posted
You might get this impression with respect to the criticism professor Morten Laane got last year. Norway’s leading expert on microscopy (b. 1940) was, in the media, even accused of presenting artifacts and trash science when revealing his research done together with the zoologist Ivar Mysterud in their search for answers to what is causing chronic disease in humans after tick bites.
✓ The retired biologists Morten Laane and Ivar Mysterud were subject to heated debates in the Norwegian media last year due to their use of microscopy as a tool to examine blood from people who have become chronically ill following tick bites.
✓ In this interview Morten Laane deepens central aspects around microscopy. In the previous interview Ivar Mysterud presents his view of the criticism.
✓ The microscopy methods used have deep historical roots, however, are now considerably improved for detailed observations and digital recordings of bacteria and parasites which reside in red blood cells.
✓ Everyone can easily look through a microscope; however, it demands great and time-consuming work and experience to become decent at microscopy. An understanding of the mechanisms of the microscope is required, and the person executing the microscopy needs to possess interdisciplinary experience when interpreting what is observed in the specimens.
✓ Studying the presence of microorganisms in blood is thus demanding.
✓ In comparison to other test methods, microscopy shows the immediate situation in a specimen.
✓ Laane rejects the criticism that they have not observed real spirochetes (spiral-formed bacteria) and co-infections in the blood of patients sick after tick bites. The structures are not protein fragments from blood cells during decomposition, by some called pseudo spirochetes. He has techniques to distinguish beyond any doubt the difference between spirochetes and pseudo spirochetes and has filmed spirochetes that actively move in and out of red blood cells. Laane also finds it incorrect to call anything pseudo spirochetes and he challenges the argument from opponents suggesting that general basic concepts of blood micro- biology may be wrong.
✓ Laane is equally strong in his persuasion that microscopy is an invaluable tool for studying blood of people who have become chronically sick after tick bites. The results from a new, ongoing research project might indeed become useful for this group of patients.
-------------------- KarlaL Posts: 694 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
poppy
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5355
posted
The same people who criticize microscopy probably are still saying the earth is flat.
Posts: 2888 | From USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic