Morgellon's Disease

P

Prince_James

Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
What is your take on thise controversial disease? There evidently seems to be a great deal of evidence suggesting -something- is going on, but what isn't known is what could cause it, to what extent are all the symptoms related, and whether all cases are legitimate.

For those who don't know what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
 
As is stated, "There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. Pressure from patients, including doctors and nurses who claim to have a host of difficult symptoms, resulted in a June 2006 statement from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had begun organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists."

I suggest that you contact the CDC for further information on this study. I'm sure they will be very helpful and reply. You could also do a quick search on their website to see if they have formally initiated a research program regarding this (www.cdc.gov). Many such diseases in the past have proven to be psychosomatic.
 
-This disease definitely exists and is definitely not just all in the persons head. A tiny bit of internet research will convince anyone that something is going on with this disease. Very scary.
 
grover said:
A tiny bit of internet research will convince anyone that something is going on with this disease.
Click to expand...


No, a bit of internet research will reveal that the medical and scientific communities are divided on the issue of whether this disease has a pathological basis or is simply psychological. Due to the almost complete lack of evidence and data, the majority opinion tends towards the latter.
 
Last edited:
Hercules Rockefeller said:
No, a bit of internet research will reveal that the medial and scientific communities are divided on the issue of whether this disease has a pathological basis or is simply psychological. Due to the almost complete lack of evidence and data, the majority opinion tends towards the latter.
Click to expand...

There is an almost complete lack of university data. The only university based research into this that I know of came from Randy Wymore from Oklahoma State University. His conclusion is that the fibers are real and are not simply lint or textiles that come from clothing. The opposing viewpoint comes from doctors that refuse to look at the evidence (which contrary to what you say there is plenty of. There is a massive difference between refusing to look through the microscope at the evidence and no evidence). These two position are not equivalent - the one is based on science and the other is based on ignaorance. This disease has been around for a long time but the Center for Disease Control has just officially been forced to look into under pressure from 2 US senators. This happened I believe last year yet if you look on the CDC website there is no mention of their investigation whatsoever - they neither confirm the disease as real or state it is delusion (despite the fact that there is growing hysteria around this condition). Why the silence? If you lived in the US you'd know there are constant alerts/investigations by the CDC involving all kinds of diseases ranging from Avian Bird Flu to Contaminated Pet Food. Yet with this disease total silence. If it was just all delusion why wouldnt they state it as such. The fact of the matter is that they have some kind of delicate situation on their hands. A very bizarre new disease that is infectious and possibly contagious and I'd go even futher and say that this condition looks to me alot like a very likely candidate of a disease related to genetic modification.
 
grover said:
There is a massive difference between refusing to look through the microscope at the evidence and no evidence.
Click to expand...

That’s merely your assertion. I could equally assert that there is next to no evidence for this ‘disease’ because it isn’t real and there is nothing physiological to study in the first place. Which one of us is correct? There is no way to know, so we go on published peer-reviewed data (of which there is none) as the benchmark because medicine is (predominantly) an evidence-based science.

I found the wikipedia article to be even-handed and fair, although someone has disputed its neutrality (almost certainly someone who believes the condition to be real and doesn't like the overall tone of the article that suggests it's likely a delusional/psychological condition).

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


grover said:
A very bizarre new disease that is infectious and possibly contagious and I'd go even futher and say that this condition looks to me alot like a very likely candidate of a disease related to genetic modification.
Click to expand...

Once again, you cannot back those claims up with evidence.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
That’s merely your assertion. I could equally assert that there is next to no evidence for this ‘disease’ because it isn’t real and there is nothing physiological to study in the first place.
Click to expand...
Which is the exact same argument that Holocaust deniers use if I'm not mistaken.
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Which one of us is correct? There is no way to know, so we go on published peer-reviewed data (of which there is none) as the benchmark because medicine is (predominantly) an evidence-based science.
Click to expand...
Right, science is evidence based so go to www.morgellons.org and look in the science section and see what the scientists have to say. On the one hand the scientists who have looked at this phenomenon say it is real and the people that dispute this are doctors that the second they hear "blue fibers are growing out of me" immediately jump to the conclusion that the person is delusional (admittedly this claim sounds out there to say the least). Nonetheless, science is evidence-based and the scientists that have looked at the evidence say it isn't delusion.

Hercules Rockefeller said:
I found the wikipedia article to be even-handed and fair, although someone has disputed its neutrality (almost certainly someone who believes the condition to be real and doesn't like the overall tone of the article that suggests it's likely a delusional/psychological condition).
Click to expand...
I have read the wiki article and think it is balanced if by balanced you mean giving equal weight to doctors who dismissed the claims of patients without bothering to look at evidence because "everyone knows blue fibers don't grow out of people" vs. the scientists which have studied it and said it isn't delusion.

Hercules Rockefeller said:
Once again, you cannot back those claims up with evidence.
Click to expand...
At the morgellons.org page Dr. Citovsky states: "Morgellons skin fibers appear to contain cellulose. This observation indicates possible involvement of pathogenic Agrobacterium, which is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sites within host tissues." Then go to the agrobacterium wiki page - ompare how the agrobacterium looks to morgellons. Then read the wiki agrobacterium section on biotechnology. Then read the external link
"Agrobacteria is used as gene ferry" and compare that with descriptions that people suffering from Morgellons have to say. Is it proof? no. Is it pretty god damn interesting? yeah I'd say so. It is also a plausible explanation as to why the CDC is not responding to this potential disease threat in the same fashion they do to other diseases.
 
This observation indicates possible involvement of pathogenic Agrobacterium, which is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sites within host tissues." Then go to the agrobacterium wiki page - ompare how the agrobacterium looks to morgellons. Then read the wiki agrobacterium section on biotechnology. Then read the external link
"Agrobacteria is used as gene ferry" and compare that with descriptions that people suffering from Morgellons have to say. Is it proof? no. Is it pretty god damn interesting? yeah I'd say so. It is also a plausible explanation as to why the CDC is not responding to this potential disease threat in the same fashion they do to other diseases.
Click to expand...

First, I do not see anything resembling agrobacteria in the image section of that site. Those descibed as Morgellons are far too large to be agrobacteria and are morphologically absolutely different. Second, to date not a single animal pathogenic Agrobacterium species is known. The way they infect plants is pretty unique and does not easily apply to animal tissues. I am not saying that it is clear that this disease doesn't exist, but the quoted hypothesis is pretty much unfounded based on the pictures.

Quote from the site:
Skin biopsies of Morgellons patients reveal non-specific pathology or an inflammatory process with no observable pathogens, often with fibrous material projecting from inflamed epidermal tissue.
Click to expand...


The only indication that I found was that PCRs revealed the presence of Agrobacterium was the following:

Skin biopsy samples from two Morgellons patients were subjected to high-stringency PCR testing for genes encoded by the Agrobacterium chromosome.
Click to expand...

This is not sufficient evidence for two reasons. First, the findings are not fully published (yet?) as such a critical assessment of the experiment is not possible (e.g. which markers where used, what controls?). Second, the presence of bacteria does not equal an infection process. Usually one would make an immunoassay instead of simple PCR. Also if a species was identified it is crucial to show that they are indeed Agrobacterium and not e.g. Brucella, which are related animal pathogens w/o ability of gene transfer.
Overall the research data is very slim. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point, but more evidence (and thus, ongoing research) is needed to validate this claim:

This disease definitely exists
Click to expand...

The comparison with the holocaust is so silly that it does not really warrant a serious comment.
 
CharonZ said:
The comparison with the holocaust is so silly that it does not really warrant a serious comment.
Click to expand...
My holocaust response was in comparison to someone saying "That’s merely your assertion. I could equally assert that there is next to no evidence for this ‘disease’ because it isn’t real and there is nothing physiological to study in the first place." Which is the exact argument that Holocaust deniers use - point being anyone can deny the existence of evidence.
--------------------------
The point of this is is that there is a misconception that there is no evidence. This is plain and simply not true. This misconception comes from doctors that refused to even look at the evidence the moment the patient said that blue fibers came form there body and they have evidence. When scientists actually do look at the fibers three interesting facts emerge:
1) The samples from different individuals from different regions of the country submit remarkably similar samples.
2) These samples are not textiles or fibers one can find in homes or clothing.
3) There is indication that these fibers are cellulose.
--------------------------------------------------
You said: "Second, to date not a single animal pathogenic Agrobacterium species is known. The way they infect plants is pretty unique and does not easily apply to animal tissues. I am not saying that it is clear that this disease doesn't exist, but the quoted hypothesis is pretty much unfounded based on the pictures."
Well my hypothesis is that this disease looks like a likely candidate for genetic modification. If genetic modification is involved then that would explain something as bizarre as agrobacterium affecting animal tissue. (whatever the case with this disease it is very different than any other disease I've ever heard of). I see a similarity between the pictures, thats subjective. There is some evidence from the scientists that the fibers are cellulose and some evidence linking it with agrobacterium.
 
3) There is indication that these fibers are cellulose.
Click to expand...
They should be able to show conclusively that these fibers contain or don't cellulose. Why haven't they? Why go under the assumption that they do based on the fact that they appear to.

What would lead you to the hypothesis that this is genetic modification? To what end would someone create an Agrobacterium capable of infecting animal tissues?

Also, where are the images of agrobacteria on the morgellons.org site?

The images that I see do not resemble agrobacterium. It's not subjective when you know what you're looking for.
 
Well what I find truly disturbing is that agrobacterium is used often in genetic modification (our food and crops and perhaps bacteria used in waste management). From the wiki article "The DNA transmission capabilities of Agrobacterium have been extensively exploited in biotechnology as a means of inserting foreign genes into plants." Or this quote from a page about GM food: "This method of (genetically modifying food) has the potential to be used in both plant and animal situations. It involves a bacteria or virus carrying a new gene into a cell. Using a modification of what is already happening in nature.

Example:

Common vectors in gene transfer between plants are Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Agrobacterium rhizogenes. These bacteria are usually found in the soil and if they infect plants will respectively cause galls or hairy roots through introducing some of their own DNA into the plant. The Agrobacterium transfer the DNA as a plasmid, a small circular piece of DNA, which is separate to the main bacterial chromosome. Genetic engineering makes use of this natural transfer of DNA through replacing a section of the bacteria’s own DNA with a gene which scientists would like to introduce to a new host."
------------------------------------------------
So, in other words, the way they are genetically modifying our foods and crops is by using agrobacterium. Now we have this disease that acts alot like agrobacterium in animal tissue. There is some evidence by a reseach scientist that it is agrobacterium. Just do a little research about morgellons. Do a little research about genetic modification. And take a look at CDCs very unusual response to this disease. Take into account that the U.S. is the country that is going about biotech with the most disregard including making it legal not to mark food as gentically modified (most people don't want to eat gentically-modified food but corporate interests are at work here). You are eating some very weird stuff right now - I heard about tomatoes that have lightning bug genes inserted (probably by means agrobacterium) . Take note of the mixing of animal with plant by means of using an infectious disease and it becomes obvious how something like morgellons could result. Like I said, look into morgellons, GM food, and especially the CDC response and decide for yourself.
 
I assure you, I understand genetic modification quite well, and understand how vectors are used in this process. Agrobacteria infect plants though, through a process that is very specific to plant tissues (as noted by CharonZ). However, just because we use agrobacteria to modify plants, and we also modify the genomes of animals, does not mean we also use agrobacteria to transfer genes into animals. Other, animal specific vectors are used.

What I'm saying is that it should be easy to prove that the fibers are cellulose. It should also be easy to show whether or not agrobacteria are causing the infection and formation of fibers.
 
Idle Mind said:
I assure you, I understand genetic modification quite well, and understand how vectors are used in this process. Agrobacteria infect plants though, through a process that is very specific to plant tissues (as noted by CharonZ). However, just because we use agrobacteria to modify plants, and we also modify the genomes of animals, does not mean we also use agrobacteria to transfer genes into animals. Other, animal specific vectors are used.
Click to expand...
The agrobacteria thing came from Dr. Citovsky. Its the hypothesis that I personally subscribe to. There really is no controversy with this disease: on the one hand there are doctors who have made assumptions that this is delusion and refused to even look at the evidence and on the other hand there are scientists that have studied the evidence and said that it isn't just lint and it is coming out of the patients.
Idle Mind said:
What I'm saying is that it should be easy to prove that the fibers are cellulose. It should also be easy to show whether or not agrobacteria are causing the infection and formation of fibers.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There should be no controversy with this disease. The patients are eager to have there samples tested and the tests as you say should be esay to prove one way or another. Why then is there still controversy? Why has the CDC just not done a few simple tests and posted the results on their webpage like they do for other diseases? Especially in light of the fact that when scientists do take the time to investigate the claims of the patients the results disprove those of the doctors that made automatic assumptions of delusion (science is not based on assumption). Especially in light of the fact that this is an infectious, and possibly contagious, disease As you said it should be easy to prove and yet there is "controversy." Why?

Here is a good audio mp3 interview with one of the scientists that has actually looked into this:
http://www.healthsciences.okstate.edu/morgellons/Wymore_1-2.mp3
 
Why haven't they shown it conclusively? This is what I'm getting at. If there are patients that are willing to provide samples, and the testing should be easy to show one way or another, why haven't they done it? If the evidence is there, and can be reproduced and verified, then there should be no controversy. But there is. So where's the hangup?
 
We agree here. There should be no controversy it should be easily proven either way. And yet there is "controversy." This controversy persists because people insist upon giving equal weight to the doctors that made assumptions that the patients are delusional and who say the fibers they produce are merely lint vs. the scientists that have studied this and said that it isn't lint or any textile and that anyone that takes the time to look at a patients wound with the appropiate magnifying device can see that the fibers are growing out of them. So, why is there actual controversy? Why does the CDC refuse to comment on this one way or the other? Exactly, why is there a hangup with this disease? It should be easy to make an open and shut case one way or the other. Have you listened to the mp3 link? It explains why getting funding is difficult but the bottom line is this: All actual scientific research, as opposed to assumption, that has been done so far indicates that what the patients are saying is true. Yet for some reason from the CDC what we get is silence? Why? It is the job of the CDC to report to the American public of potential health threats especially something like morgellons which looks to be infectious/contagious. So why are they keeping silent about this?
 
Morgellons disease

anyone ever heard of this? very interesting and odd.. science doesnt have a cure.. and doesnt really even know where it came from.. aparently people feel like something is crawling or biting under the skin.. and strands of different colored fiber are found inside the body
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top