Infestation! The incredible images that show the Alien-esque Life Forms that make up 90% of our bodi

Tardigrades: Water bears in space

"In 2007, a little known creature called a tardigrade became the first animal to survive exposure to space.

It prevailed over sub-zero temperatures, unrelenting solar winds and an oxygen-deprived space vacuum.

On Monday, this microscopic cosmonaut has once again hitched a ride into space on the Nasa shuttle Endeavour."

www.bbc.co.uk...

Here's an interesting website for close up photography.

www.eyeofscience.com...

Earth-borne bacteria is the exact reason I fear for any attempts to colonize other worlds. Could we ever really adapt fully to another world? Would the bacteria be similar? Just too many possibilities.

76% of statistics are made up on the spot.
That 10% is completely wrong. It's probably the other way around. 90% human, 10% bacteria.
But don't listen to the person who's taken many biology classes.

This has been known about for 60yrs at least - 90% by numbers - but then the relative sizes of human vs bacterial cells is enormous - so by weight - just a coupleof % of us is bacteria.

As for life on earth - most of the biomass is bacteria, as are most of the species and they have been around for 4 billion yrs, multicellular life only about half a billion yrs.

First of all, GROSS!

Second, there is no way the 90% bacteria statistic is true.

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for starters, so if you want to prove this to me I will need at least one or two reliable sources.

Besides that common sense should tell you that this is not true. I would be surprised if the body was made up of more than 1% bacteria.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

reply to post by IndieA

I think all three of us are saying more or less the same thing. Bacteria are maybe 1-2%, by mass or weight. But they are so darn small they outnumber human tissue 10 to 1.

So that means bacteria are 90% by quantity. It seems plausible to me, even if it would be nice to see a more reliable source.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


just to clear up a misperception,

these micro-organisms are not part of our bodies
they are passengers that outnumber the number of cells in our bodies by a factor of ten

we weren't conceived with them we start picking them up from mommy and then the enviroment


other passengers that are not useful [not symbiotic, but parasitic]
are intestinal flukes [flatworms] and Candida a yeast.

How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This
parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little
harm, causing only colitis, Crohn's disease, or irritable bowel
syndrome, or perhaps nothing at all. But if it invades a different
organ, like the uterus or kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of
harm. If it establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It only
establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people have
isopropyl alcohol (often abbreviated IPA) in their bodies. All
cancer patients (100%) have both isopropyl alcohol and the intestinal
fluke in their livers. The solvent, isopropyl alcohol, is
responsible for letting the fluke establish itself in the liver. In
order to get cancer, you must have both the parasite and isopropyl
alcohol in your body.
Flukes
To understand cancer you should understand the basic facts
about the human intestinal fluke. Its scientific name is Fasciolopsis
buskii. Fluke means “flat”, and flukes are one of the
families of flatworms. On the next page is a photograph of the
human intestinal fluke, made from a preserved and stained
specimen so all the details are visible. It is as flat as a leaf. The
parasite is not unknown, it has been studied since at least 1925.3

from:

The Cure For All Cancers
Including Over 100 Case
Histories of Persons Cured
Plus two revolutionary electronic circuits,
one to diagnose and monitor progress,
the other to zap parasites and bacteria!
Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D.,N.D.

Fractal existence

Originally posted by Bixxi3
Oh no. did anyone else get this weird uncomfortable feeling while reading this? almost like the microbes where suddenly aware i new they were there!

Absolutely spot on.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
these micro-organisms are not part of our bodies

No misperception here, but I think you have some serious misperceptions given the quack source you quoted. You can't weigh yourself without them so it seems like they are very much intertwined with our bodies from that perspective.

It might be more accurate to say that they don't share our DNA.

The Cure For All Cancers
Including Over 100 Case
Histories of Persons Cured
Plus two revolutionary electronic circuits,
one to diagnose and monitor progress,
the other to zap parasites and bacteria!
Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D.,N.D.

Any rational person would instantly know that nothing will cure ALL cancers. But I guess some not so rational persons might believe that. And you must be an extremely irrational or uninformed person to quote a book saying it cures all cancers AFTER the author died of cancer:

The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark

Clark Dies of Cancer

On September 3, 2009, Clark died of complications of multiple myeloma, a form of lymphoma in which plasma cells become overabundant in the bone marrow. As their volume increases, they destroy the surrounding bone, which releases large amounts of calcium into the blood stream. They also suppress the formation of other blood cells, which leads to severe anemia [26]. The diagnosis is usually easy to make because the affected areas appear on x-ray images as "holes" in the affected bones. The disease eventually kills by producing hypercalcemia, anemia, decreased resistance to infection, and/or several other problems. No cure is available, but most people benefit from treatment, and recently developed drugs have significantly increased survival times....

Although details are lacking, the above information suggests to me that Clark's life was shortened because she failed to seek timely and appropriate medical care.

There are too many examples of BS from clark to post but I suggest you read the quackwatch article and do a serious re-assessment of what you consider to be a credible source.

Makes you think twice about having intercourse, seeing first hand the writhing, messy, undulating exchange of mass colonies it really amounts to...

But seriously this is a great thread OP. It truly made me think about the interdependence which holds life together, like biological glue.

First off, I'm terrified of insects and anything insect-like.

After reading this thread and looking at the pictures, I find myself oddly fine with this.

Keep up the good work, lil guys.

reply to post by Sentience365


That's basically what the wife said. And then rolled her eyes.... ugh.

She likes the images/pic etc but doesn't want the thought of them all over her.

There is nothing alien looking about these critters. Thier ancestors lived on this Earth long before humanity came to being, and if anything it is we, not they, who look distinctly odd, when counted amongst the myriad bioforms which have existed on this planet.

Confirms what we already knew.....

Pretty interesting, although I was under the impression it was common knowledge that there was a ton of bacteria in our bodies.


Although I think the title of the article is VERY misleading. This makes it sound as if all the bacteria disappeared you would see a human that is a little lump on the ground only 10% the size. By living cell count they might make up 90% of our bodies, but they don't make up 90% of our actual bodies like the article's title states.

That's like saying if you have a skyscraper full of people, that people make up 90% of the skyscraper because there are more people than there are floors. All the people disappear the skyscraper is still here, just like if all the bacteria disappeared our bodies would still be exactly the same on a macro level.

The title is just a numbers game that conveys a message that really isn't true at all.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

...I suggest you... do a serious re-assessment of what you consider to be a credible source.

well i might've been inclined to do so,
except for the fact

that as a paladin of "reason" you are a failure.

as 2 ad-hominems do not a reasoned response make.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


educate-yourself.org...

Do you know ANYTHING at all about Quackwatch and the guy who puts up that web site?

No?

But you're ready to accept his words, his assessments, and opinions as honest and true just because they are printed words on a computer screen?

Here's a few more links you might want to read over before accepting the info presented at Quackwatch.

educate-yourself.org...

educate-yourself.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

www.quackpotwatch.org...

Hulda Clark did not die of cancer. She died at age 83 from complications resulting from a long term spinal injury. Even if she did die of cancer, so what? Does that mean that all of her reserach on cancer is negated and meaningless?

Everyone is going to die of something Adam. The idea is to try and live a normal life span , such as 83, instead of dying from cancer at 53 because you believed in the lies of mainstream, orthodox medicine (oncologists), their mouthpieces in mainstream media, and pharmaceutical disinformaiton shills like Stephen Barrett.

Dr. Bob Beck titled one of his lectures "Take Back Your Power". You should view it. He was addressing people who easily give away their power to others who APPEAR to be authoritative and APPEAR to know what they're talking about, but actually are PROPAGANDISTS out to DECEIVE you in the interest of disuading your from trying NON-PHARMACEUTICAL therapies .

educate-yourself.org...

You need to do MUCH more research before jumping to conclusions about Hulda Clark (or any other alternative health researcher or natural medicine advocate) based on the rank lies you might read from Stephen Barrett.

For starters, "Doctor" Stephen Barrett was NEVER a practicing physician. He USED to be a PSYCHIATRIST, but that was BEFORE HE LOST HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE PSYCHIATRY.

He used to have free rein on the internet for many years, slandering just about everyone and anyone who advocated nature-based medicine and others who were not interested in the pharmaceutical approach.

But then Tim Bolen stepped in somewhere in the late 1990s and began to challenge Barrett's garbage. That eventually led to lawsuits which Barrett.... lost,... big time.

Being a shill of the drug companies, however, does have its advantages. Those include hidden sources of funding and promotion to mount appeals and the like and flood the internet with scurrilous attacks on Bolen for having the audacity to out this rank ringer for the pharmaceuticals.

CRACKPOTS?

Yes. When the self-named "Quackbusters" stumbled around to find a derisive name to call their victims, they picked the word "Quack," without ever bothering to discover it's origins. Its original meaning, from Europe, comes from the term "quacksalver" which was used to describe Dentists who were dumb enough to use mercury (a poison) as fillings for teeth. Look at propagandist, and "Quackbuster" king-pin, Stephen Barrett's web site (quackwatch.com), and you'll find that HE IS IN FAVOR of mercury (amalgam) tooth fillings.

Barrett, his cronies, and minions, are not known to do intelligent research.

I'm glad most everyone liked the thread. Sorry if you thought the title was misleading..

It is the article headline.

I also learned a few things from your post. Thanks.