It is now appropriate to disclose the circumstances involving a laboratory report on an airborne filament sample that was paid for in the year of 1999. This report was issued jointly by three separate companies and they shall remain anonymous at this time. It is now appropriate to present this information as the conclusions of the report are undeniably false. Whether or not there was intent to misrepresent the facts of the case is not to be discussed in this paper; the purpose is to disclose information that is relevant to the public interest and welfare. The laboratory was hired and paid significant monies to analyze and identify the very same airborne environmental filament sample that was sent to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during this same time period of 1999-2000. The failure of the EPA to identify that sample is adequately documented in this site. This report will chronicle the events that surround this affair.
A continuing discussion of the characteristics of filament samples discovered by Clifford Carnicom and others is presented here. It is reiterated that an environmental source, at least in part, for specific biological organisms that are under scrutiny in association with the so-called "Morgellons" condition, has been identified. This source is the unusual airborne filament sample that was sent in June of 2000 to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for identification on behalf of the public welfare. This particular and same sample that was sent to the EPA has been successfully cultured and reproduced, and the culture growth exhibits the identical biological organisms, structure and chemistry of certain biological filaments that are under extensive study in association with the Morgellons condition.
The different cultured structures discussed above are described and pictured within this work as well. They are:
1) An encasing filament structure (containing an internal network of sub-micron filaments)
2) A chlamydia-like organism (Chlamydia pneumonia)
3) A pleomorphic form (Mycoplasma-like)
4) An erythrocytic form (red blood cell).
This paper discusses the finding that there is essentially identical form, size and structure between the airborne filament samples that have been reported on extensively over the years in connection with the aerosol operations, the morphology of at least one characteristic Morgellon's fiber and with a series of blood anomalies that have recently been documented. The three main topics and their critical points outlined with supporting graphic images in this critical paper include: 1) Morgellon's fibers and skin samples - At least one characteristic fiber form from the Morgellon's condition contains within it a rather remarkable and extensive sub-micron fibrous network. 2) Blood samples - There appears to a remarkable coincidence of form and similarity between the internal structure of the Morgellon's skin fiber and the anomalous form in the blood of the same individual. 3) Airborne fiber - The latest microphotographs, at much higher magnification than was originally available in previous Carnicom papers, of the airborne fibrous sample that was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for identification. This now clearly implicates and questions the role and relationship of the airborne filaments to Morgellon's and the blood conditions that are currently under research.
Stories of three different scenarios where testing laboratories terminated services for those seeking knowledge of the makeup of samples sent to them are told in this paper. One was for a concerned citizen who had a rainwater sample tested, and had sent the results to Clifford Carnicom, which were published on the Carnicom website. After publication, this particular lab refused to do further testing for this individual, and gave no indication as to why they had made such a decision. Carnicom himself had a similar situation occur when he had an atmospheric fiber sample tested by a different lab...services were terminated when the results of the lab report were challenged and refuted in a personal visit by this Carnicom. Upon making the first two of nine contradictions known to the principal of that company, this owner stated that "this discussion is now over".
A third encounter happened when the career of a state criminal forensic scientist was threatened when an interest was expressed by that individual to assist in the identification of a certain atmospheric fibrous sample. It was stated in that case that the career of that individual and all post-retirement benefits of the forensicist would be terminated if any involvement in identification were to take place. The act of laboratory identification was never completed.
This page contains a letter sent to the Carnicom Institute by a citizen in Indianapolis, IN, stating that he had discovered new insurance exclusions to his homeowner policy. The first one is a ‘Pollution Exclusion’ that waives coverage for pollution and its effects. The actual exclusions are included on this page. From the Pollution Exclusion: “Pollution, in all its various forms, has become a major problem in this country. However, we don’t yet know the full extent of the problem, or the losses and damage that may result from this hazard.” The second exclusion is the ‘Communicable Disease Exclusion’. From this exclusion: “This endorsement states no coverage is provided under the liability coverage section of the Homeowners policy for injury arising out of the transmission of a communicable disease by an insured.”
A case is made here for the need to have independent testing and verification performed of current atmospheric particulate counts in the United States. The basis for such a need includes; the repeated observations of the decline in visibility in the US (which is directly related to particulate concentrations), the unwillingness of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adequately address concerns of countless citizens regarding atmospheric degradation by aircraft aerosol operations; the US National Weather Service’s reduction of visibility reporting standards from a maximum of 40 miles to a maximum of 10 miles; the apparent limitations of access to post-1998 public data base files that involves direct atmospheric monitoring by government bodies such as NOAA’s Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory; and the newly released 1999 US mortality statistics showing an increase in chronic lower respiratory deaths. A theory of light scattering is discussed to be used as an initial estimator of atmospheric concentrations of particulate data, with example cases used to illustrate how such models can be used to estimate these
This page contains the letter from the Environmental Protection Agency stating that it is not the business of the EPA to test the sample that had been sent to them 18 months prior, asking that an analysis be performed on fibrous material that had been collected after aerosol operations.
Claims by sources that include the EPA, NOAA, FAA and NASA that contrails, or water vapor trails, may persist for extended periods under conditions of higher relative humidity are taken to task in this Carnicom work. Working from a foundation Carnicom calls the “Relative Humidity Thought Experiment”, Carnicom develops the reality that the rate of evaporation of the contrails is inversely proportional to the humidity in the atmosphere. Carnicom develops a mathematical model to test this idea, and shows that even at high levels of relative humidity, the effect on the evaporation times is generally insignificant and minor. The truth now includes overwhelming evidence that the populace has been systematically subjected to a covert, extensive and sustained project of aircraft aerosol dissemination without their consent.
This work contains fiber samples collected and more pictures of fiber samples that were sent to Carnicom from a witness in Joseph, Oregon on October 2, 2000. These samples are identical in both appearance and characteristic to those discussed in previous Carnicom papers. All four samples collected so far have been reviewed under a microscope, and these new samples are identical to those that were sent to the US EPA. These samples have been found to contain significant biological components.
This letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Senator Jess Helms, on behalf of one of Helms’ constituents, yet again obfuscates the reality of aerosol programs, and provides the typical denial of these programs as being normal ‘contrails’.
This paper discusses the aims and missions of the US EPA with respect to protecting human health and safeguarding the natural environment. The US code covers the establishment of standards for aircraft engine emissions, mitigating international effects of air pollution by the US and other countries, the need for public notification in the event of known hazards and pollution, and the prevention and remedying of the impairment of visibility which results from man-made air pollution.
Another letter from the EPA claiming to be unaware of aerosol operations is included in this paper, despite the initial notification of accumulating evidence on the aerosol spraying on December 9, 1999. This is one of several communications from the EPA claiming to be “unaware” of any such activities. At this time, Carol Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, also refused to acknowledge the existence of a physical sample sent to her by certified mail on June 20, 2000, along with the refusal to identify the material in this sample.
A letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Clifford Carnicom states the intention of the EPA is to not analyze the samples sent to them by Mr. Carnicom previously. Rather, they attached their same letter of refusal from earlier in the year that describes their view that aerosols and such programs do not exist, and that it is normal contrails that are showing in the skies that people are reporting.
A copy of a certified letter sent by Clifford Carnicom on June 9, 2000 to Carol M. Browner, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is attached in this paper that outlines how Ms. Browner has been negligent in not investigating and analyzing hazardous biological samples sent previously to the EPA that pose human health risks. This letter makes clear that Ms. Browner and the EPA are responsible for reporting to the American public, and having not been forthcoming with an interest to look into the requests for sample analysis, Ms. Browner and the EPA are to be held accountable for the lack of integrity of the EPA.