|
Post by skytroll on Mar 22, 2007 22:21:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Mar 23, 2007 1:40:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Mar 23, 2007 8:27:25 GMT -5
Time to ask a logical question--why are precious gems and metals sought after?
Because they are pretty, that doesn't quite make sense, there are a lot of pretty things in this world that folks don't die to acquire. I would look to what purpose they serve----- Diamonds are used for cutting, besides being attractive, what about the others, hmmmm?
These metals and gems are being used in nanotechnology, are we the first to know of this? Gems and precious metals have been long sought after, true or false? If true than what did our ancestors use these items for? If not them than who? Why do I ask these questions on a Morgellons board? What does Morgellons have to do with precious metals, hmmm?
If nanotechnology = Morgellons If precious gems and metals = nanotechnology than one might deduce that there is indeed a connection with precious gems & metals and morgellons.
As skytroll has pointed out in the post that was made regarding prions and it being used as a building component, and I would suggest to you that other biologicals can be used as well. Helping to lead to something that is difficult to define, many variables here that often tax a medical person or scientists brain. If they have lost the ability to use basic logic, than what are they doing in their position?
I do know the labs were calling and requesting more of the machines to test on, go figure.
The fact that it is hitting a certain marker on the DNA that seems to have a connection to the basque folks does suggest a genetic hit. How dare you be born with those designer jeans, it is obviously your fault!
whiterose
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Mar 23, 2007 12:47:34 GMT -5
Maybe this legislation pushed through by the thought Mr. Shelby may have a link to specifics that is mentioned in the last sentence. FOIA......not here in Michigan, where these little carbon particulates are showing up everywhere. "Ill-advised 'freedom' of scientific information 11 February 1999 Nature 397, 455 (1999) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd. The sharing of data by researchers ought to be encouraged. But a compulsion to release raw data and notes in current US openness laws is the wrong way to achieve it, as is a proposed amendment. The principle of granting maximum public access to government records, as embodied in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), is a sound one which has strengthened democracy in the United States, and from which secretive regimes elsewhere in the world have much to learn. However, a new law, passed last October, that would shed similar light on scientific records, threatens to undermine academic research, while contributing nothing to open government. Like so many of Washington's finest ruses, the new legislation was passed in the dead of night, without hearings or outside consultation. Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama) had it quietly inserted into last October's unwieldy, 4,000-page omnibus spending act, as a prerequisite for the funding of the White House's small but powerful Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The sponsors of the measure were apparently concerned at the time about the unwillingness of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health to release raw data behind an epidemiological study of the health effects of small carbon particles ('particulates'), which was used by the Environmental Protection Agency as a basis for regulation. EPA closes library to get around this legislation of FOIA? Some thinking here folks? Scientists and their secrets? This was back in 1999 www.mad-cow.org/~tom/99feb_mid_sci.html#cccSkytroll
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Mar 23, 2007 13:28:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Mar 24, 2007 15:53:07 GMT -5
bump!
|
|