Post has attachment

https://plus.google.com/b/102695178434291118215/102695178434291118215/posts

STATEMENT: PHYSICIANS AND PHYSIOLOGISTS DELIBERATELY SABOTAGE NEURORESEARCH BY CONFISCATING MEG SCANNERS AND PREVENTING NEURO-IMAGING & EXCHANGE OF NEURO-FOOTAGE

Urgent call to MEG owners and producers: place MEG's under authority of EXACT SCIENTISTS - as fast as possible.

After a year of bumping into physicians, trying to MEG-scan insomnia relevant neural processes we (Insomnia Client Foundation) dare to make this statement.

Clients (like we/ICF), exact scientists and - very important - NASA are only waiting to get hold of MEG scanners and research.

Biologically and physically talented people, like physicians and physiologists, are very afraid of totally loosing the lead once exact scientists, physicists and electronical engineers get hold of MEG imaging. Because 'once MEG', electricity and mathematics are in the lead. The way of 'thinking in electricity' totally matches exact scientists and leaves physicians and physiologists nowhere - because of their unmountable backlog and lack of talent for mathematics.

Also, the way research is done in exact sciences is much more varied and quite different than in inexact sciences as medicine. Inexact sciences always work with a hypothesis, SPSS and 'squeezing out' a just above the line significant 'correlation' in order to publish an article.

Research in exact sciences can work quite differently:
1) sheer observation, for example: of MEG footage
2) 'eureka' moments of immediate insight, that lead to a formula that immediately explains the phenomena. With not an 'explained variance' of 20% but 99,9%
3) cause and effect thinking: what comes first and causes what. Inexact scientists first find correlations, then guess about cause and effect. Exact scientists think in 'cause and effect' right from the start
4) immediate understanding of the mathematical behavior of one parameter across the whole brains / body / even universe. An electrical engineer (university level of course) immediately grasps the working of the brains as electrical circuit as a whole - while average physiologists only describe voltage of a neuron, and the passing on to another neuron explained by tens of chemical processes - not being able to - for an additonal total standpoint - forget about chemicals and see the total electrical working of the brains. 
5) not studying still pictures or a fixed moment in time, but studying development OVER time. This means: studying STREAMING VIDEO of MEG imaging instead of separate and still photo's. This of course also includes computational neuroscience, whereby phenomena are modelled and checked over time, which gives far better results than performing research at a fixed point in time with a hypothesis, hoping to find an explained variation that is on the verge of significant in SPSS terms.

Some readers may ask: 'Why does ICF/why do other exact scientists FIGHT against physicians? It is about overall progress, no?'. 

No it is not, at the moment. We dare to say that physicians (grosso modo) currently maximally slow down MEG research, exchange of MEG imaging footage, MEG observation by exact scientists and maximally keep away exact scientists and patients from MEG scanners.

So far we see this as very grave strategic blunder of some MEG manufacturers, as also Elekta (!), and in a way a 'crime against humanity': withhold research that could relieve human suffering.

Physicians' MEG tactics usually involve the following:

1) place MEG's in hospitals, where they are the boss

2) place MEG's in neurological departments, where neurologists MIGHT see the value added of MEG but prefer to remain loyal to other medical specialists instead of facilitating research

3) talk about 'clinical indication'. That superficial language comes from the clinical guidelines - per illness a few PDF pages that every nurse could follow and execute. This is not best practice, it is cheapest and most simple practice, totally obstructing research.

4) exercising authority over the subject being researched - often a human being...but rats or cats also being interesting.

5) take photo's or scans only - never streaming video, as this would immediately bring exact scientists in advantage

We CALL for the following solution:

a) place MEG's OUTSIDE hospitals

b) make an exact scientist - or eventually economist (!) - responsible for MEG exploitation

c) measure the amount of MEG time used per year - there are 365 days of 24 hours in a year, which makes 8760 hours of MEG footage a year. Of course, any manager will already be happy with 50% of effective use, but that still makes 4000 hrs of footage per year.

d) publish a), b) and c) of all MEG's worldwide

e) maximally use volunteering of humans and animals (?; latter with question mark). That is to say: social media with insomnia communities of 40.000 people, ICF etc. can generate loads of people who are prepared to be MEG-scanned AND are prepaired to sign legal waivers (!)

f) maximally use legally friendly zones. For tax purposes certain islands of the world are very 'friendly' - the same holds for legislation regarding observation of neural activity in humans. Observation of neural activity is NOT medicine, and is certainly NOT intervention, it is just observation - like a biologist observe birds, a NASA engineer can observe neural behavior in the brains of human volunteers (insomniacs or others).

g) invent and install a system whereby exchange of STREAMING VIDEO of MEG's is rewarded and strongly facilitated. Streaming video is probably more important for future neuro research than still images. Besides, with the right resolution any streaming video can be paused to study still image.

We know above statement is sharp, but after years of hiding the above needs to be SAID. We are prepared to be the first to say it, and to 'lead the revolution' regarding the shift of authority in MEG research. This shift of authority is not only in the interest of exact scientists, but also in the interest of the suffering part of humanity.

Anyone who openly or more confidentially likes to collaborate with us on above issue is most welcome to contact us on info@insomnia-clients.org. We are not afraid of taking the role of 'bad guy' in order to make the right shift happen.

Philippe Blankert, Chairman ICF - Insomnia Clients Foundation,info@insomnia-clients.org, June 6, 2013

Post has attachment
First two questions, then the relevance.

1) Making a MEG scan of a small, inner brain part is possible: see the MEG scanning of the amygdala amongst others in 2010, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-12197-5_77#page-1

The amygdala measures around 1 inch.

Does anybody know whether we can already approach the MEG scanning of 0,5 inch, the size of the VLPO?

2) Do you know where 'volunteers with money' can have their amygdala MEG-scanned?

This would enormously a) help MEG scan manufacturers b) patients, in making the diagnosis. For a good explanantion of the main mental 'disoroders' in relationship to MEG scans of the neuroscience, see Chapter 11 of 'Emotion Regulation and Psychopathology' by Kring and Sloan, 2010, The Guilford Press New York.

The diagnosis has also enormous impact on a) disability attests b) treatments.

It looks, as so often, that research & scan manufacturers, and the top of patient organisations have to seek eachother in order to FORCE revolution amongst MD's. MD's are (generally speaking) holding up all dissimination of research.

From treatment point of view, the same order of magnitude (half or whole inch) is the precision currently achieved by time-varying magnetic induction (for neural activation).

Any comments are most welcome on info@insomnia-clients.org

Philippe Blankert 16 October 2013

Post has attachment
For interested: welcome to the BRAIN ENHANCEMENT community

https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/113631066026259208138/communities/106117321656949478453

Brain Enhancement

is the next step after BCI - Brain Computer Interface.

Brain Computer Interface is usually interpreted one-sidedly: to interpret SCN signals in order to let them carry out something that brain or body is missing.

But think a step further: what if a human being wants to ENHANCE brain performance? For example: become more intelligent, refine the taste, sleep deeper, by being WIRELESSLY connected to a computer - perhaps a neural computer?

We here disregard any ethical issues, just imagine that money, technology and the right neurosurgeon are present:
- what functions would a human being like to enhance?
- how would the wireless connection to the 'enhancing' computer be?
- could the human being wirelessly connect to the right internetaddress and livestream the enhancement? (listen Beethoven not through your ears but from bitstream to innerbrain neurons?)
- could human beings be wirelessly connected?
- could one human being decide to take control over the other - for example: a good sleeper wirelessly connect to an insomniac and thereby pass on the right neural signals for the insomniac to fall asleep?
- to what extend could an external enhancement compete with the 'last control' of the SCN?
- can external memory make sense, for memory of own experiences, or experiences/knowledge contained in the Enhancing Computer?
- could someone choose a dream-URL before going to bed?

This area of BE - Brain Enhancement - stimulates phantasy and technology. It is not the aim to get lost in 'impossible science fiction', but to apply realisting technology to a human being who likes, for the pleasure of life, to enhance one or more brain functions.

Nowadays implants are - in many states - only allowed when 'life is at stake'. Take that barrier away, think of a coconut country island where Brain Enhancement is allowed - what would you offer? What would be popular?

Welcome to our discussion community!

Philippe Blankert 14 March 2013

Page: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/113631066026259208138/113631066026259208138/posts

Post has attachment
NEURONS TRANSPLANT TO CURE INSOMNIA?

Who would like to CO-operate with Insomnia Client Foundation regarding the transplant of sleepinducing neurons in case lack of VLPO neurons or in case of lesions?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121012102117.htm

Wait while more posts are being loaded