Was wondering what your opinion is of darkfield/brightfield microscopy
compared to phase contrast?
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:01:19 -0500, Timothy Paustian
<paustian at bact.wisc.edu> wrote:
>*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
--
Remove iii from address to reply.
