:rofl:
Chemtrails : Aluminum & Other Poisons Falling From The Sky
- Thread starter eric2136
- Start date
:rofl:
I love his whole thing with "superior sources." I especially love how he thinks he's the only one qualified to decide what a "superior source" is, and he's free to outright dismiss any source that disagrees with what he's saying.
It's precious, really.
Please, show us some more "superior sources." I especially like how you dismiss photographic evidence provided here because you "don't think you know what you are talking about personally, and I would never take your word about anything on any subject." That's pretty convenient. It continues to show just how stupid you are. It's awesome! Everyone here sees it except you.
It's precious, really.
Please, show us some more "superior sources." I especially like how you dismiss photographic evidence provided here because you "don't think you know what you are talking about personally, and I would never take your word about anything on any subject." That's pretty convenient. It continues to show just how stupid you are. It's awesome! Everyone here sees it except you.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Clinical, Epidemiologic, Histopathologic and Molecular Features of an Unexplained Dermopathy
Clinical examinations.
"A medical history and a general physical examination were administered by an internist. A dermatologist administered a separate examination which included documentation of skin findings, collection of skin biopsies, and collection of fibers or other material present on the skin. Total body photographs were done by a medical photographer to document case-patients' overall skin condition and the distribution of lesions."
"Standardized criteria were used to categorize lesions and grade (normal, mild, moderate, severe) the extent of skin abnormalities. The number, location and types of lesions were recorded by body area. Additional comments were included, as appropriate, to record clinical impressions that were not captured adequately by the standardized form. Participants self-rated the severity of their skin symptoms within the 24 hours preceding examination, using a Likert scale."
Collection of Skin Samples and Foreign Material.
"Skin samples were obtained using a 4 mm punch biopsy. Biopsies, up to five per participant, were obtained from abnormal and clinically normal skin areas. An abnormal skin area was defined as one that had either abnormal appearance (to both participant and examiner) or abnormal sensation (although appearing normal). Two biopsies were possible per abnormal skin area (one for histopathologic analysis and, if clinically indicated, one for microbiologic culture); a single biopsy was obtained from normal skin. A dermatoscope was used to photograph each biopsy site before and after the procedure. Fibers or potential foreign material present on the participant's skin were photographed, then collected and placed in a formalin-filled plastic container and sent for analysis. Only materials collected from participants' skin by the dermatologist were sent for analysis. At study completion, an independent review of all dermatologic examination reports, dermatologic photographs and pathology reports was done by a second dermatologist."
About the Authors
Michele L. Pearson Division of TB Elimination, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Joseph V. Selby, Virginia Cantrell, Sarita Motipara Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, United States of America
Kenneth A. Katz HIV, STD, and Hepatitis Branch, Health and Human Services Agency, County of San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America
Christopher R. Braden Division of Food, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Monica E. Parise, Allen W. Hightower, Mark L. Eberhard Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Christopher D. Paddock Division of High Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Michael R. Lewin-Smith Environmental Pathology, Joint Pathology Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America
Victor F. Kalasinsky Office of Research & Development, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America
Felicia C. Goldstein Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Arthur Papier Department of Dermatology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York, United States of America
Brian Lewis Division of Health Studies, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
1) The ultimate conclusion of your fraudulent research is inconclusive:
"…We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation.."
2) These are the financial interests of complicit establishment greed and control that your fraudulent report serves:
Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention. Epidemiologists from the CDC participated in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: One or more of the authors are employed by a commercial... entity (Kaiser Permanente).
3) The authors of your research are not non-profit independent researchers, such as I provided who have devoted years to studying this one phenomenon:
http://www.carnicom.com/morgobs10.htm
But instead you researchers are hired guns paid to do what their employer and their funding dictates. Do you really think that the medical establishment would release findings that definitively impicate the military's involvement in developing and unleashing a new bacterial-like agent onto populations for experimental purposes ? Even you can't be that stupid, Bob. Any credible research would have started with analyzing the wealth of knowledge that already exists from independent researchers. This study references none.
4) Furthermore, as I originally stated, The fact that California KP patients who allegedly showed morgellons symptoms were examined by California KP doctors would mean nothing anyways.
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
So in conclusion, your study is fraudulent garbage and has no credibility compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference. http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/articles_by_date.html.
Try Again...
"…We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation.."
2) These are the financial interests of complicit establishment greed and control that your fraudulent report serves:
Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention. Epidemiologists from the CDC participated in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: One or more of the authors are employed by a commercial... entity (Kaiser Permanente).
3) The authors of your research are not non-profit independent researchers, such as I provided who have devoted years to studying this one phenomenon:
http://www.carnicom.com/morgobs10.htm
But instead you researchers are hired guns paid to do what their employer and their funding dictates. Do you really think that the medical establishment would release findings that definitively impicate the military's involvement in developing and unleashing a new bacterial-like agent onto populations for experimental purposes ? Even you can't be that stupid, Bob. Any credible research would have started with analyzing the wealth of knowledge that already exists from independent researchers. This study references none.
4) Furthermore, as I originally stated, The fact that California KP patients who allegedly showed morgellons symptoms were examined by California KP doctors would mean nothing anyways.
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
So in conclusion, your study is fraudulent garbage and has no credibility compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference. http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/articles_by_date.html.
Try Again...
David fucking Icke, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I'm still laughing. Eric, you are pure gold.
Just two :troll2:s 1?!?!? These idiots are boring me to death with their stupid and lame one-liners...Lets get some contributions, on-point, from people with more than a 5th grade education, who aren't afraid of getting embarrassed by me just like every other fool that would even think of disputing anything I say !
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Wow, you sure are afraid of the Boogie Man. Everyone is in on this cover up. The CDC, KP, The Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Atlanta, University of Rochester School of Medicine, the Health and Human Services Agency of San Diego, Emory University School of Medicine the Mayo Clinic. They are all on the take. You would rather believe some crazy bitch with a microscope. Nice move mom, keep picking at your kids skin and telling them they have some disease she invented.
And can you please make up your mind whether this was examined by the CDC or not? First you say they won't examine. I show you proof they did and you acknowledge it. Then you say they haven't. Ask those voices in your head to speak to you one at a time.
And can you please make up your mind whether this was examined by the CDC or not? First you say they won't examine. I show you proof they did and you acknowledge it. Then you say they haven't. Ask those voices in your head to speak to you one at a time.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
Get your head out of your ass Tattoo Boy…You loose again.
Come up with something new and...
Try Again !
Get your head out of your ass Tattoo Boy…You loose again.
Come up with something new and...
Try Again !
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Oh, for Christ sakes. Have I got to spoon feed this to you?
JAMA Dermatology.
Main Outcome Measures The results of examination of these biopsy and patient-provided specimens.
"Results A total of 108 patients met inclusion criteria for this study: 80 received biopsies, 80 had self-procured skin specimens, and 52 patients received biopsies and provided specimens. No biopsy specimen (0 of 80) provided evidence to support skin infestation. The most common interpretations in the 80 biopsy specimens were dermatitis in 49 of 80 (61%); excoriation, ulceration, or erosion in 38 (48%); and nonspecific dermal inflammation in 25 (31%). Patient-provided specimens were most frequently assessed by the physician (generally a dermatologist) evaluating the patient, although 20 of the 80 samples (25%) were submitted for pathologic evaluation. Of these 80 specimens, 10 (13%) contained insects. All but 1 of the insects were noninfesting varieties; 1 (1%) was a pubic louse. The remaining findings consisted of cutaneous debris, environmental detritus, or plant material."
There you see. 80 patients supplied samples. What did they find in these samples?
They even examined samples that were brought in a box or on tape. So shove your, "they didn't examine patient samples" claim snugly up your ass.
JAMA Dermatology.
Main Outcome Measures The results of examination of these biopsy and patient-provided specimens.
"Results A total of 108 patients met inclusion criteria for this study: 80 received biopsies, 80 had self-procured skin specimens, and 52 patients received biopsies and provided specimens. No biopsy specimen (0 of 80) provided evidence to support skin infestation. The most common interpretations in the 80 biopsy specimens were dermatitis in 49 of 80 (61%); excoriation, ulceration, or erosion in 38 (48%); and nonspecific dermal inflammation in 25 (31%). Patient-provided specimens were most frequently assessed by the physician (generally a dermatologist) evaluating the patient, although 20 of the 80 samples (25%) were submitted for pathologic evaluation. Of these 80 specimens, 10 (13%) contained insects. All but 1 of the insects were noninfesting varieties; 1 (1%) was a pubic louse. The remaining findings consisted of cutaneous debris, environmental detritus, or plant material."
There you see. 80 patients supplied samples. What did they find in these samples?
They even examined samples that were brought in a box or on tape. So shove your, "they didn't examine patient samples" claim snugly up your ass.
Boy your are a dumb one Tattoo Boy !
Your study did not involve any one with the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers discovered by the biologist microscopic specialist in Florida.
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
So, imbecile, your inconclusive report states that it did not find the type of fibers found in Florida, so your report did not analyze the Morgellons fibers, but instead analyzed cotton fibers or some other type of filament fiber totally unrelated to the Morgellons phenomenon…you fucking idiot ! lolol
So in conclusion, your study is fraudulent garbage and has no credibility compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference. http://www.carnicominstitute.org/htm...s_by_date.html.
Try Again...
Your study did not involve any one with the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers discovered by the biologist microscopic specialist in Florida.
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
So, imbecile, your inconclusive report states that it did not find the type of fibers found in Florida, so your report did not analyze the Morgellons fibers, but instead analyzed cotton fibers or some other type of filament fiber totally unrelated to the Morgellons phenomenon…you fucking idiot ! lolol
So in conclusion, your study is fraudulent garbage and has no credibility compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference. http://www.carnicominstitute.org/htm...s_by_date.html.
Try Again...
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
No, of the 108 patients included in the study, 80 received biopsies, 80 brought specimens, and 52 had both. Eighty-one patients (75%) were female. Mean symptom duration was 2.3 years (range, 2 weeks to 23 years). Patients believed that they were infested by animate and inanimate materials. Fifty patients (46%) complained of more than 1 type of infesting material. Animate materials reported to be infesting the skin included bugs (85 [79%]), worms (22 [20%]), and eggs (species unspecified) (3 [3%]). Inanimate materials reported to be infesting the skin included fibers (24 [22%]), “specks ” (8 [7%]), “triangles ” (2 [2%]), gravel or grainlike material (2 [2%]), and 1 each (1%) of the following: rose thorns, splinters, rotting wood fungus, Styrofoam-like material, glass, car oil, retained foreign object (nail), and gel. No biopsy revealed evidence of infestation.
They all complained about the same things. They were all tested. I gave you the list of what they found. Dude, 108 patients. Some of them had up to 5 biopsies. No infestation. Not just one but two separate studies. They did the research and produced a conclusive reports. What have you got? One nutty woman with a microscope scraping shit off her kids. King Eric has no clothes.
They all complained about the same things. They were all tested. I gave you the list of what they found. Dude, 108 patients. Some of them had up to 5 biopsies. No infestation. Not just one but two separate studies. They did the research and produced a conclusive reports. What have you got? One nutty woman with a microscope scraping shit off her kids. King Eric has no clothes.
Your study did not involve anyone with the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers discovered by the biologist microscopic specialist in Florida.
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
Your inconclusive report states that it did not find the type of fibers found in Florida, so your report did not analyze the Morgellons fibers, but instead analyzed cotton fibers or some other type of filament fiber totally unrelated to the Morgellons phenomenon.
So in conclusion, your study is totally insufficient and irrelevant because, 1) it does not study the established fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like morgellons filament, the existence of which is established by bilogical microscopic analysis as reported thru mainstream news media, 2) it does not include analysis of the filaments cultivated by independent researchers, in laboratory environments, who have been studying the phenomenon exclusively for years, and 3) does not include analysis of the morgellons bundled filaments found in Florida, nor does it include examination of the patients in that case, nor does it even reference that seminal case in anyway.
Thus said report has no association to the recognized morgellons phenomenon, and thus has zero credibility in identifying and/ or analyzing the actual morgellons bacterial filaments. Consequently, the report is insufficient and irrelevant as compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference regarding the subject.
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/htm...s_by_date.html.
Try Again...
The seminal morgellons case profiled by ABC NEWS, where the actual fluorescent red and blue bundles of morgellons fibers were found, was in Florida. The woman who extracted the fibers from her son was a biologist specializing in microscopic research, and her health care provider wouldn't, and still hasn't, examined those fibers.
So, as i originally stated, the fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like filaments, that have already been discovered and confirmed to exist, by a biological microscopic specialist, on national TV, have not been studied or analyzed by THE CDC or by the EPA. Likewise, samples of said bacterial agents cultivated by independent researchers in laboratory enviroments have not been studied and/or or analyzed by the aforementioned agencies, and they refuse to do so.
Your inconclusive report states that it did not find the type of fibers found in Florida, so your report did not analyze the Morgellons fibers, but instead analyzed cotton fibers or some other type of filament fiber totally unrelated to the Morgellons phenomenon.
So in conclusion, your study is totally insufficient and irrelevant because, 1) it does not study the established fluorescent red and blue bundled fiber new bacterial like morgellons filament, the existence of which is established by bilogical microscopic analysis as reported thru mainstream news media, 2) it does not include analysis of the filaments cultivated by independent researchers, in laboratory environments, who have been studying the phenomenon exclusively for years, and 3) does not include analysis of the morgellons bundled filaments found in Florida, nor does it include examination of the patients in that case, nor does it even reference that seminal case in anyway.
Thus said report has no association to the recognized morgellons phenomenon, and thus has zero credibility in identifying and/ or analyzing the actual morgellons bacterial filaments. Consequently, the report is insufficient and irrelevant as compared to the substantial research which I have referenced, and continue to reference regarding the subject.
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/htm...s_by_date.html.
Try Again...
#1: I'm an aircraft mechanic, so I have a really good understanding of how airplanes work, what parts do what, and how airflow reacts to to flight controls.
#2: Snowden and Manning are relevant because neither have said any conspiracy, let alone chemtrails.
#3: The military does not have the resources to round up and suppress every doctor in America if they all came out and said that Morgellons is real. Keep in mind it took years for the military and CIA to find Bin Laden.
#4: Misdiagnosing a common illness isn't something most common doctors would do. This question also feeds back into question three.
I appreciate the format of your questions, I cannot answer them now because I have company, and a long day ahead of me, but I will answer them as soon as I get some free time!
Those aren't questions, they are statements refuting your claims and I have a feeling that last post was nothing but a deflection, you could just have easily not posted until you felt you were ready, no one on the board would have been the wiser. As to your recent focus on Project Shad, there's these papers and study summaries:
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Re...ard-Hazard-and-Defense/ZINCCADMIUMSULFIDE.pdf
https://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5739
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11836463