Animal Intelligence and More
Satanists, as a rule, accept that man is just another
kind of animal, subject to the same things that other animals are subject
to. Satanists accept that animals can think and feel, just like humans can.
Many Satanic readers already know about animal intelligence, cats, dogs, etc.,
and some even know about insect intelligence; but what about this? Words that
I want you to focus on and put to the forefront are in capitalized letters
for a reason: these are words defining things normally attributed to human
intelligence, planning, etc.
Let us look at Sabella and Owenia. This article brought
a smile to many readers when it was first posted.
Sabella CONSTRUCTS a home that is shaped like a tube. Sabella constructs the
tube of sand grains imbedded in mucus. Sabella SORTS detritus she COLLECTS
and sand grains of SUITABLE SIZE. That is, Sabella has to determine which
grains are suitable and which are not and be able to sort them out properly
and determine size properly: not too big, not too small. She also has to be
well AWARE that she is collecting all of this in order to construct a home
she PLANS to live in. The sorted detritus and right-sized sand grains are
STORED. She is AWARE that she is storing these for later use. Later, the sand
is mixed with mucus. When and if additions to the tube (size of home) are
to be made, Sabella produces a rope-like string of mucus mixed with sand.
Surely, she doesn't wait until the last minute to DECIDE whether or not to
add to the tube-home. She then rotates slowly: not too fast, but not TOO slow;
just at the right speed. Collar folds she has act LIKE A PAIR OF HANDS, molding
and attaching the rope to the end of the tube. She has to mold them properly
and attach them all the right way. All of this is quite similar to the Indian
method of pottery making.
Owenia, on the other hand, lives like a nomad with a movable
home. She carries her tube around and uses the chimney-end of the tube like
a screw. Flexibility in her tube is attained by the use of flat sand grains,
attached at one edge and overlapping adjacent grains of sand. It resembles
tile roofing. Most people born into the world without being taught, would
be hard put to BUILD a home for themselves. They'd not know how much to mix,
what to mix, how to apply, how to attach or shape it, nor would most humans
have the FORESIGHT to store materials for building such a thing as a home.
And even when taught, most humans do a LOUSY job of planning and/or building:
FEW among them know how to do this without being taught by rote. NO ONE taught
Sabella or Owenia. They either figured it out on their own or they'd PERISH.
Sabella and Owenia are polychaete annelids; i.e., WORMS.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do Rats Ever Like Cats?
A protozoan (single celled eukaryote organism, not a bacteria)
that infects rats dims their wariness around cats and can even lead to "fatal
attraction!" (Oxford researchers).
That's really bad for a rat to be attracted to a cat but
it's great for this protozoan parasite. The protozoan, "Toxoplasma gondii,"
needs to jump from the rat to the cat to complete ITS life cycle. The rat's
getting caught by a cat fits the parasite's agenda, but certainly is not good
for the rat at all (Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences,
August 7 2000). Put this into a human frame and you can imagine the rat's
brothers probably thinking, "Gee, that rat is self destructive, I wonder
why our fellow rat is acting so crazy: maybe that rat had a bad upbringing
or something? They might even think that the rat is acting like a peacenik
or a liberal. :)
The infected rats respond to the cat odor. Normal rats
avoid places where cat odor is present. Infected rats not only lose their
wariness, but even PREFER cat fragrance. The rat's personality change shows
the clearest example yet of a parasite manipulating the victimized MAMMAL,
manipulating its behavior, even its ability to logically think: "CAT
IS HERE, LET ME GET OUT OF HERE FAST!"
This parasite can infect many types of mammals but it
reproduces in only a few. In humans, a latent infection can flair up and cause
mental decline. Low grade infections may result in more subtle effects, such
as odd behavior and perhaps IQ dips. The researchers estimate that the parasite
infects 22% of the United Kingdom's residents and 88% of the French. (Science
News, August 12, 2000, p 109). What else does this infection make humans do?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do Parasites Rule? (Another look at "free will")
And now for the mind-boggler of them all: STRATEGIES that
humans can't even hope to compete with; and please note, they are not "yang"
strategies; they are "yin." This article will not make you smile:
it might terrify you.
Excerpts from this article that are pertinent (no fluff)
are here and notes to focus your attention are added in ( ) or indicated by
the word "Note:" before my note is written.
From DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 8 (August 2000)
"Do Parasites Rule the World? New evidence indicates
our idea of how nature really works could be wrong." By Carl Zimmer
On a clear summer day on the California coast, the carpinteria
salt marsh vibrates with life. Along the banks of the 120-acre preserve, 80
miles northwest of Los Angeles, thousands of horn snails, their conical shells
looking like miniature party hats, graze the algae. Arrow gobies slip through
the water, while killifish dart around, every now and then turning to expose
the brilliant glint of their bellies. Fiddler crabs slowly crawl out of fist-size
holes and salute the new day with their giant claws, while their bigger cousins—lined-shore
crabs— crack open snails as if they were walnuts. Meanwhile, a carnival
of birds— Caspian terns, willet, plover, yellowleg sandpipers, curlews,
and dowitchers— feast on littleneck clams and other prey burrowed in
the marsh bottom.
Standing on a promontory, Kevin Lafferty, a marine biologist
at the University of California at Santa Barbara, watches the teeming scene
and sees another, more compelling drama. For him, the real drama of the marsh
lies beneath the surface in the life of its invisible inhabitants: the parasites.
A curlew grabs a clam from its hole. "Just got infected," Lafferty
says. He looks at the bank of snails. "More than 40 percent of these
snails are infected," he pronounces. "They're really just parasites
in disguise." (I.e., they LOOK like snails, but they behave in accordance
with, and for the benefit of the PARASITE.) He points to the snowy constellation
of bird droppings along the bank. "There are boxcars of parasite biomass
here; those are just packages of fluke eggs."
Every living thing has at least one parasite that lives
inside or on it, and many, including humans, have far more. Leopard frogs
may harbor a dozen species of parasites, including nematodes in their ears,
filarial worms in their veins, and flukes in their kidneys, bladders, and
intestines. One species of Mexican parrot carries 30 different species of
mites on its feathers alone. Often the parasites themselves have parasites,
and some of those parasites have parasites of their own. Scientists have no
idea of the exact number of species of parasites, but they do know one fact:
Parasites make up the majority of species on Earth. Parasites can take the
form of animals, including insects, flatworms, and crustaceans, as well as
protozoa, fungi, plants, and viruses and bacteria. By one estimate, parasites
may outnumber free-living species four to one. Indeed, the study of life is,
for the most part, parasitology.
Most of the past century's research on parasites has gone
into trying to fight the ones that cause devastating illness in humans, such
as malaria, AIDS, and tuberculosis. But otherwise, parasites have largely
been neglected. Scientists have treated them with indifference, even contempt,
viewing them as essentially hitchhikers on life's road. But recent research
reveals that parasites are remarkably sophisticated and tenacious and may
be as important to ecosystems as the predators at the top of the food chain.
Some castrate their hosts and take over their minds. (!!!!!) (Read that LITERALLY,
not as a metaphor.) Others completely shut down the immune systems of their
hosts. Some scientists now think parasites have been a dominant force, perhaps
the dominant force, in the evolution of life. (How about connecting this to
the Tree of Destruction!!)
Note: consider also, the parasite would make the hosts
DO things in relation to others of the host's species! The implications are
HUGE. In other words, they could make humans behave toward other humans in
a way that would benefit the parasite, not benefit the human except perhaps
in terms of making it pleasurable for the human so that the human would continue
to do it. A virus can also do this: the sneeze aids the adenovirus in spreading;
the sneeze is a human behavior that co-evolved with the virus! What about
retroviruses? They can alter your DNA - but what ELSE can they do? Well, they
have a Will to Spread.
Sacculina carcini, a barnacle that morphs into plantlike
roots, is not the kind of organism that commands immediate respect. Indeed,
at first glance Sacculina appears to slide down the ladder of evolution during
its brief lifetime. Biologists are just beginning to realize that this backward-looking
creature is a powerhouse in disguise.
Sacculina starts life as a free-swimming larva. Through
a microscope, the tiny crustacean looks like a teardrop equipped with fluttering
legs and a pair of dark eyespots. Nineteenth-century biologists thought Sacculina
was a hermaphrodite, but in fact it comes in two sexes. The female larva is
the first to colonize its host, the crab. Sense organs on the female Sacculina's
legs catch the scent of a crab, and she dances through the water until she
lands on its armor. She crawls along an arm as the crab twitches in irritation—
or perhaps the crustacean equivalent of panic— until she comes to a joint
on the arm where the hard exoskeleton bends at a soft chink. There she looks
for the small hairs that sprout out of the crab's arm, each anchored in its
own hole. She jabs a long hollow dagger through one of the holes, and through
it squirts a blob made up of a few cells. The injection, which takes only
a few seconds, is a variation on the molting that crustaceans and insects
go through in order to grow. For example, a cicada sitting in a tree separates
a thin outer husk from the rest of its body and then pushes its way out of
the shell, emerging with a new, soft exoskeleton that stretches throughout
the insect's growth spurt. In the case of the female Sacculina, however, most
of her body becomes the husk that is left behind. The part that lives on looks
less like a barnacle than like a microscopic slug.
The slug plunges into the depth of the crab. In time it
settles in the crab's underside and grows, forming a bulge in its shell and
sprouting a set of rootlike tendrils, which spread throughout the crab's body,
even wrapping around its eyestalks. Covered with fine, fleshy fingers much
like the ones lining the human intestine, these roots draw in nutrients dissolved
in the crab's blood. Remarkably, this gross invasion fails to trigger any
immune response in the crab, which continues to wander through the surf, eating
clams and mussels.
Meanwhile, the female Sacculina continues to grow, and
the bulge in the crab's underside turns into a knob. As the crab scuttles
around, the knob's outer layer slowly chips away, revealing a portal. Sacculina
will remain at this stage for the rest of her life, unless a male larva lands
on the crab and finds the knob's pin-size opening. It's too small for him
to fit into, and so, like the female before him, he molts off most of himself,
injecting the vestige into the hole. This male cargo— a spiny, reddish-brown
torpedo 1/100,000 inch long— slips into a pulsing, throbbing canal, which
carries him deep into the female's body. He casts off his spiny coat as he
goes and in 10 hours ends up at the bottom of the canal. There he fuses to
the female's visceral sac and begins making sperm. There are two of these
wells in each female Sacculina, and she typically carries two males with her
for her entire life. They endlessly fertilize her eggs, and every few weeks
she produces thousands of new Sacculina larvae.
Eventually, the crab begins to change into a new sort
of creature, one that exists to serve the parasite. (!!! yet consider, it
still LOOKS like a crab.) It can no longer do the things that would get in
the way of Sacculina's growth. It stops molting and growing, which would funnel
away energy from the parasite. Crabs can typically escape from predators by
severing a claw and regrowing it later on. Crabs carrying Sacculina can lose
a claw, but they can't grow a new one in its place. And while other crabs
mate and produce new generations, parasitized crabs simply go on eating and
eating. They have been spayed by the parasite. (In other words, they no longer
have the DESIRE to mate with their own kind!)
Despite having been castrated (not literally, but the
desire to mate is gone), the crab doesn't lose its urge to nurture. It simply
directs its affection toward the parasite. (Consider this in HUMAN terms.)
A healthy female crab carries her fertilized eggs in a brood pouch on her
underside, and as her eggs mature she carefully grooms the pouch, scraping
away algae and fungi. When the crab larvae hatch and need to escape, their
mother finds a high rock on which to stand, then bobs up and down to release
them from the pouch into the ocean current, waving her claws to stir up more
flow. The knob that Sacculina forms sits exactly where the crab's brood pouch
would be, and the crab treats the parasite knob as such. She strokes it clean
as the larvae grow, and when they are ready to emerge she forces them out
in pulses, shooting out heavy clouds of parasites. As they spray out from
her body, she waves her claws to help them on their way. Male crabs succumb
to Sacculina's powers as well. Males normally develop a narrow abdomen, but
infected males grow abdomens as wide as those of females, wide enough to accommodate
a brood pouch or a Sacculina knob. A male crab even acts as if he had a female's
brood pouch, grooming it as the parasite larvae grow and bobbing in the waves
to release them. (Males behave like females.)
Sacculina's adaptations reflect a relatively simple life
cycle for a parasite— it makes its way from one crab to another. But
for many other parasites, the game is more complicated—they must journey
through a series of animal species in order to survive and procreate. Such
parasites exert extraordinary control over their hosts, transforming them
into seemingly different creatures. They can change a host's looks or scent
to appeal to a predator. They can even alter its behavior to force it into
the next host's path. (Could it also change the creature's behavior in a way
where it would induce OTHERS of its own species to succumb to the parasite?
The mature lancet fluke, Dicrocoelium dendriticum, nestles
in cows and other grazers, which spread the fluke's eggs in their manure.
Hungry snails swallow the eggs, which hatch in their intestines. The immature
parasites drill through the wall of a snail's gut and settle in the digestive
gland. There the flukes produce offspring, which make their way to the surface
of the snail's body. The snail tries to defend itself by walling the parasites
off in balls of slime, which it then coughs up and leaves behind in the grass.
Along comes an ant, which swallows a slime ball loaded
with hundreds of lancet flukes. The parasites slide down into the ant's gut
and then wander for a while through its body, eventually moving to the cluster
of nerves that control the ant's mandibles. Most of the lancet flukes head
back to the abdomen, where they form cysts, but one or two stay behind in
the ant's head.
There the flukes do some parasitic voodoo on their hosts.
As the evening approaches and the air cools, the ants find themselves drawn
away from their fellows on the ground and upward to the top of a blade of
grass. Clamped to the tip of the blade, the infected ant waits to be devoured
by a cow or some other grazer passing by. (It elicits what we'd call Thanatos
behavior, self-destructive behavior!)
If the ant sits the whole night without being eaten and
the sun rises, the flukes let the ant loosen its grip on the grass. The ant
scurries back down to the ground and spends the day acting like a regular
insect again. If the host were to bake in the heat of the direct sun, the
parasites would die with it. When evening comes again, they send the ant back
up a blade of grass for another try. After the ant finally tumbles into a
cow's stomach, the flukes burst out and make their way to the cow's liver,
where they will live out their lives as adults.
As scientists discover more and more parasites and uncover
the extent and complexity of their machinations, they are fast coming to an
unsettling conclusion: Far from simply being along for the ride, parasites
may be one of nature's most powerful driving forces. At the Carpinteria salt
marsh, Kevin Lafferty has been exploring how parasites may shape an entire
region's ecology. In a series of exacting experiments, he has found that a
single species of fluke— Euhaplorchis californiensis— journeys through
three hosts and plays a critical role in orchestrating the marsh's balance
Birds release the fluke's eggs in their droppings, which
are eaten by horn snails. The eggs hatch, and the resulting flukes castrate
the snail and produce offspring, which come swimming out of their host and
begin exploring the marsh for their next host, the California killifish. Latching
onto the fish's gills, the flukes work their way through fine blood vessels
to a nerve, which they crawl along to the brain. They don't actually penetrate
the killifish's brain but form a thin carpet on top of it, looking like a
layer of caviar. There the parasites wait for the fish to be eaten by a shorebird.
When the fish reaches the bird's stomach, the flukes break out of the fish's
head and move into the bird's gut, stealing its food from within and sowing
eggs in its droppings to be spread into marshes and ponds.
In his research, Lafferty set out to answer one main question:
Would Carpinteria look the same if there were no flukes? He began by examining
the snail stage of the cycle. The relationship between fluke and snail is
not like the one between predator and prey. In a genetic sense, infected snails
are dead, because they can no longer reproduce. (i.e., an animal that does
not reproduce is genetically dead.) But they live on, grazing on algae to
feed the flukes inside them. That puts them in direct competition with the
marsh's uninfected snails.
To see how the contest plays out, Lafferty put healthy
and fluke-infested snails in separate mesh cages at sites around the marsh.
"The tops were open so the sun could shine through and algae could grow
on the bottom," says Lafferty. What he found was that the uninfected
snails grew faster, released far more eggs, and could thrive in far more crowded
conditions. The implication: In nature, the parasites were competing so intensely
that the healthy snails couldn't reproduce fast enough to take full advantage
of the salt marsh. In fact, if flukes were absent from the marsh, the snail
population would nearly double. That explosion would ripple out through much
of the salt marsh ecosystem, thinning out the carpet of algae and making it
easier for the snails' predators, such as crabs, to thrive.
Lafferty then studied the killifish. Initially, he found
little evidence that flukes harmed or changed the fish they colonized; the
fish didn't even mount an immune response. But Lafferty was suspicious. He
figured that flukes sitting on the brain were in a good position to be doing
something. So he plucked 42 fish from the marsh, dumped them into a 75-gallon
aquarium in the lab, and gave his student Kimo Morris the laborious task of
watching them. Morris would pick out one fish and stare at it for half an
hour, recording every move it made. When he was done, he'd scoop the fish
out and dissect it to see whether its brain was caked with parasites. Then
he'd focus on another killifish.
What was hidden to the naked eye came leaping out of the
data. As killifish search for prey, they alternate between hovering and darting
around. But every now and then, Morris would spot a fish shimmying, jerking,
flashing its belly as it swam on one side, or darting close to the surface—
all risky things for a fish to do if a bird is scanning the water. It turns
out that fish with parasites were four times more likely to shimmy, jerk,
flash, and surface than their healthy counterparts.
Lafferty and Morris followed up with a marsh experiment
in which they set up two pens, each filled with 53 uninfected killifish and
95 infected fish. To distinguish between the two groups, the researchers clipped
the left pectoral fin of the healthy fish and the right fin of the parasitized
ones. One pen was covered with netting to protect it from birds; the other
was left open so birds could easily wade or land inside. After two days, a
great egret waded into the open pen. It stepped slowly into the muddy water
and struck it a few times, the last time bringing up a killifish. After birds
had visited the pen for three weeks, Lafferty and Morris added up how many
fish were alive. (The covered pen acted as a control for the researchers to
see how many fish died of natural causes.) The results were startling: The
birds were 30 times more likely to feast on one of the flailing, parasitized
fish than on a healthy fish.
Predators are often very careful about the prey they eat,
avoiding poisonous insects and frogs, for example. So why would birds pick
so many fish that are guaranteed to pass on an energy-sucking intestinal parasite?
The flukes do drain a bit of energy from the birds. But that is more than
offset by the benefit they provide: They make finding food very easy for the
Scientists have been stunned by the implications of these
Note: Here is an example that I intend to use to get you
upset :) Actually, to make you THINK STRONGLY about it. Let us take humans
that use the digestive canal (mouth OR anus) for sexual pleasure and obsess
over that? They desire far MORE sex of that nature than do "normals"
or mating male/female types. Maybe it has nothing to do with mental fetishes
or upbringing or anything human-centered at all. Ask this: What's in the digestive
tract? LOTS of parasites, bacteria, etc. This is a non-mating act that is
DESIRED over and above the mating act: but WHO is doing the desiring? The
human? Or Something Else? What OTHER behaviors are strange? What about self-destructive
stuff? Is the human destroying himself due to some psychological reason, or
is Something Else surviving and benefiting its own species when its human
host does these things? It would explain a LOT.
The birds that frequent coastal wetlands depend on fish
for much of their diet. Without parasites throwing prey their way, the birds
of Carpinteria might have to put far more time and effort into eating and
might reproduce at a lower rate. "Could we have so many birds out there
if it were 30 times harder for them to get their food?" asks marine biologist
Armand Kuris, also of the University of California at Santa Barbara. "Parasites
don't just modify individual behavior, they're really powerful— they
may be running a large part of the waterbird ecology."
The fluke that Lafferty studied is but one parasite, living
in one salt marsh. There are a dozen other species of fluke that live in the
snails of Carpinteria and other parasites that dwell in other animals of the
marsh. Every ecosystem on Earth is just as rife with parasites that can exert
extraordinary control over their hosts, riddling them with disease, castrating
them, or transforming their natural behavior.
Note: repeat this: They can exert extraordinary control
over their hosts, castrating them (not literally, just ensuring that they
don't reproduce their own kind anymore, ensuring that they don't even DESIRE
to reproduce their own kind!), or transforming their NATURAL behavior.
Scientists like Lafferty are only just beginning to discover
exactly how powerful these hidden inhabitants can be, but their research is
pointing to a remarkable possibility: Parasites may rule the world.
The notion that tiny creatures we've largely taken for
granted are such a dominant force is immensely disturbing. Even after Copernicus
took Earth out of the center of the universe and Darwin took humans out of
the center of the living world, we still go through life pretending that we
are exalted above other animals. Yet we know that we, too, are collections
of cells that work together, kept harmonized by chemical signals. If an organism
can control those signals— an organism like a parasite— then it
can control us. And therein lies the peculiar and precise horror of parasites.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lambs do not lay down near lions unless they are crazy
(of something else wants them to lay down near the lion?) And the only lions
that lay down with lambs either just had a good meal or are laying down as
So then, what would make HUMANS prone to severe religiosity
that way? Borna Virus is one indicator.
Excerpts from Andrei A. V.'s paper on Borna Virus and
The evidence of links between hyper-religiosity, hyper-moralism,
prevalence of "ethics" over logic, mystical experiences and well
- researched psychopathological conditions such as schizophrenia and, especially,
temporal epilepsy, mounts every passing hour. Listing all well - supported
arguments in the field of neuropathological evaluation of religious behavior
is a tedious task - this particular topic deserves a book on it's own, consisting
of multiple volumes outlining different methodological approaches to this
problem. Instead, the interested reader is referred to a list of references
on neuropathology of religiosity provided with this article. Perhaps, the
most comprehensive reference on the list is "The Neuronal Substrates
of Religious Experience" by J. L. Saver (M. D.) and J. Rabin (M. D.).
If you can get hold of it - get it.
The first question is "how does Borna Virus enter
the body?" It may be transmitted from mother to an embryo. It can be
passed from rodents by ticks, as it was already mentioned. But the main
way of dissemination is inhalational. Literally, it is sniffed in and
gets into the olfactory nerves. After getting into the nerves it travels inside
of them deep into the brain, where it starts multiplying. And where do the
olfactory nerves lead ? What is "the nose brain" that perceives
and processes the information we get in the form of various smells ? The "nose
brain" (or rhinenecephalon) consists of olfactory bulbs, AMYGDALA and
HIPPOCAMPUS. In fact, hippocampus (or, at least it's first-to-appear dorsal
part ("the one on the back side") had EVOLVED from the olfactory
It is hippocampus and amygdala (which is less sensitive
to insults & injuries than the hippocampus) where the virus enters the
brain first, employs it as a breeding ground and, as time passes, wrecks havoc.
The direct link from the outside environment to the most sensitive/fragile
part of the human brain via the olfactory nerve is a clear-cut "exploit,"
and it comes as no surprise that once upon a time there came a microscopic
invader which used that weak spot to its benefit and caused trouble for the
whole mankind !
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
a) Scrip Industrial Report. BS 696. Schizophrenia/Manic
b) Neuropsyhiatry. Fogel at al. , Williams and Wilkins,
Cortical Plasticity : LTP and LTD. Fazeli&Collingridge.
c) Jeffrey L. Saver & John Rabin, The Neural Substrates
of Religious Experience. The Journal of neuropsychiatry, special issue : the
neuropsychiatry of limbic and subcortical disorders. Vol 9, Number 3, Summer
1997, pp. 498 - 510. (Highly recommended)
d) Waller et al, Genetic and Environmental influences
on religious interests, attitudes and values: a study of twins reared apart
and together. Journal of Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 138 - 142 (that twin
method ! :-)
e) Hardy A. The Biology of God. New York, Taplinger, 1975.
f) Devinskiy O, Luciano D. Psychic phenomena in partial
seizures. Seminars of Neurology, 1991; 11 : 100 - 109.
g) Gloor P. , Oliver A. , Quesney L. F. et al. The role
of the limbic system in experimental phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy.
Ann. Neurol. 1982; 23: 129 - 144.
h) Voskuil P. H. A. The epilepsy of Dostoevskiy. Epilepsia
1983 ; 24 : 658 - 667.
i) Stevens J. R. Mark V. H. Ervin F et al. , Deep Temporal
Stimulation in Man. Arch. Neurology, 1969; 21:157 - 169.
j) Dewhurst K. , Beard A. V. Sudden religious conversions
in temporal lobe epilepsy. British Journal of Psychiatry 1970; 117: 497 -
k) Waxman S. G. , Geschwind N. The interictal behaviour
syndrome of temporal lobe epilepsy. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 1975; 32:1580 -
l) Senskiy T, Wilson A, Petty R et al, The interictal
personality traits of temporal lobe epileptics: religious belief and its association
with reported mystical experiences. In Advances of Epileptology, New York,
1984; pp. 545 - 549.
m) Serafetinides E. A. The significance of the temporal
lobes and of hemisphere dominance in the production of the LSD - 25 symptomatology
in man. Neuropsychologia, 1965; 95:53 - 63.
n) Delusional Beliefs. Ottmans T. F and Maher B. A. New
York, Wiley, 1988.
o) Psychiatry and Religion: Overlapping Concerns. Edited
by Robinson D. H. American Psychiatric Press, 1986.
p) Von Damirus. The specific laws of logic in schizophrenia.
In Language and Thought in Schizophrenia, edited by J. S. Kasanin, University
of California Press, 1944, pp 30 - 44.
q) Aggleton J. P. The contribution of amygdala to normal
and abnormal emotional states. TINS, 1993, 16: 328 - 333.
r) Lex B. W. The neurobiology of ritual trance. In The
Spectrum of Ritual, edited by D'Aquili et al, New York, Columbia University
Press, 1979, pp 117 - 151.
s) Landsborough D. St. Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy.
J. Neurol. Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1987, 50: 659 - 664.
t) Buckley P. Mystical experiences and schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1981; 7: 516 - 521.
u) Mysticism: Spitiual Quest or Psychic Disorder ? Group
for the Advancements of Psychiatry, New York, Mental Health Materials Center,
1976, Vol 9 publication 97.
v) R. Joseph. Neuropsychiatry, Neurpsychology and Clinical
Neurscience: Emotion, Evolution, Cognition, Language, Memory, Brain Damage
and Abnormal Behaviour. Second Edition, Williams & Wilkins, 1996. (Reccommended
as both general and more specific source)
There is also an interesting paper written by a schizophrenic
patient turned to Christianity thus worsening the disease : Schizophrenia
Bulletin Vol. 23, No 3, 1997.
Other related/useful references in this field:
Brain mechanisms and psychotropic drugs. Gary Remington.
CRS press. 1996.
Different updates of the DSM - 4 scale. (Well, you know
what is it . . . )
The Brain and Emotion. Edmund T. Rolls, Oxford University
Press, 1999. (Exellent!)
The Brain and Behavior. Assessing Cortical Dysfunction
Through Activities of Daily Living. Gudrun Arnadottir. The C. V. Mosby Company.
1990. (Superb for "exploit assesement and Manipulation)
The Prefrontal Cortex. Anatomy, Physiology and Neuropsychology
of the Frontal Lobe. Joaquin M. Fuster. Third Edition. Lippincott - Raven,
References on Neuronal Damage, Epileptogenesis, Degeneration
These are multiple, I'll give you the most general and
encompassing hardcover ones, from which you can look for further data if interested.
Cortical Plasticity : LTP and LTD. Fazeli and Collingridge.
Cell Death and Diseases of Nervous System. Vassilis R.
Koliatsos and Rajiv R. Ratan. Humana Press, 1999.
Mitochondria & Free Radicals in Neurodegenerative
Diseases. M. Flint Beal et al; Wiley - Liss, 1997.
Highly Selective Neurotoxins. Basic and Clinical Applications.
Edited by Richard M. Kostrzewa. Humana Press. 1998.
Selective Neurotoxicity. H. Herken, F. Hucho, Springer
- Verlag, 1994.
When Cells Die. A comprehensive evaluation of Apoptosis
and Programmed Cell Death. Richard A. Lockshin et al. , 1998.
That should be more than enough.
References on Borna Virus.
a) CTMI 190 - Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology.
H. Koprovski and W. I. Lipkin. Borna Disease. Springer, 1995 Includes: Molecular
Biology of Borna Virus, Natural and Experimental Borna Disease in Animals,
Borna Disease - Neuropathology and Pathogenesis, Immunopathogenesis of Borna,
Behavioural Disturbances and Pharmacology of Borna Disease, Human Infections
with Borna and Potential Pathogenic Implications. If you are interested in
the virus you must have this one !
b) Ter Meulen V. , Katz M. , Slow virus infections of
the central nervous system. Springer, 1977.
c) Danner K. , Mayr A. In vitro studies on borna virus.
Properties of the virus. Arch. Virol. 61, 261 - 271.
d) Dittrich W, Bode L, Ludwig H, et al. Learning deficiencies
in Borna disease virus - infected but clinically healthy rats. 1989. Biol.
Psychiatry 26: 818 828 (a very enlightening study !)
e) Morales et al. Axonal transport of Borna disease virus
along olfactory pathways in spontaneously and experimentally infected rats.
Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 177: 51 - 68.
f) Rott R et al. Borna Disease, a possible hazard for
man ? Arch. Virol. 118: 143 - 149, 1991.
g) Caplazi P. et al. Borna disease in naturally infected
cattle. J. Comp. Path 111: 65 - 72, 1994.
h) Lundgren A. L. Natural Borna disease in domestic animals
others than horses and sheep. J. Vet. Med. B40: 298 - 303.
i) Grigson C. Shiqmim: pastoralism and other aspects of
animal management in the Chalcolithic of the Nothern Negev, Israel. British
Archeological Trust, Oxford, BAR international series, 356, Chap. 7, page
j) Paz U. The birds of Israel: order struthioniformes
(ostriches). Greene, Lexington, 1987.
k) Daubney R. Mahlau E. A. Viral encephalomyelitis of
equines and domestic ruminants in the Near East. Res. Vet. Sci. 8: 375.
l)Malkinson M. et al. Borna disease in sheep: first case
recorded in Israel. Isr. J. Vet. Med N 49.
m) Gozstonyi et al. Rabies and Borna disease - a comparative
pathogenic study of two neurovirulent agents. Lab. Investigations. 1993. 68:
285 - 295.
n) Lipkin et al. Neurotransmitter abnormatilies in Borna
Disease. Brain Research, 475 : 366 - 370.
o) Kao M. et al. Adaptation of Borna disease virus to
the mouse. J. Gen. Virol. 1984. 65: 1845 - 1849.
p) Narayan O. et al. Behavioural disease in rats caused
by immunopathological responses to persistent Borna virus in the brain. Science,
1983, 220: 1401 - 1403.
q) Solbrig M. V. et al. Borna disease virus causes dopamine
disturbances in rats. Society for Neuroscience, 1992. 1: 665 (abstract)
r) Sprankel H. et al. Behavioural alterations in tree
shrewds induced by Borna disease virus. Med. Microbiology and Immunology,
1978, 165 : 1-18.
s) Bechter et al. Possible significance of Borna disease
for humans. Neurol. Psychiatr. Brain Research, 1992, 1:23 - 29.
t) Bode et. al. Borna disease virus infection and affective
disorders in man. Arch. Virol. Suppl 7, 1993, 159 - 167.
u) Bode et. al. Borna disease virus genome transcribed
and expressed in psychiatric patients. Nature Medicine, 1995, 1(3):232-236.
v) Stitz L, Krey H. F, Ludwig H. Borna disease in rhesus
monkeys as a model for uveo - cerebral symptoms. J. Med. Virol. 6: 333 - 340.
w) Vande Woude S. et al. A Borna virus cDNA encoding a
protein recognized by antibodies in humans with behavioral diseases. Science,
1990, 250:1278 - 1281.
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang
Visit: Satanic Reds