I am not sure where you get your info Tooty, but I cannot make a comparison with looking at your videos and seeing a small blebbed spirochetal structure as the climax and then watching my 1000s of micrographs. If all your years of study has led to the finished product that the videos on your site represent, than I am not sure if trying to be over-critical of anyone or act as a microscopy expert is the best idea. There is no room for pride when it comes to helping our children. There is a pause function on Youtube, so you could always pause my videos if they are confusing. Some of the few people in the original microscopy online clique need to be less critical and try to stop advancements in microscopy that are going on all over the world that we and all our children need. It is the reason that those who have made some major breakthroughs do not typically go on them, lest they be subject to the tribunal of naysayers that have never filmed most borrelia forms or come up with a method to catch them. I am not going to post on this site anymore, as I do not have time and am involved in too much.
John, we all want Bb research to move forward, and I appreciate your efforts. Sincerely I do! But I think all of us amatuer microscopists recognize the fact that we are limited with the techniques available to us. None of us have at our disposal proof-verifying reagents such as Fluorescent antibody stain which is the gold standard when it comes to direct microscopic verification. Every chronic Lyme disease patient seeks true recognition of this horrific disease, and that is probably half the reason why each of us amatuer Borrelia microscopists started into it. I did/do not seek fame nor do I propose to be an expert. I try to help where I can. And, just like you, I simply want the truth to be known. But we will not garner any respect and credibility if there are discrepancies in our methodology. I cannot exactly prove that the things in my pictures or videos are what I think they are, and I am
open to correction on any one of them. But, any person with a bit of common sense can look at the elements in the frame and get a pretty good idea of at least the context because of some universally recognized elements (such as red blood cells). This gives a very good comparison for magnification. Red blood cells are almost always 6-8 microns in diameter.
Furthermore I recognize the possibility that what I see in my Acridine Orange stains may or may not be pathogenic since AO indiscriminately stains ALL DNA/RNA and ALSO stains other objects such as fibers. So I take that into account by only calling something pathogenic when I see clear established morphology. I still could be wrong, but morphology gives me a real basis for my claims.
MORPHOLOGY AND MAGNIFICATION are essential! Without those elements anybody can propose anything. This does not help our cause. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to morphology. I recognize the fact that most pathogens can change forms depending on their environment. But if there are no universally-recognized elements in your micrographs and videos to give a magnification comparison, then all bets are off. Unless.... you can show clear examples of distinct morphology change such as a typical or atypical spirochete that undergoes a change to the L-form morphologies you are proposing.
An example of morphology change is shown in this video by "thatdudefromkansas":/www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH3fGVndMYo
"Jackss" has also shown some videos where he documented morpholgy change. And, he is doing some credible and incredible
work with Acridine Orange. /www.youtube.com/user/BorreliaStudent
I definitely want Lyme (and the coinfections) research to move forward, and will be the first person to recognize other's work when it moves the research forward. Thanks!