Homeworld, A while back on CureZone you presented some pictures of nematodes from urine; did you use the vortex method of collection ? It is difficult to imagine they would retain their shape having spun through a centrifuge. I'm still wondering why lab techs aren't seeing more or are there just fewer of us than we think? I would like to do more urine studies. Just today, UPS brought a larger version Celestron which I'm about to open and hopefully learn how to work. sage
...a few difficulties answering your question...
I have never identified any of my posted pics as "nematodes".
Others may do so, but I haven't. I have seen just about
any and all things "morg" identified as "nematodes"..so I
am at a loss as to what pic you were looking at.
I have..[..several hundred] pics posted at CZ by now..so guessing
at what you were looking at is...a bad strategy.]
Perhaps if you grab the url of the pic at CZ and post it here?
** as to centrifuging...it's surprising how ineffective
low speed 'fuges can be with some debris.
If an object is neutrally buoyant, you can spin for an hour and still not
move it toward the bottom. There are much faster machines
than what I have, but this one only cost me ..20-30 dollars on Ebay.
[mine is a low speed [3,600 rpm] unit but it can hold six 15 ml samples]
Most of the urine samples are gathered using the "bernoulli swirl"
technique..quick, easy, no centrifuge time and no vials to clean.
...of course this only works if you HAVE particles to swirl. For the
less obvious slimes and gels, the centrifuge is your friend.
..as for the "lab techs" not spotting this weirdness..
a} if the urinalysis is of the "standard analysis" it is entirely
automated. [I used to run a Cirrus analyzer to do functional testing
of the circuit boards that were being made for..Cirrus analyzers.]
The urine sample arrives, it's loaded into the proper vials/receivers/carriages..
the proper buttons are pushed...collect the
data in a few seconds. No one is staring at the sample under a
microscope. I have handed off urine samples loaded with morg threads
and other trash and get a "squeaky clean" lab report via the urine chemistry analysis.
Twice I have been betrayed by doc's that
I had instructed to get a microscopic analysis of the urine..only to
receive the standard "Chem" analysis..and then told that they could
not help me. [the docs knew there was something freaky going on
with the urine, I had shown them samples in vials before requesting
the "microsopic analysis". The docs didn't want to deal with it...
do a sleight of hand with the Chem test.."see, nothing wrong with
the urine at all...now,..get the hell away from me".
One doc looked at the sample I gave him , full of threads and whatnot..
dipped a "10 in 1" chemstix in it..and declared it to be "perfectly normal".
[wtf? those ultra fine hairs are NORMAL to you? ] and your stupid
"chemstix" test means jack squat..I use those at home on a daily basis...
and they cost about 15 cents..not the $35.00 you charged me for
a "urine test". He was NOT interested in sending it out for a micro
analysis..he just wanted me OUT of there. His "deep thought"
moment was giving me a prescription for anti scabies meds.
[there was NOTHING in the skin lesions that remotely suggested
scabies...just another "shot in the dark" by a clueless doc.]
....Dear doc, scabies mites don't make millions of tiny fibers that I
showed you in the skin sample vial. Scabies mites dont leave the
same fibers in urine. Scabies mites don't melt skin into goo.
But hey, you got your 35 dollars for dipping a piece of paper into
urine and declaring it to be normal. [buh bye, duck...er..I mean..quack]
Now if this sort of treachery is going on at a large scale with morg
patients..it would really cut down on "evidence" that "something is
really wrong out there". It also does not help when any foreign
object that looks kinda like "thread" is summarily dismissed as "debris
from clothing/underwear/lint". The really annoying part of this is
that the ultra thin cellulose fibers [20 micron dia] are in fact, cellulose..
just like the cellulose fiber in the all cotton skivvy shorts and undershirts
so making the distinction that fibers in the urine grew in the body and
did not come from the clothing..instantly makes you sound like a
loony toon. After all, everyone knows that human biology does not
make cellulose fibers.
It is crazy making that the docs are refusing to carry out a simple
request for labwork to have a qualified microbiologist/pathologist examine
a sample. "It's not necessary..you are fine". [Hey, demigod, you are not
qualified to make that call...you declaring the crap in the urine to be
"clothing fibers" does not make it so. And how in the hell does someone
artfully extract 20 micron fibers..[not clothing THREAD] to plant in
a urine sample in the 30 seconds it takes to get the sample?
It amazes me to find out how skilled the "loony morgs" are in implanting
fake evidence deep into the skin...or other samples. Where are
these microscopic objects being farmed? Where are the "loons"
getting their microscopic surgical tools? It all this crap is being
stuffed deep into the skin with homebrew micro tools, where are the
raging infections that should be developing?
...the theory is that "doctors are intelligent"; it's not
necessarily so. The ability to engage in memorizing huge quantities
of data just long enough to pass the medical
school exams from semester to semester
really is not a sign of "high intelligence. It is a sign of good
memory management/data recall...but intelligence goes far beyond that.
Highly intelligent mental activity [..can we say.."genius"?] involves
the ability to make associations between seemingly non-related information/observation.
"Doctoring" as being practiced now is
much more of a "cookie cutter/ match the colors and shapes" sort
of activity; at least among the GP's. Match the symptom to a drug
in the PDR, roll the dice, write an Rx..cross fingers. Wash/rinse/Repeat
and collect the "taxi fare" for every stop along the way.
IMHO, MD's ceased to be physicians when they put away their
microscopes and stopped doing ANY research on their own.
Everyone must be a specialist now..only the pathologists
are qualified to look at a slide] Back in the day, every doc had
a 'scope that he could take a quick look through.."just to see"
if there was a "snake in the grass".
Precise identification as to "which species of snake in the grass"
was still the province of the pathologist...[but at least the "snake
spotting tool" was available in the doc's office, and they knew how
to use them.
In general, I am running into far too much "strategic stupidity" from
the "doctors" to believe that they are simply "confused". I have
observed NO curiosity from any of [12?-13} docs about what is
causing these bizarre symptoms. All their maneuvering has been to
enable them to maintain a stance of "plausible deniability". The
"Sgt Schultz" defense. " I see nothing...
All evidence is brushed aside. Derms don't look at skin with anything
other than their feeble non aided eyes. "The patient is doing this to
themselves...scratching their skin off..it's all in their head."
If my cat were clawing at his skin and creating lesions, my veterinarian
would not declare the cat to be suffering from the delusion that
there was "something" crawling under his skin..the vet would be
investigating the host of possible irritants; not simply blunt the cats
brain/nervous system with drugs. The vet would be INVESTIGATING
the mystery...
but then, my vet has one of them "old school" microscopes...and uses it every day.
[..pet due for annual exam?..bring a stool sample with you..
swab out a bit too much earwax?..he drops some on a slide and
checks for "critters".]
He might not able to spot the "snake" instantly, but he would
be LOOKING for the cause, not IGNORING it.