i've got an 80%-verified ALS hypothesis, and it ain't 'genetic'. if the hypothesis goes all the
way, it will mean that ALS is preventable, and, although not curable in advanced stages, at least
it seems that the remaining 20% will be 'difficult' going. histology re ALS is =severely= lacking,
as are case-histories.
i'll discuss the hypothesis later, after i've had something to eat and get caught-up on my sleep.
what i want to talk about now is that i've verified that my mail's got a problem of its own.
the Library i've been using is at Smith College. what a =Great= Library! man, i've got nothing but
good to say about Smith. if you've a daughter, do all you can to get her into that place. a lot of
this is it's bright, well-lighted, guiet order, with an excellent selection of journals.
Smith is where i observed the beetles 'disregarding their wings one early-summer day years ago
when i was up-there to give one of the presentations in the series i presented.
more recently, it was where i saw the 'stringy-thing' vine 'tangles' that stimmed my recent
can't walk on the Smith College campus without Discovering Treasure-Stuff.
i took another peek while at the Smith College Science Library today. there was one example of a
'stringy thing' in the 'caternary' that was so beautiful that i wanted to clip it, but i didn't
because it was still hanging-in-there, doing it's thing on behalf of the vine.
what was beautiful about it was that, where it grew out of the vine, the vine was at close to the
maximal distance from the building that 'stringy things' can handle, and this particular 'stringy
thing' was all stretched-out like a camera tripod... or, like a cartoon character that's hanging
by its toes from one cliff and its fingers from the other cliff, with an abyss in-between.
i could, literally, see the 'stringy thing' 'struggle' to gain purchase on the building, and, when
it did, everything within it 'snapping-to', so that it's other 'feet' found their ways to this
'tripod'-like configuration... all at extremum. =Beautiful=!
i was standing there wishing i could share it all with someone, and a young science student did
come by, and i did say, "This is the best Science Library on the face of the planet! You're so
lucky." but i didn't think of showing her the 'stringy things', and their deeply-meaningful stuff.
(typical... "Hi, i'm the mad scientist" :-)
i can say all of this now because, while i was applying for a computer analyst's job at Smith,
i've given-up hope with respect to it.
anyway, i left with my 80%-verified ALS hypothesis, went to another lib that had some other books
i'd indexed, came home, to you, my much-asked-of Colleagues.
i'll discuss the ALS hypothesis later. it's the most-fun hypothesis i've ever put together.
i had some 'success' with Huntington's, too, but that effort will take longer... longer than i've
'time' left on my ISP contract. if i can pull it together sufficiently, i'll post what i've got,
which is only a clear direction, without yet enabling me to point to useful action. but maybe
someone else will be able to see something that i can't with respect to this start re.
Huntington's. (for better or worse, the ALS literature that i had access to was in much-greater
quantity than was the Huntington's literature. i compounded that because, i got into other things
(brought my nickel & dime collection, and =had= to invest a-bit), and, got a bit worn-out at the
copier because i was hungry, and forgot that i'd found a text on Huntington's in the Smith Lib,
and walked out without looking it up.
be back with the ALS hypothesis later.
because ALS is a 'Disease' process, i'll expect anyone who can to contribute, pro or con,
Forthrightly (no need for 'tip-toing' on my account), with none of our typical 'waste'. the
sufferring will, then, be in our imediate presence, and we must be 'good soldiers' on behalf of
those who suffer.
ken (k. P. Collins)
kenneth Collins wrote:
> except for posting the diagrams, i did everything you cite (quoted below) in 1975-6.
>> if you've been monitoring the discussions, and if you've the understanding you claim, you must
> know that i've also done everything you cite (quoted below), except post the diagrams, right
> here in B.N, along with repeatedly offering to present everything in-person.
>> but, after posting my prior reply to you, i realized that, although, in accord with
> 'traditional stadards, it was 'appropriate' for me to do so, i gave your 'challenge' short
>> it's 'late in the game'. as i've previously stated, my contract with my ISP is drawing to a
> close. i've, therefore, only a little 'time' left. besides this, because it's been so cold
> here in New England, i've had to use more heating fuel than i'd expected, that's impacted my
> expenses, so i'd decided that i had to 'quit' smoking, which always transforms me into a
> 'grizzly bear' for at least the first week.
>> then you come and post a msg that's totally 'ignorant' of the pre-NDT and 'post'-NDT 'states'
> of Neuroscience, and then 'challenge' me to state that which entire research programs in ALS
> and Huntington's have not yet accomplished.
>> all of this is flat-out absurd, and it 'hurts-likehell' that you've 'imposed' such upon me.
>> but while out to purchase the day's news, i called myself to task. i know that if i have a
> look at refs discussing ALS and Huntington's, i will be able to contribute stuff that will
> advance the understanding with respect to both diseases, so i decided that i must do so,
> bought a pack of cigarettes, and will spend the evening looking through the refs i've got on
> hand for clues that i can work with.
>> for the record, the problem i've worked on is all aspects of the functioning of ='normal'=,
> organicically-intact nervous systems. of course, i've studied lesion experiments. but i've
> never studied disease processes because, since there are long-standing research efforts
> devoted to the study of such disease processes, studying them didn't fit into my strategy of
>> for the record, the 45 minutes i spent looking into Alzheimers, the other night, is the only
> 'time' i've spent doing so. other than that, i've caught some TV reports, and, as i discussed,
> have gained some insights into good approaches to generalized aging through my efforts to
> nurture my Father's well-being. (my Father is as lucid and as active as a 50 year old man, and
> i work to 'goose' him as much as i can so that he'll have reason to maintain his interest in
>> for the record, all i know about ALS is that i wept when viewing Lou Gherig's 'good-bye' at
> Yankee Stadium, and that Stephen Hawking also suffers the disease. while i was reading re
> Alzheimers the other night, i learned that ALS impacts peripheral nerve myelination. that's
> all i presently know re. ALS.
>> for the record, i know nothing re. Huntington's except that it involves choreoform movement
> 'abnormalities'. in the long-former past, i saw a possible 'correlation' to the sub-thalamic
> basal ganglia deficits that underpin hemi-ballism. whether or not this possible 'correlation'
> is actually anything is something i've never pursued. that is all i know about Huntington's.
>> Austin P. So (Hae-Jin) wrote:
>> > Manipulate you to my own ends? Please...you do flatter yourself unnecessarily don't you?
>> if you're at a 'biotech' lab, if i give you 'critical' factors re. ALS & Huntington's, you and
> your lab stand to gain.
>> i presume that you are here 'being a Jackass' with the express purpose of 'weasling' with
> respect to such 'profit'-seeking stuff.
>> after all, you've shown up in an extremely-'time'-correlated way with respect to my having
> just done the exactly-correlated thing with respect to Alzheimer's.
>> and, in light of the fact that everything i've done has been done in a self-funded way, and in
> light of the fact that you've 'come-on' in a way calculated to superficially-'trash' the
> fruits of my having given of myself for 29+ years, your intent is Obvious.
>> but, in the end, i realized that if i can advance knowledge re. ALS & Huntington's, then i've
> Obligation, with respect to such, that transcends your 'profit'-seeking.
>> i expect i can, so I've the Obligation to do so, and will, at least, explore a bit in the refs
> i've at hand.
>> > If you are so confident about the validity of your AoK, then even a small application will
> > suffice.
>> _AoK_ is just a brief introduction to Neuroscientific Duality Theory. it only casually
> addresses Tapered Harmony. NDT & TH are huge.
>> K. P. Collins
>> > Why don't you even try to graphically represent the topology of neuron-glia
> > interactions with respect to synaptic signalling. Since you have already "solved" the
> > problem "exactly" through AoK, and since you apparently have an equation that shows the
> > dynamics of this system, and since the data is out there already, this would be just a
> > simple exercise in math, no?
> > If you have an equation of state, you should be able to draw out a phase diagram
> > representing the "topology" you so readily claim to have worked out.
> > Humour me.
> > kenneth Collins wrote:
> > > Prediction: you are just another Jackass who thinks he can 'manipulate' me to his ends.
> > >
> > > Prediction: sooner or later, you'll 'go away' without having any success.
> > --
> > ---
> > Austin P. So (Hae Jin)
> > I.I.S.G.P.
> > Biotechnology Laboratory
> > University of British Columbia
> > E-mail: haejin at netinfo.ubc.ca> >
> > http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/haejin/index.html (under construction)