New Scientific Study Supports Reality of Morgellons Disease

Austin, Texas (PRWEB) November 15, 2011 The mysterious human illness known as Morgellons disease resembles a well-known infectious disease found in catt

New study supports Darwin's hypothesis on competition between species ...

Austin, Texas (PRWEB) November 15, 2011

The mysterious human illness known as Morgellons disease resembles a well-known infectious disease found in cattle, according to a new research report published Nov. 14 in the prestigious online journal Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology.This news is announced by the Charles E. Holman Foundation, a grassroots activist organization that supports research, education, diagnosis and treatment of Morgellons disease.

Studied since the 1970s, the veterinary disease known as bovine digital dermatitis, or hairy heel warts, can cause lameness, decreased milk production, weight loss and skin lesions just above the hooves of affected animals. Examination of these lesions by researchers has revealed fibers of varying colors found to be very similar to those seen on the skin of people worldwide who suffer from Morgellons disease.

A link to the free report, entitled "Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease," can be found on the home page of the Charles E. Holman Foundation website (http://www.thecehf.org).

Often labeled delusional by their medical care providers, Morgellons patients may soon be vindicated by this groundbreaking discovery.

Morgellons disease and hairy heel warts both appear to be evolving illnesses characterized by the appearance of unusual filaments in skin lesions, said co-author Dr. Raphael Stricker, a renowned Morgellons expert who has treated hundreds of people with this disease at his San Francisco, CA-based practice. The similarity between the two diseases provides new evidence that Morgellons is an infectious illness-not a delusional disorder. Further comparison of these conditions may help shed light on the mystery of what Morgellons is, and eventually how to cure it.

Study Says Medieval New World Map Is Real Thank Leif Eriksson

Direct Imaging of Metal Atoms and Clusters on Real Supports

... supports the benefits of nuts for heart health a new study suggests

COLUMBUS, OhioIn what's become a daily ritual, Tim Ryan finds a ...

Source : http://imentalhealth.net/mental-health-disorders/psychotic-disorders/new-scientific-study-supports-reality-of-morgellons-disease

Related video about New Scientific Study Supports Reality of Morgellons Disease

Authors Jonah Lehrer on The Science of Creativity

Authors Jonah Lehrer on The Science of Creativity Filmed live from Google London on Thursday 27th April 2012 Authors PresentsJonah Lehrers Imagine How Creativity Works 39 New Scientific Study Supports Reality of Morgellons Disease

Commonly question about New Scientific Study Supports Reality of Morgellons Disease

Question :

Plase just briefly explain the following article because it was a little but long!?

As human beings, reality is what we perceive with our senses. For most people, the eyes and ears are the chief senses and it is through what we see and hear that reality is created. Hours spent in front of the television, listening to the radio in the car, reading print, or more recently surfing the Internet we as a people are continually fed a constant stream of news and information. This media affects how we think and how we think affects our actions. As a result, studying media is also the study of human behaviour. Despite this, many people do not question what they see or hear. They do not stop for one second to think whether what they are watching or listening to is truth, part-truth, or outright lies. They feel that if a man in a suit speaks in a serious tone about certain global issues then what he says must be true. It is such passive acceptance of media which is dangerous because we must not forget that in this capitalist world we live in everything is driven by a motive and more often than not that motive is profit. Therefore, if the media reports about a recent study of how eating eggs is good for you, one must stop to question this advice instead of blindly cracking eggs and cooking them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For example, who sponsored the study that led to the conclusion that eating eggs is good for you? Most likely, the financial backing to conduct that study came from egg farmers who would see increased profits from people believing that consuming more eggs was healthy. Then we must ask how scientific the study was or how many people were involved. If the participants of the study was a small group then it hardly represents the population and the results could be tainted. In addition, we must question whether the study was conducted or bought. It is not inconceivable to consider that scientific studies could be made up to support a desired position. In contrast, to such critical thinking most people just blindly accept such health advice and it seems every day someone is telling us that either drinking a glass of wine a day is good for our hearts, omega 3 fats are good for us, or green tea prevents cancer. Who are we to believe? It is almost impossible for the average consumer to wade through all the scientific and pseudo-scientific data to discover the truth. It is ironic that in this the first decade of the twenty first century despite how much more we know compared to our parents and their parents before them, our health is worse than ever. We are a society of obese men and women, and more frighteningly obese children. Our ancestors did not count calories or read nutrition labels and yet they had far fewer medical conditions than we do now. Such observation is in direct conflict with how valid these scientific studies claim to be. Media shaping our thinking however, is not confined only to nutrition. The ongoing war in the Middle East, primarily with the United States forces in Iraq have been criticized as a war for oil and not a war against oppression and terrorism as the world was initially led to believe. Who can forget that the United Nations decided that the United States did not have the right to invade Iraq, but the US went ahead anyway on the excuse that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. To this day, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Who can forget the horrifying images of the burning Twin Towers in New York City and the thousands of dying as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the US. The American public s fear and paranoia were played upon to justify attacking Iraq on which to this day there is scant evidence to suggest that it played such a role in the attacks as to warrant the spending of billions and the deaths of so many US soldiers on foreign soil. Many believe that the current economic crisis in the US which is also spreading around the world is the result of the United States using up all its money in a war no one wants fought. Many are starting to doubt that the war in Iraq is about good versus evil. Rather many believe that it was an attempt by certain high level individuals to profit from the war. The people who profit from a war are the people who make the tanks and bombs. There is evidence to suggest that the Bush family owns companies which make weapons for the war. This is an obvious conflict of interest, but this is what happens when public decision is based on fear instead of reason. As a society we must realize that the media shapes the way we think and if we do not monitor our thoughts then we can be manipulated into buying things that are unhealthy for us or even voting for leaders that do not have our best interests at heart.

Answer :
It says, do not believe everything you see or hear in the media. You must develop critical thinking, to consider and check out the sources of what you hear. Are they biased? Are they trying to sell you something (a product or an idea or a political attiude)?


>>>>
ahmed89
good copy/paste job! did u even read it?

Question :

This is a long read, and for those that understand evolution?

I saw this posted in reply to a question about evolution but it was never commentented on...even after I ve posted it as an answer....so now the question is, what do you think of the following??
Christians and non-Christians alike often disagree about whether the Theory of Evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled unscientific or backwards by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, its accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Second is the problem in projecting microevolution into macroevolution. Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat smooth transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, punctuated by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.
While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting survival of the fittest cripple the organisms instead.
Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.
The second flaw is the problem of extending microevolution into macroevolution. Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called micro-evolution. Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turne

Answer :
Evolution is a hoax!

Question :

Will the BEST project kill the global warming denier myths about surface temperatures?

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study is a new, thorough analysis of the surface temperature record, taking into account all criticisms leveled by "skeptics". Two big names involved are Richard Muller, who has unfortunately spread a lot of disinformation about "hide the decline" recently, and Judith Curry, a darling of the "skeptic" movement. A number of prominent "skeptics" have praised the project, like Fred Singer and Anthony Watts.

The group has started working on a draft paper based on their preliminary analysis. Muller described their findings as follows:

We are seeing substantial global warming...None of the effects raised by the skeptics is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.

Ken Caldeira, who has seen the draft paper, said:

"Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU."
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/be

Since the project is run by and has received praise from "skeptics" and "lukewarmers", or whatever you want to call them, and has once again confirmed the results of the other scientific groups like NASA GISS, do you think this will finally kill all the denier myths about the surface temperature record?

Answer :
Lets not jump the gun, these are preliminary results so they have not confirmed anything.

Muller is a scientists who supports the position of the IPCC, but I respect and trust him. His data and codes will be of public record for anybody who want to audit him. If his temperature record matches that of HadCru and GISS I will respect that. But what if the final results do not match that of GISS or HadCru? What if the warming trend is less, or the mid century cooling was greater. Will warmers respect that? Or will they start attacking his credibility?

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/14/ex
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;

Vampire man.

You say you do not like what if questions. If you click on my link to climateprogress, Romm is highly critical of Muller. Now Romm is dancing with joy. I find this dishonest. Conversely, if Watt were to attack Muller because he does no like the results, I would also find this dishonest. All I am asking is for believers to do the same.

Edit: It appears Joe Romm has once again jumped the gun. Anthony Watt is one of the biggest critics of UHI and the temperature record. This is what he said about the results of the BEST record:

And, Im prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. Im taking this bold step providing my surfacestations data to them because the method has promise. So lets not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I havent seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/th