IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Spontaneous Oneirosis in "UFOs" "abductions"?

dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi
Sun Apr 18 13:34:25 EST 1999

In bionet.neuroscience Grushnik <james.teo at chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> that all subjects entered voluntarily into an hyperaroused trance. In
> >> this state, they maintained a condition of muscular relaxation and
> >> immobility while their EEGs exhibited high frequency (beta) activity
> >> at all 19 electrode sites, but with maximum activity at the prefrontal
> >> and adjacent loci.
> >
> >Translation: They were awake.

> Huh? I don't get. Didn't the abstract say they had Beta wave activity?
> Doesn't that indicate a trance which mimics a sleep state? What does
> what you say have anything to do with it?

No, it indicates that they were awake.

Dag Stenberg
Dag Stenberg     MD PhD                    stenberg at cc.helsinki.fi
Institute of Biomedicine		   tel: (int.+)358-9-1918532
Department of Physiology                   fax: (int.+)358-9-1918681
P.O.Box 9        (Siltavuorenpenger 20 J)   
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,Finland   

> >> Inspection of the EEGs from the
> >> prefrontal/frontal sites revealed intermittent trains of rhythmic,
> >> approximately 40 Hz activity, attaining very high amplitudes, at
> >> times exceeding 40 microvolts. This activity was distinct in
> >> morphology and frequency from faster, usually concurrent activity,
> >> probably attributable to scalp muscle discharge (EMG). Analysis of
> >> 40 Hz, midline scalp activity, statistically controlling for the effects
> >> of EMG, revealed significantly more 40 Hz activity in trance than in
> >> baseline (p < .006). Also, the dominant alpha frequency increased
> >> during trance (p < .01). Both EEG findings suggest the occurrence
> >> of a state of hyperarousal. There was no evidence of epileptiform
> >> discharges in our data or clinical indications of possible epilepsy.
> >> Also, there was no brain activity suggestive of psychopathology,
> >> particularly schizophrenia, nor were there clinical indications of
> >> psychopathology.
> >
> >What does that all say? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing unusual or
> >pathalogical in these findings...except for the lies. The "subjects" are
> >compared to "baseline"- but there's no baseline data. They're comparing the
> >subjects to population averages, which is meaningless.

> I do not understand what you mean here. I don't think baseline meant
> 'control' (and even if it did, there are such things as controls of
> normal subjects you know). Although this is not clarified in the
> abstract, I think baseline here meant when compared to the EEG
> recordings when not in trance.

> >In other words, this is all nonsense couched in terminology to impress the
> >rubes.

> Probably, but your criticisms aren't sound either.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net