Neural division in Brain

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Mon Dec 21 22:09:37 EST 1998


>> Five  Cancer patients were given a chemical that marks cells undergoing
>> division. It is therefore useful in assessing the spread of cancer and was
>> administered as part of their treatment, but the marker cell  will also show
>> cytogenesis in other cells, such as in this instance  nerve cells in the
>> hippocampus, so it is useful in research..
>> The patients unfortunately died of their illness.

How unfortunate.

Would the same have happend if instead of chemical marks healer's
magic had been used? Or what Frank Fools Crow (of North American
occupied lands) might call "ton"?

>> They also looked at the brain of a sixth cancer victim who had not been given
>> the marker chemical.

Cancer victim.

Has it been established if the cancer was caused by artificial
energies sent through them 
or other caused causes, 
so that they were victims of persons who caused them the cancer,
or that it was just a natural event,
that would have happened in areas like Tibet or areas with very little
artificial energies sent through people nor much other artificial
stuff there,
too?

Else it would be like saying to someone that he was victim of his
entrails, 
not mentioning the bit of my knife going into them.


Here in Germany they have these cancer maps for cities,
which to me seemed always like being for people so sense censored and
so much system sheep, that they are actually needing a map to tell
them where some of the next most dangerous cancer sources in range are
and how dangerous the general level roughly is.

>> The Dentate gyrus, part of the hippocampus, of the first five subjects showed
>> evidence of neuron division.

Why should cells of the human systems not be able to devide?
I'd find it more interesting to know if some can't why they can't.
Would be rather impractical if my systems were to get injured.

>Remember, this research is difficult to do and has already been done properly in rats, mice, and
>monkeys. 
Done properly?
You meant the according persons were free and assented?
That would amaze me.
I'd assume that a hoard of sense censored imprisoned people of other
races and declared them their possessions and maimed around in their I
areas.

For me to watch how someone is maiming I areas of another person would
beat all horrorfilms I ever saw.

It is gross to the extreme.,
and for me the way of the Westies to communicate to others of space to
stay off the Homo Chimp UnSapiens and that they have developed to some
of the lowest levels possible.

At least they are demonstrating that within the own race within
psychiatry they are also declaring other's areas of the brain
possession of someone else, so that it is a general attitude of that
another's I areas are the own to mutilate, and not just limited to
related races.


> If you read a Neuroscience text, it will tell you this doesn't
>happen, and the authors have built enough critical mass now to show this
>isn't true...

In neuroscience texts I read they also tried to claim that we are in
the frontal cortex because ours it bigger than that of many others,
that axons and according energy is ever so important while glia or
subatomic relations of the brain are to be ignored,
data that within magic is thousands of years old is trumpeted out as
if it just had been discovered on Earth, magic knowledge is basically
zero, the dangers of I area energy data combined with technology and
satellites are ignored, like little system slaves getting data for big
brother and not even realizing where Earth is in data and where what
they are doing might lead, people of other races who are not seen as
individuals but are generalized like in Hitler's time people might
have said THE Jew, and the possibilities of transferring magical
healing methods of cancer into ones into cybermagical ones, using
magic and technology in combination are not even discussed within
neurology, as they prefer to cut a head open, cut out stuff or stick
buzzing stuff in, instead of first trying non-cutting methods. 

Simplified while a lot of magic healers of Earth are not minding magic
or also verbal data exchanges with semi-colleagues from elseplace and
while I observe that a lot of branches are echanging magical data
these days, neurology has been keeping itself out, the violence there
again others has been criticized heavily by others and many others are
keeping all of Westie system branches out.

I know people who are even more strictly than I for keeping system
Westies out of magic,
and looking at what they do and at the "education" the wisdom is
apparent.

I find it remarkable that within neurology the magic advancements of
Earth are not even discussed usually, like in many Christian Westie
systems,
and about the only time I heard the question of subatomic operations
randomly mentioned was from Baumgarten here in Berlin, but also not in
the serious way of someone who is seriously busying himself with it,
but more of someone who is aware that there are not enough people
interested, so why bothering thinking about it much for serious.
 
System Westies are often  refusing to stop respecting the body of
another as the own possession and are hammering subatomic stuff into
the subatomic structures till many get cancer, 
then they are refusing to educate the children to at least scan the
areas where they are magically as for how dangerous for cancer they
are for them,
and then they are refusing to use magic within healing,
and are refusing to at least try to imitate magic with physics stuff
and try to catch up or surpass subatomic works of others with
machines.

If some neuro Guru like headblind sense censored Chalmers is bleating
out some opinions the sheep might bleat it after him, and the more
Gurus are adding their beliefs, the more sheep might do so.

Critical mass ...

And if some Neurogurus say that cells in areas of the brain are ever
so much more different than others, the RE might be Amen.

If you are into magic compare spine energies to other brain and body
energies (maybe tuning through to another person parallel), and sort
of do a comaprison match and where you'd count it: (areas of the)
brain, (areas of the ) body
or own system(s).

If able to access embryo data to inside ask about that might be
interesting, too.

(Sometimes I am not much into explaining something with words for
which there are no words, like when I told Cheng to try a certain
telepathic game to do with some flame image some day,
after he had talked about some memory stuff,
and, though unlikely, the day he might play that telepathic flame
image projecting game after all and study the effects, and think about
HOW "the flame is moved", he will understand part of what I meant....)

>> 3. I was interested in the references - there are papers on mamalian
>> hippocampal neuron regeneration going back to the 1960's.
Internal age impressions of my systems data back before mammal,
therefore alone the thought to me is alien to distinguish mammals in
that as a whole group from all others. But I assume that there must be
a reason for that that I do not understand because I do not understand
the newer aspects of the hippicampal neurons in mammals compared to
others well enough.

Why was such distinction made?
 
>> (I'm not experienced in reading this sort of paper - still studying)

;-)   When someone grumped at me that I had my own namings for some
areas in the brain and did not know the neuro names, I tried reading
some neurostuff and after a labyrinths of complicated words often
describing just a fraction of the stuff that interested me about areas
internal and correlated functions as I might get it in far easier
vocaulary from other brainsurfers, I decided that the naming often was
going for persons (Broca, Wernicke) and other complicated stuff
instead of names indicating functions and making it easier to learn,
that systems were summoned up under one name that for me were several
systems or were the summoning up was just there of the areas were
running on older functions but did not seem there on newer ones, that
other areas were segregated into many names that for me were of one
system, etc.

So that basically the namings often seemed based on function- and
system independent complicated stuff.

After that I returned to my own namings.


I noticed that using mammal emotion generator seemed easier to
understand for other folks than basolateral part of the amygdala in
the limbic system,
and that with my terms I could explain LSD students I was teaching
ways more rapidly about important function correlations that are
altering on LSD, and what to do to avoid psycho-crashing in bad forms.

Something that in own namings and with magic I might explain within a
few sessions to another, might be ranging from ways longer to outright
impossible in neuroloy.

Alone that magic is left out is basically leaving out the subatomic
understanding of the brain, the dreaming understanding of healers,
cancer healing possibilites that are healthier than cutting and so on.

That might be part of the reasons why it takes so long to read for
people not yet experienced in it.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list