Morgellons Researchers

A Lot of Fiber in our Diet?

Are Any of These In the Morgellons Mix?

Cornell entomologist uses ‘cotton candy’ to protect crops as maggots and worms develop resistance to pesticides

"One day farmers might exchange pesticides for an industrial grade polymer that looks and acts like cotton candy as a major weapon against onion maggots, cabbage maggots, corn earworms and other agricultural pests. Michael P. Hoffmann, Cornell University professor of entomology and director of the university’s New York State Integrated Pest Management program, and his colleagues have been testing nonwoven fiber barriers made of ethylene vinyl acetate, or EVA, as a bug-prevention device. The polymer, identical to the material used in hot-melt glue guns, can be extruded under pressure to form webs that cover plants and appear to ward off agricultural pests." [1]

Fiber barriers for control of agricultural pests

"The invention presents the use of non-woven fiber barriers applied to agricultural products or the plants to protect agriculturally or aesthetically valuable plants from damage inflicted by pests of agricultural or ornamental plants. Experiments with these fiber barriers have shown a significant deterrent to both the oviposition and feeding of a varied group of agricultural pests. This pest management strategy will be of significant economic value in the more pest sensitive phases of plant growth. Another positive benefit of the use of this system of pest control is that it may allow the elimination or moderation in the use of pesticides in commercial agricultural operations, home gardens, or the urban environment. In this way alleviating public concerns about the large number of pesticide treatments that agricultural products typically receive." [2]

Agrotextiles: A Growing Field

"T extile fabrics have a long history of use in agriculture. The term "agrotextiles" now is used to categorize the woven, nonwoven and knitted fabrics used for agricultural and horticultural applications including livestock protection, shading, weed and insect control, and extension of the growing season.

Shade Cloth Uses
One of the first major uses for agricultural shade cloth was as cover for large fields of tobacco. Lightweight cotton cloth was used to shade plants destined for use as cigar wrappers.


Woven Shade Cloth Fabrics
Polypropylene (PP) is the most-used polymer for woven shade cloth fabrics. The resin is formulated with additives and pigments to provide resistance to sunlight and weathering. Black pigmentation helps provide a high degree of sunlight resistance. Much of the shade cloth is made from monofilament yarn, although some film fiber yarns also are used. Wide-width fabrics minimize the amount of seaming needed for installation.

Conwed also supplies a range of extruded netting fabrics that protect fruit crops from bird damage. Birdnet is used to protect grapes, blueberries, strawberries and cherries. [3]



"Extend your gardening season while controlling insects. Reemay is a spun bonded, reusable polyester material that can be placed directly over row crops without use of support hoops." [4]



It does not rot after burial in soil for 5 years, REEMAY® retained all of its original properties.   REEMAY® has excellent resistance to a variety of chemicals.

Biobarrier II  Weed Control and Biobarrier II  Tree Skirt are both guaranteed for 10 years.

"For more than 30 years, trifluralin has been used between rows of food crops to prevent weed growth; because of this extensive use and numerous research projects, much is known about it. It has an EPA toxicity rating of class IV, the “practically nontoxic” class (acute oral: LD50, (rats) > 10,000 mg/kg), making it slightly more toxic than sugar but less than salt. Trifluralin has an extremely low water solubility of 0.3 ppm, making it unlikely to leach. It tightly attaches to soil, so it doesn’t tend to migrate, and it decomposes in six months or less, so it doesn’t persist in the ground." [5]

A Cornell University team headed by textile scientist Margaret Frey developed a cloth farmers can use to reduce the amount of crop agrichemicals.

Planted along with seeds, the cloth’s saturated nano fibers slowly release pesticides and herbicides so that additional spraying of crops becomes unnecessary.

The targeted release also eliminates chemical leaching into the water supply to benefit both consumers and the environment. [6]


Has anyone tested the Morgellons pathogens against the materials these ‘agrotextiles’ used today? 

Can we guess that insects, baculoviral systems, other pesticides, fungi, etc. might be getting caught up in this material?  That this material is being harvested in with the food crop and turned into the soil, do we know the effects of what happens when humans accidently ingest ‘agrotextiles’?








November 21, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cigarette Filter Fiber Study


Do Cigarette Filters Grow the Morgellons Artifacts?

After reading the article below, and with other tests I’ve conducted, I wondered if culturing the cotton, filter part of the cigarette would cause the Morgellons and other artifacts to be seen?

From a brand new pack of unopened cigarettes, I took one out and cut the end filter with sterile scissors over a Petri Dish with potato dextrose agar. 

These photos below represent my findings:

The Filter Photos, at 100x, Day 1:

Day 2:

11_13_2 11_13_0 11_13_1

Day 5:




So far, we have seen where certain red wines, bathroom tissues and q-tips grow the same artifacts and according to the article below; all cigarette filters are made the same and all should culture the Morgellons artifacts:

Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers

"Background: More than 90% of the cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter. Nearly all filters consist of a rod of numerous ( > 12 000) plastic-like cellulose acetate fibers. During high speed cigarette manufacturing procedures, fragments of cellulose acetate that form the mouthpiece of a filter rod become separated from the filter at the end face. The cut surface of the filter of nearly all cigarettes has these fragments. In smoking a cigarette in the usual manner, some of these fragments are released during puffing. In addition to the cellulose acetate fragments, carbon particles are released also from some cigarette brands that have a charcoal filter. Cigarettes with filters that release cellulose acetate or carbon particles during normal smoking conditions are defective.

The term "fall-out" was defined in 1985 laboratory protocols of Philip Morris, Inc. as "loose fibers (or particles) that are drawn out of the filter during puffing of the cigarette".

Our analysis of the "fall-out" tests results presented in the 61 "fall-out" documents showed that filter fibers and carbon particles were discharged from the filters of  ALL types of cigarettes tested.

Conclusions: We have shown that: (a) the filter of today’s cigarette is defective; (b) Philip Morris, Inc has known of this filter defect for more than 40 years; (c) the existence of this filter defect has been confirmed by others in independent studies; (d) many methods exist to prevent and correct the filter defect, but have not been implemented; and (e) results of investigations substantiating defective filters have been concealed from the smoker and the health community. The tobacco industry has been negligent in not performing toxicological examinations and other studies to assess the human health risks associated with regularly ingesting and inhaling non-degradable, toxin coated cellulose acetate fragments and carbon microparticles and possibly other components that are released from conventional cigarette filters during normal smoking. The rationale for harm assessment is supported by the results of consumer surveys that have shown that the ingestion or inhalation of cigarette filter fibers are a health concern to nearly all smokers.

"All cigarette filters can be shown to transmit particles to the smoker.  The human lung free passageways are a thousand times, yea ten thousand times, larger than particles which may pass through them. This goes for carbon, tobacco, sand, clay, lint [fibers, threads, cotton, cellulose] and all similar impurities."

In 1993 Cigarette filter fibers identified in the lungs of patients with cancer is reported.    In 1998 Inhaled cellulosic and plastic fibers found in human lungs.  1998 US patent No. 5,738,115 awarded to Hauni AG for "decontaminating" cigarette filters.  

1998 Borowicz and colleagues report results of tests in which cellulose acetate filter fibers and particles are recovered from mouth washes of all smokers and for all cigarettes tested.  

Viewing the white face of the cigarette filter with the naked eye and compression of the filter column with the fingers would suggest that the filter is made of a sponge-like material. However, opening the cigarette filter, by cutting it lengthwise with a razor, reveals that it consists of a fibrous mass. Spreading apart the matrix reveals some of the more than 12 000 white fibers. Microscopically, these fibers are Y shaped and contain the delustrant titanium dioxide. The fibers are made of cellulose acetate, a synthetic plastic-like substance used commonly for photographic films. A plasticiser, triacetin (glycerol triacetate), is applied to bond the fibers.

During the high speed multi-step cigarette manufacturing procedures, cellulose acetate filter fragments break from the filter. Moreover, charcoal granules are released from cigarettes with certain types of charcoal filters. With a hand held magnifying glass, some of these black specks of charcoal are visible on the white filter face.

Likewise, we know that: "fragments of plastic fibers, such as cellulose acetate fibers, forming part of mouthpieces of filter cigarettes or like rod-shaped smokers’ products tend to become separated from the respective filter mouthpieces at the end faces which develop in response to the making of cuts across filter rod sections of double unit length between pairs of plain cigarettes to obtain filter cigarettes of unit length." It is emphasised that: "The fiber contamination of the mouthpiece occurs in spite of the partial bonding of the neighboring fibers to each other by resorting to suitable plasticizers." These quotations are from 1997 and 1998 US patents awarded to Hauni Maschinenbau AG.13, 14 Hauni AG, with its eight divisions of companies, has an established reputation as the world’s top manufacturer of high speed machinery for making, packaging, and analysing cigarettes.

Cigarettes have defective filters if cellulose acetate filter fragments are released from the filter by puffing. In 1995, an executive directive declared that tobacco companies: "are well advised to strongly urge filter manufacturers to explore ways of producing fiber-free filters. Cellulose acetate fibers, in the smallest concentrations, must not be found in lungs. This is true even if there is little likelihood for their contributing to the formation of lung cancer and to disease type inflammatory changes."

Repetitive tests showed that carbon particles were released. In a 1970 test of: "Fallout of cigarette filter material" (10 cigarettes, 5 puffs) carbon particles were sized and enumerated.30 The results were as follows: size range 5 µm (n = 20 particles), 6–10 µm (n = 38), 11–20 µm (n = 22), and 21–30 µm (n = 14), etc. A total of 124 carbon particles was recorded.

We reviewed the test results in all of carbon "fall-out" papers. This review showed that carbon particles were released from all cigarettes tested. Noteworthy is that, in some studies, the particles released from cigarette filters were described as: "… too numerous to count".

Dr Farone has acknowledged that Philip Morris, Inc was concerned as to the possible health risks associated with inhaling filter fibers and carbon particles. Dr Farone reported to us that a claim made by Philip Morris, Inc that the filter fibers were too big to get into the lung was based upon an aerodynamic diameter concept only, and emphasised that the concept was an unproven hypothesis. Some of the fibers that "fall-out" of the filter are likely to be deposited in the mouth and upper airways. However, given the known frequency with which most people smoke cigarettes, Dr Farone asserted that it is inevitable that some of the cellulose acetate fibers would be inhaled.

One of the primary objectives in applying a plasticiser is to bind the fibers. The plasticiser, however, is applied before the cigarette filter is cut and other cigarette manufacturing processes. Thus, the bonding agent may curtail but would not eliminate the formation nor the release of filter fiber fragments.

Filter contamination not disclosed by Philip Morris, Inc

Having established that Philip Morris, Inc. knew for approximately 40 years that cigarette filters released cellulose acetate fibers and carbon particles.

Also, there were no reports from Phillip Morris, Inc that addressed the release of fibers, carbon or other filter elements of the cigarette filters in any of the papers presented during the last 37 years at the CORESTA meetings or special symposia.

The absence of papers from Phillip Morris, Inc examining these issues is remarkable in light of the fact that nearly all cigarettes manufactured during the past two decades have a cellulose acetate filter.

Our search of multiple databases failed to locate documents presenting the results of toxicology studies of fibers and particles that are known to be discharged from cigarette filers during normal smoking conditions. At a minimum, we expected to find laboratory notebooks or at least photocopies of selected notebook pages.  Not a single page was found.

Also noted in these two patents is that in the manufacturing of cigarettes, considerable quantities of "fragmentised" tobacco particles are collected and reintroduced into cigarette making machines. Both patents declare that: "This is not advisable as the cellulose acetate fibers would be placed in the tobacco column." The cellulose acetate fibers in the tobacco column are burned and would emit additional toxins into mainstream smoke.

Collectively, our investigations have identified diverse types defective filters. These include filters that discharge various filter elements, including fibers (for example, cellulose acetate, glass and asbestos) and particles (for example, charcoal).

A recent study has assessed consumers’ knowledge and beliefs about the safety of cigarette filters. In this survey, participants were asked: "If cigarette fibers become loose, and the cigarette companies are aware of this, do you think that they have an obligation to warn the public about this?" All smokers and former smokers in this survey responded "yes".

Philip Morris, Inc has known and concealed for approximately 40 years that fibers and particles "fall-out" of the filter of cigarettes during smoking. Other companies have assessed also the discharge of filter fibers. In addressing this filter defect, the tobacco industry’s response has been variable, ranging from denial of the discharge of filter fibers to the development of innovative technologies for correcting and preventing the problem. Consumers have not been informed of the filter defect. Further, there is no indication that existing corrective technologies and invention have been uniformly implemented. Summarily, the tobacco industry has been: (a) derelict in concealing information of filter defects; (b) negligent in implementing technologies available to prevent or reduce the emission of filter elements; and (c) wrongful in not investigating the toxicology and harm associated with defective filters of today’s cigarettes that are being marketed worldwide.

Tobacco companies bare the burden of performing the toxicology studies necessary to assess the human health risks of the defective filters and, specifically, the dangers associated with the daily inhalation and ingestion of the substances discharged from the filter during normal smoking. All consumers, including smokers, have the right to be fully informed of product defects and the potential risks that they impose so that they can make an educated decision in selecting their cigarette purchases.

The inhalation and/or ingestion of toxin coated plastic fibers and carbon granules released from contaminated and defective filters is not intended to be part of the smoking experience. The filter is intended to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke toxins—any elements from the cigarette filter that are likely to be puffed into the lung must be recognized as pollutants. For a company to knowingly and willfully withhold this information from consumers about the known contamination of cigarette filters, as Philip Morris, Inc had done in the past and continues to do even today, is wrong." [1]




November 18, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Red Wine Cultured by Itself


As requested by a reader, I cultured a red wine by itself  in a Petri Dishes with nutrient  agar in which, they are separate from each other in their individual dishes to see what their variables look like standing alone, the results are below:

Day 1 – Red Wine

The wine was poured from a new bottle, freshly opened, directly into the new Petri Dish with nutrient agar.  This is a Burgundy,  from California with sulfites.  These photos were taken right after the wine was poured on Nov. 6, 09, @ 100x – I see fibers, specks, and some sort of  ‘larvae-shaped entity’. 

Day 2

Nov 8 – 100x:  Not much is happening at this point:

Day 3

On day 3, Nov. 9, one of the fungal spheres has burst open and the white, fuzzy fungus identified by a group of Morgellons sufferers who all cultured their lesion debris in Petri Dishes, per visual identification, all have concluded that the Morgellons fungus is Rhizopus is apparent, there is other specks and fibers present also:

11_09_5 11_09_3 11_09_4

Day 4

Nov 10, the fungal sphere is starting to explode:


Day 6

Nov 12., We now see the ‘typical’ Morgellons pieces.  The fungus has a green top to it in the dish.



To me this experiment indicates that Carnicom had too many variables in his Petri dishes in the beginning of his ‘red wine swish test’ experiments.

I also have cultured another red wine, a more expensive one without sulfites going behind this one in potato agar.   I also cultured saliva by itself which showed interesting information.  I will be reporting on these soon.

November 13, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pineapple / Baculoviral Progression Study


I was eating a can of diced pineapples last month and saw a little, black ‘splinter-like’ object in the juice and decided to culture it in nutrient agar, it was initially 2-3 mm, it has been quite interesting to watch its progression in the dish.  I took quite a few photographs of it, so decided to dedicate a blog page to it.

I didn’t think too much of it being in the juice part of the pineapple, I’m sure I’ve seen something similar before? It appeared to be like the outside prickly part of the pineapple that had accidently gotten into the juice in the packing process somehow. 

Day 2

Cultured on 10/10, I photographed it at Day 2 on 10/12  in the dish, this is the top and bottom of the ‘splinter-like’ object.



What’s interesting is that next to this splinter is a c-shaped ‘entity’ that has appeared at Day 2, the initial piece put in the dish was just the ‘splinter’ or actually, it’s more like a quiver that holds arrows. 

This is the head of the larvae that has appeared at Day 2:


Its midbody:



And, its tail:



I am almost positive this c-shaped object  is a baculovirus with a larvae inside of it.  The splinter is a capsid that houses this larvae.  We will in later photos how this transpires.

Here are all the photos from Day 2 in their original sizes:

Day 4

 Day 6

Day 9

Day 13

In-between Day 9 and Day 13 we can now see the fungal growth starting to creep in.



Here’s all the photos from Day 13:

Day 20




Here’s all the photos from Day 20:

Day 26

Upon viewing this specimen last night, I see that the larvae has decided to separate itself totally from the ‘splinter’.  When we examine the ‘splinter/quiver’, it doesn’t show any signs that something came out of the side of it nor that anything was ever attached.




Here’s all the photos from Day 26:

Since this dish is starting to dry out and I am wanting this larvae to move into more stages, I put some bottled water into the dish to give it life.  I will continue to show its progress.


To be continued.

November 7, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Morgellons in Our Blood – Part 2… continued


A blood smear from the finger of someone with evident Morgellons directly into the Petri Dish.  Cultured on 10/5/09 in nutrient agar and photographed at 100x on 10/19/09.  These photos represent Day 14, the fungus has started to take off…the baculovirus are starting to occlude with polyhedron.

Day 14

The Role of the Fungus:

The fungus is starting to rapidly reach out and infects the baculoviral spheres, this is 10/23, it is the fungus that causes ‘infection’ and for the occlusions to start:

Day 18

10_23_38 10_23_17 10_23_18 10_23_19 10_23_20 10_23_21 10_23_22 10_23_23 10_23_24 10_23_25 10_23_26 10_23_27 10_23_28 10_23_29 10_23_30


I’m thinking that it takes contact with the fungus to ‘infect’ the baculovirus and create the polyhedron, which will be more evident in these next set of photos. 

Day 25

How The “Starships” Are Born:

I noticed that the oblong “Mother Starship” had given birth to the pointed-edge baby starships, these are the carbon, baculoviral  capsid that holds the GM fungus gnat larvae.  These were seen in human samples in other experiments, I called them “Starships”, photographed at 100x:

10_30_64 10_30_62 10_30_63

And here is one of these baculoviral polyhedron that has grown and seen in a human arm lesion sample Petri Dish and is also photographed at 100x:


October 30, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Baculovirus In Our Vaccines


They have successfully experimented with putting the baculovirus in the flu vaccines in the recent past:

"In the study conducted by Treanor, together with colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and the University of Virginia, scientists tested a vaccine called FluBlOk that is made by Protein Sciences Corp. of Meriden, Ct. FluBlOk relies on a virus known as baculovirus, which normally infects insects, to churn out the key components of the flu virus in a cell line drawn from caterpillars."

"Bypassing Eggs, Flu Vaccine Grown in Insect Cells Shows Promise

April 10, 2007

An experimental flu vaccine made in insect cells – not in eggs, where flu vaccines currently available in the United States are grown – is safe and as effective as conventional vaccines in protecting people against the flu, according to results published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association." [1]

We have seen that they already are putting fullerenes (carbon balls that are in the Squalene) in vaccines… and now baculovirus… our latest vaccine that costs us $25 apiece @125 million produced… let’s see… that’s $3,125,000,000 (billion dollars) in sales versus a few thousand people that could be having some sort of "skin reaction" to something that might  be in the vaccines?

The Baculovirus may be a wonderful thing in today’s vaccines however my complaint, and it should be yours too, is that at some time – someone was experimenting with the baculovirus and fullerenes and made a mistake. We have these very foreign particles inside of us, in our blood, in our organs, evidently ravishing our digestive systems with some… and we want all aspects of these particle pathogens removed out of our systems, we want to be somewhat normal human beings again. How can you make something in a lab, put it in our food/water supply that might infect a person, and not have an antidote? No, a better question is;  How can you be allowed to put the Morgellons pathogens into our food/water/air/insect supply in the first place and turn it loose for us to unknowingly  eat, drink, breathe and come into contact with?

If we smoke cigarettes, we might get cancer and have many adverse health problems associated with it – we know this… so, we can make the choice to smoke or not.  And… if we come down with lung cancer later in life, we can’t complain too much and especially say, ‘I didn’t know, if I had known, I would have made better choices…’. With Morgellons it appears that all you have to do is eat certain foods, drink your tap water, get stung or bitten by an insect that some student, soon-to-be future scientist, has modified at a near-by university and set loose… or go outside after a chemtrail emission… basic things that we have to do in order to survive has put our entire future good health at risk. We have to eat, drink water, breathe the air and be able to go outside without our good health being constantly compromised, we have no choices in these basic living matters.

That is the difference in smoking and Morgellons, we don’t have a single clue that certain things are in our environments that might be wrong for us to choose to avoid.  Give us some warnings, like on the side of cigarette packettes, let us know that this product contains fullerenes, micelles, nano, baculovirus, etc. so that we can have some control over our health, let us know that it’s a heavy chemtrail spray day so that we can make choices to stay inside or to keep our car windows rolled up, and don’t we have a right to know what’s in these emissions?  We are being adversely blind sighted from too many directions in a seeming fear of transparency on their part, why all the secrecy if there’s nothing to hide?

The cigarette manufacturers had to start putting warning labels on the product when it was proven that cigarettes caused certain diseases and they were sued because people said they didn’t have any warning. What’s the difference in today’s foods and what’s in them and how they falsely advertise and promote them as being something good for you without listing a single caution, just like they did with early cigarette ad campaigns?   

Most of us have been to our doctors many times to complain about our disease, and with most of us – we have been to see many different doctors… and with no to a minimal response from them, only because it seems they fear being sued for total malpractice. They don’t appear to have any interest in looking to see what’s wrong with us, when did this non-caring mindset amongst our doctors come about? Why do they have this attitude? Possibly because they know or suspect that the vaccines that they have been handing out are possibly one the culprits in our disease, that if they look closer – it might slow down  the current vaccine nanotechnology? That if they start uncovering, this might lead to looking closer at the FDA… DOA… EPA… CDC… NIH… why, we might even have to label our foods?

I suspect the way things work is that the vaccine makers can say… ‘well, they’ve been using fullerenes and baculovirus in our foods and water for years now and there doesn’t seem to be any adverse reactions… if there were adverse reactions – people would have reported it to their doctors and we’d know about it.’ Ha! What a joke we’re in the middle of! Doctors are known to be slightly above average in intelligence, we have to start appealing to this and their non-action and how it’s leading to the entire world’s future ill health. It’s perpetuating because they are refusing to listen and take us seriously as the first stop gap measure, when the doctors stop listening or caring about patients – our health system has failed.  We have put our trust in our doctors and they are violating their oaths, for whatever occult  reasons.  This avoidance to look at us is allowing whomever a green light to contaminate more and further, ‘it’s proven to be ok in our food and water, therefore should be ok in vaccines’…

If we have fullerenes, micelles, baculovirus inside of us as I am seeing, what does this mean to the Morgellons sufferer when more are added with the addition of a vaccination or eating heavy-laden foods with them in it, or drinking our unfiltered tap water?  And, why the baculovirus, and not a hydrogel sphere? They are speaking of the ACNPV (Autographia California Nuclear Polyhedron Virus) baculovirus in the article above, the shell of the sphere is made from the Autographia California moth or caterpillar.

If doctors or someone doesn’t step up to defend us soon… baculovirus will be in more consumables  – what’s next, baculovirus and/or fullerenes in your baby’s formula?   I’m almost afraid to look.


October 30, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Tap Water Experiment 2


This is cultured tap water in a Petri Dish with nutrient agar from 8/8/09, photographed on 8/8/09 at 100x, Immediately after the water was run over the dish:

08_08_51 08_08_52 08_08_53 08_08_54 08_08_55 08_08_56 08_08_57 08_08_58

Photographed on 8/10/09 at 100x, represents 2 days growth:

08_10_7 08_10_3 08_10_4 08_10_5 

This is the same dish, photographed at 100x on 8/11… represents 3 days growth. 

08_11_12 08_11_0 08_11_1 08_11_2 08_11_3 08_11_4 08_11_5 08_11_6 08_11_7 08_11_8 08_11_9 08_11_10 08_11_11

This dish was photographed again on 8/20/09, the photos below represent 12 days growth:

08_20_30 08_20_19 08_20_20 08_20_21 08_20_22 08_20_23 08_20_24 08_20_25 08_20_26 08_20_27 08_20_28 08_20_29

 08_20_31 08_20_32 08_20_33 08_20_34 08_20_35 08_20_36 08_20_38


Then photographed on 8/29/09, represents 21 days growth:

08_29_2 08_15_171 08_15_551 08_29_0 08_29_1

08_29_28 08_29_18 08_29_19 08_29_20 08_29_21 08_29_22  08_29_24 08_29_25 08_29_26 08_29_27

08_29_35 08_29_31 08_29_32 08_29_33

Photographed on 9/15, cultured on 8/8, represents 38 days growth:

The End

October 25, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Morgie Blood – The Strangeness Inside of Us


I cut my finger today and decided to look at my blood under the microscope at 100x:

10_22_0 10_22_1 10_22_2 10_22_3

To see the blood better, I put a piece of onion skin paper on the light source…on these I can see the carbon ball orbs, micelles or liposomes:

10_22_10 10_22_5 10_22_6 10_22_9

There’s a weird stringy, spider web-like effect to my blood:

10_22_48 10_22_45 10_22_46 10_22_47 10_22_21 10_22_19 10_22_20


10_22_57 10_22_56

Other ?:

10_22_68 10_22_58 10_22_59 10_22_60 10_22_61 10_22_62 10_22_63 10_22_64 10_22_65 10_22_66 10_22_67

The End

October 22, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Foods Affecting Morgellons?


As some of you know, I started looking at certain products and foods a while back to see if any of them matched the objects I was seeing microscopically.  One of the first foods I looked at was rice after finding a dark, seed-like particle in the grains as I was preparing to cook it.  I will put some of those photos at the end of this article.

Pineapple – Non Organic

Recently, I was eating some diced pineapples from a can in a bowl and in the juice, I noticed what looked like a very small splinter, possibly a piece off of the outside part of the pineapple that I am sure I have seen such a splinter before and not think much of it.  I decided to look at it under the microscope on a slide,  I didn’t take any photos at that time but ended up putting this piece in a Petri Dish to see what would develop.

These following photos show a few days progression of this ‘splinter’ piece:

I did not come back and photograph this object for a couple of days… these first photos represent 2 days growth in the Petri Dish with nutrient agar @100x:

What is odd is that this splinter piece started out as one piece, it now was two… two objects are side by side.

I have drawn a white dotted line down the center of where the objects are.  Initially, the part on the right only was seen:

I can’t say for certain yet, but it looks like this splinter is a capsid of sorts and some sort of baculovirus expression has come out of it?  Looking closer at the bottom photo:


The object to the left of the splinter, appears to have head and tail end, this is photographed from the head to the tail end:

On day 4, a sphere appears to the left and above this what is appearing to be a baculovirus:


Day 5:


Day 9, definitely looks like a baculovirus is forming:






continued later…

Bananas – Non Organic

Wondering about bananas because of the obvious attraction by fungus gnats and having a couple laying around, I decided to look at them.

The Outer Skin

I took a serrated knife and scraped the outside skin of a banana that  has some brown spots forming, at 100x on a slide:

The Inner Skin

Peeling the banana and scraping the inside skin onto the slide and spreading the matter, at 100x, the carbon capsids are becoming evident:

The Inside ‘Meat’ Part:

Carrots – Non Organic

I scraped the outside of bagged carrots purchased the day before and put on a slide @ 100x:

Milk – Non Organic

I pour some milk from a new carton into a small  glass and then pour directly from this glass onto the slide.  I immediately see a fiber/nematode-like entity in the milk sample on the slide @100x.

You can see the particles of the milk are moving and this might cause the fiber to move.  I decide to make a movie of it:

There are some other fiber-like ‘entities’ in the milk on the second sample photograped:


A seed-like particle was seen in a newly opened bag of cooking rice, I decided to culture it in agar, this Day 1:


Day 2

The red and blue hyphae  fungus start growing:




Day 4 The fungus is thick:



Day 5



Day 13, Baculoviral capsids have formed:





Day 14:





Day 39:






To be continued…

October 16, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Liposomes or Micelles?



Normally, the hydrophobic tail of the micelle is introverted:


Scheme of a micelle formed by phospholipids in an aqueous solution.

Inverse/reverse micelles

In a non-polar solvent, it is the exposure of the hydrophilic head groups to the surrounding solvent that is energetically unfavourable, giving rise to a water-in-oil system. In this case the hydrophilic groups are sequestered in the micelle core and the hydrophobic groups extend away from the centre. These inverse micelles are proportionally less likely to form on increasing headgroup charge, since hydrophilic sequestration would create highly unfavorable electrostatic interactions. [1]

In some cases, as described above, the hydrophobic tail  becomes introverted:

Scheme of an inverse micelle formed by phospholipids in an organic solvent.

Connecting Micelles

A novel strategy to link block copolymer micelles via metal–ligand interactions, leading to hierarchical supramolecular networks is presented. The mechanical properties of the obtained materials can be tuned easily by the choice of the metal ions used. The strong networks exhibit a chemical and mechanical stimuli responsive behavior, with almost instantaneous recovery in the latter case.  [1]

What we have seen in human samples to show connecting micelles:

Critical micelle concentration

”In chemistry, the critical micelle concentration (CMC) is defined as the concentration of surfactants above which micelles are spontaneously formed. Upon introduction of surfactants (or any surface active materials) into the system they will initially partition into the interface, reducing the system free energy by a) lowering the energy of the interface (calculated as area x surface tension) and b) by removing the hydrophobic parts of the surfactant from contacts with water. Subsequently, when the surface coverage by the surfactants increases and the surface free energy (surface tension) has decreased, the surfactants start aggregating into micelles, thus again decreasing the system free energy by decreasing the contact area of hydrophobic parts of the surfactant with water. Upon reaching CMC, any further addition of surfactants will just increase the number of micelles (in the ideal case). ”  [2]


”Surfactants are usually organic compounds that are amphiphilic, meaning they contain both hydrophobic groups (their "tails") and hydrophilic groups (their "heads"). Therefore, they are soluble in both organic solvents and water.

A micelle—the lipophilic tails of the surfactant molecules remain on the inside of the micelle due to unfavourable interactions. The polar "heads" of the micelle, due to favourable interactions with water, form a hydrophilic outer layer that in effect protects the hydrophobic core of the micelle. The compounds that make up a micelle are typically amphiphilic in nature, meaning that not only are micelles soluble in protic solvents such as water but also in aprotic solvents as a reverse micelle.

Health and environmental controversy

Some surfactants are known to be toxic to animals, ecosystems and humans, and can increase the diffusion of other environmental contaminants. Despite this, they are routinely deposited in numerous ways on land and into water systems, whether as part of an intended process or as industrial and household waste. Some surfactants have proposed or voluntary restrictions on their use. For example, PFOS is slated for persistent organic pollutant (POP) status by the Stockholm Convention. Additionally, PFOA has been subject to a voluntary agreement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ and eight chemical companies to reduce and eliminate emissions of the chemical and its precursors. However, other industries operate outside of the voluntary PFOA program.”  [3]

Lipid polymorphism

Cross Section view of the structures that can be formed by phospholipids in aqueous solutions

In lipid polymorphism, if the packing ratio of lipids is greater or less than one, lipid membranes can form two separate hexagonal phases, or nonlamellar phases, in which long, tubular aggregates form according to the environment the lipid is introduced.


When we look at micelles, we see that liposomes are next of kin…

”Liposomes are used as models for artificial cells.

A liposome is a tiny bubble (vesicle), made out of the same material as a cell membrane. Liposomes can be filled with drugs, and used to deliver drugs for cancer and other diseases.

Membranes are usually made of phospholipids, which are molecules that have a head group and a tail group. The head is attracted to water, and the tail, which is made of a long hydrocarbon chain, is repelled by water.

Liposomes, usually but not by definition, contain a core of aqueous solution; lipid spheres that contain no aqueous material are called micelles, however, reverse micelles (those creating fibers) can be made to encompass an aqueous environment.

* The use of liposomes for transformation or transfection of DNA into a host cell is known as lipofection.

In addition to gene and drug delivery applications, liposomes can be used as carriers for the delivery of dyes to textiles[4], pesticides to plants, enzymes and nutritional supplements to foods, and cosmetics to the skin.

It should be noted that formation of liposomes and nanoliposomes is not a spontaneous process. Lipid vesicles are formed when phospholipids such as lecithin are placed in water and consequently form one bilayer or a series of bilayers, each separated by water molecules, once enough energy is supplied [8]. Liposomes can be created by sonicating phospholipids in water[3]. Low shear rates create multilamellar liposomes, which have many layers like an onion. Continued high-shear sonication tends to form smaller unilamellar liposomes.

Further advances in liposome research have been able to allow liposomes to avoid detection by the body’s immune system, specifically, the cells of reticuloendothelial system (RES). These liposomes are known as "stealth liposomes", and are constructed with PEG (Polyethylene Glycol) studding the outside of the membrane. The PEG coating, which is inert in the body, allows for longer circulatory life for the drug delivery mechanism.

However, research currently seeks to investigate at what amount of PEG coating the PEG actually hinders binding of the liposome to the delivery site. In addition to a PEG coating, most stealth liposomes also have some sort of biological species attached as a ligand to the liposome in order to enable binding via a specific expression on the targeted drug delivery site. These targeting ligands could be monoclonal antibodies (making an immunoliposome), vitamins, or specific antigens.

Targeted liposomes can target nearly any cell type in the body and deliver drugs that would naturally be systemically delivered. Naturally toxic drugs can be much less toxic if delivered only to diseased tissues. Polymersomes, morphologically related to liposomes can also be used this way.”  [4]


”Lipofection (or liposome transfection) is a technique used to inject genetic material into a cell by means of liposomes, which are vesicles that can easily merge with the cell membrane since they are both made of a phospholipid bilayer. Lipofection is a lipid-based transfection technology which belongs to biochemical methods including also polymers, DEAE dextran and calcium phosphate. The main advantages of lipofection are its high efficiency, its ability to transfect all types of nucleic acids in a wide range of cell types, its ease of use, reproducibility and low toxicity. In addition this method is suitable for all transfection applications (transient, stable, co-transfection, reverse, sequential or multiple transfections…), high throughput screening assay and has also shown good efficiency in some in vivo models.”   [5]

Now that we have established a better understanding of liposomes, we can look into this further.



Soft Matter, 2009, 5, 3409 – 3411, DOI: 10.1039/b910325b





October 14, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments