It doesn't actually. It comes off as attacking me and you feeling personally attack by me, which I never personally attacked you. Ever.

So lets stick to the subject instead of arguing over typos, shall we?

You need to worry about what you are sounding like rather than worrying over my single typo.

I never said that you said that it was a man-made disease, but you did say that nanotechnology was part of the disease. Since nanotechnoloy is NOT a naturally occurring thing, thus it is manufactured by man and you insist on the nanotechnology aspect, which by the very nature of nanotechnological involvement implies that this is some kind of conspiracy theory.

Did you miss that point every time I've mentioned it?

And you are still acting like a doomsayer about this. As I said, I never said that you claimed it as a conspiracy theory.

What I said is that your implication is that it has to be a conspiracy theory; particularly when you make the outrageous claim that this disease has a nanotechnological component.

That screams conspiracy theory without you having to state, specifically, that it is a conspiracy theory. The implication is there, made specifically by you when you make those claims.

In the title to this thread, you made the statement that this disease is an "epidemic", which it has not reached epidemic proportions as of this time, if it ever will.

How do you defend the implication, in that single statement, that you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion?

Perhaps your issue with what I am saying is not my (insultingly presumed) inability to read, but your willful choice of non-comprehension of what I am stating combined with your own defensiveness about this whole thing.

Just like when a scientist makes a theory, even with proof, that theory is challenged by his peers. Sometimes over the course of decades (see evolution).

Well, you made a statement which is now being challenged by your peers.

If you cannot handle empirical scrutiny of the information that you yourself submit, it's sources and the statements that you make about them, then don't make the claims in the first place.
Don't get defensive or appeal to our sympathy for your personal situation about it. That is misdirection and a favorite tactic of people with no arguments to defend their position.
Don't piss and moan over other people's typos(see misdirection).
Don't get defensive and insulting (see misdirection again).

Just stick to the facts and make your points. Right now, you are losing your debate because you refuse to keep your cool, while those of us who are challenging your statements are keeping cool.

At this point, if I were in your position, I would start challenging the data that I started with to make sure that this isn't something that got blown out of proportion in the first place.

on a side note:

As far as friends, you don't make any by coming out with stuff like this and bashing anyone that challenges your statements.

You want to make friends, then calm down and stop trying to bash those that disagree with you. Or as my grandfather used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

Maybe your lack of friends isn't them, but you. Nobody wants to be friends with someone that could blow up over something as minor as not agreeing. And maybe you don't do it to folks in person, but you are most certainly doing it here.
Take a few minutes to consider that point before you respond to it.

proseros

Dec 9, 2008, 1:57 AM

And I'm still going to ask you whether or not you are listening to the words you are putting together in your own head.

The implications are YOURS. I am not thinking like you are because I do not have YOUR thoughts. Therefore, the only ideas about conspiracy and doomsaying, belong to you, and whoever else is thinking them.

Conspiracies were never a part of the conversation until YOU introduced it.

Funny you never mention where the conpiracy being screamed is coming from.
If I wanted to say "conpiracy" I certainly would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemics
"Defining an epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is "expected". An epidemic may be restricted to one local (an outbreak), more general (an "epidemic") or even global (pandemic). Because it is based on what is "expected" or thought normal, a few cases of a very rare disease like rabies may be classified as an "epidemic," while many cases of a common disease (like the common cold) would not."

Since noone has ever seen a nanotecnological infestation [And I think I've settled the point about that more than enough especially for you since you still insist in dismissing the information and refusing to look at anything for yourself.], and since this seems to involve much of the planet, I'd pretty much say it falls somewhere in the neighborhood of "epidemic" whether it's Morgellons or jock itch, makes no difference.

Perhaps your issue with what I am saying is not my (insultingly presumed) inability to read combined with your own defensiveness about this whole thing.

I'm being facetious. Otherwise once again-I'm not responsible for how you think-combined with your immediate dismissive attitude ["what conspiracy site did you get this ludicrous story from?"].

BTW did you ever get around to sending that e-mail?

No nononononono. Don't get it twisted and don't even try to play me like that. You don't play fair at all Falcon. Not at all. You're not challenging me because [a] You still haven't looked at the information and still dismiss it and I'm still showing it to you and you are still not looking at it and [c] you still want to argue way past any effort on your own part to do more than conjecture about how I come across to you and what your self-informed logic tells you about information you HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT OR GIVEN ENOUGH THOUGHT TO KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

By suggesting I am impling anything "spooky" like conpiracies automatically chokes off any further discussion about the matter. "Hurrrumph! Oh that's just a lot of Hogwosh. A bunch of ninnies carrying on about robot bogs eating theya flesh or some other soh-t of nonsense. You knew someone is always going on about some soh-t of conspriacy. Never mind it I tell you its all nonsense. "Robot-bugs." Jost ludicrous."

Like I said-I aint mad at you or anyone else for that. That is just how we all are. It is a human handicap, and it is called EGO. And that's why we're still going back and forth.

Don't insultingly dismiss information as implication of something other than exactly what is presented. Never mind the package. Anyone could've posted this. (misdirection)
Don't involve your ego in explaining the information given to you before you have bothered to look for yourself. Stay objective. ([B]miss-information = where you stopped looking at the information).

At this point, if I were in your position, I would start challenging the data that I started with to make sure that this isn't something that got blown out of proportion in the first place.

Please refer to the original question posed. And please refer to the sections posted which explain the degree of involvement-onging-following up on the information presented here. Also- Once again you dismiss information here since you are telling me what to do with information you still haven't look at thoroughly yourself. I'm not sure how that works, but then I'm not sure about a lot of things. That why we're still passing this pipe back and forth.

Well for your information I don't. But this is a different arena, you don't shout in people's ear, one can draw a dick on paper and say something quite poignant. It all depends on the interpretation of the observer. In this case the observer-Is you.

Peace.
-----------------------
P.S. I don't like ketchup; but uuhmm uhmm! You iz sho' slammin with hot sauce!

proseros

Dec 9, 2008, 7:44 AM

Oh yeah...

You know I forgot all about this [focusing more on the science (presumed to be nano) behind all of this]. Since it seems things need to appeal to certain tastes [like Rock Hudson had to die] before anyone takes note; Perhaps this will mean something to sports fans. Since I am not a sports fan the story more or less is just one of many [hundreds? Thousands?.

http://abcnews.go.com/primetime/story?id=2283503&page=1
http://morgellonstruth.com/utube-news.html

FalconAngel

Dec 9, 2008, 9:07 PM

BTW did you ever get around to sending that e-mail?

What e-mail are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about sending any e-mail.

By suggesting I am impling anything "spooky" like conpiracies automatically chokes off any further discussion about the matter. "Hurrrumph! Oh that's just a lot of Hogwosh. A bunch of ninnies carrying on about robot bogs eating theya flesh or some other soh-t of nonsense. You knew someone is always going on about some soh-t of conspriacy. Never mind it I tell you its all nonsense. "Robot-bugs." Jost ludicrous."

So we will take this one point at a time, then. But when it starts to come off as circular logic and denial of the obvious implications that you have been making, it will get dismissed by more than just me.

I will accept your statement, for the sake of making progress, that you are not implying a conspiracy theory;
So if that is the case then, explain how man-made technology, which nano-technology (robot bugs, as you put it) is, can be a component of a naturally occurring disease on it's own, without human help?
Nano-technology, which is man made (as I have stated repeatedly) does not just invent itself. So to say that it is a component of this disease is to indirectly imply that there is some kind of "conspiracy" involved.

You specifically pointed out the nano-technology as part of this disease in thread post #23 (You listed it first, as a matter of fact), so where did the nano-technology, that you said was a component of this disease, come from, since it is not naturally occurring?
It can't happen in nature, so that leaves an accidental release and cover-up of a man-made disease or experiment (cover-up implies conspiracy), or the intentional testing of a biological weapon on the general population of the Earth (secret release implies conspiracy).

If you have another explanation for it, which does not imply a conspiracy theory, then please enlighten us.
I am sure that everyone following this would love to hear the explanation for that particular point.

And this time, stick to the facts of this one point without trying to misdirect away from it as you have done twice so far.

Don't insultingly dismiss information as implication of something other than exactly what is presented. Never mind the package. Anyone could've posted this. (misdirection)
Don't involve your ego in explaining the information given to you before you have bothered to look for yourself. Stay objective. (miss-information = where you stopped looking at the information).

I will accept anything that makes logical sense, but when they start making statements that man made technology is part of a "naturally occurring disease", then it stops making sense. News agencies have been duped before by people, and people have been duped by the media accepting the story of the people they were duped by. I seem to recall a recent "rape" case where that happened.

The point that I am making is that just because you read it in a few places, you should make sure that those sources did not all get their information from a single unreliable source.

What you are not understanding is that I am a natural-born skeptic, so when someone comes along with claims of an "epidemic" disease with a man-made component (such as nano-technology) in it's make-up, then I am going to dismiss it as conspiracy theory nonsense.
And you should, too.
The story that you are promoting screams conspiracy theory because of that one aspect. Now, as I said, if you can give us some data that shows how this man-made component can be part of a natural condition without sounding even more like a conspiracy theory, then I would really love to hear the explanation.

It's good to know about new diseases, but when something sticks out that is inconsistent or not logical, it makes more sense to question the validity of the story than to just accept it.

The nano-technology part is not consistent, which is one of the reasons that it raises so many red flags with so many of us. It should have done so with you as well.

jem_is_bi

Dec 10, 2008, 12:53 AM

Is this a very complicated argument about absolutely nothing?
It sure seems to be to me.

proseros

Dec 10, 2008, 2:56 AM

NOTE: VERY LONG POST WITH INFORMATIONAL LINKS EMBEDDED.

What e-mail are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about sending any e-mail.

But you DID suggest that Jan Smith's condition and her story was "ludicrous". If so, then once again-Send her an e-mail and ask her yourself. Contact Dr. Staninger and ask her about Morgellons and what she thinks. Don't ask me-I am not a toxicologist.

So we will take this one point at a time, then. But when it starts to come off as circular logic and denial of the obvious implications that you have been making, it will get dismissed by more than just me.

No you are the only one here dismissing. What's worse you prsume to speak for the views of everyone else. With as many views as this thread has had I would think that there are a percentage who have dismissed it and still another percentage who have not responded because they have the objective incentive to do what you should have been doing all along-following up on the information you were given. They are not concerned with "implications" or presentation or packaging or context. They are concerned with CONTENT, and even if out to prove I am a crackpot will at least have actually discovered and learned something enough for themselves to bring something to the table other than superficial and meaningless arguments over implications. If there are such implications to be made, they will have all the information they need to understand that such implications are warranted considerations.

You on the other hand have done nothing with the information and therefore bring no discussion to the table that relates in any way to the information given.You're not doing that and you haven't done it yet. Any objective person knows that the only way to learn something is to APPLY ONESSELF TO DILIGENT STUDY AND INVESTIGATION. That is something you persistently refuse to do. And I'm not going to cater to your personal need to have everything tailored to your logic. When you come back WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND INSTEAD OF TELLING ME WHAT YOU
WANT ME TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND, then I'll answer some questions.

I will accept your statement, for the sake of making progress, that you are not implying a conspiracy theory;So if that is the case then, explain how man-made technology, which nano-technology (robot bugs, as you put it) is, can be a component of a naturally occurring disease on it's own, without human help?Nano-technology, which is man made (as I have stated repeatedly) does not just invent itself. So to say that it is a component of this disease is to indirectly imply that there is some kind of "conspiracy" involved.

You keep making things up with your own logic. Noone ever said anything about a "naturally occurring disease consisting of man made components." You're not a skeptic Falcon, not at all. Skeptics do not challenge information. They get up off their butts and follow up on the information for themselves. I'm a skeptic since all the questions you are asking me I've asked over and over again already months ago-And in fact have sought answers for, and still do.

The term "naturally occurring disease" is something you invented with your logic, to seperate it from your inconsistent logic as to how a man-made agent could make people sick, something man-made agents do and have always done.

Nanotechnology is not something so other-worldly that it is not consistent or comparable with nature or natural (http://www.rense.com/morgphase/sizematters.htm) things. Once again-AND DAMMIT I KEEP SAYING THIS, GO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF! Nanotechnology is a technology based and on natural
principles and applied using natural things-like ATOMS and MOLECULES. (I even posted a list of kinds of nanotech agents and what they are designed to do-DID YOU READ IT? DID YOU THEN FOLLOW UP ON WHAT YOU READ? You couldn't have since you are still asking the same questions even though you are being given the same answers).

Your question doesn't even make any sense at all. It's like asking me how it is possible that I can walk in a room with say, a cigarette, and cause the disease of asthma. You deliberately seperate science from nature and man from science and your logic is full of holes because it is incomplete and
not unified. It revolves only around what you choose to accept-The world according to FalconAngel. And anything outside the parameters of that world you instantly dismiss even though it is right there in your face.

You specifically pointed out the nano-technology as part of this disease in thread post #23 (You listed it first, as a matter of fact), so where did the nano-technology, that you said was a component of this disease, come from, since it is not naturally occurring?
.

Once again-I can give you 500 (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/) or so places where it may be coming from and how it may naturally emerge, starting with (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=166192&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=173868)
your underwear (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:0ANkrc1PussJ:www.nano-tex.com/news%26media/JCPenney.pdf+nano+consumer+textiles&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) and ending with your dinner plate (http://www.agronavigator.cz/UserFiles/File/Agronavigator/Sukova2/100%20plus%20nanotech%20food%20products%20on%20sal e.doc). And once again I'm going to suggest you stop arguing about how things that ring with YOU and GO FIND OUT FOR YOUR SELF!

YOU HAVE NOT ONCE DISCUSSED ANYTHNIG IN ANY ONE OF THE LINKS IN ANY OF THE INFORMATION POSTED, IN THIS THREAD. YOU HAVE PERSISTENTLY AVOIDED ANY ATTEMPT TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN ORDER TO INDULGE YOURSELF IN HOW AND WHAT YOU THINK IS BEING IMPLIED MEASURED BY YOUR STANDARDS OF PRESENTATION AND LOGIC.

It can't happen in nature, so that leaves an accidental release and cover-up of a man-made disease or experiment (cover-up implies conspiracy), or the intentional testing of a biological weapon on the general population of the Earth (secret release implies conspiracy).

[1]
AH- bravo! You are [FINALLY] thinking things through for a change. But I never said it was or not any one of those things-YOU DID. What I have made perfectly clear is that investigation has disclosed that there is nanotechnology involved in the instance of this "disease" called Morgellons [Oh and by the way, did you know that the name "Morgellons" is a false name borrowed from something else having absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS? WHY?

Because [a] It is not a clinical term per se and [b] there is no language to describe or explain something that has not been seen before, anywhere in the medical or scientific community. So the fact that it being called "Morgellons disease" is a complete misnomer since noone knows that it is a disease at all, though current findings may allow it to be defined attributively as an infestation OR parasitization of some kind-again, that has been found to involve nanotechnology.

This is irrespective of what it is or where it came from. What matters is THAT IT CLEARLY IS HAPPENING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS TO INFORM YOU OF THAT.

I am not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again. Go find out for yourself. The information is here, the information is out there. Get off your butt and go find it.

I am no fool and understand perfectly well that all of the information very well could have originated from a single source that is entirely and unequivocally FALSE. An outright hoax. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/klingerman_hoax.htm) You will not find anything matched-by-definition to a Google search for "Morgellons Hoax". (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=Morgellons%20hoax)

[2]
YOU ARE RIGHT. AND I THANK YOU FOR POINTING IT OUT, HOWEVER-

If that is indeed the case, I doubt that BILLY KOCH (http://abcnews.go.com/primetime/story?id=2283503&page=1) would be in on it. And I see clearly you haven't looked at that so there it is again.

INVOLVEMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IS A FACT OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITION (http://www.rense.com/morgphase/phase2_1.htm).You still don't know that because you still haven't read anything for yourself and you want ME to qualify everything for you-worse, tailored for your acceptance. I'm not posting this to get your attention or your acceptance. I posted this to INFORM YOU. IF YOU WANT ENLIGHTENMENT YOU CERTAINLY WILL NOT GET IT GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH ME.

If you have another explanation for it, which does not imply a conspiracy theory, then please enlighten us. I am sure that everyone following this would love to hear the explanation for that particular point.And this time, stick to the facts of this one point without trying to misdirect away from it as you have done twice so far.

I'm not giving you anything BUT FACTS. YOU are filling in the rest yourself.
Why are you HUNG UP ON IMPLICATIONS? You keep telling on yourself and you just blatantly admit here that a conspiracy is the only thing YOU CAN THINK OF. It is the only way you know how to approach anything you cannot or are not willing to identify or are immediately familiar with. If that's the case-and since you are so dismissive of such implications, then you don't care whether it is fact or not. You've already made up your mind and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it.

Stick to the information that has been given to you, go spend some time reading and stop misdirecting others away from focusing on it because you choose not to [same problem with someone else here]. that is the evilest wickedest "tactic" [another term you use often, consistent with your focus on conspiratorial ideas] in history. It is how bias works, it is how discrimination works, and it is how racism works; Ignore and dismiss and then when the person make enough noise, berate and bash, call them crackpots and loonies .

[AND DON'T EVEN TRY TO COME BACK HERE AND SAY THAT I AM IMPLYING THAT YOU ARE BIASED OR A RACIST. That implication will be YOUR OWN TWISTED INVENTION BASED ON HOW [I]YOU INTERPRET LANGUAGE].

As long as you cling to your arguments about "implied conspiracy theories" you will always have a reason to fiddle while Rome burns [or any other thing that is going on], and you won't learn anything, or do anything. And as far as I can tell that is exactly all you want to do. Nothing but cling to your own arguments-Argument you invent to keep you from taking responsibility for either what is going on around you [or not, since if you don't look you couldn't know one way or the other].

That is the logic of people who believe in a "devil". As long as the devil exists-They are not responsible for what they do and they remain "innocent". Innocence in this sense though, is no more or less than WILLFUL IGNORANCE AND REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

I have at least explained the motive for my presentation and I am clearly answering your un-clear arguments. I can only give you that much. I cannot MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU OR IN YOUR HANDS.

I will accept anything that makes logical sense, but when they start making statements that man made technology is part of a "naturally occurring disease", then it stops making sense. News agencies have been duped before by people, and people have been duped by the media accepting the story of the people they were duped by. I seem to recall a recent "rape" case where that happened. The point that I am making is that just because you read it in a few places, you should make sure that those sources did not all get their information from a single unreliable source.

Now you are starting to frighten me in a laughable kind of way and I'll tell you why-Because the statement you make here first of all is an assumption and flies in the face of the fact that I've said several times-I spent weeks looking into this, so the information did not come from "a few places". It came from intense objective scrutinization of information and many hours of mentally challenging myself NOT TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS AND EXCLUDE ANY IDEAS OF MY OWN, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING "CONPIRACIES".

That is why I discuss this subject with VARIABLES rather than ASSERTIONS, since I am no closer to the absolute answers than you are-which why I have posted it here in the firzst damned place-SO A DISCUSSION MAY EVOLVE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE VERY QUESTIONS YOU ARE ASKING.

I don't know that this is DUE TO one thing or another. I do have an understanding of somethings which, as long as I remain objective and deal only with real information can be related to other things [mycology, biology, epidemiology, histology, etc.] In conjunction with this NEW and PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN SUBJECT CALLED 'NANOTECHNOLOGY' WHICH I UNTIL NOW HAD ONLY "HEARD OF" BUT NO INITMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IT WAS OR HOW IT WORKED. Today I understand a little bit about all of these things and perhaps their cumulative relationship with nanotechnology to KNOW that in fact this "disease" - which I very clearly stated was NOT and could not be explained as a "natural disease" [your terminology], and instead refer to it as an "infestation" of some kind, involving nanotechnology.

You talk to me as if I am not supposed to understand anything at all and view reality as if it were 'Star Trek' or 'Jerry Springer':

"Jerry I got these bugs creepin n crawlin awl ova m' haas, n is cummin out muh skin; N I know I jus no it cayn't be no kinna dis-eez I evva hurd of. It jus aint naytrul." Implications-as you so put it...

I don't care about implications. I focus on finding out what this may be first, if it is real at all. So I looked into the first thing I could think was consistent with natural kinds of disease-things I could readily identify. I started, as a person focused on Mycology-With worms. That's what I thought it might be at first. Have you ever heard of a nematode? (http://www.toxicworm.com) Have you ever heard of Taenia Solium? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53761)
I had to read two books three times to know this was not a worm. And it is not an easy thing to break free of your own ideas and go out of your way to accept that a thing is NOT what you thought it was. Why I read and read and read-And could find NOTHING, no such nematode in existence.

And I use this as an example again tailored just for you, to make you understand you are wasting your time arguing with me about "implicative and circular" logic-whatever that is

What you are not understanding is that I am a natural-born skeptic, so when someone comes along with claims of an "epidemic" disease with a man-made component (such as nano-technology) in it's make-up, then I am going to dismiss it as conspiracy theory nonsense.
And you should, too.

I should dismiss something BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO YOU? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
IF THIS [I]WERE AIDS-YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE TELLING ME NOT TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX BECAUSE YOU THINK AIDS IS A CONSPIRACY AND A HOAX AND HAVE ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND TO DISMISS IT AS NONSENSE.

The nano-technology part is not consistent, which is one of the reasons that it raises so many red flags with so many of us. It should have done so with you as well.

Once again, manipulating point of view to side with or jive with your own. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Bad news. A really insidious foist of kinds of mongers.

And please don't put in my mouth and claim I call you a hate-monger.
I very clearly don't. The language here is comparable to those kinds of persons who use language to assuage point of view and eliminate,supress or divert objective thinking to agree with their own 'logic'.

Have fun learning (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=nanotechnology%20and%20health%20risks)-If you dare to learn anything at all.

Peace.

void()

Dec 10, 2008, 4:54 AM

Excuse me and apologies in advance. Have a little anecdote, not directly related, albeit in a way it may give perspective.

As mom drove me to work today she noted aloud, "oh look they have doors there!"

Our family is keen on being firm believers in telepathy, empathy and great intimacy as a family. We often play 'mental gymnastics', flicking through various ideas, concepts and such, knowing everyone will 'get it' right away and keep the 'flow' going. Of course we also have an expression, 'kick the dog while it's down'. We cut up and rib one another but good.

In a flash instance of pure genius I replied to mom's comment as somberly as able. "Look they've windows over there." My wife, who was riding with us, burst her guts laughing. Mom laughed too.

My wife said "cows are out." Because I had once noted a few head of cattle in a neighbor's yard, and as calm and matter of fact as one might say, 'daisies are blooming.' I laughed and said, "yep."

Why over state the obvious?

FalconAngel

Dec 10, 2008, 11:31 AM

NOTE: VERY LONG POST WITH INFORMATIONAL LINKS EMBEDDED.

But you DID suggest that Jan Smith's condition and her story was "ludicrous". If so, then once again-Send her an e-mail and ask her yourself. Contact Dr. Staninger and ask her about Morgellons and what she thinks. Don't ask me-I am not a toxicologist.

I never specifically pointed out that, or any, specific case as ludicrous. I did say that the disease as a naturally developing disease (because of the nanotech component) was ludicrous.

No you are the only one here dismissing. What's worse you prsume to speak for the views of everyone else.

Unlike you, who has been putting words in my mouth, I ONLY speak for ME and no one else. And I have not been the ONLY one dismissing. I have been dismissing that which does not make sense and asking for explanations of certain points, in order to understand what it is you are implying here, with this dogged defense of things that make little sense.

And you still have yet to give up any explanations of the single inconsistency that I have pointed out, btw.

With as many views as this thread has had I would think that there are a percentage who have dismissed it and still another percentage who have not responded because they have the objective incentive to do what you should have been doing all along-following up on the information you were given. They are not concerned with "implications" or presentation or packaging or context. They are concerned with CONTENT, and even if out to prove I am a crackpot will at least have actually discovered and learned something enough for themselves to bring something to the table other than superficial and meaningless arguments over implications. If there are such implications to be made, they will have all the information they need to understand that such implications are warranted considerations.

Okay. Let's discuss content. In thread post #23, The first and foremost component of this disease is listed, BY YOU, as being nanotechnology. Since, as I have said repeatedly, nanotechnology is man-made and not a creation of nature, I ask again (in the hopes that you will actually answer this time) where did it come from?

That question is far from superficial OR meaningless and any thinking person would pick that point out from the information that you gave and question it.

Why haven't you taken a second look at it?

You on the other hand have done nothing with the information and therefore bring no discussion to the table that relates in any way to the information given.You're not doing that and you haven't done it yet.

What I have or have not done is NOT for you to presume. You would be remiss in your objectivity to do presume anything about me, since you really know nothing about me. But since you like to misdirect, I will point out that we should stick to the subject at hand since you seem to misdirect more and more, the deeper that I question this one single point, that you have yet to address.

Any objective person knows that the only way to learn something is to APPLY ONESSELF TO DILIGENT STUDY AND INVESTIGATION. That is something you persistently refuse to do.

So then. Are you saying that you have made diligent study of this disease? IF you have, then you should have no problem answering the one question that I have been asking (for 3 of my own posts so far);
How does a man-made component happen in a naturally occurring disease in such a way that the story does not come off sounding like another bad conspiracy theory?
conversely, if it is a man-made disease, then how does this not now become a conspiracy theory (whether you call it one or not)?

And I'm not going to cater to your personal need to have everything tailored to your logic. When you come back WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND INSTEAD OF TELLING ME WHAT YOU
WANT ME TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND, then I'll answer some questions.

I don't expect you to spoon-feed me anything but the answer to the one question that I have been asking, over and over again, without the courtesy of an answer from you.

Since you bring up logic, let's clear up something that you are not appearing to understand about logic.

Logic, while in use by me, is not tailored to me, or anyone else, for that matter. Logic is what it is.

Either it makes sense and the information works together properly, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, or it does not. THAT is logic.

Stating that this is a disease which, unless manufactured (which would make this a conspiracy theory), happened naturally, then stating that there is a man made component to it, puts a piece in this puzzle which does not fit; UNLESS the disease is not natural, which would make this story a "conspiracy theory".

You stated (in your post #23) that there is a nanotech component, which DIRECTLY IMPLIES that the disease is manufactured or modified intentionally by man.

Unless you know something about nature that has escaped science for the past 10,000 years, then there is no other logical explanation for that nanotech component, as part of this disease, other than man made, which decries "conspiracy theory".

Whether you call it that openly or not.

You keep making things up with your own logic. Noone ever said anything about a "naturally occurring disease consisting of man made components."

So then you are, in fact, saying that the disease is man made?
In that case, you are directly implying that this IS a conspiracy of some sort, unless you are stating that the nanotech component that YOU posted is wrong. You don't get it both ways.

You're not a skeptic Falcon, not at all. Skeptics do not challenge information. They get up off their butts and follow up on the information for themselves. [i]I'm a skeptic since all the questions you are asking me I've asked over and over again already months ago-And in fact have sought answers for, and still do.

As defined in the modern English dictionary;
skep⋅tic
/ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

What part of that definition have I not been doing? Perhaps you should re-aquaint yourself with the meanings of the words that you are using.

I have consistently questioned the authenticity of your claims and of this disease.
Logic dictates that if it is not a natural occurrence, then it must be man-made.
If it is man made, then this is another conspiracy theory.

Now, if you have another explanation for a man-made disease being released on the general human population, that is not fodder for being called a conspiracy theory, then I, for one, would love to hear it.

The term "naturally occurring disease" is something you invented with your logic, to seperate it from your inconsistent logic as to how a man-made agent could make people sick, something man-made agents do and have always done.

So then you are saying that this was intentionally done by man and is covered up as to it's origins......and that doesn't scream "conspiracy theory" to you?

Nanotechnology is not something so other-worldly that it is not consistent or comparable with nature or natural (http://www.rense.com/morgphase/sizematters.htm) things. Once again-AND DAMMIT I KEEP SAYING THIS, GO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF! Nanotechnology is a technology based and on natural
principles and applied using natural things-like ATOMS and MOLECULES. (I even posted a list of kinds of nanotech agents and what they are designed to do-DID YOU READ IT? DID YOU THEN FOLLOW UP ON WHAT YOU READ? You couldn't have since you are still asking the same questions even though you are being given the same answers).

I know what nanotechnology is, and trying to make it sound like something that it isn't, with your statement that it is "technology based and on natural principles and applied using natural things-like ATOMS and MOLECULES" shows you own lack of understanding of what technology really is.

Technology does not happen in nature. Technology is any device, machine or component of a machine which has been formed by man from natural or other fabricated materials. A wood and rope catapult is technology, even though it uses natural materials, it still had to be formed by man.
Nanotechnology is the same. It is technology, and is therefore man made. Yes, there are atoms and molecules in every thing in the universe, but that does not make everything nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is man made; manufactured, not natural.

[QUOTE=proseros;117195]Your question doesn't even make any sense at all. It's like asking me how it is possible that I can walk in a room with say, a cigarette, and cause the disease of asthma.

From a technical standpoint, that action does not cause asthma, but your choice to risk yourself and others to the possibility of it makes you morally responsible for the action, and consequently responsible if someone gets asthma from your action, so the answer is both yes, in a moral aspect, and no, from a technical aspect.

You deliberately seperate science from nature and man from science and your logic is full of holes because it is incomplete and not unified.

Actually, I separate technology from nature. Science is the study of, among other things, nature. Science is not the manufacture of technology, though it is the source of technological knowledge used in many the manufacturing processes.

It revolves only around what you choose to accept-The world according to FalconAngel. And anything outside the parameters of that world you instantly dismiss even though it is right there in your face.

Again, statements like this only serve to misdirect away from the fact that you either lack real understanding of the actual subject at hand or have no explanations for the questions that I have posed.

if you insist on trying to educate people on something, then come to class prepared to answer the tough questions. If you are not prepared to do that, then perhaps you should get better prepared so that you can answer them, because there will be people who ask them, like me.

I did not ask for links to your sources. I asked you to answer my question. Instead you give me links to articles that, by your own admittance, may or may not have gotten their information from reliable sources.

I asked YOU, not your sources (which, by your own admittance, may or may not have gotten their information from reliable sources in the first place) to answer the question.

Most of us have other things to do than sort through your 500 sources of information. But since you say that you have done the research, then you can explain the inconsistencies that others notice, thus making sense of them. You should be able to summarize the answer in a way that does not require anyone to read through all of your source material in order to gain a basic understanding of what you have been saying.

And that, above all else makes me more skeptical of what you are saying because of the simple fact that you have not been either willing or able to do that.

Had you done all of the research that you claim, then you should be able and willing to do answer in your own words with the addition of the source links for further clarification, if needed.

You insist, instead about going over minute' about spelling errors, or attacking my objectivity and skepticism instead of being able and willing to answer the one important question that I have posed.

Had you the knowledge that you claim, you could have answered my, or anyone's, questions in your own words, but instead, you lack the understanding to explain why this (possibly) manufactured disease is not some kind of conspiracy theory claptrap, and are thus unable to support your argument because of that lack of understanding.

Since you either cannot or will not clarify that inconsistency, your credibility on this subject is questionable and not worth consideration.

Understanding something REQUIRES the ability to explain it to someone, in your own words, what it is that you are discussing. You have repeatedly failed to do that.

I am done with this discussion because you have shown a lack of understanding of a subject that you are professing knowledge over.

proseros

Dec 10, 2008, 12:47 PM

You are done with the subject because it is easier for you to ignore the information. I am not professing to know anything about anything in the way you are describing-I even say that I am not a toxicologist or a scientist and cannot answer questions I am not qualified as such to answer, which is why I refer you to those sources who are-which as usual you want to dismiss; however I cannot answer "tough" questions as long as YOU have NOT brought a discussion about the information to the table-And you do NOT want to look at the information at all (claiming people have better things to do, rather than admit you don't care to look at the information).

And then you want to invent your own definition for things. Duh! Of course technology is man made-But man is natural and therefore any technology manufactured by man must also come from and be based in nature-not some other dimension or reality (The way you think). Moreover I never said anything about a "naturally occurring disease".That is YOUR sily logic based on how YOU define "disease"-That it must occur "naturally", whatever that means.

It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't make the information or the facts go away. Just like arguing over the source and cause of AIDS means nothing as long as people are getting sick from it. And that's what happened with AIDS and that's what you are perpetuating here with this issue-Ignorance rather than education and information.

None of that has to do with the information. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with the information presented. You asked me for sources and I gave them to you and now you want to say they are invalid before you've even looked at them.

I have nothing to lose if all of this turns out to be nothing. I don't want it to be real.But you on the other hand have everything to lose if it turns out to be something important.

Yes indeed you are done with the subject-A subject you never bothered to learn anything about or discuss in any way. You came with nothng and you leave with nothing but your own ignorance and empty mental semantics.

That is not going to stop me from providing information (which you insist is not the purpose of this thread and which I state over and over, is), and those who want to be informed will be. Those who want to dismiss it will.
But dismissal, mis-information and ignorance will not make the issue go away.

It is a pity that you will not allow yourself to learn anything. You will remain ignorant of anything regardless what it is-simply because you cannot allow yourself to learn. Very foolish. Very silly. Very dangerous.

And Falcon-STOP using words like "others", and "us" and "we".
Learn to express your own thoughts and opinions and views as your own and not try to rally people around you. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Peace.

nothings5d

Dec 10, 2008, 2:35 PM

And once again another respondant who does not appear to have investigated the information themselves-nor it seems has even read the points outlined above; the results of VALID study and investigation. Though since not from any source recognized or qualified as "valid" [according to their standard of what qualifies as "valid"]instantly rejected as false or spurious or otherwise of no value or concern.

I want to start this by saying that I did investigate before posting. The links you provided were not actually all that useful. There was plenty of information there but most of it seemed to be pure conjecture passing itself off as facts without enough evidence to back it up. The reason I determined that information was invalid was because none of it seemed to be done within the scientific method. If they had done their research within the scientific method and/or put up all the information about their research then it would be worthy of consideration.

As to a source being spurious (excellent word choice by the way) due to the source being not being "recognized or qualified as 'valid'", this is quite true. Any scientific information has to have the source known and validated because many people who perform scientific studies put a bias on their interpretation of the results whether they know it or not. This problem arises from a misconception of the scientific method. Most people think that the scientific method is used to prove a theory when in fact it is used to disprove a theory. Since many people don't understand this any information they gather cannot be taken seriously until it is properly studied with the study properly documented.

This is why there is no discussion about the issue more than just berating the poster-Because noone has anything to contribute to any discussion other than their desire to berate the poster.

I guess I did berate your decision to post this at the very end of my post. I'm sorry for that. But the rest of my post was valid discussion of the topic at hand and your post was just as guilty of berating me as mine was of berating you.

nothings5d

Dec 10, 2008, 4:17 PM

I was just re-reading "Jan Smith's Letter Regarding Nanotech Diseases AKA Morgellon's" and there is a very big indicator in there that indicates that the majority of the nano-tech evidence mentioned in it is spurious.

This information is not based on idle conjecture but facts proven by laboratory testing performed by Dr. Hildegarde Staninger at Woodshole/MIT Lab, Lambda Labs, and other accredited labs (refer to Research Section).

The part of this quote that indicates it is spurious is "facts proven by laboratory testing". There is no such thing as a fact proven by laboratory testing. Laboratory tests that are conducted using the scientific method are designed to try to disprove a theory not prove it. Any truly scientific test should have as it's primary goal to disprove the theory that you believe is true. If you disprove the theory then you make a new theory. If you don't disprove the theory then you come up with a new test and check again. Once you have exhausted all the tests that might disprove the theory then there is a high likelihood that the theory is sound. Someone else might come up with a test in the future that disproves the theory, but for the time being the theory would be considered accurate.

To say that laboratory testing has proved that "Nanotechnology is disabling and killing human beings" is indeed spurious evidence.

FalconAngel

Dec 10, 2008, 11:13 PM

rissababynta

Dec 10, 2008, 11:18 PM

hmm...round holes

proseros

Dec 11, 2008, 12:35 AM

I thank you for you input here and that at least you have made some effort to look into the information provided here [there is a great deal of information linked in the last post btw]. I agree with your opening lines here completely and this is the entire point I've have been explaining throughout this entire thread with regards my own investigation and why I refrain from using "spooky language" such as 'conspiracies', which people have a tendancy to latch onto immediately before they've bothered to investigate anything; this is especially in cases where the information concerns a subject that is relatively new and which little or nothing is actually known or understood.

Nanotechnology is not a simple subject, especially when you are talking about how it may or may not interact with living organisms or behave in the environment. Noone-not even the most educated of scientific minds in their respective fields can "get it" in five minutes. That just will not happen. I have a fairly rounded familiarity with mycology, both general and clinical and so when I first began to notice information about this I too, ignored it as "spurious". Yet that happened [a] because I knew nothing about nanotech I could only relate the information to what I was familiar with. The only thing I could-or wanted to-think of was a nematode [see links above].
I could very easily have drawn on the information from every "spurious" blog and quick-n-dirty website out there displaying images of these alleged "fibers" and fall into the "conspiracy hole" that many people do-and often want to [believe the world is ending for one reason or another], or dismiss the information altogether simply because it was not consistent with what I was familiar with [Ego at work here-no one likes to be told they don't know anything at all no matter how much they've learned]. Both points of view would be, and are, unscientific and dangerously wrong.

I do want to emphasize my concern that people seem to focus more on the words they are reading and the context they are interpreting from those words rather than seeking out any actually scientific data related directly to the subject-per example:

The part of this quote that indicates it is spurious is "facts proven by laboratory testing". There is no such thing as a fact proven by laboratory testing. Laboratory tests that are conducted using the scientific method are designed to try to disprove a theory not prove it.

Jan Smith is not a scientist nor an English professor and what she writes and how she writes it is not important to me as long as I am looking for scientific information. I don't care about her context more than that if she is stating that this is nanotechnology, then I want to learn as much about that as I can. Never mind the packaging or the presentation. Just the facts. Whatever there is for me to discover is the answer to my own questions I will find it-But I have to be willing to look deeply enough.

Sadly, many people are not, and will not.

Focusing on how information is presented and packaged is the same dangerous error made at the beginning of the emergence of the AIDS epidemic;All of a sudden there were all of these "street-corner" virologists asserting that HIV did not follow any "logic model" consistent with thier understanding of a "virus" [and until then the common cold was not even associated with a virus in any sense that it is today].

Do we consider AIDS an epidemic today? NO. Yet it still is, and people are still walking around with it, spreading it, catching it and dying from it, in greater numbers all the time. It is merely no longer as threatening to the psyche because its been around so long and has not outperformed human existence-or resilience and fortitude to combat and/or cope with it.

We are far more conscious of the existence and potential for things we cannot see to make us sick than we ever were, why the word "anti-bacterial" appears on just about EVERYTHING now. We've become so obscessed with not getting sick that we are disabling our own "natural" defenses against the very things we are trying to avoid [As a side-note:Now that I am more aware of the proliferation of nanotech I am persoanlly concerned about the possibility of its involvement in many of these kinds of "anti-bacterial" products as well].

This is exactly why I place so much emphasis on investigating things as thoroughly, objectively and scientifically as possible and eliminate any ideas about conspiraces and such. For all we know we may have been exposing ourselves and our ecosystem to nanotechnology for quite some time with absolutely no idea as to what the side-effects on a larger scale may turn out to be. And while some people will argue that "agency" authority is expected to be on top of such an eventuality, we already know that in the name of PROFIT things often go un-regulated for long periods of time as long as big money is involved, and that can have [scientifically] PROPHETIC consequences down the road.

This is the only thing I have hoped that people would think of when approaching the information presented. But in order to get there one has to at least look at the information to a significant degree over a period of time to even scratch the surface of the actual logistic implications, given knowledge of exactly what nanotechnology is. I purposely avoid telling anyone what to do or think of the information and just put it there outright, laying a foundation from where to begin.

The reason why I respond to DD's links the way I did is because I investigated the subject myself well enough to know that the first wall people will hit is the explanation that Morgellons = Delusions of Parasitosis. This is most troubling thing about this, as troubling as the initial presumption that HIV was a form of hepatitis. Hepatitis is familiar and we are all comfortable with familiar explanations, and the same thing applies here. People naturally look for explanations for things that they can live with, esp. if they appear to upset or force them to have to re-think everything they know or believe or think they know.

Dermatolgists are looking as what they are expecting to be what they are familiar with and cross-referencing the "other" familiarity of "Delusions of Parasitosis" when examining patients explaining these completely unknown, baffling and disturbingly unusual symptoms. That is not a conspiracy nor even suggests such a thing, if we are thinking logically and objectively. It just means that there is insufficient knowledge and information that may include nanotechnology as a cause, and as a result, it is not looked for nor even considered.

So yes a person may die from complications of this very thing and noone will ever say so because noone has ever looked or thought to include nanotechnology as a contributary factor say, of clogged arteries, heart disease and subsequent death. The cause of death is then "explained" as "Heart Failure"; or pneumonia, or cancer or any other number of things...

A "dismissed epidemic" no one can see-since no one has sought.

We know NOTHING about nanotechnology enough to know its impact on human beings or the ecology down the road. And in fact "Morgellons" may be an early warning sign of something about nanotechnology that is only just beginning to rear its ugly head. We are obliged to learn as much as possible about it, what it is, where it is and how it works, AND as long as we are seeing now a growing body of information or evidence [and since we know so little from the outset- the INFORAMTION IS THE EVIDENCE] that is drawing attention to it, then perhaps we ought to be paying attention to the development and proliferation of this new technology and never mind the spooky language and semantic arguments we tend to use to dismiss/deny what is happening around us.

Peace.

OH AND ALSO FYI: [B]FLORIDA HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE HOTSPOTS WHERE THIS THING HAS ERUPTED.
------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. FalconAngel: YOU SAID YOU WERE DONE WITH THIS SUBJECT. I OBVIOUSLY AM NOT SINCE I STARTED IT. IF YOU ARE DONE THERE IS NO NEED FOR FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TO INTERJECT IN THE THREAD AND DISRUPT (MISDIRECT/UNDERMINE) ANY MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS THAT MAY FOLLOW. YOU SAID YOU WERE DONE WITH IT-BEGONE. PEACE.

nothings5d

Dec 12, 2008, 2:39 AM

One thing I would need to see before I could possibly believe that it's nanotech behind it is the evidence. I may have missed it, but I didn't see a link anywhere to the actual evidence being posted. It was all along the lines of "scientists have found..." without showing any actual evidence.

Now I know most people wouldn't understand the actual evidence and things tend to get dumbed down a bit, but I haven't even read one thing that even hints at the evidence that says it's nanotech. But once again I may have missed it. Do you happen to know of anywhere that might have what I'm looking for?

proseros

Dec 12, 2008, 5:26 AM

http://www.rense.com/morgphase/phase2_1.htm

Now let me be VERY clear on something here:

The website this came from is LOADED WITH "CONSPIRACY THEORIES". I place that term in quotes because there is a lot of fact here as well. The issue her is that just about anyone can upload thier own explanations based on whatever 'evidence' thier explanations are based on. What is important to understand is that [a] the specific information regarding the evidence anyone would be looking for is in this link [b] it is here because Jeff Rense seems to be the only Internet Media Publisher of the information that provides this evidence in any significant detail [c] If you read through it you will see very clearly that Dr. Staninger is not making any of this up. These are very expensive double-blind investigative laboratory tests conducted on dozens of specimens compared to other kinds of specimens in attempt to match them against something known. The specimens were sent to two labs; one lab was given no information about the specimens or where they came from and had no idea what to expect to find. Both labs said that the specimens could only be a product of some kind of nanotechnology. This same report is found on Dr. Staninger's own website:

http://www.staningerreport.com/#indexMainWindow.html

In addition to that there are 16 I-net radio broadcasts interviewing Dr. Staninger who happens to be a toxicologist one of the most prominent in the field, along with several people who have this affliction who explain exactly what the symptoms are and why Morgellons is not a disease [You will hear in the very first program that noone agrees it is a disease in any conventional sense of the word.

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/morgRSPEC.htm

Finally, there is Cliff Carnicom who 'claims' to have "Morgellons" and while he is not a scientist [and he makes it quite clear that he is only someone who has done his own investigation and discovered a great deal about this thing-Which as a person someone intimate with mycology I find quite compelling since I understand how fungi behave-and this is NOT any genera of fungi that Ihave been able to put my finger on and I've spent months trying to find anything like this]reveals with quite a bit of photomicroscopic evidence that this 'thing' is comparable, but nothing at all like anything organic we know of and appears to be entirely synthetic.

http://www.rense.com/general80/caarn.htm

Now once you've gone through all of this you'll probably still stay you are not convinced something is amiss and that is why I state that even if you do get through all of this you will only have scratched the surface of things because now you need to compare this data to other data in an attempt to disprove it. So I spent weeks scouring books on mycoses of different kinds, namatodes, and etc. trying to explain in terms of something natural like mycoses.

By the time I got to Staninger's report it was clear, that the fibrous exudates coming from people's skin, the non-healing lesions, etc. was certainly no form of mycoses I could identify.

I also want to point out that Jeff Rense-if you are looking for someone who likes to imply conspiracies-tends to put this kind of spin on the information. I do not and will not do that because as long as we know what this and what is doing to people, such an implication can turn out to be a very dangerous one.

Lastly, one has to go and find out something about nanotechnology itself. Things are being one with this technology that you WOULD NOT BELIEVE.
There are hundreds of applications of this technology out there right now and hardly anyone would know where to look [click the number 500 and surrounding links in previous post above]. Compare what then find out of it to Dr. Staninger's findings-and if that is not enough evidence for you then well, I just don't know what else to say except that I will bw praying for us all to wake up and smell the plastic.

The very last thing that needs to be looked into are CHEMTRAILS. It is unfortunate that poeple [adults who've seen them all thier life] don't know and cannot tell when they are NOT looking at a contrail, and the conditions for contrails ro occur are very specific-For one thing they never extend from horizon to horizon and there are hundreds of phots [a few I've taken myself in New York] and videos of these trails crisscrossing the sky in a very deliberate, layered cross-hatch pattern. There is no way esp. since 9/11 that so many aircraft would be in the sky at the same time making all of this mass.

Secondly contrails dissipate-They don't expand until they appear to be clouds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-ISLZgeaM&feature=related

There are 6 parts. The next part should be the top video in the list in the right menu.WATCH ALL OF IT-ALL 6 PARTS.

New York 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRVA1HKLiM&feature=related

This is and has been going on for years. I've watched this activity throughout the entire summer-in fact, it was going on in New York, on THANKSGIVING DAY!

Now I refute any suggestions that have put out there that this is being done as a conspiracy to depopulate, or that nanobots are being sprayed all over the planet causing the condition of "Morgellons" which is in question. If you dig into this subject long and deep enough you WILL find that there have been discussion surrounding release of particulate materials at high altitudes in an attempt to stave global warming by spraying barium and aluminum in the upper atmospere to reflect ultraviolet radiation away from the earth. THis may be the case-I don't know. Other claims are that the chemtrails may be some effort to check some kind of nanotechnological infestation that may've happened by accident and was "covered up" to prevent panic. This too may be plausible since much of the samples gathered after these sprayings contain compounds consistent with certain kinds of fungicides to one degree or another. Since the 'thing' in question seems to behave like a fungus, this also may be a plausibe explanation but I will not go so far as to claim this myself since I am not a toxicologist or chemist and would not know one way or the other.

As for aliens and all the other weird ideas about these events you will find along the way, again I warn of the importance of seeking only scientific facts provided form legitamate sources. I don't think a prominent toxicologist would manufacture a lie this big; nor do I believe a professional athelete would go on national news and lie about having this affliction:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/777514/cdc_requests_bay_area_morgellons_study/

I make NO ASSERTIONS THAT THERE IS ANY CONSPIRACY INVOLVED.
What I explicitly state is that it is important to recognize that nanotechnology is an emerging industry with little or no monitoring or regulation and it is something we all need to become more aware of. It would take millions of dollars worth of equipment and agency manpower form every quarter every year to keep track of every thing done with this technology. Because of that noone will ever bother looking for something so small it cannot be seen. And if noone is looking then there is no telling whether it is actually harming us and the ecosystem or not until it is so obvious that it cannot be mistaken for anything else.

But do we really want to wait that long?

void()

Dec 12, 2008, 10:44 AM

You are born to die. This is a requirement of living. Every one of us dies. Ultimately does it truly matter how?

In between birth and death we struggle to make it through the best we can. Some help is afforded if you accept living requiring a sprinkle of insanity. And I think our original poster here got a healthy dose.

Claiming the arrogance of others as an excuse to berate and detract them, based upon your own presumptions, is highly arrogant of you. Yes there are lots of subjects and concepts, ideas and thoughts which lots of folks remain ignorant about. Sometimes they choose to tolerate this ignorance for good reason, pain.

Allow me to elucidate based upon personal experience. No, this is not an 'oh pity me', merely a statement about it being what it is. I went to a mental health professional seeking aid for depression. I was given a medication and a suggested course of therapy.

The therapist suggested attending college courses, one class at a time, two or three days a week. This would grant me a bit of personal responsibility and satisfaction in knowing there was an advancement toward a goal. I concur, however after some discussion with my wife and personal thought, going after a degree does not appear an option for me.

As I am unable to take time off to commit fully, I will not get the 'core classes' to build upon for advanced degrees. I need the degree in order to get a better paying job, to have satisfaction, fulfillment and generally a good sense of well being and help coping with the depression.

What are the limiting factors?

The college's location is roughly some twenty or so odd miles away. I do not drive.

The college's scheduling could not meet with a full time job's schedule. I need to work in order to meet obligations, it has to be full time on night shift. That schedule is set at 2PM until 11PM/12AM or so each evening.

That allows me about four hours in the morning to attend class. It takes about an hour to drive there, one way. So I'm down to three hours. I also must eat, sleep, shower and other sundry entailed in living. Bye bye copious free time.

I barely have time through the week to check in here. I can not dream or hope anymore. I'll remain ignorant because it hurts to think about bettering myself. I'm stuck below the federal level of poverty definition. I'll make around $15,000 annually, the feds say $20,000 is poverty level. I have a job, thankful of it, it has benefits, thankful of those, too.

So, the therapist won't be able to help me because I can not take responsibility for things beyond my control. They can only say 'learn to accept these things'. I say life is fucked.

It is what it is. You don't need to arrogantly presume everyone 'needs' to know 'everything'. Further, if you aren't really offer to back it up with concrete evidence it seems your 'reporting' is lacking. Did you consider that gray goo just might be liquid latex? There are various possibilities to any given situation, sometimes a cigar is merely a cigar.

proseros

Dec 12, 2008, 11:09 AM

Claiming the arrogance of others as an excuse to berate and detract them, based upon your own presumptions, is highly arrogant of you. Yes there are lots of subjects and concepts, ideas and thoughts which lots of folks remain ignorant about. Sometimes they choose to tolerate this ignorance for good reason, pain.

I have presumed nothing, and was a subject of berating and detraction, misquoting and dismissal from the start. Why?
Because of a presumption that I am touting a conspiracy theory when I am in fact doing no more than providing information and opening a discussion. Either people will discuss the subject-or not. So far noone has brought anything much to the discussion here other than thier criticism of me.

Anyone is free to either look at the information and engage a discussion or bypass it completely-something prefer to do with a lot of threads here. But I don't interrupt the thread and attack the OP or block anyone else's choice to review the information for themselves or claim they shouldn't because I disagree with the OP [for one reason or another].

canuckotter

Dec 13, 2008, 1:26 PM

rissababynta

Dec 13, 2008, 3:20 PM

Did Noah completely freak out on his neighbors when they were skeptical about the flood? sheesh...

You did the judge that you felt was important for you to do. You informed everybody. Some people will believe it, some not so much. It doesn't mean you have to be so upset that not everyone believes. I know people who don't believe that the dinosaurs existed either. Do I believe they were here? Yes. Did I argue? No. Because it's an opinion and I'm not going to let it ruin my day. I don't find that much pleasue in trying to change other peoples opinions on things. It's a waste of time and only makes all sides miserable and tense. Be happy with knowing that you let others know nd with what they choose to do with the information given is of their own accord.

DiamondDog

Dec 13, 2008, 7:16 PM

rissababynta

Dec 13, 2008, 7:41 PM

you wouldn't think it pointless if you undestood where i was going with that...

proseros

Dec 13, 2008, 11:02 PM

I appreciate your sentiment rissa.

The thing is though that I haven't asked anyone to 'believe'- That is the last thing I want anyone to do (besides using the word conspiracy in relation to the information which everyone BUT myself has done)-AND which I've stated repeatedly is DANGEROUS: Not because it could arose 'doubt' in things people otherwise have faith in, but because it is DISINFORMATION, whether it is believed or not, since and this is my main complaint here-that as long as it is treated as a conspiracy theory the information will not be dealt with competently or objectively for what it is. It is information. Nothing more. In that people will either go silly feeding into conspiratorial ideas, or dismiss the information altogether.

The purpose of posting this information is is to INFORM. And had this been HIV the same people who have dismissed it as conspiracy or fake would be at greatest risk-simply because they would rather spend thier time challenging the information presented or arguing over how it is presented or berating,dis-crediting, or dismissing the person who presents it rather than look at it for themselves. Not only do they place themselves at risk but others as well because they falsely influence the otherwise objective review of the information by others, and move them farther and farther away from even looking at the information (look at how many posts are here and nothing, none of the information in this thread, base don the informationitself has yet been DISCUSSED.
And we know what people who do that are called...

Other than that you are absolutely correct. I've presented the information the best way I can. However if anyone has already made up thier minds that I am a crackpot and that the information is false and refuses to even look at it-Don't obstruct, divert and dismiss the subject with negative review. If, and only IF you've reviewed the information and want to DISCUSS its validity or integrity then let's do that. That is equitable and honest, but don't distort it with superficial opinion. That makes the person just as guilty of presuming to "know something they do not" as they are accusing me of, and that once again, is willful arrogance.

The attitudes of people here are comparable to saying "there is no such thing as a headache" simply because they've never had one or known anyone who has. I am being deliberatly and unfairly challenged with the responsibility of providing information in a way that satisfies expectations of belief, little actual knowledge about the subject, or some other kind of personal 'logic' that says-"it can't be so" where none of the arguments refuting the information are based one thier actual review of it.

I was first told I was touting a conspiracy theory when I never said any such thing.
Next I was asked to provide sources for the information. There are more than 25 links to source information.The response?

That since the sources are unfamiliar then it "can't be so" ie, "It is fake".
Then - "Who has time to look at it?" Any excuse not to qualify thier own position in the matter while yet every demand for me to qualify MY position, one I've stated over and over I do not have. It's not the point of wanting anyone to believe more than my defense against unfair bias and accusations of having presented something I have not presented-A "consiparcy theory".I presented no theories, I presented no opinion. NOR did I EVER suggest that I knew everything about the information I present. What I've said about this IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION ITSELF.

But who among the detractors would know-since they haven't even bothered to investigate it for themselves.

PS: Regarding Noah. But let me ask then -Have you then, reviewed any of the information?

proseros

Dec 13, 2008, 11:29 PM

Personally, I'd be a lot more willing to take this topic seriously if nanotechnology were taken out of the discussion. Because trust me, while nanotech could easily make the fibers people claim to have found (actually, they couldn't, because nanofibers would be WAY TOO SMALL, unless you bundled thousands or millions of them together to make large strands), there's no way in hell that anyone's going to convince me that nanobots or any other form of nanomanufacturers are anywhere near the stage required to build fibers under people's skin and slowly spread. Frankly, that part is conspiracy theory at its most tinfoil hat. :)

What do you know. What have you read or studied, about nanotechnology and what IS CAPABLE? What do you know about what can or cannot be done with nanotechnology? What you've said is absolutely correct-but it not your informed opinion. If you had looked at the information in fact you would find that your un-informed opinion is quite accurate...

[a] The fibers DO excudate in bundles
How you think nanobots, or nanocytes would bundle up does not include how you think they'd behave when INSIDE OF A LIVING ORGANISM.
[c] If you study the information you will see that the fibers are microscopic, in fact extremely small and that what is excudating cutaneously is a visible symptom of something that can not otherwise be seen and may not otherwise be detectible until it manifests itself. That is the nature of natural disease by the way. No person who has ever died of cancer ever knew they had cancer cells in thier body until they were looked at under a microscope [if they were searched for at all]-By the time the cancer actually manifested itself the SYMPTOMS were quite obvious. A DISEASE IS NOT ITS SYMPTOMS.
That is plain common sense. And if diseases were thier symptoms then we'd all be doctors.
[d][B]THE FIBERS ARE NOT EMERGING FROM UNDER THE SKIN. THIS CONDITION IS SYSTEMIC. THE "SKIN CONDITION" IS A SYMPTOM OF SOMETHING GOING ON INSIDE THE BODY.

You can't know this UNLESS YOU REVIEW THE INOFRMATION.

rissababynta

Dec 14, 2008, 10:55 AM

PS: Regarding Noah. But let me ask then -Have you then, reviewed any of the information?

Yes, I looked at all of the links. I don't really know what to make of them right now. It seemed very interesting to read about if nothing else though.

canuckotter

Dec 14, 2008, 12:42 PM

What do you know. What have you read or studied, about nanotechnology and what IS CAPABLE? What do you know about what can or cannot be done with nanotechnology? What you've said is absolutely correct-but it not your informed opinion.
Actually, nanotechnology is a personal interest of mine. I'm by no means an expert but I do keep up with the general state of the field. So, in fact, it is an informed opinion.

That is the nature of natural disease by the way. No person who has ever died of cancer ever knew they had cancer cells in thier body until they were looked at under a microscope [if they were searched for at all]
Unless you're talking about skin cancer, in which case the symptoms (and by definition the disease itself in this case) are readily visible to the naked eye. Oh, and any other form of cancer that forms in places where tumours can be felt -- which is why self-examinations are actually a useful early detection tool.

You're right that I haven't reviewed the information very carefully. Ranting about nanobots automatically lands you in the tinfoil hat category, because it's immediate proof that you don't have a clue what you're talking about but obviously aren't letting that slow you down. If you're so willing to immediately accept nanobots, then there's every reason to think that you are going to accept other equally absurd notions just as quickly and unconditionally, which means there's no reason at all to believe that anything you say has any basis in reality.

Which is why I said that I'd be a lot more willing to take the discussion seriously if people weren't ranting about nanobots.

The purpose of posting this information is is to INFORM. And had this been HIV the same people who have dismissed it as conspiracy or fake would be at greatest risk-simply because they would rather spend thier time challenging the information presented or arguing over how it is presented or berating,dis-crediting, or dismissing the person who presents it rather than look at it for themselves. Not only do they place themselves at risk but others as well because they falsely influence the otherwise objective review of the information by others, and move them farther and farther away from even looking at the information (look at how many posts are here and nothing, none of the information in this thread, base don the informationitself has yet been DISCUSSED.
And we know what people who do that are called...
You're using a false analogy. People who didn't take AIDS seriously continued to engage in unsafe practices, placing themselves and their partners at high risk. People who don't take MORG seriously are going to... what? At this point, the general population knows enough about the spread of disease to avoid high-risk activity (well, mostly)... If it's spread by contact or through droplets, then we're all screwed anyway because folks with the disease aren't immediately visible and aren't quarantined, and believe me, you're not going to get everyone wrapped up in bubble suits to avoid all possible infection without presenting some damn good evidence. So what exactly do you expect people to do?

As for not taking it seriously... Did you know that the CDC is conducting an epidemiologic investigation (http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/general_info.html)? I mean, really, what more do you want? And why didn't you start off with that, rather than ranting about the CDC doing "a complete snowjob"? Not exactly helping to take you out of the tinfoil hat bucket...

MaybeSayMaybe

Dec 14, 2008, 3:23 PM

Check this out:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1092726/Gender-bending-chemicals-putting-future-risk.html

They are saying what I said earlier in this thread. The case with amphibians is scary. Amphibians live and reproduce in water, so they are fully exposed to contaminants. Nobody knows why they are dying off so badly, but the best guess thus far is that natural ailments can be antagonized by exposure to chemicals. That is scary because what is happening down the food chain at this time will move up the food chain over time.

Concerning the ailment in this thread, the same simple advise holds: if you have funny things like this start to happen, the first thing to do is get rid of any antagonizing factors. See my earlier post. If there are antagonizing factors, you won't heal until you get rid of them, and it won't hurt to get rid of them anyhow.

Pharmaceuticals are another problem. They are are most exotic chemicals, and they are showing up in water supplies that nurture animals and people. Nobody knows where all this is taking us. But one thing is sure. If these chemicals are gender benders, then what better place to talk about it than a place like this.

proseros

Dec 14, 2008, 11:20 PM

ANOTHER LONG POST WITH LOTS OF LINKS

Actually, nanotechnology is a personal interest of mine. I'm by no means an expert but I do keep up with the general state of the field. So, in fact, it is an informed opinion.

I apologize for presuming. However in that case I would suggest taking a much closer look at this particular condition, esp. Dr. Staninger's report.

[quote]
Unless you're talking about skin cancer, in which case the symptoms (and by definition the disease itself in this case) are readily visible to the naked eye. Oh, and any other form of cancer that forms in places where tumours can be felt -- which is why self-examinations are actually a useful early detection tool.

Neither examples presented make the fact of such a thing visibly obvious. Cancer cells themselves are generally present long before any lesions, bumps, lumps or tumors manifest.

Trust me if I wanted to present absurd notions I would, and ask to please go back and read where I clearly blast any media of other information source that refers to similarly absurd notions, whatever they may be.

No actually it is not a false analogy (http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm). I've explained enough why it is a sound analogy and we have enough history to be able to see that. You are talking about material affects of a thing. I am talking about how information about a thing is regarded from the very beginning, and from the beginning all kinds of false assertions about HIV were made outside of any precautionary relevance to the fact of the virus being sexually transmitted. In other words it was thought of as if it were not an STD and required some particular circumstance to acquire. The very fact that anyone could get HIV as a result of unprotected sex was largely ignored since such assertions never took into consideration that any sexually transmitted disease is spread by any kind of sex, or any virus spread by body fluid includes any kind of unprotected sex.

I am not ranting about nanobots or anything else. I am presenting information related to the subject of Morgellons which investigation has indicated-until proven otherwise and so far has not scientifically-that nanotechnology is involved. I think people are taking the point of the thread farther than intended. Once again I am presenting a body of information that is largely being dismissed. When I was asked to provide information that would demonstrate nanotech as being involved I did-And that information was also dismissed. It wasn't even looked at.

Furthermore I never stated that I accepted nanotechnology as the cause of this condition and in fact have explained repeatedly that that was the very thing I myself refuted could be the cause. Why? Because I knew nothing about nanotechnology-until I started studying about it. So it is more plausible to me today than say three months ago that nanotechnology could be the cause of this kind of condition, esp. given what I already know about clinical mycology and how similarly Morgellons seems to behave.

Yes I did state that the CDC had done a complete snowjob. But that is not my opinion even if I may agree with it (http://www.rense.com/general80/fraudf.htm). Now we're back to the information presented again, and again this is what the people who have been investigating Morgellons have stated. Once you've read and heard more about that investigation you will understand exactly why this "investigation" has been called a snowjob.

Once again however we find ourselves going back and forth about what proseros says, rather than what the information proseros is referring to says.

And don't be so fast to think I do not have a clue what I am talking about.
I may have a well informed opinion myself. But my opinion is not important.

People please don't misunderstand me. I've explained this earlier on but the point by has probably been skimmed past. I understood very well what sort of response or reaction to this subject to expect before I made any decision to post it here. In fact it was initially my express decision not to bring it up at all. It is only after quite some time of continued study and investigation that I decided that this was something I should take the responsibility of opening discussion about here-In this forum; because it is really not the business of this forum to begin with and I am sure that if I were on the other end of anyone else's scanning of this thread I might dismiss it too, if no other reason than I don't come here to talk about nanobots or mysterious "diseases". But that is exactly my point (See the wording in the OP?).

I am only looking to open a discussion about something and feel that as long as we are discussing anything why not discuss this too?

It is not important how I feel about it-that's my business. The bottom line is that people are getting sick, and have been-In California, in Texas and Florida, and generally all over the World (http://www.morgellons.com/theworld.htm)-from something.

Noone knows exactly what it is, but so far it hasn't proven to be anything arbitrarily sporadic. That is, this something in all instances is the same thing everywhere it is mentioned as having occurred.
If anything that is more of an advantage to us than the onset of AIDS because AIDS manifested itself in a lot of different ways that were totally unfamiliar. At least what is visible seems to be consistent insofar as-If a person complains of certain kinds of symptoms (http://www.rense.com/general74/morg4.htm) say in Texas, and I look at this and see something weird, and someone else in the U.K. (http://www.morgellonsuk.org.uk/symptoms.htm) complains of the same kinds of symptoms and I look at that-only to find the same weird thing. At least we are in a position to decide whether or not it is either entirely a hoax or something we should in fact being investigating more closely.

As I mentioned already-The first thing I presumed it could be was some form of clinical mycoses (http://www.mycology.adelaide.edu.au/Mycoses/). I looked into this so deeply that my screensaver is a gallery of almost every kind of fungi I could find, and I'm still not ruling out anything organically fungal. But again that's my own business, and has nothing to do with the information uncovered about the condition itself-

And THAT information, points to nanotechnology. If it sounds like I am ranting about it, well shit, yeah I admit being alittle excited about it because nanotechnology is something I had no knowledge about before I starting actually reading about it. I THOUGHT I KNEW WHAT IT WAS, AND IT WASN'T ANYTHING IMPORTANT TO ME, NOR WAS IT ANYTHING I WAS AWARE OF THE REAL NATURE OR FUNCTION OF.

I cared about mycology and my investigation of Morgellons was a personal investigation of something that to me, behaved like mycoses-so naturally I took interest and wanted to know as much about it as I could find out- the more I studied mycology, the less I knew about Morgellons and nanotechnology. I avoided the subject right up until the point I decided to start this thread since I have reviewed enough about it if to know nothing else, that it is not a fungus nor any known form of clinical mycoses.

At this point I have to take the subject of nanotechnology seriously and realize as an example of my own ignorance of the subject that most people hardly know [B][Lnk1]just what nanotechnology is (http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm)
or [Lnk2]what it can do (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:O27aeJQmNZEJ:https://www.nutrimedical.com/news_file.jhtml%3Fid%3D990%26file%3DFar_IR_Remedia tion_Mold_Unique_Diseases_Dr_Staninger.doc+Dr.+Hil degarde+Staninger+and+effects+of+nanotechnology+in +human+body&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us) or [Lnk3]
what can be done with it (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020711080818.htm). I don't know anyone who is aware of what a silica nanotube is or what to expect of its properties (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=Silica%20carbon%20nanotubes) or
for that matter even cares. Of course it seems like I'm ranting as long as the subject has not reached the level of public interest as say, micro-computing has.

What I'm attempting to point out here is an apparent relationship between an illness and nanotechnology as something identified as being involved, which indicates that there is a lot of nanotechnology we don't know enough about to rule out as having to do with it. And until that time when we are certain nanotechnology cannot and is not making the World sick, let's give it the public attention it deserves.

There is no question that people are getting sick from something. If we want to know what, it might as well be nanotechnology as long as this is where the investigative information is pointing. That cannot be proved or disproved unless and until the information provided is reviewed. So I'm not ruling nanotech in-I'm just not so fast to rule nanotechnology out before I've had a look at enough information.

nothings5d

Dec 18, 2008, 11:13 AM

[COLOR="Red"]I would suggest taking a much closer look at this particular condition, esp. Dr. Staninger's report.

I would actually like to read that report, but unless I missed where it was posted I still don't have a link to it.

proseros

Dec 18, 2008, 9:57 PM

I would actually like to read that report, but unless I missed where it was posted I still don't have a link to it.

Here you go...

Dr. Hidegarde Staninger's report [1] (http://www.rense.com/morgphase/phase2_1.htm)

Dr. Hidegarde Staninger's report [2] (http://www.staningerreport.com/#indexMainWindow.html)

Finally another report from Dr. Staninger which is Lnk2 above. (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:O27aeJQmNZEJ:https://www.nutrimedical.com/news_file.jhtml%3Fid%3D990%26file%3DFar_IR_Remedia tion_Mold_Unique_Diseases_Dr_Staninger.doc+Dr.+Hil degarde+Staninger+and+effects+of+nanotechnology+in +human+body&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us)

Cliff Carnicom's Research and Reports (http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm)
Unfortunately these pages are not linked successively and you will need to go back to the original page linked here to get from one to the next. The Morgellons information is at the top of the page.

Morgellons Research Foundation (http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/)

There is very competent research and analysis here as well as many photos of odd things emerging from people's bodies [some of those things have been parts of insects (or things that appear to be insects) and "autoflourescent" metallic objects]