Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Nano Fabrics & GE Cotton Fibers?

Posted by IntertidalWoman on 02 Feb 2012 at 12:50 GMT

I find it distrubing that Kaiser acknowledged within the text of the study that they had been diagnosing members with Morgellons as delusional for many years, as I see no evidence in the study that the patients were delusional. The study would have had more credibility if the group studying the patients had not already formed an opinion of the diagnosis.

The study repeatedly refers to fabrics and cotton fibers, but omits any mention of the fact that fabrics and cotton fibers have changed dramatically over the past 10 to 15 years- roughly the timeframe of the majority of reported first symptoms. Many fabrics (anti-bacterial, Spandex) and personal care products (sunscreen, cosmetics) worn or used on the skin now contain nano scale materials. A Google search today for "nanotech in fabrics" produced 2,350,000 results. Since the study describes the fibers as being from fabrics, whether or not the fibers were from fabrics with new nano materials could be relevant.

With respect to the references to cotton fibers found, London based Institute of Science in Society reported on 4/18/06 that people in India harvesting, loading, weighting, ginning and storing Bt (genetically engineered) cotton are developing intensely itchy skin rashes. They did not get these rashes handling non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton contains an inseceticide, and is now widely used in cotton goods (clothing, cotton swabs, medical dressings) sold in the USA.
Because an intensely itching skin rash is one of the symptoms of Morgellons, and cotton fibers were found, it would be appropriate to examine the cotton fibers the study found to determine if they are from genetically engineered Bt cotton. Ref:

Also, the study mentions 80+ proteins found and examined, but did not name the proteins. Developers of a genetically engineered pea in Australia found that the pea produced an immune system response in mice, when exactly the same protein from a non-GMO bean did not create a response.
(Ref: V. E. Prescott, et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53)
They concluded that when sugar chains are added to proteins, this process, known as glycosylation, can influence allergic responses. The team used the sensitive MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry technique, and confirmed that the GM and non-GM proteins had slightly different glycosylation patterns. They believe that these subtle differences may be the cause of the immune responses. The GE pea was never marketed because of the risk of allergic reaction, but none of the GE foods approved and released in the USA are required to conduct this type of study. If the identical protein can create an allergic reaction in a GE food, but produce no reaction in a non-GE food, clearly what the protein is, and whether it is being produced in GE foods consumed in the USA, could be relevant to a skin condition similar to hives (itchy rash).

As a result of these new technologies; new nano fabrics, new foods and new materials in skin care product ingredients, saying that the skin artifacts were fabric and cotton fibers isn't enough. More relevant study questions would be: Were these fibers from nanotech fabrics and/or genetically engineered cotton fibers? and, Were the proteins found and examined from GE foods?

No competing interests declared.

RE: Nano Fabrics & GE Cotton Fibers?

illuminated replied to IntertidalWoman on 14 Feb 2012 at 13:02 GMT

Has any study been made on the bacterium used for genetic engineering,Agrobacterium tumefasciens and this condition? This report and others, report of cellulose fibres. Agrobacterium is responsible for Crown Gall in citrus and other plants, and has three genes on its DNA that are able to synthesize cellulose. That is how the woody gall is built, the home for the bacteria to thrive in and continue to invade other areas of the plant, with a hard fibril. Characteristics are attached to this agressive bacteria and these are moved on from cell to cell,changing the plant.The specific name describes its action, it makes tumours. A biological control bacteria was developed and sold in australia many years ago to hopefully control by displacement with a non agressive bacteria. I am putting forward the idea of a host range change. In other studies i have read this bacteria has been present in usually all Morgellons cases where pathology has been seeking to identify this bacteria. In Australia samples from sufferers come back with, for example; Substantial Unidentified Granular Refractile Material imbedded in skin. If some or many of the sufferers in this study were on drugs, were they on them twelve years ago? Perhaps when they've been disbelieved for that long, and suffered not only the belief that they are somehow inventing a disgusting condition, that they are supposedly rolling open wounds on the carpet to imbed strange fibres in their faces (often the face unfortunately), but that they are depressed, and tired, and suffering low self esteem,all prevailing symptoms, that their bodeis are exhausted from the many different antibiotics tried,mostly in vain?Anyway, just thought the two may link up, and hope for more studies that possibly take some of these factors into account.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Agrobacterium and Morgellons Connection

IntertidalWoman replied to illuminated on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:11 GMT

Yes, there was a small study (5 people with Morgellons), all of whom tested positive for Agrobacterium. A short quote from the paper is included below with details of the study. The full paper is available at the ISIS Institute website.

Ref:Global Research: Agrobacterium & Morgellons A GMO Connectionhttp://www.i-
ISIS Institute: Morgellons & GMO
ISIS Report 28/04/08
Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection?
Preliminary findings suggest a link between Morgellons Disease and Agrobacterium, a soil bacterium extensively manipulated and used in making GM crops; has genetic engineering created a new epidemic?

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins

The Agrobacterium connection
Vitaly Citovsky is a professor of molecular and cell biology at Stony Brook University in New York (SUNY). He is a world authority on the genetic modification of cells by Agrobacterium, a soil bacterium causing crown gall disease in plants, that has been widely used in creating genetically modified (GM) plants since the 1980s because of its ability to transfer a piece of its genetic material, the T-DNA on its tumour-inducing (Ti) plasmid to the plant genome (see later for details).

Citovsky’s team took scanning electron microscope pictures of the fibres in or extruding from the skin of patients suffering from Morgellons disease, confirming that they are unlike any ordinary natural or synthetic fibres (see Fig. 1, assembled from Citovsky’s website [8]).

Figure 1. Scanning electron microscope images of fibres from skin biopsies of patients with Morgellons Disease - a, white fibre with calcite, scale bar 10 mm; b, green fibre with alumina ‘rock’ protruding, scale bar 20 mm; c, various ribbon-like, cylindrical and faceted fibres all coated with minerals, scale bar 10 mm; d, skin lesion with fibres stabbing through the epidermis, scale bar 300 mm

They also analysed patients for Agrobacterium DNA. Skin biopsy samples from Morgellons patients were subjected to high-stringency polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for genes encoded by the Agrobacterium chromosome and also for Agrobacterium virulence (vir) genes and T-DNA on its Ti plasmid. They found that “all Morgellons patients screened to date have tested positive for the presence of Agrobacterium, whereas this microorganism has not been detected in any of the samples derived from the control, healthy individuals.” Their preliminary conclusion is that “Agrobacterium may be involved in the etiology and/or progression” of Morgellons Disease.

No competing interests declared.