it's not a Beta-amyloid thing

John H. John at
Sat Jun 29 14:34:36 EST 2002

The research community is well aware that it is not a beta amyloid thing,
and in things biological whether or not one can talk about any specific
starting point for any specific condition is becoming increasingly
problematic. Beta amyloid is essential, in itself not a problem, only when
it take on particular structures leading to the phosphorylation of Tau
(which is a caspase effector) does neurodegeneration really get a swing on.
Interestingly, at least according to one review I read recently these
plagues begin in the extracellular spaces but I believe beta is produced in
the ER.

Antioxidants have some benefit in Alz but are not the answer, the effect is
limited and by the time symptoms appear the low level inflammatory response
is well underway, a self propagating process perhaps via il1 prodn by
microglia and il1 itselt stimulates beta a prodn, though there are obviously
precursors to this activation that lead to the pathology occurring.

"Making predictions on the molecular stuff" is a crock. Nothing in my,
theirs, or your current understanding permits such exuberant extrapolations.
We still don't even understand calcium waves for brains' sake and I think
the presumption that one can create a set of principles that will determine
all neural states and conditions betrays an under appreciation of just how
indeterminate biological processes are and more importantly just how bloody
ignorant we are.

Make this prediction:

A person under chronic personal stress working on a high cognitive load for
many months, foregoing sleep, maintaining dietary restriction but not
sufficient supplementation, relying on coffee too much and refuses to sleep
until exhausted, has failing source and primary memory and is demonstrating
increased attentional difficulties combined with increasing social isolation
who spends one's days playing computer games rather than attending to the
approx 250 pdfs to be read(hopeless, he'll never make it) and an urgent MSS
re-submission. How will such behaviour impact on Nfkb-cox 2- pge2
/transcription -synthesis in the hippocampus with respect to LTP, EAA, and
the differential expression of iNos and nNos, assuming that nNos is
requisite for LTP induction and maintenance while iNos has potentially
deleterious consequences on cell viability. And just to make it interesting,
see if you can invoke an explanation for the dopaminergic failure in the pfc
and why this has attentional implications.

Will the subject get the reading done and the MSS rewritten or will the
editors tell him to piss off and what will be the state of his pfcs and
hippocampus at the end of it all?

John H.

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at> wrote in message
news:AAbT8.66991$UT.4611034 at
> anyway, the main thing i'm doing in this thread is just working to get the
> 'point' across that =nothing= in molecular dynamics is disconnected from
> neural-activation dynamics that're driven 'experientially'.
> to the degree that they do so, all experiments that treat molecular stuff
> being some sort of self-containing-code produce False results.
> this's =not= saying the data they produce isn't Valuable. it is.
> it's just that the data is 'disconnected' from reality in a way that
> 'steers' folks away from being able to understand nervous system function.
> it's like Functional Neuroanatomy before NDT's explication of
> "decussation' - all 'disconnected', and subject to widely-varying false
> hypotheses.
> i understand that this stuff must seem 'offensive', but that's only
> it's unfamiliar [even though i've been discussing it, in one form or
> another, since the early 1990s.]
> consider it until you get a 'handle' on it, and you'll see that it's an
> extraordinarily-useful organizing principle because it rigorously couples
> everything physically-internal with everything physically-external. one
> thing permeates everything: the one-way flow of energy from order to
> disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
> what this stuff does is lift the molecular stuff up from consisting of a
> bunch of abstract-ruleset stuff to being physically-coupled with external
> physical reality.
> once you See-it, you'll be able to make predictions re. the molecular
> do the experiments, and voila!
> eliminates a lot of the 'hunting-and-pecking',
> 'throwing-stuff-up-in-the-air-to-see-how-they-land, stuff.
> still, i understand that this stuff is, initially, 'offensive'.
> i mean no 'offense'.
> just the opposite.
> ken [k. p. collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list