*selah* wrote:
>> The source is an article named "FUNGUS, The species specific understanding
> of, and difference between bacterial phase and fungal phase developments
> in blood pictures" which is on the web at:
>http://explorepub.com/articles/darkfield.html>
Ah ha! I took a glance at that article. Sure looks nice. Too bad it's
junk! While some of the information is OK, ther are sections that are
flat out wrong. So I start wondering who the author is and look at the
blurb on the bottom
The individual is a blood technologist as far as I can gather. I think
he is making a good faith effort to understand, but numerous mistakes
seep in.
Take home message. BE WARY OF WHAT YOU READ ON THE INTERNET! There is
great information out there, but any idiot can put up a page.
> The section I was referring to said: "Species of microorganisms which
> exhibit fungal variants in tissue (in vivo) are only microscopically
> visible in the blood as the most elementary and minute primitive spore
> forms, ranging in size up from approximately 0.15 microns."
That's alright. Fungi are microbes, some can exist as spores in the
blood. Bacteria are also microbes. Microbes IMHO are any unicellular
life forms too small to be seen with the naked eye. Others may have
their own defintion. However, fungi are not bacteria!
And then
> further on: "Virus is a primitive stage of development that all
> microorganisms share and this phase is virtually invisible in the present
> context of known light microscopy techniques."
Oh boy. Just ignore that.
-------
Cheers,
Timothy Paustian
Univ.of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/gradstudies/paustian.html
