valME // en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2019 04:47:10 -0500 <![CDATA[ My Own Personal Nothingness - From a childhood hallucination to the halls of theoretical physics ]]> “Nothing will come of nothing.”(William Shakespeare, King Lear)

“Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.”(Blaise Pascal, Pensées, The Misery of Man Without God)

“The… ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous as the view to be developed here will eliminate [the condition of] absolute rest in space.”(Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies)

My most vivid encounter with Nothingness occurred in a remarkable experience I had as a child of 9 years old. It was a Sunday afternoon. I was standing alone in a bedroom of my home in Memphis Tennessee, gazing out the window at the empty street, listening to the faint sound of a train passing a great distance away, and suddenly I felt that I was looking at myself from outside my body. I was somewhere in the cosmos. For a brief few moments, I had the sensation of seeing my entire life, and indeed the life of the entire planet, as a brief flicker in a vast chasm of time, with an infinite span of time before my existence and an infinite span of time afterward. My fleeting sensation…

Sat, 19 May 2018 15:29:00 -0500 c_prompt
<![CDATA[ Killer viruses - should we make them? ]]> We all have previously learned about the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918, which killed between 20-40 million people worldwide in our history classes. Now with the advance of modern molecular biology techniques, it is entirely possible to create a new "killer virus" with the potential of igniting another global pandemic.

That's exactly what virologist Ron Fouchier and his team from the Netherlands did, and now they want to publish their results. By publishing how they succeeded in creating a new highly virulent flu strain (an altered strain of H5N1 that is easily transmissible via aerosol between ferrets), this scientific knowledge may inspire additional attempts to recreate this strain for bioterrorism acts.

Dual-use research has been debated for its usefulness to modern society; is it worth the risk of an accidental outbreak when it could potentially lead to the development of life-saving vaccines? The definition of dual-use is research that may offer some public health benefit, but could also be used for more sinister purposes such as bioterrorism.

As a molecular microbiologist who has previously worked with several dangerous pathogens, I have encountered many research projects that could be considered dual-use or, in more common terms, "a double-edged sword." Some examples include filovirus virulence studies, using non-human primates (NHP) to determine the lethal dose of a specific strain of Ebola or Marburg virus. Without truly understanding the disease mechanism and pathogenesis of a dangerous organism, it is difficult to construct a vaccine without a specific target to address.

In that respect, I support what Dr. Fouchier and his team attempted; however, it would depend whether their facility has extremely tight security and stringent laboratory protocols to prevent any mishaps. In this regard, my expectations and those of the international scientific community should be that this H5N1 strain be stored and worked on within a biosafety-level 4 (BSL-4) facility; the highest bio-containment designation for infectious diseases.

With the potential for a possible outbreak of this virulent airborne H5N1 strain and with research being conducted with other potentially pandemic viruses, an international risk assessment system was previously proposed in order to approve experiments that may be considered "dangerous" to public health. However, these efforts thankfully failed to develop, allowing researchers more scientific freedom, since most countries do not have formal regulations to review studies before they begin. On the contrary, the U.S. has several institutional review boards who may approve or deny an experiment from starting depending on several factors, such as whether the study has been previously conducted, budget costs, animal safety, and scientific relevance, to name a few.

While scientific freedom has always been the main goal for many, it is entirely the researchers' and the host facility's responsibility to ensure that the proper bio-containment protocols are in place before, during and after the research is completed. At the same time, it is the international scientific community’s and the general public's responsibility to make sure all questions are asked and answered in satisfactory detail regarding the overall safety of public health when experimenting with potentially pandemic viruses. While the international scientific community can verify these details via internal review boards and possibly even the formerly proposed risk assessment system, non-scientific individuals within the general public do have a chance to ask questions online via scientific ethics communities. One specific website called the OEC (Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research) provides specific cases and scenarios of questionable scientific ethics for study. Another community, the Union of Concerned Scientists, tackles scientific integrity issues while also providing information how awareness can be made of specific issues.

Although this specific H5N1 example is being touted as the "next possible pandemic flu," bacterial and viral genetic studies have always been investigated ever since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA. As long as these bio-containment protocols are (hopefully) in effect, the general public need not worry.

In conclusion, while some people may denounce Dr. Fouchier's H5N1 work and demand that it should never have occurred in the first place, I, for one, applaud his creativity and determination in order to unlock clues about H5N1 virulence that were previously unknown. With these ground-breaking virulence studies, we are better-equipped and more knowledgeable about which genetic targets to pursue for future vaccine construction experiments. The ultimate key for success lies in conducting these experiments in safety, under the correct corresponding conditions and bio-containment facilities.


Original posting by ChaseTheMorning on Dec 1, 2011 at

Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:02:02 -0500 braincrave


But then there's love...














True Love



<![CDATA[ An interview with David Eagleman, neuroscientist ]]> A neuroscientist is someone who studies "the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, or molecular biology of nerves and nervous tissue and especially their relation to behavior and learning." Although the study of nervous system dates back to ancient Egypt, it is only with the use of more recent technologies (e.g., electron microscopes that allow us to see inside neurons, magnetic resonance imaging to see inside the living brain) that scientists have made significant advances into our understanding of how it all works. Even so, there is still much to be learned about that 3-pound mass of tissue in our heads.

Neuroscientists research all sorts of interesting questions whose answers help us sustain life. What are the causes of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? What are the best ways to treat pain? How do addictions work? How do memories work? How are emotions formed? Why do some people become criminals? Why do alternative treatments work for some people and not others? What is consciousness?

Avi Solomon recently interviewed neuroscientist David Eagleman. What do you think of his thoughts, ideas, and advice?

David Eagleman is a neuroscientist and author.

Avi Solomon

What fascinates you about the nature of time?
David Eagleman photo Poptech

David Eagleman


David Eagleman reads his short story "Sum"


How do you account for testimonies of consciousness extending beyond cardiac arrest? What could they imply about the brain?


It's hard to know what to make of these claims. On the one hand, we know that the brain is easily coaxed into hallucinatory states that are taken to be reality: just think of your visually rich, bizarre-but-fully-believed nighttime dreams. On the other hand, although we know a great deal about the details of neurobiology, we have little scientific insight into the existence of private subjective experience -- that is, how cells and chemicals achieve consciousness.

So in the end, most scientists will (probably correctly) dismiss a near-death experience as a trick of the brain in a low-oxygen state. However, the vastness of the mysteries before us requires us to keep a tiny bit of room open for a continual re-visiting of the question. As my colleague Ara 13 writes, "No theory is Babe Ruth. Their numbers never get retired."


How would you account for the testimonies of a Panoramic Life Review during near-death experiences?


I've been collecting people's experiences about this for a while. When people find themselves in an optionless, life-threatening situation (such a sliding on ice toward an oncoming truck, or skidding toward the edge of a cliff on a motorcycle), they will commonly describe the experience of having all their memories present at once. This is not so much a cinematographic "flashing" of their life before their eyes, but instead a simultaneously present "panorama" of memories. And not necessarily big, important memories, but instead small, banal, perhaps meaningless ones. How can we understand what's going on here?

First, in the 1950s, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield stimulated the temporal lobe of patients undergoing brain surgery, and he discovered that a little buzz of electricity in the right spot in the temporal lobe could trigger a vividly experienced memory-such as standing in a parking lot speaking with someone, or listening to a particular symphony. So we know the memories are stored in there. When the brain is driven into an extraordinary situation of impending doom, it moves out of its normal operating range and somehow all these memories bubble into conscious awareness. It may well be that the brain is 'searching' for any possible solution to a very bad problem, and in its desperation pulls out all the stops. I see panoramic memory as a terrific inroad into understanding consciousness.


What do you make of the experience of Deja Vu?


It seems clear that people experiencing deja vu are not actually detecting the future. This is easily demonstrable: the next time a friend says she's experiencing deja vu, quickly pull out twenty dollars and offer it to give it to her if she can tell you what's going to happen next. You won't lose. Instead, your friend will merely be able to report that after something happened she feels as though she knew it was going to happen. So there appears to be nothing time-violating about it. Instead, deja vu appears to be a hiccup of the familiarity systems in the brain -- the same systems that tell you a bizarre situation in a dream is something normal, something you've seen before.


Do you have a generic method for thinking up innovative experiments?


The only general strategy I employ is to avoid the places where everyone else is going. The most delicious fruits in science are often found in the places where no one else is looking. Relatedly, it's an old axiom in science that the exclamation that signals a rich discovery is not "Eureka!", but more often "That's strange." So that's where I try to position myself, around the "that's strange" phenomena.


There are roughly 50 galaxies or 10 trillion stars per person in the currently known universe. Why do you think we all glibly forget this amazing fact? How can we keep wonder alive everyday?


Indeed, I'm often surprised that people aren't talking about these issues all the time. But the reason seems clear enough. Our brains have evolved to deal with issues at our own scales: mates, rivers, apples, rabbits, and so on. Our brains simply weren't built to understand the fabric of reality at the very small scales (quantum mechnics) or the very large (the cosmos). As Blaise Pascal put it, "Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed."




Watch TED talks: smart people will distill their life's work down to 20 minutes for you. Follow links through infinite trajectories of Wikipedia. Watch educational videos on topics that resonate with you.


And be sure to get off-line often, to take digital sabbaths. As much as the net provides a platter of mankind's learning, there is a different kind of learning to be had from a hike in the woods, the climbing of a tree, an afternoon building a dam in a stream.


An interview with David Eagleman, neuroscientist (reposted in-full per Creative Commons License)


Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Oct 24, 2011 at

Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:29:24 -0500 braincrave



All together women: "DUH!"











Sex on the brain: What turns women on, mapped out




<![CDATA[ TIL drinking eight glasses of water a day is bunk ]]> Today I learned that the accepted wisdom of drinking eight glasses of water a day, including the accompanying reminder that beverages containing caffeine and alcohol do not count, is not supported by ANY scientific proof. In fact, such large amounts are not needed and can even be harmful (e.g., water intoxication, over 300 pollutants in tap water).

(Picks up a beer...) Cheers!

It has become accepted wisdom: "Drink at least eight glasses of water a day!" Not necessarily, says DMS physician Heinz Valtin, MD. The universal advice that has made guzzling water a national pastime is more urban myth than medical dogma and appears to lack scientific proof, he found.




Other claims discredited by scientific evidence that Valtin discusses include:

  • Thirst Is Too Late. It is often stated that by the time people are thirsty, they are already dehydrated. On the contrary, thirst begins when the concentration of blood (an accurate indicator of our state of hydration) has risen by less than two percent, whereas most experts would define dehydration as beginning when that concentration has risen by at least five percent

  • Dark Urine Means Dehydration. At normal urinary volume and color, the concentration of the blood is within the normal range and nowhere near the values that are seen in meaningful dehydration. Therefore, the warning that dark urine reflects dehydration is alarmist and false in most instances.

"Drink at Least 8 Glasses of Water a Day" - Really? Dartmouth Professor Finds No Scientific Evidence for '8 x 8'

(You can find the complete scientific study at the American Journal of Physiology)

What did you learn recently?


Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Jul 5, 2011 at

Wed, 04 Oct 2017 11:13:29 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ Well I'll be a monkey's uncle - evolution is not a matter of faith ]]> Humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same DNA. In other words, from a scientific perspective, humans and chimpanzees are genetically very similar.

As the battle between evolution and intelligent design continues, the National Human Genome Research Institute summarizes, "The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence... To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans."

Although many have known of the relationship between apes and humans for some time (e.g., philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Lord Monboddo viewed apes as progenitors of mankind), we've only been doing DNA sequencing for about 40 years. Clearly, the anatomical and biochemical similarity between chimpanzees and humans are "striking." As scientists continue on their quest to engineer the perfect human, it's going to be evermore difficult to ignore the scientific proof of the link.

Even if there are differences "that are difficult to quantify," why does evolution need to continue to be defended? Do such significant similarities in DNA prove evolution? Does a 4% difference leave enough room for the possibility that God exists (e.g., common design, common designer)? Why would God create humans and chimps so similarly? All kidding and blasphemy aside, and knowing that there are differences between monkeys and apes, if, as Genesis states, God created man in his image, does God look like a monkey? Are you satisfied enough with the answer "God works in strange and mysterious ways?"



To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA...

Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the production of sperm.

Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage...


Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

(You will find the scientific study at Nature: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome)


Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Jul 1, 2011 at

Wed, 04 Oct 2017 11:04:41 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ TIL why helium makes your voice squeaky ]]> Today I learned why light gasses like helium make your voice squeaky and heavy gasses like sulfur hexafluoride or xenon make your voice sound like Barry White.

In summary, the timbre of your voice changes based on the density of the gasses you breathe. Because helium is about six times lighter than air (i.e., less dense than air), when you inhale helium, the speed of the sounds of your voice come out quicker because there's less density to go through. Likewise, sulfur hexafluoride is about five times heavier than air. As a result, when you inhale sulfur hexafluoride, the speed of sound of your voice is much slower because it has more density to get through.

You know what its like - you go to a party and after a little bit too much cake, those helium balloons become too much to resist. So what is with the hilarious squealing? It helps if, to start with, you understand how our voices work.

When you talk, sound is produced by passing air over our vocal cords (flaps of tissue in our throats) causing them to vibrate. The vibrating vocal cords make the air around them vibrate and this makes sound. We can change our voice by changing the shape of our throat and mouth, allowing us to make different sounds for different words. Our voice comes out in the form of waves, and it is the frequency of these waves that makes a high note sound high and a low note sound low.

But our voices aren't quite this simple. You know how different instruments sounds different even if they're playing the same note? That's down to 'timbre'. Our voices have a timbre too - they are not just one pure note but a mixture of lots of different waves of different frequencies. When air moves through our throats, it vibrates and you end up with lots of resonance frequencies, or harmonics, that sound different between different people. Someone can sound all squeaky at the same pitch as someone else who sounds normal depending on the harmonics of their voice (explaining why some people sound great on that TV singing shows and others, well, they just don't).

Now the fun bit is when we start thinking about what happens if we breathe helium. Sound waves behave differently depending on what they are trying to move through. Normally, we breathe air, which is a mixture of gases containing mainly nitrogen and some oxygen. Sound waves generated by our vocal cords move through air at a constant speed of around 350 meters per second.

But helium is less dense than the air we normally breath and this means that sound waves travel through it much faster than usual (around 900 meters per second) during the short time that they are making their way through the throat and out of the mouth. The pitch of our voice isn't actually altered, but the timbre or quality of the voice is. Basically, the fast moving higher frequency sounds have more power as they float about in your throat, and the lower frequencies get a bit lost. So our voices end up sounding flat and you talk something like Donald Duck.

I know a lot of people say that your vocal cords vibrate faster in helium, but there is no evidence for this. There is also nothing to back up the idea that the pitch of our voice is higher after breathing helium (although you'll probably automatically talk in a high pitched voice if you breathe helium because you expect your voice to go higher). If you don't believe that the pitch is really not altered, try singing before and after breathing helium (you'll be able to hear the pitch better). You should find that the sound your voice makes isn't actually higher, just squeaky and flatter.

So if a lighter gas like helium gives us a squeaky voice, wouldn't a denser gas like Argon or Xenon amplify the lower frequencies and make it richer? This is actually true, but the problem is that these gases are harder to get hold of than helium. Xenon for example is very expensive, and in addition, it has anesthetic properties similar to nitrous oxide, so you can get a little high if you breathe it. Just take my word for it and don't try it for yourself.

Something to remember: Although helium is un-reactive, it can still kill you. If the entire room was filled up with helium, you would quickly asphyxiate due to there being no oxygen present. Please do remember this if you insist on breathing in helium - while a balloon-full isn't going to do you any serious harm, that lightheaded feeling you get after breathing in too much balloon gas is a sign that you're not getting enough oxygen into the lungs and you should probably give the balloon breathing a rest.

Why does helium make your voice squeaky? (reposted in full per Creative Commons license)

What did you learn recently?



Wed, 04 Oct 2017 10:24:17 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ TIL why hair turns grey ]]> Today I learned that hair turns grey with age because of naturally-secreted hydrogen peroxide. Guess blondes were onto something. Good to know someone is finally getting at the "root" of the problem.







Natural bleach-job: why hair turns grey

What did you learn recently?



Sun, 01 Oct 2017 04:31:46 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ Engineering the perfect human ]]> Recently, Harvard University had a panel discussing the legacy of the Human Genome Project. Started in 1990, and with scientists from six countries and initial funding of $3 billion, the project published the full sequence of about 21,000 genes that are the basic instructions of building a human. Needless to say, the implications of better understanding human biology at a genetic level are enormous. For example, with such information, we can better fight or prevent disease. And the costs to decode genomes is dropping dramatically - "[t]echnology today can do in five minutes a decoding task that would have taken a year to complete a decade ago." Needless to say, these are very exciting times in this field.

But perhaps caution should temper our excitement as the enormous implications of understanding our biology come with ethical questions that have not been answered and might never be answered. For example, it's only a matter of time when we will be able to manipulate or engineer genes to alter exactly the traits we want. Should we? Similar to the movie Gattaca, which proclaims that there is no gene for the human spirit, should we use science to create "perfect" human beings? How could genetic engineering negatively intervene in our evolution and affect future generations? Also, in a world where genetic engineering is possible but expensive and, therefore, only those with the proper financial resources can benefit, will we see the ultimate class war - the "perfect" vs. the "imperfect?" The science is getting to the point where these are no longer theoretical questions. If you could, would you want to be genetically engineered? What about your children?


Enhancement engineering is widely regarded as both scientifically and ethically problematic. From a scientific standpoint, it is unlikely that we will soon be able to enhance normally functioning genes without risking grave side effects. For example:

  • Enhancing an individual's height beyond his or her naturally ordained level may inadvertently cause stress to other parts of the organism, such as the heart.

  • Moreover, many of the traits that might be targeted for enhancement (e.g., intelligence or memory) are genetically multifactorial, and have a strong environmental component. Thus, alteration of single genes would not likely achieve the desired outcome.

  • These problems are magnified, and additional problems arise, when we move from somatic cell enhancements to germline enhancements.

In addition to the problem of disseminating unforeseen consequences across generations, we are faced with questions about whether future generations would share their predecessors' views about the desirability of the traits that have been bequeathed to them. Future generations are not likely to be ungrateful if we deprive them of genes associated with horrible diseases, but they may well feel limited by choices we have made regarding their physical, cognitive, or emotional traits. In short, there is a danger that social-historical trends and biases could place genetic limitations on future generations...

Once we pinpoint the genetic basis for diseases and other phenotypic traits, what parameters should be set for the acquisition and use of genetic information? The key issue to be considered here is the use of genetic screening. Screening for diseases with the due consent of a patient or a legal proxy is generally viewed as ethically permissible, but even this form of screening can create some significant ethical challenges. Knowledge that one is or may be affected by a serious disease can create difficult situations for both patients and their families. Consider:

  • If a test is positive, what options, medical or otherwise, will be available to ameliorate the condition?

  • Will the patient's relatives be informed that they too may be affected by the ailment?

The Human Genome Project: A Scientific and Ethical Overview


Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Mar 4, 2011 at

Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:44:13 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ Optical Illusions - Proof That The Senses Are Valid ]]> The senses have no power of distortion; what they observe is what is. Optical illusions do not validate the claim that the senses can deceive us: optical illusions are the senses making valid observations.

For instance, if we observe that a straw seems to bend in a glass of water, it is not because our eyes deceive us, it is because our eyes notice that the surface of the water will refract light rays so that the straw will seem to be bent. This does not mean that our senses are deceiving us however - it means that our senses are, in fact, in accordance with the fact that water refracts light.

It does mean, however, that our mind must be able to interpret what we see and to recognize that, although we are observing reality, the fact that optical illusions exist in some cases requires that, in such cases, one must apply a little logic in order to interpret what one is seeing as though the optical illusion did not exist.

...without the careful application of logic, our senses are not any good to us

The possibility of optical illusions in some cases is not, however, justification for the belief that what we see in other given cases may also be some sort of optical illusion and, hence, that we might not be seeing reality as it really is.

For one, optical illusions only occur under very specific circumstances where light interacts with entities in specific ways. In the vast majority of cases, there is no possibility of an optical illusion of any sort.

Optical illusions are not a distortion of reality - the existence of optical illusions simply demonstrates the fact that light (the basis of the mechanisms of sight) has certain properties, that it will interact with certain entities in a certain way, and that our optical organs are not capable of escaping this fact. They operate in a certain way and have no power to deceive us. They take in light as it is, and operate in such a way as to produce sensory data. It just so happens that some sensory data is less useful than others and requires more thought to identify what it is that is being observed - as is the case in optical illusions.

So if we see a straw appear to bend in water, the answer is not to claim that our senses deceive us: the answer is to recognize that our senses can only operate on the basis of what is. What we see is the result of light interacting with reality in a definite way; it is the result of the reality of how light interacts with certain entities.

We must identify the facts which our senses provide us evidence of, using our rational mind. If a straw seems to bend in water, we must identify that light is refracted by water - a fact which the apparent bending of the water can help us identify. Then we can identify the fact that the optical illusion is, in fact, telling us something about reality which might not be immediately obvious; it is not in fact distorting it.

We know that water does not bend straws. We can test this using touch, for instance. So the proper attitude is simply that the optical illusion provides a different view on reality than we might expect; one that requires us to step back and think about what we are seeing to see that, in fact, what we see is what is. It is just that it might not be immediately obvious why we see it that way.

And so it is with all optical illusions: they are the senses proving once more that they are valid, and that what they are telling is in accordance with facts. However, without the careful application of logic, our senses are not any good to us in any case.

Far from distorting reality, optical illusions are, in fact, as much in accordance with reality as any other sort of observation. The difference is simply that the process of logical identification of the facts that they demonstrate is more complicated.


Original posting by DwayneDavies on Feb 26, 2011 at

Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:07:43 -0500 braincrave
<![CDATA[ Scientists Baffled After Finding 10th Century Medicine that Kills Antibiotic-Resistant ‘Superbug’ MRSA ]]> London, U.K. – An ancient Anglo-Saxon potion, used to treat eye infections in the 10th-century, has shown the potential to eradicate the modern MRSA superbug, according to research.


The thousand-year-old volume, containing the "eyesalve" treatment, was translated by Christina Lee, an expert on Anglo-Saxon society at the University of Nottingham.


"We chose this recipe in Bald's Leechbook because it contains ingredients such as garlic that are currently investigated by other researchers on their potential antibiotic effectiveness," Lee said.

The recipe calls for two species of Allium (garlic and onion or leek), wine and oxgall (bile from a cow's stomach) to be brewed in a brass vessel. The instructions in the book called for the potion to be left to stand for nine days before being strained through a cloth.

"And so we looked at a recipe that is fairly straightforward. It's also a recipe where we are told it's the ‘best of leechdoms' — how could you not test that? So we were curious."

Lee then looked towards the university's microbiology department to test the efficacy of the formula, recruiting microbiologists to test and recreate the exact recipe described in the text.

"We recreated the recipe as faithfully as we could. The Bald gives very precise instructions for the ratio of different ingredients and for the way they should be combined before use, so we tried to follow that as closely as possible," said microbiologist Freya Harrison, who led the research into the formula at the University of Nottingham's School of Life Sciences.



"What we found was very interesting — we found that Bald's eyesalve is incredibly potent as an anti-Staphylococcal antibiotic in this context," Harrison said.


The research team then asked its U.S. collaborators to test the formula using "in vivo," a wound in live organism, and according to Steve Diggle, an associate professor of socio microbiology, who also worked on the project, "the big surprise was that it seems to be more effective than conventional antibiotic treatment."


The research team has replicated data showing that the medicine kills up to 90% of MRSA bacteria in "in vivo" wound biopsies from mice.


What is key to understand is that although people refer to the period of time this remedy was created in as the "Dark Ages," ancient knowledge such as this cannot be discounted as holding extreme potential for the advancement of science and technology.




Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:56:10 -0500 c_prompt
<![CDATA[ “race is simply not a level of biological division …in…humans” ]]> In the spirit of Morgan Freeman's excellent advice on how to solve the race problem and just "stop talking about it," I'm reposting this thoughtful perspective from




First, I quote Lewontin:



Second, I quote Graves:









The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

Reposted per
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:26:15 -0500 c_prompt
<![CDATA[ Yes, You Can Catch Insanity: Reviving the debate about the immune system and mental illness. ]]>






Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:44:52 -0500 c_prompt