In article <xK9O0fb.gokelly at delphi.com>, GREGORY C.O'KELLY
<gokelly at delphi.com> wrote:
This paper has considerable consequences for the neurosciences both in the
opening of vast new fields of investigati
> on, and in the discrediting of the clinically inconsequential findings of the old school of the
> neurosciences which has its roots in the ideas of John Eccles,
> Kenneth Cole, Alan Hodgkin, and Andrew Huxley.
Just thought I'd let you know my Mom had some very clinically consequential
findings of weakness
and partial paralysis of the legs and feet late last week. A disc had
ruptured in the lumbar
spine and was compressing the spinal cord.
A neurosurgeon removed the disc fragment and much of the paralysis and
weakness are gone.
I would like to give the old school of the neurosciences a pat on the back.
If it is true that you are paralyzed due to spinal cord damage, you have my
sympathies. I had
nerve damage to my brachial plexus when I was younger. The weakness and
several months to rehabilitate from and initially they weren't very
the recovery of function. It scared the heck out of me not to be able to
lift my arm for
I don't think anyone minds you posting here to discuss what you feel are
modern neuroscience (IMHO). But posting disparaging remarks about the
of neuroscientists without any arguments to back up your claims is going to
get not-so-nice follow-up posts.