Chemtrails And Red Blood Cells -
Medical Specialists Say 'No'
By Margareta-Erminia Cassani</ A>

Note: These special links have been set up for this article. Please use them to view special photos that accompany this story.
All photos referred to in this story are available at: /special/page2.htm
Recently it was reported that red blood cells were found in "air particulate matter" via a testing method called "electrostatic precipitance testing" [re: Chemtrails: Red Blood Cells Found, February 20, 2001, and] and that this was further proof that chemtrails is a process of aerial biological testing being carried out. Another similar report followed [Chemtrails: Blood Cells found in Snow Samples,, March 4, 2001] which spoke of finding "unnatural" blood cells in snow. Members of the medical and scientific community were invited to look into these findings. As a member of the medical community for over 20 years, and having worked on the chemtrails/sky pathogens issue for the last 2- 1/2, I did just that.
These reported "blood cell" findings both intrigued and baffled me. Intrigued me in the sense that it seemed a new twist in the chemtrails mystery that was perhaps being revealed but baffled me in the sense that everything that was stated about these blood cell findings did not medically or scientifically jive with what I knew to be true about blood cells in general.
To begin with, the report of findings of red blood cells in environmental air samples - "air particulate matter" is a curious circumstance in and of itself as red blood cells (or any type of blood cell for that matter) generally will not stay suspended in the air long enough to become part of an air sample, i.e., it will fall relatively quickly to the ground where it would more likely become a ground sample. You may, if you are quick enough (as was relayed to me by a hematologist), catch red blood cells from an "air" sample if, for instance you are in a slaughterhouse where lots of blood splatters get into the air on a regular basis and are positioned with your air sampling equipment to catch some of this blood spatter as it is momentarily in the air. Or, there is also a remote chance of catching blood cells in the air if you are near a barbecue at the time of your air sampling where animal meat is being roasted and some of that blood gets into the smoke. Another possible catch of blood cells in an air sample may occur in an environmental setting where dead animals or birds are present and their decaying corpses might yield some blood cells that are blown about in the wind, but, again, youíd have to be pretty quick on the draw to catch them before they again fell to the ground. Excepting circumstances like these catching blood cells in an "air" sample is not likely and makes it questionable from this perspective if the biologic matter in the samples were blood cells at all.
Having spent 3 years in the Surgical Pathology department of a large teaching hospital where I live, I had worked with human red blood cell morphology and was familiar with its presentation under regular microscopy and under electron microscopy. I had seen human red blood cells, fixed on slides many times and was familiar with their distinctive appearance. However, when I looked at the photos that Mr. Carnicom posted on his site of what he believed to be red blood cells ( , I immediately questioned that these were blood cells at all, and if they were, they were not likely human blood cells unless they had been very poorly prepared for the slide and their most distinctive tell-tale features had been lost. Human red blood cells typically present differently than what is seen in these photos and aggregate together in "plates" or like coins piled together (see figure 1 photo).
Mr. Carnicom stated in his post that his findings, as viewed on slide, represented the typical "double concave" (or what usually is medically termed "biconcave", see Figure 2 electron microscopy at ) presentation of a red blood cell. Looking at the photos of this material, I can see what might be the slight appearance of biconcavity, and what might lead someone else to think so as well, but it also appears (to me) to be a stain anomaly rather than a true biconcave structure. It is noted that iodine was the staining medium used to identify these cells under microscope. This is not the ideal stain for blood cells and can greatly distort their appearance.
Typically, a stain containing methylene blue and eosin (brand name Giemsa) is used for blood cell staining which can be made or bought cheaply at any laboratory supply facility. In addition, the report does not mention if these blood cells were fixed before staining, a procedure you must do to prevent the cell from exploding in a process called osmolar "shock". If the cell explodes and you look at it under a microscope it will look different than it should. Blood, in order to be viewed accurately under microscope, must be fixed with a 95% ethyl alcohol solution before staining with Giemsa. Fixing in this manner stabilizes the cells and prevents them from exploding. Details of prior fixing procedure are not stated in Mr. Carnicom's testing parameters.
Mr. Carnicom's report also suggests that consideration might be given to alternative species. This consideration, I feel, would be more fruitful as what is seen in these photos do not appear to be human red blood cells. However, they may be cells from some other mammal (dog, cat, rodent, etc) as the tell-tale nucleus in the cell which is the marker for avian blood samples is not present in these photos. However, the fact that they were stained with iodine may account for the fact that you cannot see the nucleus should it be avian blood.
Unless I missed it, Mr. Carnicom does not state in his post/report that these blood cells were identified by a hematologist or pathologist or any other medical personnel qualified to identify human red blood cell morphology under microscope. It appears, by what is stated in his post, that Mr. Carnicom himself was the person who made the call on these samples as being "red blood cells". If that is not a correct assumption, I would ask Mr. Carnicom who did the analysis of these samples and what is their professional capacity to render such an opinion?
If Mr. Carnicom himself analyzed these samples and thought them to be red blood cells, I would ask him why did he not take these samples to either a pathologist or hematologist, after his preliminary look, to either confirm or deny his initial analysis of them? I am not completely familiar with Mr. Carnicom's background, but if he does not have the medical knowledge or qualifications to accurately identify human blood cell morphology under microscope, I am unsure, as perhaps many readers are, of what his expertise in identifying human red blood cells (or any blood cells) would be. Certainly the relatively low testing costs of identifying 3 slides under microscope by a blood specialist would be worth the definitive corroboration they could have lent to Mr. Carnicom's findings and if they could not have corroborated his initial findings, than I would think that too would have been worth knowing.
Mr. Carnicom's report further states the measurements of the red blood cells found were in the 4-6 micron size and that this would represent desiccation, or drying, (as if to suggest these "blood cells" could have been freeze-dried for aerial dispersal?) of the blood cell. It was also stated that normal red blood cells (human) are 7-8 micron size. In most hematologic literature, it is noted that normal human red blood cells are typically in the 5 micron size but can vary in size especially if they are abnormal macrocytes (larger) or microcytes (smaller) due to some disease process. So the fact that Mr. Carnicom's "red blood cells" measured in the 4-6 micron size do not indicate that they are a desiccated variant of a normal red blood cell. Many plant and other cellular structures are also in the 4-6 micron range. (see Figures 3 and 4 for normal red blood cell photos at l/page2.htm)
Another point I would like to make regards the viability of human red blood cells, that have been exposed to air, to infect another human with any possible pathogen that blood might contain. There is a minute margin of infecting anyone with any possible pathogen contained in blood that was exposed to air. Why? Because blood cells die upon exposure to air. This is why blood samples are contained in sealed Vacutainer blood vials, or blood bags within blood banks, so that no air gets to the blood. Therefore, the idea that red blood cells are being rained down in the open-air, via chemtrails, on the American public for the purpose of carrying out some biological testing that can and will infect people with some pathogen is a wholly illogical assertion that is not supported from a medical standpoint.
Any aerial program that would include such testing would be an astronomical waste of time and money. Red blood cells simply die too fast upon exposure to the air in order for them to be successful in infecting anyone with any possible pathogen, especially viral (there are some reports out there that HIV is being circulated via chemtrails. This is ludicrous if you know the facts of how HIV is transmitted). For infection via blood product to take place, there has to be blood to blood, blood to body fluid, or blood to mucous membrane, or blood to open skin transmission in order for any chance of infection to take place. This is why it is dangerous for a person to be sprayed or splattered with HIV, or some other virus, containing blood - not because it is sprayed into the air itself, but because of the possibility that during the "spray" some of it will get into the eyes, the mucous membranes, an open cut on the skin, the mouth - and a blood/body fluid transmission of the virus could take place. However, even this scenario does not automatically mean that a person will contract HIV, or any other viral illness, through this type of accident. The chances are small, however, they are there. The chances are small because the time the blood is exposed to air outside the body makes it less likely that the blood, or any organism it may be carrying, will survive. Air is not a conductor of any blood borne pathogens, hence the term "blood borne". HIV is a blood borne pathogen as is Hepatitis C and some other strains of Hepatitis. A little education and a lot less hype and hysteria is needed here regarding how infection via blood occurs.
However, keeping an open mind, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Carnicom's assertions of his findings and so copied the photos from his site and sent them to 3 independent doctors, one a hematologist and two pathologists - both fields of medical analysis who would know the characteristics of red blood cells and how they appear under microscope, inside and out. By the way, the websites listed below contain excellent photographs and educational information regarding red blood cell (and blood cell morphology in general). I suggest all readers peruse these sites and learn further about blood cells. Here are both the letters I wrote to and the answers/comments received from those three specialists:
Dr. ___________(this source wishes their name to not appear in this article) Hematologist, Itzhak Rabin Medical Center , Tel Aviv, Israel:
My question: Dear Dr. _________, I am a medical researcher/writer involved in an environmental toxin problem. A person took some sampling of "air particulate matter" and claims that when put under a microscope with an iodine stain, red blood cells appeared. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at these photos of these supposed blood cells and tell me, in your opinion, if you think they are human red blood cells and if not could you hazard a guess as to what they might be? Could they possibly be some type of animal blood? They don't look like any human red blood cells I've ever seen but I was wondering if maybe the iodine stain distorted them somehow? I would appreciate any help you could give me regarding this matter. I found your website on the internet and picked it at random to avoid any bias that someone might claim in my asking a hematologist to give their opinion on these cells. The 3 photo/samples are attached below: Thank you for your help and your time.
Doctor's answer: Dear Ms. Cassani, I can't make a diagnosis of the round particles presented in your e mail [photos] as red blood cells. It seems unlikely that RBC would be found in the air (unless taken at a slaughter's house). One may need to know the magnification the images were taken. In addition, they may be compared with RBC taken under the same conditions. Furthermore, you may consider checking the spectra of the particles in distilled water and look for the 540 absorption band of hemoglobin (or 630 of methemoglobin).
Dr. Joel Bentz, University of Utah, Pathology, ARUP Labs,
My question: Dear Dr. Bentz, I found your name listed on the ARUP site and am contacting you to ask you for a small amount of your time/effort. In the three photos I submitted to you, can you tell me if these appear to be human red blood cells, or blood cells at all? I am a medical researcher working on an environmental problem. A person who took some "air particulate matter" samples feels that the analysis of them revealed "red blood cells". These do not appear to be red blood cells that I am familiar with. I am wondering if it is some kind of plant or pollen cells and the iodine stain that person used colored them in such a way that the person thought they were red blood cells. Can you help identify these for me? I chose your site at random off the internet so as to avoid any bias that someone might suggest in my asking a pathologist to identify these. Thank you for any help you could give me.
Dr. Bentz: In sample #1, the rounded structures might be erythrocytes. They have somewhat of a biconcave disc morphology. Samples #2 and Samples #3 do not look like erythrocytes (in my opinion). It is common in cytology to encounter material in clinical samples that mimic biologic material, but they are not. I would be extremely cautious to render any definitive opinion about these samples containing human-biological material based on morphologic examination. You would do better at verification using biochemical analysis. For instance, you could analyze for the presence of hemoglobin in these samples. Hope this helps.
Dr. Edward Uthman, Diplomate American Board of Pathology, Houston/Richmond, Texas: thman/blood_cells.html
My question: Dear Dr. Uthman: I am a medical researcher working on an environmental toxin project. A person has done some "air particulate matter" sampling by a procedure called "electrostatic precipitance" and feels that they found red blood cells, perhaps desiccated ones, in it. I am sending you the photos of the purported red blood cells and asking if you can identify them as such as they do not appear to be any human red blood cells that I have ever seen. Can you help? Thank you for your time and consideration.
Dr. Uthman: I don't know what the structures shown are, but they are definitely not dried blood cells. After being spewed into the air and collected on a charged surface, they would be no longer recognizable as blood cells by routine microscopy. If he were really interested in determining what they are, he would have to employ some sort of sophisticated analytical chemical tool to look for hemoglobin or other specific chemical marker. Jus sticking it under the microscope doesn't cut it
My question: Could you please answer, too ...can blood cells survive outside? It has always been my education and belief that no, blood cells cannot survive outside in the "air"...true?
Dr. Uthman: They can survive outside the body, but only under proper lab conditions (a blood bank, for instance). If they were sprayed into the atmosphere, they would die very quickly.
As a medical person experienced in drawing inferences/conclusions from certain objective testing parameters, I also did not see how Mr. Carnicom (or anyone else) could glean that anything found in this particulate matter tested came out of a chemtrail. I did not see the connection (nor was a connection clearly explained) between what was found in the particulate matter (the supposed red blood cells) and where it came from - purportedly a chemtrail - and how that conclusion was arrived at. I wanted to know, how did Mr. Carnicom's electrostatic precipitance test determine that the sample he obtained came from a chemtrail if chemtrail aerosol was not specifically tested? I don't think anyone would agree that simply finding particulate matter in the air would automatically enable us to point the finger at chemtrails as their source of origin, just as we could no sooner point the finger at chemtrails if animal feces were found in a birdbath.
For a direct corollary inference to be made, with a high margin of certainty or even probability, one would have to test chemtrail aerosol proper, not an aggregate of some particulate matter that just happened to fall from, or be present in, the air at a particular time some testing was done. It could be that at the moment that air particulate matter was captured that blood cells from an injured animal, or bird, were being blown about. The testing mechanism itself , electrostatic air sampling, however accurate it might be in testing air samples, would fall short, then, of drawing that direct corollary between what was being tested, what was found and the conclusion that those particular findings came from a chemtrail. Unless, and until, chemtrail aerosol itself is captured and tested and red blood cells (or whatever chemical or biological agent), are found, testing air particulate matter, or anything that may be present on the ground, or in rainwater, is not necessarily an accurate testing procedure to determine what is present in chemtrails themselves.
If we're going to look at findings from a purely medical/scientific perspective, we must also, then, examine the possibility that red blood cells (if indeed they are truly red blood cells, which they do not appear to be) somehow got into the sample of air particulate matter that was tested, whether it is human, or other mammalian, avian or reptilian, and not assume that because it was gleaned from an air sample that it definitively came from a chemtrail. This is faulty logic at best and undermines, rather than helps, the case of determining what chemtrails truly are and what their purpose is. However good and accurate the testing methods are, results that have many possible explanations coupled with faulty conclusions do not hold up legally and, medically and scientifically, to quote Dr. Uthman again, 'doesn't cut it'.
CONCLUSION: All of us want to know what is in chemtrails aerosol that is causing the kind of symptomatology that many of us have experienced - the lingering cough, the upper respiratory symptoms, the "chemtrail flu", the runny eyes, the sore throat, etc. This is especially crucial information in light of the claims that Mr. Carnicom has made regarding his findings, i.e., that these "red blood cells" are proof of biological testing via chemtrails. This is a far and extremely dangerous leap of speculation based on a rudimentary analysis of "something" found in air particulate matter that shows absolutely no correspondence to chemtrail aerosol at all. The fact that the sample was "air particulate matter" does not automatically correspond to it being a by-product of chemtrails aerosol. To date, no one has captured or tested chemtrails aerosol proper, nor has any spectrographic analysis been done on them to obtain a chemical signature of them. For Mr. Carnicom (or anyone) to put the idea into the mind of readers, many of them already horribly scared by what might be in chemtrails aerosol, seems dangerously irresponsible when he has performed such a spurious analysis to begin with and the opinion of "red blood cells" was not rendered by a medical professional, and at least 3 professionals who specialize in the study of blood have said "no" these photos do not look like red blood cells, although one thought they might resemble them.
How many mentally and physically fragile people out there will read Mr. Carnicom's proclamations of "proof" that chemtrails are a biological testing program and perhaps commit suicide or otherwise harm themselves or others in some kind of public gun attack, or bombing, or the like, fearing the worst, i.e. that their country is performing dangerous biological testing on United States citizens via raining down red blood cells on all of us to infect us with something? To those of us in the medical community who work everyday to save lives these type of incendiary statements fall into the reckless endangerment category and is tantamount to crying "fire!" in a theater. I for one would ask Mr. Carnicom to turn his considerable efforts and his obvious very high intelligence toward helping look for the real Chemtrails answers rather than obscure and muddy the picture with more hysteria producing "biological specimens" of questionable origin that do not hold up under professional scrutiny.
The following website contains excellent information and photos of blood cell morphology in all its types.

From Brenda Livingston
Dear Erminia~
I applaud you for your dedication and work in the area of low and high flying dispersals and "droppings" from the sky.
While I would agree that we concerned lay persons should be very careful in drawing absolute conclusions in this "area" of "chemtrails" or persistent contrails (which I choose to refer to them) investigation, we also need to be open and helpful to one another if we are ever to make headway in understanding clandestine projects in our atmosphere.
I think we are looking at a multitude of explanations -- and a multitude of projects taking place in our atmosphere and sky. We may find one piece of evidence which suggests biological material..another that suggests chemicals or powders or synthetic silk-like polymers... and yet another that suggests micro-sensors and robotics. I feel it important to diversify our studies and focus upon our interests...all are of equal value in understanding atmospheric phenomena.
The idea of sending preliminary findings to three purported experts in biology/medicine is a good one -- provided that these findings and observations are one's own. The fallacy here is that what is shown in those microscopic photos the physicians are relying on may have been distorted through technique or are an incomplete example or accounting of all samples and observations.
Sending the original samples for examination and biochemical/chemical testing (for hemoglobin and other possibilities) by trustworthy experts would be an most important step. Perhaps Mr. Carnicom will do this on future samples. It seems reasonable and fair to encourage him and others to do so.
I do agree wholeheartedly that we cannot make assumptions that all air samples near ground or ground samples are in any way connected with persistent contrails. And it is important to keep in mind that there is a great distance between most PCs and the ground-level air and the ground observer.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that there are all kinds of pollutants around us which can contaminate samples and cause harm and symptoms to the population (e.g., pesticides, construction aerosols, factory pollutants, etc.).
It would also be most important to attempt to identify and eliminate these variables before assuming the cause of flu-like or chronic health problems is raining down upon us from 10-30,000 feet. In addition, if intentional spraying were happening, it would likely be from low-flying private-looking aircraft using an invisible spray.
Obtaining both direct contrail samples with immediate analysis or samples from an aircraft displaying nozzles would be the best means of proving an association.
Unfortunately, all this does take coordination, funding of the projects and the enlistment of cooperating scientists and investigative reporters/or other brave souls willing to take risks (health and other) to uncover the facts.
Within all the storm of indignation contained in your article, I noticed a comment made my Dr. Bentz which I feel was not fully recognized or dealt with:
"Dr. Bentz: In sample #1, the rounded structures might be erythrocytes."
My understanding is that erythrocytes are "red blood cells"? I would think that this statement might spark further inquiry.
The crux of your argument that the "cells" found in ground samples and the air particulate in electrostatic precipitance testing collected by Mr.Carnicom could not be erythrocytes because they are fragile and would dissipate quickly or simply fall to the ground.
We must be reminded that with the exponential development of advanced technology, there just might be other explanations consistent with the observation of erythrocytes in these types of samples.
C. Ropars et. al. have written an interesting book "Red Blood Cells As Carriers For Drugs" explaining the advancements in the technology allowing resealed erythrocytes to act as carriers for drugs and enzymes. One might also consider this repackaging as a potential vehicle for other less helpful and perhaps harmful substances in the atmosphere.
Adding to the idea of "vehicle" packaging of various substances as a possibility of what Mr. Carnicom and those enlisted physicians might be viewing... it appears that Sanguine Corporation and other R&D facilities have discovered a synthetic oxygen carrier blood replacement...made of Teflon. Other synthetics are being currently tested.
It occurs to me that a synthetic erythrocyte might have some characteristics of one of biological origin and could certainly be capable of withstanding the effects of air and the environment...and could contain any number of substances.
Now just my bringing this to public attention does not make it a fact...but this kind of investigative thinking and sharing just might stimulate more light on this dark subject.
While I agree that we cannot simply jump to conclusions, I am thankful that there are those who are willing to look at this area and expend their time and energy in searching for what likely has a multitude of "answers".
Appreciation For All PC/CT Investigators
Brenda Livingston
Living-Tracer Enterprises

This Site Served by TheHostPros