People professing “Morgellons” are usually middle aged white women.

Why could this be?

I wonder if some tiny fraction of Morgellons sufferers are simply people who have fading eyesight, and simply do not realize this.

The “fibers” that are claimed are often very small. Such as the vellus hairs on the back of your hand. They are mostly invisible to the naked eye, but can become visible when lotion is applied, or when lighting conditions change, or when viewed at a different angle. This sudden appearance might make it seem like the hairs are “shooting” out of your skin. The hairs were not there, then they were – at least to your eyes.

This phenomenon might in turn be magnified by poor eyesight, which usually takes a turn for the worse after the age of 35.

Women also tend to use a lot more lotion, which both attracts fibers, and contributes to the sudden “appearance” of hairs (both vellus and terminal) when the lotion is applied.

I’m not saying this explains every case. But it might explain some. You need to eliminate such possibilities before moving on to others.

How good are your eyes? Check here:

http://www.preventblindness.org/eye_tests/near_vision_test.html

There are many causes of itching, here are a few:
http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ent/ent58/ent58.pdf

People sometimes jump to conclusions, skipping over potential explanation in favor of the explanations they most desire. If you think you have Morgellon, did you actually check that none of the things listed here could be responsible for your symptoms?

Here’s something that might be responsible for a fraction of the Morgellons cases.

biopara-scabies.jpg

(It’s a scabies mite – it burrows into your skin)

The deeper Morgellonites are pushing this story

(http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2006/04/21/eline/links/20060421elin004.html)

The implication being that many doctors and psychiatrist are in league with the pharmacutical industry – and have a vested interest in diagnosing things as psyciatric disorders so that Big Pharma can sell more psychopharmalogical drugs.

This is about as likely as the clothing manufacturers being in cahoots with the dry-cleaning cartels by labeling their garments “dry-clean only”, when you know perfectly well they’ll do just fine in the laundry.

The question to ask (and I’m borrowing here, Seinfelt I believe) is “how would that even work?”

When your doctor suggests perhaps a component of your disorder is mental, then does he get some kind of kickback from Big P? How much might that be? How does that money get to him?

Doctors get paid a lot already. What portion of their income comes from these psych-referral kickbacks?

How does the accounting work? Follow the money. In all the decades of auditing of various health industries – has there been one shred of evidence of such a kickback scheme?

It must be more subtle – the Doctors get paid by insurance companies that get paid by the consumers, who get high premiums because the price of psych drugs is so high. Doctors keep over-prescribing them, so everyone makes money.

Consider though, how would that even work? The individual doctor will get paid regardless. If he writes needless prescriptions, he does not get paid more. He’s taking a risk of getting caught. So it’s better for the individual doctor to get paid as normal, and let others take the risk.

So there HAS to be a kickback scheme involved.

But nobody has ever produced one shred of evidence of any financial irregularities.

And don’t point at that Reuters story above – read it first, it explains why they have “links”. Their links are most tenuous, and quite innocent looking. Heck, I have links just because I own share in SPY, which includes some pharma companies. Most of you dear readers, if you have a 401K, or other retirement account, will have some shares in a mutual fund that also invest in Pharma. Are you involved?

How would that even work?

http://www.rense.com/general39/chhmit.htm

You may be astonished to find them ALL OVER — your skin. your rug, your mirrors (they seem ‘attracted’ to mirrors!)… They’re in the air, swirling and floating on the slightest air currents. Check your hair — it is exposed outdoors — it can ‘host’ hundreds! Your clothes can glow like galaxies of miniature stars are on them. ‘Dust’ on every flat surface in your home can be filled with them.
Some wave and squirm, almost as if they’re alive.”

This is something I noticed myself, when playing around with a black light. I also noticed a white t-shirt (and most white items of clothing) glow bright white. It’s part of the dyeing process that makes them white. Plus, laundry detergent glows white. The fibers from these things are the fibers that you see under black light.

It’s funny – they make the same case I was making before, fibers are everywhere, yet somehow reason escapes them and they attribute it to aliens and the government’s secret mind control chemtrail spraying activities.

Why is it not lint?

First of all, you can SEE lint on your clothes. You CANNOT see these filaments in regular light EVEN if you are looking right at them. Catch one with tweezers under UV light, keep a firm grip, and turn on the room light. It ‘vanishes’! Turn the room light off, turn the UV on, and it’s still there

That’s because it’s tiny! You can see it under black light because it emits light against a black background. when you turn the light on, it blend in with everything, as it’s so small.

Secondly, there were a lot of people in the 1970′s who owned UV lights of this type for illuminating posters and creating a party mood. No one from that era claims to remember this material.”

WHAT!? “Er, do you remember, going to a party sometime in the 70′s, did you happen to notice, when it was really dark and you were next to a black light, that there were these tiny fibers on people’s clothes?” – This is evidence of a vast government conspiracy? – that you can’t find anyone who remembers the fibers from a party in the 70s? Well, that could equally well be evidence that detergent manufacturers started using stilbenes in their detergent sometime between 1980 and 2000? Or, it could mean nothing at all. Or maybe that people who decorated with black light did not do much laundry. What do you remember from the 70s? What color were lava lamps? Did pet rocks have hair? Did mood rings work?

Thirdly – [...] all you need is a microscope [...] a known piece of lint [...] Note the twisted fibers — they look like rope. These are solid (not translucent), dusty-looking, and have bushy ends. [...] Now pick up a suspected ‘CT-UV fallout’ filament [...] They seem to made of some sort of prismatic flat filament that twists — extruded looking, about 1/3- 1/5 the diameter of a human hair laid side-by-side — obviously NOT fibrous

Total nonsense. Lint contains all kinds of fibers. Most of them are emphatically NOT twisted like rope, they are single fibers. Brushed cotton/polyester blend fibers also look like a “sort of prismatic flat filament that twists “. They are also about 1/3 the diameter of a human hair. Obviously fibrous.

And then:

No one posting at Carnicom seems to have access to a photography microscope. We hope that someone with access to such will post some photomicrographs

How unfortunate. Try the QX5, only $70
http://www.shopdigitalblue.com/product_info.php?products_id=101

Here’s some “photomicrographs” of lint. 200x and 60x. Note how there are ALL KINDS of fibers. Probably a few from my florescent white t-shirts. Note the white ones, kind of “sort of prismatic flat filament that twists “, don’t you think?

dryer-lint-200x-lit.jpgdryer-lint-60x.jpg

Fibers are indeed everywhere. Perfectly naturally.

UPDATE: Looks like someone got themselves a QX3/5 http://www.rense.com/general39/chem.htm
Strikingly similar to my photos, you think?

Somewhere herein, Patti said:
When certain hairs on your head and body move while ones right next to them are dead-still, there simply is no explanation except whatever the “pathogen” is that has invaded our bodies

Interesting. So, I resolve to investigate:

I look at my arm, it’s got a bunch of hairs on them, up to nearly an inch long. I blow on them, they move. I blow very gently, ONLY ONE HAIR MOVES!
armhairarrow.jpg

That one there. It’s a longer hair, kind of lonely out there on its own, it’s also a bit kinked.

So, here I’m theorizing, that hair is an older hair, that’s nearly at the end of its life cycle, it’s kinked because its internal structure is breaking down, making it lose rigidity. As it’s at the end of its life cycle, its root will not be firmly embedded in the follicle, in fact there is probably another hair growing, pushing it out.

I can blow very very gently towards that patch of skin, and I can’t feel the air movement at all. yet the hair still moves and occasionally a few other very isolated hairs move. Since I can do this, it seems quite possible that small air currents might do the same.

The point is Patti – there is an explanation as to why only individual hairs move. I was able to demonstrate this with just a few minutes of experiments. There are probably several other explanations as well. There is no need to go for the most complex explanation possible, just because you can’t immediately think of a simple explanation.

© 2012 Morgellons Watch Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha