The year was 2005. Under the guidance of Mary H. Schweitzer, researchers from North Carolina State University reported a groundbreaking finding.[1] The team had, according to its members, discovered bona-fide dinosaur tissue inside a femur bone that had once belonged to Tyrannosaurus Rex. The discovery was reported after Schweitzer’s team, working at a remote dig site in Montana, was forced to break the femur into chunks small enough to be transported by helicopter. Inside were pieces of rubbery material that looked like blood vessels and bone marrow. Eureka?
Although several scientists voiced skepticism of the possibility that what appeared to be soft, organic matter could have survived intact for over 70 million years, such concerns were set aside and the find was received as one of the year’s most stunning scientific discoveries.
Schweitzer and team continued to receive accolades from the scientific community until a team of scientists at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington decided to examine a fossilized turtle toe in the hopes of finding even more dinosaur tissue.
They cracked open the bone, put it under an electron microscope, and within minutes saw spheres reminiscent of blood cells, like those reported by Schweitzer’s group.
“We did the happy dance,” said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the museum and the leader of the group.
At first, the findings were similar to those of Schweitzer’s group. Subsequent analysis showed that proteins in the material resembled those found in birds, long thought to be close relatives of dinosaurs. Furthermore, when the team proceeded to dissolve the bone in mild acid, hidden tissue that resembled vessels and bone-forming cells seemed to form.
But as Kaye examined more fossils, he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone. Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years, he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz of Jagiellonian University in Poland. Sawlowicz identified the small spheres resembling blood cells as framboids, or iron-containing structures known to form in the presence of bacteria. The researchers also reported the presence of pockets of microbe-like shapes and tiny furrows that seemed to have been bacteria-blazed trails through the slimy substance.
At that point Kaye realized that evidence — and common sense — clearly pointed to the fact that he was not examining dinosaur tissue but rather simple bacterial leftovers. In fact, examination with light and electron microscopy led the team to conclude that the substances were most likely remnants of biofilms, or a structured community of bacteria contained within a self-made matrix. According to Kaye, bacterial biofilm colonies infiltrating tiny cavities in the bones long after the dinosaurs died may have naturally molded into shapes resembling the tissues they replaced. His theory is also backed by evidence derived from carbon dating which showed that the tissue-like material in one of the samples had formed around 1960 rather than during prehistoric times. Kaye published his findings in the online journal PLoS ONE two weeks ago.[2]
The finding sparked a strong response from the researchers who originally claimed to have found ancient dinosaur tissue. Schweitzer argues that there are significant holes in Kaye’s study, namely an explanation for why the protein in the tissue looks like that expected for a dinosaur. She added that her group has considered biofilms but has found no evidence for their presence. Errors in the current study “seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations,” Schweitzer commented to the press.
Kaye disagrees, claiming that between the carbon dating and electron microscopy there is little doubt that the “tissue” is nothing but biofilm sludge. “Believe me, I didn’t want it to be this explanation,” he said. “I would much rather have it be dinosaurian tissue.”
Other researchers seem hesitant to make a definitive statement about the controversy. “It’s actually quite common to find biofilms in areas where fossils would be formed,” said Frank Corsetti, an earth scientist at USC who was not involved in the research. “It’s an interesting idea, but the jury is still out.”
Is the jury still out? If it is, I’m not sure it should be. Consider the fact that Kaye found tissue-like substances in a number of fossilized bones. Now consider that biofilms and their remnants are being found in an increasing number of remote places, ranging from the human body, to oceans, even volcanic rock and glaciers. I think it’s pretty clear that Kaye’s explanation has the ring of truth.
This may be a case of Schweitzer letting her scientific judgment be clouded by the esteem accorded her. If so, this wouldn’t be the first time a researcher regarded as an expert has failed to admit error. There is a whole camp of researchers, including Dr. Michael Holick and Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who have built their reputations on a spurious premise: vitamin D is a near-miracle substance capable of curbing the incidence of an array of chronic diseases. Does this really make sense that a steroid-like substance could reduce chronic disease over the long term?
That vitamin D can only help chronic disease is one theory which hasn’t aged well. In fact, a growing balance of evidence says the opposite is true. Ingested vitamin D has been shown to deactivate the vitamin D receptor and suppress the innate immune system, and rates of chronic diseases are increasing even as we consume historically high levels of vitamin D. How has the pro-vitamin D camp responded to such contrary evidence?
Certainly not as well as one might hope. We continue to see papers, which go to extraordinary lengths to distort the evidence. Stephen Strauss deconstructs one such paper – Exhibit A in a long and uninterrupted pattern of denial.
The next time you are asked how the Marshall Protocol can hold water when the world’s top vitamin D “experts” still clamor for vitamin D supplementation, you may want to think of Dr. Schweitzer. Some things are simply too good to be true, and that goes for dinosaur tissue and vitamin D.
REFERENCES
- Schweitzer, M. H., Wittmeyer, J. L., Horner, J. R., & Toporski, J. K. (2005). Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science, 307(5717), 1952. [↩]
- Kaye, T. G., Gaugler, G., & Sawlowicz, Z. (2008). Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms. PLoS ONE, 3(7), e2808. [↩]
NEWS FLASH
Peer-Reviewed Papers
Essential Reading
Amy's Conference Presentations
Featured Articles
Patient Interviews
About Amy Proal
Amy Proal graduated from Georgetown University in 2005 with a degree in biology. While at Georgetown, she wrote her senior thesis on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Marshall Protocol.
Amy has spoken at several international conferences and authored several peer-reviewed papers on the intersection of bacteria and chronic disease.
If you have questions about the MP, please visit CureMyTh1.org where volunteer patient advocates will answer your questions. Another good resource is the MP Knowledge Base, which is scheduled to be completed within the next year.
8 Responses for "Dinosaur flesh and the power of denial"
I LIKE IT!:)
I was aware of the find of Dr. Schweitzer and was skeptical then…. I find this article very informative and intersting. Once again keep up the great work!
Golly, is it possible that the dinos were brought down by bugs and not a giant meteor?
Dear Phil,
Actually, it might not be the craziest possibility. At least with regard to this study, the impresison I got was that the dinosaur flesh had decayed and that the gaps around the bones were colonized by biofilm bacteria.
This is especially true since one of the samples was 30 years old, so obviously that particular biofilm had not been in the tissue when the dinosaur had been alive.
But thinking back on dinosaurs, it seems within the realm of possibility that they were also victim to certain pathogens, which were certainly evolving around that time.
Who knows — maybe the mega-cloud kicked up by a meteor impact could have had a negative effect on immune function potentially allowing pathogens the dinosaurs harbored to spread.
I really don’t think this is what wiped the dinosaurs out, but it makes for interesting speculation.
Best,
Amy
Looks like a lot of evolutionist obfuscation. There have been other finds of plants and tissue and bone and flesh.
Many so called “fossil” bones are actually bones. There is no way any organic matter can last 60 million years. The only alternative is Noah’s flood 4500 years ago . Fossils are carbon dating which is impossible if they were more than 100,000 years.
Diamonds carbon date – no way this is contamination or no carbon date could be right. The 200 year old religious cult of evolution is coming to an end. The discovery of the DNA information code should have buried evolution but they are so tenacious. There will be more irrefutable young age “fossils” found.
What about the supposed 250 million year old octopus dye find which is organic I presume.
Just ask yourself – how could a fish evolve into an air breathing land animal – how could billions of characters in its DNA code be redesigned into to that of a land animal by something like cosmic ray gene damage no matter how much time you give it. If you throw a watch against a wall will it turn into a mobile phone.
By the way I take plenty of vitamin D – in my diet and from the sun which can give 5000 IU’s in an hour of two. This is what my ancestors did.
Everyone knows there is a lack of this vitamin due to diet , sun creams , fear of the sun and avoidance of cod liver oil.
Perhaps all the vitamin D you’re taking is clouding your thinking. Perhaps in the name of being fair, you would care to read this article which addresses some of your expressed concerns with evolution.
amy, dont reply. that duder is gone.
Amy – just a quick one until I read the article.
There is a common misconception that natural selection is evolution – it most certainly is not.
Natural selection selects the most suitable genes for survival that are ALREADY in the genome of the
created creature eg the fastest zebra is still a zebra – it does not change its DNA code into that of say a bird. Similarly the white and black moths are still moths ( even although the experiment was a fraud it was an example of selection not evolution).
Evolution means that the actual design of the creature is being changed into another “kind” with something like cosmic ray damage to the genes.
Think about it how can random gene damage design (gradually evolve) the DNA of a deer like animal ( nat geog) into the DNA of a whale. It would need millions or billions of RELEVANT changes to the DNA code. How could “chance” design say the sonar of a whale and the billions of other changes it needs to chase squid 6000 feet under the sea – BY ACCIDENT ????
Natural selection would ensure that the little deer will continue to live on pine cones – this is what its
genome instructs it to do. No one has ever filled in the gaps of mechanism of these changes.
Natural selection only selects characteristics already EXISTING in the genome of the kind.
Random gene damage is neutral or negative it cannot design DNA into a new creature.
It is to do with a misunderstanding of probability theory – there is no chance no matter how much time is given of gene damage changing or adding to the genome. Want to try filling in the gaps of deer to whale .