|
Post by skizit on Nov 14, 2011 18:39:00 GMT -5
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CAN BE ADDED TO A LIVING ANIMAL I believe it to be able to remove electoactive biopolymers, fibers, elastic nanotapes in the throat maybe? I wonder about organ structures which have been replaced with synthetic materials. nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2010/07/horseradish-enzyme-used-to-degrade.htmlHorseradish Enzyme Used To Degrade Carbon Nanomaterials A method of degrading carbon nanomaterials includes mixing the carbon nanomaterials with a composition comprising a peroxide substrate and at least one catalyst selected from the group of an enzyme and an enzyme analog. The peroxide substrate undergoes a reaction in the presence of the catalyst to produce an agent interactive with the nanotubes to degrade the carbon nanomaterials. The peroxide substrate can, for example, be hydrogen peroxide or an organic peroxide. The enzyme is horseradish peroxidase or a myeloperoxidase. Inventors Alexander Star, Valerian E. Kagan and Brett Lee Allen (Pittsburgh, Pa) in U.S. Patent Application 20100190239 detail a method of degrading carbon nanomaterials includes mixing the carbon nanomaterials with a composition comprising a peroxide substrate and at least one catalyst selected from the group of an enzyme and an enzyme analog. The peroxide substrate undergoes a reaction in the presence of the catalyst to produce an agent interactive with the nanotubes to degrade the nanomaterials. The peroxide substrate can, for example, be hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 or HOOH) or an organic peroxide (ROOR', wherein R is generally any organic substituent or group and R' is generally any organic substituent or group or R' is H). In general, the agent is oxidative. The composition can, for example, be added to a system (for example, an environment or an organism/living tissue) including the carbon nanomaterials. In the past few years, the scientific world has made vast strides in developing applications for carbon nanomaterials (for example, nanotubes). Following suit, manufacturers and commercial plants have increased production of carbon nanotubes and other carbon nanomaterials to meet the increasing demand. Carbon nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes have, however, exhibited toxic effects, resulting in an increased risk in handling and use of these materials. Single-walled carbon nanotubes(SWNTs or SWCNTs) have, for example, been at the forefront of nanoscience research for a variety of applications including gas sensing, composite materials, biosensing, and drug delivery. While the latter two applications have been successful, there are reports of cellular toxicity induced by SWNTs. Specifically, oxidative stress and the formation of free radicals, robust inflammatory response, and even asbestos-like pathogenicity have been found as a result of the introduction of SWNTs into biological systems. As carbon nanomaterial production increases, the risk of environmental contamination is increasing. Such contamination can subsequently diffuse through aquifers and residential drinking water. As a result, precautions will have to be taken to ensure that the public, as well as the manufacturers, are safe from the toxic effects associated with these materials. While oxidative "cutting" of carbon nanotubes and other carbon nanomaterials by aggressive and toxic oxidizing reagents is commonly used in laboratory practice, such oxidative reagents are not generally suitable for use in the environment outside the laboratory or in vivo. Carbon nanotubes can also be destroyed or degraded by incineration. However, incineration requires the ability to locate, collect, and/or concentrate carbon nanotube samples from the environment, which is often very difficult or even impossible Unlike the known oxidative cutting of carbon nanotubes by aggressive and toxic oxidizing reagents, catalyst initiated degradation utilizes components which are substantially non-toxic and do not require aggressive reagents.
|
|
|
Post by glennb on Nov 14, 2011 20:49:05 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this. I am wondering about one thing though, Clifford Carnicom has published research showing that hydrogen peroxide causes the growth of Morgellons to explode. Does this method of destroying nano tubes present a risk to those who are Morg infected?
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Nov 14, 2011 21:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth67 on Nov 15, 2011 12:35:28 GMT -5
Thanks Skizit and well done. I am going to try this for sure.
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Nov 22, 2011 16:52:35 GMT -5
I don't think you can count on the research of Mr. Carnicom because it is not specific enough. The sugar in the wine or some other ingredient may have caused a surge of growth of something. The fibers in Morgellons don't act like that. They are highly engineered, very techno. Each has a specific purpose so when you talk about fibers in Morgellons, you really need to know its characteristics. The arthropods inject bacteria and many of the fibers come from this bacteria as bacterial spores--Bacillus variety.
|
|
|
Post by headbee on Nov 22, 2011 19:54:16 GMT -5
My experience with 35% Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide seemed to be helpful. Used 2 ways, would put it straight on a lesion and it seemed to "kill" it then the next day massage out debri with Olive Oil and tea tree oil. The internal treatment from Earth Clinic: 1 ltr pure water, 1/8 tsp 35% FG Ho2, 1/8 tsp Borax, 1/4 Tsp baking soda then drink it over the course of the day for several days on, then several days off. Only problem was I started getting burpy then my Iron level plunged. Not sure if it was the disease or from the concoction or combination. The lesions did get better while I was taking it. I got off of it, started taking Quinton, raised my Iron level and now the "Morg" activity has come back. Now back to trying Quad Zapper and Mucinex 12 hour. The ingredient in Mucinex is guaifenesin which is also a prescription treament for Fibromayalgia and removes Phosphates from the body, I am also now taking stronger doses of proteleotic enzymes. Just like all treatments, they seem to get immune and just have to keep changing it up. But I think melting and purging then out of the system should at least keep them at bay.
Also I was wondering if the Hydrogen peroxide does make them grow at an excellerated rate and they just "blow up" would that then interfere with thier cycle to reproduce??
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Dec 21, 2011 13:14:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't take the HP internally, just externally to clean a lesion. Unless I knew for sure what it would be doing and why I would not take a treatment, even like the one above. It could be more harm than healthful. I would question taking Borax internally as well.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 25, 2011 15:22:44 GMT -5
I have done experiments with adding oxidizers to the tap water [that is loaded with particles and tiny fibers] Most recent test involved adding hydrogen peroxide to the water that I ran through a 3 stage reverse osmosis filter. The TDS meter [total dissolved solids] meter indicates that the filter is doing a great job removing ions tapwater in ~350-360 ppm filtered water out: ~11-14 ppm however particles are still getting through and growing fibers in the clean water holding tank. I was adding H2O2 to every gallon of water that I dumped into the storage/dispensing tank at the rate of ~100 ppm. After all the filtered water was used, [~14 gallons] I removed a mass of white fibers from the tank. tinyurl.com/6vpp4sh---------------------------------------------------- Previous tests showed that adding MMS does not stop the fiber growth either; on the contrary, the fibers grew very quickly in the charcoal filter elements and in the "clean" water storage tanks. tinyurl.com/875et9xI had been taking MMS orally for a few weeks last year; gave it up when twice I expelled large blobs [total mass appx the size of half of a green pepper] of a fiber/gel. When dry, the mass looks just like a dirty dried out cellulose sponge. Add water, and if bloats into what looks like a slimy, dirty cellulose sponge. I concluded that rather than "killing" the particles and fibers in the gut, the MMS was fueling their growth in the gut, just like it seems to do in a water tank. ------------------ I also noticed that fibers grow very quickly in charcoal filter mediums that have no oxiders added. [PUR/BRITA cartridges] The fibers are growing faster in the "semi dry" charcoal than they do in water vials. It may be that access to oxygen in the air is beneficial to their growth. other observation: The quantity, size and growth rate of the fibers from the skin lesions is MUCH higher once they penetrate thru the skin and access the ambient air . The "scabs" at the surface are often totally riddled with fibers, while the fluid just beneath the scab may only have a few fibers. Possibly lower amounts of free oxygen beneath the scab may be slowing their growth. A similar process might explain why fibers found in the blood are so small despite the oxygenated red blood cells. ? [perhaps the fibers cannot access O2 in the hemoglobin?] ..not complaining, mind you..explosive fiber growth in the circulatory system would obviously have catastrophic results. -------------------------- speculation: Acetobacter xylinum is an obligate aerobe that produces cellulose fibers. The more free oxygen, the more efficiently is can synthesize the cellulose. If this organism is involved in the fiber growth, it would seem that adding oxygen to its environment [ MMS/ H2O2/free air] the fiber growth would be noticeably accelerated. ---------------- A. xylinum: Effect of pH on growth. ... "Growth of A. xylinum was found to be inhibited at pH. 7.0" [from: "Synthesis of Cellulose by A. Xylinum; page 285] link below a concidence?" I have found that the cellulose fibers in my urine appear to be heavily degraded at pH above 6.5 and are essentially non existent at pH at or above 7.0. The degraded fibers often appear to be "ectoplasmic"..without any real form, looks more like ghostly slime than a fiber; not really formed or crystallized. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC278131/
|
|
|
Post by toni on Dec 26, 2011 10:04:13 GMT -5
Hi Homeworld,
Great pictures and observations, thanks.
Also, I'm sort of wondering what kind of an R.O. you have, is it a PUR or Britta or one that hooks up to your faucet? I'm not understanding how even air can get into the R.O. equipment - unless it's just the "filtration" or filter the water is run through that's attached.
See, R.O's. and filtration equipment for clean drinking water for the home are not the same thing.
(I use to sell R.O's.) for under the kitchen sinks, that one has to have a separate faucet put in on top their sink as to allow for the dispensing of that water, just like our tap water has the faucet dispenser.
But "anything that hooks up to an already exisiting kitchen faucet" would then be a filter of some brand, and I'd tested "just about all brands on the market, and none of them filter water like the R.O. does" and they cannot be opened up for any exposure to air.
I was just getting puzzled reading your post, and trying to understand how fibers could grow in an R.O. but - I'm thinking you might be referring to "an attached filter" for your existing faucet, rather than an R.O.?
Thank you.
P.S. - just a thought about the MMS, ( if ) it causes acidity in the gut, that makes sense why much can grow, because fungi for instance thrives better in an acidic environment than it can in an alkalined environment.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 26, 2011 21:18:50 GMT -5
Portable RO system assembled from filter cartridges from Omnipure filter company. Three stage: KDF/GAC filter GE/Osmonics thin film composite reverse osmosis filter Carbon polishing filter pure-earth.com/pro.html.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 26, 2011 21:29:21 GMT -5
Photo of a sample of the kind of fiber mass that I was expelling after taking MMS orally for a short time. tinyurl.com/7nhhc2qThis weirdness of passing large masses of fiber occurred twice; at which time I decided it was a bad omen and stopped taking MMS orally.
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Dec 27, 2011 4:56:23 GMT -5
Homeworld: This may not be a result of the MMS. There are other people who have masses this size pass out after some sort of treatment. One lady described hers as the size of a rat.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 27, 2011 9:42:19 GMT -5
...I find it odd that I repeatedly observe accelerated fiber growth in water treated with MMS OR H2O2. ..here is a folder with a few pics from a 10 day test involving MMS added to distilled water. curezone.com/ig/f.asp?f=2793The distilled water came from the at home distiller which does NOTHING to remove the tiny [~100 micron] particles that sprout the fibers; they just ride the steam through the condensing coil and end up in the finished product. Tiny fibers in the tap water do the same thing. Despite being boiled into steam and the boiling process taking up to 5-6 hours to compete a gallon, the particles and fibers seem to be quite "healthy" and grow vigorously in the "clean water" tank. In the "whiteraft" close-up, a fiber is clearly seen at the bottom center of the pic growing out of the particle "raft". When the particle "raft" is stained, it is much easier to see the huge number of particles involved. They are forming the same sort of accretions that are constantly in my urine. The same "particles forming "rafts"/sheets"/"scabs" is happening in the lesions. My scabs are formed of countless particles clumping together into structures, just as they are doing in the distilled water. The chlorine dioxide test strip indicates that sufficient MMS remained in the water after ten days to be effective IF the MMS has any effect on the particles/fibers. The MMS may have an effect, but it is clear that it is NOT "killing" or inhibiting growth. On the contrary, it appears to be feeding them. The distilled water started out with microscopic particles, some of which are barely visible with the unaided eye if brightly illuminated. After ten days, clumps of several millimeters are visible...in addition to ~half millimeter pigmented gels. I suspect that adding oxygen [with MMS or hydrogen peroxide] is feeding "something" that uses oxygen to make fibers and gels. [...if an obligate aerobe that makes cellulose [A. xylinum] is involved, and is "force fed" oxygen, would it not demonstrate accelerated cellulose production? Not saying that this is happening, but the behavior of the particles is ...suspicious. *as a side note, I was routinely removing clear fibers in the 80-115 mm range from urine and stool about a year ago; before I wised up to the importance of maintaining a neutral pH. Since making an effort to keep the urine pH from crashing to the mid 5's; and keeping it somewhere near 7, the absurdly long fibers and large fiber tangles are not being produced. I find it interesting to read that the fiber production of A. xylinus is inhibited at pH's above 7.0. Maybe just a coincidence..but maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by toni on Dec 27, 2011 10:31:02 GMT -5
Portable RO system assembled from filter cartridges from Omnipure filter company. Three stage: KDF/GAC filter GE/Osmonics thin film composite reverse osmosis filter Carbon polishing filter pure-earth.com/pro.html. Thank you Homeworld. This is new on me, and I appreciate you showing me this, as I'm just of a super curious nature with everything, and because I'd like to try the same experiment too. I'll try the same as you did with our R.O. by adding peroxide to a glass of water, and see if anything "grows". Did you use equal parts of peroxide to the water and then cover it with saran or something? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 27, 2011 11:50:40 GMT -5
I was attempting to end up with appx 100 PPM [parts per million] hydrogen peroxide per gallon of water. and not make the measurements too fussy..since I was adding peroxide with every gallon of water I put into the two gallon "dispensing tank".
The idea was to kill any biologicals in the filtered water that were not disabled by contact with the GDF filter or removed by the other two filters in the RO system. The filter has a five micron filter, but it has been my experience that having a five micron or even a 1 micron filter does not mean that particles much larger than that can't get through. Filters can be imperfectly designed, seated, damaged or channeled. [ Long sad tale in there somewhere...]
I was adding one teaspoon [1/6 oz] of 12% H2O2 per gallon.
**at the risk of being tedious, will run thru the math to demonstrate the calculation.**
If one ounce of 100 percent peroxide were added to one gallon of water [and didn't explode, since 100 percent peroxide is extremely unstable and is used in rocket fuels] the mixture would be 1oz/128 oz; =~7,813 ppm. Only 1 teaspoon is being used; ~1/6 oz, so that 7800 ppm falls to 1302 ppm ..however the peroxide is a 12% solution, not 100%, so multiply the 1302 ppm by [ .12]=156 ppm.
I do not have the funds to be purchasing H2O2 test strips to verify the residual level in the water, but a daily bump to somewhere in the 100-150 ppm range should be maintaining sufficient level of oxidizer to kill organisms in the water.
[...of course if the "thing" is not really "alive"...and is simply assembling molecules in accordance with some program.. or the "thing" is an anerobe and is feeding on oxygen..all bets are off. ]
|
|
|
Post by toni on Dec 27, 2011 12:03:02 GMT -5
Thank you for all the info, and I understand what you mean with the peroxide and water. I'll put a large baggie I think over my glass of water with peroxide as to maintain some air in it for a few days and to keep out floating (naturally) in the air fibers and whatever else is in the air that I'm not aware of. Hopefully well...I'm just sure anxious to see what happens.
Years ago, when I had all my tests tubes and water kit to test water under all conditions etc, I saw that our R.O. was filtering water better than all brands of bottled water.
I remember the numbers, not that I remember what it's called (that test) forgot. But, nontheless, the numbers showed the ratio's and that's all I was looking at at that time (way before Morgellons was part of my life) but... for instance: The tap water right out of the kitchen faucet was at a 700 (in garbage in it) the usual (allowed governmental stuff). And many brands of bottled water were at a 4, meaning all those contaminants were drastically removed. And our Kinetico R.O. came out a winner at 2 in pureness. But...I don't know about the fibers, so I'm going to allow the R.O. water to sit in a glass within a large baggie, and then I'll add food coloring in a week and see if that food coloring adheres to anything within the water. I can't wait to see.
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 27, 2011 12:35:43 GMT -5
...your tap water may or [may not] have fibers in it. The fibers/particles/morg trash may not be evenly distributed thru all water systems. I have my suspicions that they ARE in all metro water systems since the sewage and the tap water are all tied together at the water treatment plant.
Those treatment plants are not designed to be removing ALL contaminants..that's why the level of pharmaceuticals keeps rising in the drinking water..[along with a LOT of other trash]. Folks get whacked with morgs, and shed fibers and particles into the sewer...those particles are escaping the rather basic filtration systems of the treatment system and end up in the drinking water.
The treatment plants are primarily focused on reducing a relatively short list of harmful bacteria. If those marker bacteria are low enough, the water is scored as "okey dokey"...and released. More people get "infected"..the stuff just keeps spreading.
This will all end rather badly for everyone..it's just a matter of time. ************************
meanwhile, back at the ranch, the tap water here is so loaded with gels and fibers that they are easily detected even without a microscope. With a microscope, it's pretty damn scary. ALL of the colored gels I find in/on what used to be MY body, I find in the tapwater, as well as the cellulose fibers and the "classic morg fibers" [the cylindrical "sugar snakes".]
Northern New Jersey tap water [and from what I hear, NYC water as well] is basically "sewage on tap". But hey, I get a paper from the city every year telling me how "clean" the water is. Hey, guys, that water is being checked at the discharge side of the treatment plant. You don't have a freaking clue what is going on in the hundreds of miles of old water pipes of the city system. And nobody cares...if you don't look..you won't find trouble. See no evil, thats the key.
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Dec 30, 2011 21:09:21 GMT -5
Homeworld have you ever tested distilled water bought at the store? What kind of fibers are grown with an oxidative process or redox reaction?
|
|
|
Post by homeworld on Dec 30, 2011 22:35:10 GMT -5
The only testing I have done with store bought distilled water was visual inspection with a microscope to determine the amount of fiber and particle "beasties" that lurked there. A depressing amount of...critters... were found in all brands tested. [4 brands, IIRC.] 2 examples: tinyurl.com/6o7p2h7 21 sept 2010 tinyurl.com/84bx4ys25 sept 2010 ...wallywater?..that would be Walmart brand .
|
|
|
Post by skizit on Dec 31, 2011 0:03:06 GMT -5
Thanks for posting. I think you must have an awesome microscope. What kind do you have? I don't have one. I have to depend on others for pictures. do you have any pictures of sarcoptes mites. They are so small, they can't be seen even if one was on your hand.
I found an interesting item at a fabric store. Its a UV light for killing bacteria on fabrics. It says you can use it on other things too. I wonder how it would work on water.
|
|