Fight or Flight
P. L. McGeer, et.al.
Dept. of Neurophysiology
University of BC
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: fight‑flight means `abdication’ too!
Dear Sir: (Dec. 5th SCIENCE NEWS; Alzheimer’s)
With some dismay the AiR (Autoimmune Response) almost appeared to be irrational some years ago while examining the underlying complemental unconscious matrix, predicted by the Special Relativity theory of Einstein as dictated by the physic’s CPT theorem. While my AI study (5th Generation Computer) was based on cross academic import hinging on the philosophical correlates to potential underlying unconscious structure (comparing reductive historical IQ recall to non‑temporal CQ of insightive nuance). The net `pattern’ of the then seen empirical correlates by Sperry(1) from his split‑brain data evoked both elation yet unsaid anxiety after defining same(2) in ’69 after the then long study. Ensuing studies show the AiR phenomena clearly, from the predominant unilateral facial smile, to Renoux’s data(3) of the ulterior Freudian death‑wish of the sympathetic CNS half. While yet disturbing to many, especially Psychiatry, as it could be that their own professional lead in suicide defines the neurotic problem best!
Obviously many questions come to the fore as; do AiR sufferers as Alzheimer’s reflect higher life stress and/or IQ before the malady becomes evident? What correlate lies in the mitochondrion DNA as ancestral intellect, where it is suspected now that definitive AiR may have it roots? Might LSD curb or redirect conscious (RAS) attention to subjective matters thus innate folly remission? The preliminary said smile(4) anomaly was noted when prolife right cerebral (Parasympathetic CNS), according to the physics, knew effect from cause (note EPR experiments!) so would be responsible for evoked damage repair. Another study should be done to examine pre‑AiR problems with a lateral smile analysis(5).
The anomaly of sclerotic (connective tissue) consolidation as a penchant of the sympathetic CNS defines the underlying anomaly to or for `halting’ the dynamic‑‑ be it cerebration or better noted in the physic’s dictates of E to mc squared, albeit likely irrational to most not in those disciplines examining fundamental attributes in our slow mass‑time. Since the psychological evolutional goal underlies the integrating of complementals in their most fundamental terms, it may require many more years before the empirical obvious is acknowledged in pedantic fields of academic research.
The overt rejection of our simple micro‑electrode use to eradicate nodular cancer [see Nordenstrom’s proof 16 years later(6)] yet appears confusing until the underlying relative profit motive becomes obvious. Fundamental imports are most evaded when one or another faction feeling responsible for research (as R&D) refuses to see the obvious. There is no anomaly today where overt competition dictates survival‑‑ whatever the cost.
Hopefully this evokes more net interest than anxiety, as the said “5th” with its proto‑type’s 10\17th odds maiden run over a dozen years ago(7), with Patent Office slammed door and FBI halt of any chance of it getting into the public’s hands too soon!
(1) `The Human Split‑Brain’, Scientific American, Aug.’67
`The Others Side of the Brain’, J.E. Bogan, Bul. L.A. Neurol.
(2) Vogelsang, R.; `A Correlative Study between Physics and Psy‑ chology’, Intl. Biomet. Congress, ’69
(3) Renoux, U/Tours; bilateral cerebral lymphatic control; DISCOVER, Feb.’87; pgs. 57‑58. (killer vs. guidance T cells)
(4) IL‑2 Cancer Research (3 left smiler remissive of 8 subjects);
NOVA NPR TV,’88
(5) Smile anomaly for mate choice. SINGLELIFE, Sept/Oct.’90, p.12
(6) Micro‑Electrode Cover story; DISCOVER, April ’86, Nordenstrom’s micro‑electrode cancer therapy work.
(7) ask a qualified physicist how the EPR experiment works with a freed electron‑‑ that escapes the time reversal paradigm.
cc:Path/IQ; Phys‑Psy; 3‑dev
S.A. Johnson, et.al.
Dept. of Neurophysiology
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90007