1

Study Reveals Substantial Evidence That We Live In a Holographic Universe

A sketch of the timeline of the holographic Universe. Time runs from left to right. The far left denotes the holographic phase and the image is blurry because space and time are not yet well defined. At the end of this phase (denoted by the black fluctuating ellipse), the Universe enters a geometric phase, which can now be described by Einstein’s equations. The cosmic microwave background was emitted about 375,000 years later. Patterns imprinted in it carry information about the very early Universe and seed the development of structures of stars and galaxies in the late time Universe (far right). Credit: Paul McFadden

Source: Phys.org

A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram.

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the  (the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the —in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published findings in the journal Physical Review Letters.

, an idea first suggested in the 1990s, is one where all the information that makes up our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries.

Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded.”

Although not an example with holographic properties, it could be thought of as rather like watching a 3-D film in a cinema. We see the pictures as having height, width and crucially, depth—when in fact it all originates from a flat 2-D screen. The difference, in our 3-D universe, is that we can touch objects and the ‘projection’ is ‘real’ from our perspective.

In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the ‘white noise’ or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) leftover from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team was able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and . They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.

Professor Skenderis comments: “Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at a quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this.”

The scientists now hope their study will open the door to further our understanding of the  and explain how space and time emerged.




HAPPY EARTH DAY! How Nature Can Make You Kinder, Happier, and More Creative

backpack mountains nature-compressed

By Jill Suttie | Greater Good Magazine

We are spending more time indoors and online. But recent studies suggest that nature can help our brains and bodies to stay healthy.

I’ve been an avid hiker my whole life. From the time I first strapped on a backpack and headed into the Sierra Nevada Mountains, I was hooked on the experience, loving the way being in nature cleared my mind and helped me to feel more grounded and peaceful.

But, even though I’ve always believed that hiking in nature had many psychological benefits, I’ve never had much science to back me up…until now, that is. Scientists are beginning to find evidence that being in nature has a profound impact on our brains and our behavior, helping us to reduce anxiety, brooding and stress, and increase our attention capacity, creativity, and our ability to connect with other people.

Related Article: The Frequency of Life: Getting Back to Nature For Good Health

“People have been discussing their profound experiences in nature for the last several 100 years—from Thoreau to John Muir to many other writers,” says researcher David Strayer, of the University of Utah. “Now we are seeing changes in the brain and changes in the body that suggest we are physically and mentally more healthy when we are interacting with nature.”

While he and other scientists may believe nature benefits our well-being, we live in a society where people spend more and more time indoors and online—especially children. Findings on how nature improves our brains bring added legitimacy to the call for preserving natural spaces—both urban and wild—and for spending more time in nature in order to lead healthier, happier, and more creative lives.

Here are some of the ways that science is showing how being in nature affects our brains and bodies.

mountain walk

1. Being in nature decreases stress

It’s clear that hiking—and any physical activity—can reduce stress and anxiety. But, there’s something about being in nature that may augment those impacts.

In one recent experiment conducted in Japan, participants were assigned to walk either in a forest or in an urban center (taking walks of equal length and difficulty) while having their heart rate variability, heart rate, and blood pressure measured. The participants also filled out questionnaires about their moods, stress levels, and other psychological measures.

Results showed that those who walked in forests had significantly lower heart rates and higher heart rate variability (indicating more relaxation and less stress), and reported better moods and less anxiety, than those who walked in urban settings. The researchers concluded that there’s something about being in nature that had a beneficial effect on stress reduction, above and beyond what exercise alone might have produced.

In another study, researchers in Finland found that urban dwellers who strolled for as little as 20 minutes through an urban park or woodland reported significantly more stress relief than those who strolled in a city center.

The reasons for this effect are unclear, but scientists believe that we evolved to be more relaxed in natural spaces. In a now-classic laboratory experiment by Roger Ulrich of Texas A&M University and colleagues, participants who first viewed a stress-inducing movie, and were then exposed to color/sound videotapes depicting natural scenes, showed much quicker, more complete recovery from stress than those who’d been exposed to videos of urban settings.

These studies and others provide evidence that being in natural spaces— or even just looking out of a window onto a natural scene—somehow soothes us and relieves stress.

2. Nature makes you happier and less brooding

I’ve always found that hiking in nature makes me feel happier, and of course, decreased stress may be a big part of the reason why. But, Gregory Bratman, of Stanford University, has found evidence that nature may impact our mood in other ways, too.

In one 2015 study, he and his colleagues randomly assigned 60 participants to a 50-minute walk in either a natural setting (oak woodlands) or an urban setting (along a four-lane road). Before and after the walk, the participants were assessed on their emotional state and on cognitive measures, such as how well they could perform tasks requiring short-term memory. Results showed that those who walked in nature experienced less anxiety, rumination (focused attention on negative aspects of oneself), and negative affect, as well as more positive emotions, in comparison to the urban walkers. They also improved their performance on memory tasks.

In another study, he and his colleagues extended these findings by zeroing in on how walking in nature affects rumination—which has been associated with the onset of depression and anxiety—while also using fMRI technology to look at brain activity. Participants who took a 90-minute walk in either a natural setting or an urban setting had their brains scanned before and after their walks and were surveyed on self-reported rumination levels (as well as other psychological markers). The researchers controlled for many potential factors that might influence rumination or brain activity—for example, physical exertion levels as measured by heart rates and pulmonary functions.

Even so, participants who walked in a natural setting versus an urban setting reported decreased rumination after the walk, and they showed increased activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain whose deactivation is affiliated with depression and anxiety—a finding that suggests nature may have important impacts on mood.

Bratman believes results like these need to reach city planners and others whose policies impact our natural spaces. “Ecosystem services are being incorporated into decision making at all levels of public policy, land use planning, and urban design, and it’s very important to be sure to incorporate empirical findings from psychology into these decisions,” he says.

GRAND CANYON

3. Nature relieves attention fatigue and increases creativity.

Today, we live with ubiquitous technology designed to constantly pull for our attention. But many scientists believe our brains were not made for this kind of information bombardment, and that it can lead to mental fatigue, overwhelm, and burnout, requiring “attention restoration” to get back to a normal, healthy state.

Strayer is one of those researchers. He believes that being in nature restores depleted attention circuits, which can then help us be more open to creativity and problem-solving.

“When you use your cell phone to talk, text, shoot photos, or whatever else you can do with your cell phone, you’re tapping the prefrontal cortex and causing reductions in cognitive resources,” he says.

In a 2012 study, he and his colleagues showed that hikers on a four-day backpacking trip could solve significantly more puzzles requiring creativity when compared to a control group of people waiting to take the same hike—in fact, 47 percent more. Although other factors may account for his results—for example, the exercise or the camaraderie of being out together—prior studies have suggested that nature itself may play an important role. One in Psychological Science found that the impact of nature on attention restoration is what accounted for improved scores on cognitive tests for the study participants.

This phenomenon may be due to differences in brain activation when viewing natural scenes versus more built-up scenes—even for those who normally live in an urban environment. In a recent study conducted by Peter Aspinall at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, and colleagues, participants who had their brains monitored continuously using mobile electroencephalogram (EEG) while they walked through an urban green space had brain EEG readings indicating lower frustration, engagement, and arousal, and higher meditation levels while in the green area, and higher engagement levels when moving out of the green area. This lower engagement and arousal may be what allows for attention restoration, encouraging a more open, meditative mindset.

It’s this kind of brain activity—sometimes referred to as “the brain default network”—that is tied to creative thinking, says Strayer. He is currently repeating his earlier 2012 study with a new group of hikers and recording their EEG activity and salivary cortisol levels before, during, and after a three-day hike. Early analyses of EEG readings support the theory that hiking in nature seems to rest people’s attention networks and to engage their default networks.

Strayer and colleagues are also specifically looking at the effects of technology by monitoring people’s EEG readings while they walk in an arboretum, either while talking on their cell phone or not. So far, they’ve found that participants with cell phones appear to have EEG readings consistent with attention overload, and can recall only half as many details of the arboretum they just passed through, compared to those who were not on a cell phone.

Though Strayer’s findings are preliminary, they are consistent with other people’s findings on the importance of nature to attention restoration and creativity.

“If you’ve been using your brain to multitask—as most of us do most of the day—and then you set that aside and go on a walk, without all of the gadgets, you’ve let the prefrontal cortex recover,” says Strayer. “And that’s when we see these bursts in creativity, problem-solving, and feelings of well-being.”

family hike

4. Nature may help you to be kind and generous

Whenever I go to places like Yosemite or the Big Sur Coast of California, I seem to return to my home life ready to be more kind and generous to those around me—just ask my husband and kids! Now some new studies may shed light on why that is.

In a series of experiments published in 2014, Juyoung Lee, GGSC director Dacher Keltner, and other researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the potential impact of nature on the willingness to be generous, trusting, and helpful toward others, while considering what factors might influence that relationship.

As part of their study, the researchers exposed participants to more or less subjectively beautiful nature scenes (whose beauty levels were rated independently) and then observed how participants behaved playing two economics games—the Dictator Game and the Trust Game—that measure generosity and trust, respectively. After being exposed to the more beautiful nature scenes, participants acted more generously and more trusting in the games than those who saw less beautiful scenes, and the effects appeared to be due to corresponding increases in positive emotion.

In another part of the study, the researchers asked people to fill out a survey about their emotions while sitting at a table where more or less beautiful plants were placed. Afterward, the participants were told that the experiment was over and they could leave, but that if they wanted to they could volunteer to make paper cranes for a relief effort program in Japan. The number of cranes they made (or didn’t make) was used as a measure of their “prosociality” or willingness to help.

Related Article: Creating Connection: Finding Balance Between Nature and Man.

Results showed that the presence of more beautiful plants significantly increased the number of cranes made by participants and that this increase was, again, mediated by positive emotion elicited by natural beauty. The researchers concluded that experiencing the beauty of nature increases positive emotion—perhaps by inspiring awe, a feeling akin to wonder, with the sense of being part of something bigger than oneself—which then leads to prosocial behaviors.

Support for this theory comes from an experiment conducted by Paul Piff of the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, in which participants staring up a grove of very tall trees for as little as one minute experienced measurable increases in awe, and demonstrated more helpful behavior and approached moral dilemmas more ethically, than participants who spent the same amount of time looking up at a high building.

nature-hike

5. Nature makes you “feel more alive”

With all of these benefits to being out in nature, it’s probably no surprise that something about nature makes us feel more alive and vital. Being outdoors gives us energy, makes us happier, helps us to relieve the everyday stresses of our overscheduled lives, opens the door to creativity, and helps us to be kind to others.

No one knows if there is an ideal amount of nature exposure, though Strayer says that longtime backpackers suggest a minimum of three days to really unplug from our everyday lives. Nor can anyone say for sure how nature compares to other forms of stress relief or attention restoration, such as sleep or meditation. Both Strayer and Bratman say we need a lot more careful research to tease out these effects before we come to any definitive conclusions.

Still, the research does suggest there’s something about nature that keeps us psychologically healthy, and that’s good to know…especially since nature is a resource that’s free and that many of us can access by just walking outside our door. Results like these should encourage us as a society to consider more carefully how we preserve our wilderness spaces and our urban parks.

And while the research may not be conclusive, Strayer is optimistic that science will eventually catch up to what people like me have intuited all along—that there’s something about nature that renews us, allowing us to feel better, to think better, and to deepen our understanding of ourselves and others.

“You can’t have centuries of people writing about this and not have something going on,” says Strayer. “If you are constantly on a device or in front of a screen, you’re missing out on something that’s pretty spectacular: the real world.”

mountains of awe
About The Author

Jill Suttie, Psy.D., is Greater Good‘s book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine.




WATCH: Are We Living in a Simulated Reality? If So, Why? | Gregg Braden

Source: Gregg Braden Official

In this video, Gregg Braden addresses reincarnation and simulated reality. Recently, supercomputer algorithms calculation showed that we are most likely living in a simulated reality rather than a virtual reality. If this is the case, then we need to ask ourselves – where exactly are we? Who created this simulation? And most importantly, why are we here?

Related article: Simulation Theory and “A Glitch in the Matrix” | Cynthia Sue Larson




Gregg Braden: The Difference Between Fractals and Holograms, and What They Mean in Our Lives

Video Source: Gregg Braden Official 

In this Q&A episode, Gregg Braden addresses two questions regarding the difference between fractals and holograms, and what they mean in our lives…




What Causes a Tsunami? An Ocean Scientist Explains the Physics of These Destructive Waves

On Jan. 15, 2022, coastal areas across California were placed under a tsunami warning.
Gado via Getty Images

On Jan. 15, 2022, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano in Tonga erupted, sending a tsunami racing across the Pacific Ocean in all directions.

As word of the eruption spread, government agencies on surrounding islands and in places as far away as New Zealand, Japan, and even the U.S. West Coast issued tsunami warnings. Only about 12 hours after the initial eruption, tsunami waves a few feet tall hit California shorelines – more than 5,000 miles away from the eruption.

I’m a physical oceanographer who studies waves and turbulent mixing in the ocean. Tsunamis are one of my favorite topics to teach my students because the physics of how they move through oceans is so simple and elegant.

Waves that are a few feet tall hitting a beach in California might not sound like the destructive waves the term calls to mind, nor what you see in footage of tragic tsunamis from the past. But tsunamis are not normal waves, no matter the size. So how are tsunamis different from other ocean waves? What generates them? How do they travel so fast? And why are they so destructive?

A satellite view a large ash cloud and shockwave.
When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted, it launched ash into the atmosphere, created a powerful shock wave and displaced a huge amount of water, generating a tsunami that raced across the ocean.
Japan Meteorological Agency via WikimediaCommons, CC BY

Deep displacement

Most waves are generated by wind as it blows over the ocean’s surface, transferring energy to and displacing the water. This process creates the waves you see at the beach every day.

Tsunamis are created by an entirely different mechanism. When an underwater earthquake, volcanic eruption or landslide displaces a large amount of water, that energy has to go somewhere – so it generates a series of waves. Unlike wind-driven waves where the energy is confined to the upper layer of the ocean, the energy in a series of tsunami waves extends throughout the entire depth of the ocean. Additionally, a lot more water is displaced than in a wind-driven wave.

Imagine the difference in the waves that are created if you were to blow on the surface of a swimming pool compared to the waves that are created when someone jumps in with a big cannonball dive. The cannonball dive displaces a lot more water than blowing on the surface, so it creates a much bigger set of waves.

Earthquakes can easily move huge amounts of water and cause dangerous tsunamis. Same with large undersea landslides. In the case of the Tonga tsunami, the massive explosion of the volcano displaced the water. Some scientists are speculating that the eruption also caused an undersea landslide that contributed to a large amount of displaced water. Future research will help confirm whether this is true or not.

This simulation from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows how tsunami waves propagated away from an earthquake that occurred about 600 miles from Tonga in 2021.

Tsunami waves travel fast

No matter the cause of a tsunami, after the water, is displaced, waves propagate outward in all directions – similarly to when a stone is thrown into a serene pond.

Because the energy in tsunami waves reaches all the way to the bottom of the ocean, the depth of the seafloor is the primary factor that determines how fast they move. Calculating the speed of a tsunami is actually quite simple. You just multiply the depth of the ocean – 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) on average – by gravity and take the square root. Doing this, you get an average speed of about 440 miles per hour (700 kilometers per hour). This is much faster than the speed of typical waves, which can range from about 10 to 30 mph (15 to 50 kph).

This equation is what oceanographers use to estimate when a tsunami will reach faraway shores. The tsunami on Jan. 15 hit Santa Cruz, California, 12 hours and 12 minutes after the initial eruption in Tonga. Santa Cruz is 5,280 miles (8,528 kilometers) from Tonga, which means that the tsunami traveled at 433 mph (697 kph) – nearly identical to the speed estimate calculated using the ocean’s average depth.

A flooded airport runway covered in debris.
Many tsunamis, including the 2011 Tsunami in Japan, move inland and can flood areas far from the coast.
U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Samuel Morse via WikimediaCommons

Destruction on land

Tsunamis are rare compared to ubiquitous wind-driven waves, but they are often much more destructive. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed 225,000 people. More than 20,000 lost their lives in the 2011 Japan tsunami.

What makes tsunamis so much more destructive than normal waves?

An animation showing waves approaching a shoreline.
As waves approach shore, they get pushed upward by the rising seafloor.
Régis Lachaume via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

In the open ocean, tsunami waves can be small and may even be undetectable by a boat at the surface. But as the tsunami approaches land, the ocean gets progressively shallower and all the wave energy that extended thousands of feet to the bottom of the deep ocean gets compressed. The displaced water needs to go somewhere. The only place to go is up, so the waves get taller and taller as they approach the shore.

When tsunamis get to shore, they often do not crest and break like a typical ocean wave. Instead, they are more like a large wall of water that can inundate land near the coast. It is as if sea level were to suddenly rise by a few feet or more. This can cause flooding and very strong currents that can easily sweep people, cars and buildings away.

Luckily, tsunamis are rare and not nearly as much of a surprise as they once were. There is now an extensive array of bottom pressure sensors, called DART buoys, that can sense a tsunami wave and allow government agencies to send warnings prior to the arrival of the tsunami.

If you live near a coast – especially on the Pacific Ocean where the vast majority of tsunamis occur – be sure to know your tsunami escape route for getting to higher ground, and listen to tsunami warnings if you receive one.

The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano severed the main communication cable that connects the people of Tonga to the rest of the world. While the science of tsunamis can be fascinating, these are serious natural disasters. Only a few deaths have been reported so far from Tonga, but many people are missing and the true extent of the damage from the tsunami is still unknown.The Conversation

By Sally Warner, Assistant Professor of Climate Science, Brandeis University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.




How Anthony Fauci Controls Science Globally | Dr. Joseph Mercola

Source: Mercola.com 

Story at-a-glance

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. succinctly summarizes how Dr. Anthony Fauci wields his power to control and manipulate science across the globe
  • It’s Fauci’s job to conduct research on chronic diseases to figure out their etiology and environmental causes to protect public health, but instead, he turned the NIAID into an incubator for pharmaceuticals
  • Fauci has a $7.6 billion annual budget that he uses to develop new drugs, which he then farms out to universities
  • Fauci’s control — in collusion with that of Bill Gates — has rendered the majority of global scientific research nothing more than pharmaceutical propaganda
  • Fauci shares drug patents with universities sell them to drug companies, splits the patents with them, and walks those drugs through the FDA approval process, which he also controls; once approved, Fauci himself often profits

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. succinctly summarizes how Dr. Anthony Fauci wields his power to control and manipulate science in this riveting episode of The Jimmy Dore Show.1 Fauci has been painted as a hero throughout the pandemic, an image that is not only misleading but wildly inaccurate, as detailed in Kennedy’s best-selling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

“I wrote the book because so many Americans were looking at Tony Fauci as this kind of savior,” Kennedy said. “… [T]he man on the white horse, or in the white lab coat, that would ride us out of this coronavirus crises but I knew from the beginning … that he does not do public health and has not done public health since the 1980s.”2,3

Rather than looking out for public health, Fauci and his agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), prioritize pharmaceutical promotion. Kennedy refers to Fauci as the “leader of the pack” when it comes to those promoting pharmaceutical products, profiteering from Big Pharma, and promoting their own personal power.

Public Health Plummeted During Fauci’s Reign

In 1984, when Fauci was appointed director of NIAID, 11.8% of Americans had a chronic disease, but this has risen sharply since.4 Fauci doesn’t talk about this public health failure — at least not publicly — but as Kennedy noted, it was Fauci’s job to figure out why cases of autism, food allergies, ADHD, sleep disorders, juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and much other chronic and infectious diseases have skyrocketed.

It was Fauci’s job to conduct research on these diseases to figure out their etiology and environmental causes to protect public health, but instead, he turned the NIAID into an incubator for pharmaceuticals. According to Kennedy:5

“When Tony Fauci came in, 6% of American children had chronic disease. By 2006, 54% had it. We went from being the healthiest country in the world with the healthiest children to the sickest. Literally, we do not even qualify as a developed nation. We are 79th in the world, behind Nicaragua and Costa Rica in terms of our health outcomes.

And why did that happen? Well, the one figure who is more responsible for that than anybody else in the world is Tony Fauci. He is the reason we take more pharmaceutical drugs than any other nation in the world. Three times the average among western countries. We pay the highest prices and have the worst outcomes.”

Fauci’s Multibillion-Dollar Budget Gives Him Immense Power

Fauci has a $7.6 billion annual budget, which in total during his entire tenure is more than half a trillion dollars that he’s been in control of. Instead of using that to reveal the environmental issues leading to outbreaks of chronic disease, he uses the money to develop new drugs, Kennedy explains, which he then farms out to universities:6

“He shares the patents with them, and then he sells them to the drug companies, splits the patents with them, and he walks those drugs through the FDA approval process, which he completely controls from the bottom up. And then he gets them approved and in many cases he himself profits. People within his agency can collect $150,000 a year from royalties off each of these products.”

The NIH owns half the patent for Moderna’s COVID-19 injection, which means that it stands to make billions of dollars as a result. Four of Fauci’s top deputies will also collect $150,000 a year for life as a result — from a product they’re responsible for regulating, an obvious massive conflict of interests.

“The mercantile and commercial interests have overwhelmed the regulatory function at that agency and it no longer does public health — it does pharmaceutical promotion,” Kennedy said.7 As an example, between 2009 and 2016 there were 240 new drugs approved by the FDA, all of which came out of Fauci’s “shop,” he added. “He is the incubator for the whole pharmaceutical industry.”8

How Fauci Controls Science Globally

Fauci has spread the notion that he is untouchable, going so far as to tell MSNBC that an attack on him is an attack on science:9

“It’s very dangerous … because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science.”

Throughout the pandemic, “trusting the science” has become a cultural statement and propaganda tool, but one that’s far from what true science is all about. Far from being a source of independent science, in essence, Fauci’s control — in collusion with that of Bill Gates — has rendered the majority of global scientific research nothing more than pharmaceutical propaganda. Kennedy explains:10

“Every virologist in the world knew that the coronavirus was engineered. All you have to do is look at the genome. Everybody knew that and they kept silent for a year, and here’s how. He gives away $7.6 billion a year. That’s two to three times what [Bill] Gates gives away. Him and Gates work tandemly. They partner up on everything. They talk together a couple times a week.

They are business partners … in 2000, in Gates’ library, the two of them got together and they formally formed a partnership. You take those two and one other guy — Jeremey Farrar — who is their other de facto partner who is the head of the Wellcome Trust, which is the U.K. version of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Between those three men, they control 61% of the biomedical research funding on Earth.

So if you want to get your study funded, you’ve got to go to those guys. Not only can they give you the money, but they also can kill a study because they control all of the other funding sources. They can kill a study, they can ruin a career, they can bankrupt colleges who do science that they don’t want done. So they are able to really dictate virtually all the science on the globe.”

Drug Companies and Universities All Benefit

Kennedy gives a theoretical example of how Fauci yields his immense power to influence science: In his lab, Fauci develops a molecule that kills a virus. This is done by scientists dropping molecules onto one of the countless viruses — influenza, Ebola, coronaviruses, zika, and others — in Petri dishes and test tubes to see if it kills them. If the molecule works to kill the virus in a petri dish, they move on to testing it on rats infected with the virus.

“If the rats don’t die, now he’s got a drug,” he says. “It’s antiviral and it’s usable in mammals because it will kill the virus but it won’t kill the mammal. Then he farms it out to the university.”11 There, a PI, or principal investigator, who is usually a person of power, such as the dean of a department, does a phase I trial, experimenting on animals and around 100 humans. Kennedy explains:12

“For each of the humans that he recruits — he’s a medical doctor, he brings in patients, persuades them to take part in the study — Tony Fauci’s agency gives him $15,000 for every one of those patients. The university keeps 50% of that so now they’re also part of this process. And then if the drug gets through that phase I, then they move on to phase 2 and phase 3. So now they have to bring in 20,000 or 30,000 people.

They bring in a drug company as a partner, and they go through the phase 2 and phase 3 [trials], and then at the end of it, they all split up the patents. So the drug company owns half, Tony Fauci’s agency may get part of it and he and his cronies take little slivers of it so they get paid for life. The university gets a part of it, so now you have all the medical schools in the country … dependent on this income stream.”

‘Independent Panels’ Aren’t Independent

At this point, the new drug still has to get regulatory approval, which brings it before a supposedly independent panel of experts. But this panel isn’t made up of independent scientists looking for the truth about whether or not the drug is safe and effective; it’s made up of Fauci’s and Gates’ PIs, who often have drugs of their own in development. Kennedy continues:13

“When this drug goes to FDA to get approved, it goes to a panel. Tony Fauci’s always saying it’s an independent panel who decides, based upon real science, whether or not this drug is worthy of approval. It’s not an independent science. They’re virtually all his PIs or Gates’ PIs.

Those guys go sit on that panel for a year, and they know that they’ve got their own drugs back at Baylor University they’re working on, or Berkeley or Columbia, that they know are going to be in front of that same panel next year. And they’re all scratching each other’s backs. And they approve that drug and then they go off the panel, finish their drug, and then that drug goes in front of a panel that’s similarly constituted and populated.”

These principal scientists act as gatekeepers to the public, spreading the official narrative under the guise of independent science, often pushing questionable COVID-19 policies. “These PIs control the journals, they control the public debate, they’re on TV all over the world, and these are the people that form the narrative, that protect the orthodoxy,” Kennedy says.14

“If you look at Tony Fauci as the pope, the PIs are the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops. And they’re the ones that protect the orthodoxy, that make sure that the heretics burn, that doctors who disagree are … delicensed, that they get discredited, that they get gaslighted and vilified and marginalized. They’re the army that controls the narrative.”15

Waking up to Fauci’s façade is necessary to understand the orchestrated planned use of pandemics to clamp down totalitarian control. You can find even more details about the coalition of sinister forces — intelligence agencies, pharmaceutical companies, social media titans, medical bureaucracies, mainstream media, and the military — that are intent on obliterating constitutional rights globally in “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

Kennedy’s book has been a best seller for two months now and if you haven’t already picked up a copy I would encourage you to do so now.

Entertaining Content

Dore not only does interview with important guests like the one above, but he also is a comedian. It can be very depressing when we keep sharing all the devastation that has resulted from COVID. Dore’s mission is to take the news and share the obvious in an entreating way as can be evidenced below how he interprets CNN giving the CEO of Pfizer the CEO of the year award.

Sources and References



New Theory of Consciousness in Humans, Animals and Artificial Intelligence

Two researchers at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB) have come up with a new theory of consciousness. They have long been exploring the nature of consciousness, the question of how and where the brain generates consciousness, and whether animals also have consciousness. The new concept describes consciousness as a state that is tied to complex cognitive operations—and not as a passive basic state that automatically prevails when we are awake.

Professor Armin Zlomuzica from the Behavioral and Clinical Neuroscience research group at RUB and Professor Ekrem Dere, formerly at Université Paris-Sorbonne, now at RUB, describe their theory in the journal Behavioural Brain Research. The printed version will be published on 15 February 2022, the online article has been available since November 2021.

“The hypotheses underlying our platform theory of consciousness can be tested in experimental studies,” as the authors describe one advantage of their concept over alternative models. “Thus, the process of consciousness can be explored in humans and animals or even in the context of artificial intelligence.”

The platform theory in detail

The complex cognitive operations that, according to platform theory, are associated with consciousness are applied to mental representations that are maintained and processed. They can include perceptions, emotions, sensations, memories, imaginations, and associations. Conscious cognitive operations are necessary, for example, in situations where learned behavior or habits are no longer sufficient for coping. People don’t necessarily need consciousness to drive a car or take a shower. But when something unexpected happens, conscious cognitive actions are required to resolve the situation. They are also necessary to predict future events or problems and to develop suitable coping strategies. Most importantly, conscious cognitive operations are at the basis for adaptive and flexible behavior that enables humans and animals to adapt to new environmental conditions.

According to the new theory, conscious cognitive actions take place on the basis of a so-called online platform, a kind of central executive that controls subordinate platforms. The subordinate platforms can act, for example, as storage media for knowledge or activities.

Electrical junctions between nerve cells crucial

Conscious cognitive operations are facilitated by the interaction of different neuronal networks. Armin Zlomuzica and Ekrem Dere consider electrical synapses, also known as gap junctions, to be crucial in this context. These structures enable extremely fast transmission of signals between nerve cells. They work much faster than chemical synapses, where communication between cells takes place through the exchange of neurotransmitters and -modulators.

A possible experiment

The authors suggest for example the following experiment test their platform theory: a human, an experimental animal or artificial intelligence is confronted with a novel problem that can only be solved by combining two or more rules learned in a different context. This creative combination of stored information and application to a new problem can only be accomplished using conscious cognitive operations.

By administering pharmacological substances that block gap junctions, the researchers would be able to test whether gap junctions do indeed play a decisive role in the processes. Gap junction blockers should inhibit performance in the experiment. However, routine execution of the individual rules, in the contexts in which they were learned, should still be possible.

“To what extent an artificial intelligence which is capable of independently solving a new and complex problem for which it has no predefined solution algorithm can likewise be considered conscious has to be tested,” point out the authors. “Several conditions would have to be fulfilled: The first one, for example, would be fulfilled, if it successfully proposes a strategy to combat a pandemic by autonomously screening, evaluating, selecting and creatively combining information from the internet.”

More information: Armin Zlomuzica et al, Towards an animal model of consciousness based on the platform theory, Behavioural Brain Research (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113695

Journal information: Behavioural Brain Research

Provided by Ruhr-Universitaet-Bochum




Scientific Journal Censorship With Dr. Malone | Dr. Joseph Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com 

Story at-a-glance

  • Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, shares scientific censorship that’s running rampant in medical journals
  • Data on repurposing existing drugs to treat COVID-19 is being blocked, rejected, and buried
  • Scientific journals depend on revenue from selling journal reprints to pharmaceutical companies — major financial motivation to print only research that’s favorable to the pharmaceutical industry
  • Rampant lawlessness, in which rules and regulations about bioethics are being completely disregarded, has taken over
  • We’re experiencing a threat of global slavery of the entire population to financial interests that can be traced back to BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world

Sonia Elijah with TrialSite News was the first U.K. journalist to interview Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology.1 That interview was taken down by YouTube within a matter of hours because Malone detailed scientific truths that go against the narrative being pushed globally.2

Her second interview with Malone is above. You can now hear some of the points that have been censored, starting with scientific censorship at medical journals. Malone has had multiple peer-reviewed papers seeking to repurpose existing medications as COVID-19 treatments blocked from publication by journals.

In one example, Malone and colleagues found that combined treatment with celecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and high-dose famotidine, a heartburn drug sold under the brand name Pepcid, led to improved outcomes among COVID-19 patients, including 100% survival.3 It’s been repeatedly rejected for publication.

Malone was also a former guest editor of a special issue of Frontiers in Pharmacology, which published an abstract of a peer-reviewed study by Pierre Kory on ivermectin for COVID-19 — until it was pulled due to a third-party complaint, with no chance for resubmission.

“That was completely inexplicable,” Malone said. “Some third-party complained to Frontiers and successfully had that pulled, even though it had passed peer review with an expert panel of peer reviewers including senior reviewers from the FDA.”4

A Coordinated Attack on Dissenters

Working in tandem with scientific censorship is a modern-day witch hunt targeting physicians. Malone describes it as a three-step process in which, first, third parties complain about physicians who are treating COVID-19 patients early on in the disease. “It’s almost never patients” who complain, Malone says, but once the third-party complaint is made, medical boards are obligated to open an investigation.

“Basically, physicians are accused of … the sin of administering licensed drugs off-label, which is about 30% of all prescriptions are off label. Then, then these complaints are filed with the medical boards,” he said. Once the investigation process is initiated, the press is alerted, which subsequently writes multiple articles about the physician being investigated, destroying their reputation.

“This destroys the credibility of the physician,” Malone said. “They’re typically fired from their hospital for creating controversy. Often they are kicked out of their medical practice group and basically are forced to become free agents.”5 It’s a systematic attack that deprives those accused of their ability to earn a living while frightening others who might speak out into remaining silent.

Meanwhile, scientific journals have a financial motivation to print only research that’s favorable to the pharmaceutical industry. “They don’t have to advertise or buy stock in one of these companies,” Malone said. “What they do is buy very large numbers of reprints of papers that are favorable to their position.”

The reprints “don’t come cheaply,” which means “the journals end up with a large fraction of their revenue coming from the sale of these reprints to pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical companies hand the reprints out to physicians’ offices, and the scientific journals rely on this revenue — a major motivation to continue printing research that’s favorable to Big Pharma.

“It’s another nefarious way that the pharmaceutical industry has figured out how to exert influence by bending the law,” he explains. “They don’t have to disclose the conflict of interest because it’s not a direct payment.”6

High-Level Lawlessness Is Rampant

Malone believes we’ve entered a period of rampant lawlessness, in which rules and regulations about bioethics are being completely disregarded. Experimentation without proper informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code,7 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again, but in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the shots — which are only beginning to be uncovered.

Even children are now subject to this experimentation. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted unanimously for emergency use authorization of COVID-19 shots for children ages 5 to 11 years — with one abstention.

The person who abstained is Dr. Michael Kurilla, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, who said he doesn’t believe all children need a COVID-19 jab.8 Malone explained:9

“The VRBPAC committee … suddenly it’s unanimous with one abstention to go ahead and jab the kids. So who’s the one abstention who is making the position that he’s a conscientious objector? He’s one of Tony Fauci’s leading lieutenants and one of the leading candidates to replace him.

There’s the appearance of him basically staking out a position that will give them a fallback in the event that all this catches up with them. Somebody is going to be having to run the shop, and I think he now has plausible deniability. I think that was all Kabuki theater to give him plausible deniability about his position, his culpability in what’s going on, because he’s one of the leading candidates to take over the NIAID.”

Manipulation of Data at Multiple Levels

Throughout his professional career, Malone has worked closely with the U.S. government for many years. He’s now trying to speak out about the manipulation of data that’s occurring at multiple levels. “There are strong disincentives for physicians to report information,” he said, including at the local level, and there are also strong incentives for U.S. hospitals to over-report COVID-related deaths.

“The average cost of hospitalized COVID per patient, the average case cost, is between $300,000 and $400,000.” Part of that is driven by the antiviral drug remdesivir, which they’re required to give because it’s the licensed product in the U.S.

“Remdesivir requires a multiday stay in order to provide the infusion,” Malone said. “So by requiring remdesivir, the hospitals are getting more revenue from hospitalized patients. So there is an additional payment if the diagnosis is SARS-CoV-2.”10 He continued:

“So that’s how we end up with these grossly overinflated risk analyses for the virus. And we ended up with grossly underinflated and under-reported vaccine adverse events, because there are so many disincentives to reporting any of them. And then if they even get reported who tests whether or not they’re valid and makes a determination? It’s the CDC … There’s also multiple reports of mass deletion of adverse events by the Israeli government.”

A Threat of Global Slavery

Data that contradict or question the status quo is buried by the media, while the official narrative is pushed to the top. Malone, who travels frequently and has contacts all over the world, has witnessed firsthand that the same scripts are being used by the media globally.

“We end up with these various public service announcements that are coming out from traditional media in which you can virtually overlay the script. And yes, it’s coming from 50 or 75 different outlets simultaneously. And you can overlay the script so that you basically have multiple broadcast anchors reading a script about the threat to democracy, for instance, of anti-vaxxers, and it is all harmonized,” he said.11

If you follow the money, it all traces back to BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, which also control Big Pharma.12 They’re at the top of a pyramid that controls basically everything, but you don’t hear about their terrifying monopoly because they also own the media.

Blackrock and Vanguard hold large interests in pivotal companies, and Vanguard holds a large share of Blackrock. In turn, Blackrock has been called the “fourth branch of government” by Bloomberg as they are the only private firm that has financial agreements to lend money to the central banking system.13

Aside from world media, the companies controlled by Blackrock and Vanguard span everything from entertainment and airlines to social media and communications. “We’re experiencing a threat of global slavery of the entire population to these financial interests,” Malone said.

The Majority Have Gone Mad

“Science” has become a loaded word, one used as a basis for decisions that affect basic freedoms, life and death itself. We’re now “at war” with a virus, and dissenters to this “war” must be silenced. What’s less clear is who gave these “orders” that dissenters must be silenced. Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, has described it as a form of psychosis or a group neurosis.14

Malone also believes a mass psychosis has taken over. “The documentation now about the conspiracy within the government to kill early [COVID-19] treatment is well-documented. It’s well known that we’re in a situation in which a large fraction of the population has literally gone mad.”15 He explained:16

“The governments, out of desperation, are flailing around. That’s what’s really happening is they don’t understand it. They don’t. They think that they have no other options. They are hypnotized into believing that the vaccines work. They’ve been bombarded by all this lobbying and information control and everything else to believe that the vaccines are effective.

Even though we know they aren’t, the data show that they aren’t, it doesn’t matter. You can’t penetrate through them. Why? Because they’ve undergone mass psychosis … the politicians have, they believe that this is the case and they believe that they have to do these [authoritarian] measures because there’s no other option than mass vaccination.”

Think Global, Act Local

The way to circumvent global totalitarian control, Malone says, is to think globally and act locally. Build communities with the people around you and stay in touch with others, especially older people and others who aren’t internet savvy. Malone also leaves three key points that he believes everyone should know — and which you can share with others in your circle:

  1. No mandated vaccines for children
  2. Recovered, natural immunity is equal to, or better than, the jab
  3. Allow physicians the freedom to practice medicine

In addition, find physicians in your area who are willing to administer early treatments for COVID-19, and download the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) I-MASK+ protocol in the event you do get COVID-19.17 It provides step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.

Sources and References



Sea Otters Demonstrate That There Is More To Muscle Than Just Movement – It Can Also Bring the Heat

Life in the cold can be difficult for animals. As the body chills, organs including the brain and muscles slow down.

The body temperature of animals such as reptiles and amphibians mostly depends on the temperature of their environment – but mammals can increase their metabolism, using more energy to warm their body. This allows them to live in colder areas and stay active when temperatures drop at night or during the winter months.

Although scientists know mammals can increase their metabolism in the cold, it has not been clear which organs or tissues are using this extra energy to generate more heat. Staying warm is especially challenging for small, aquatic mammals like sea otters, so we wanted to know how they have adapted to survive the cold.

We assembled a research team with expertise in both human and marine mammal metabolism, including Heidi Pearson of the University of Alaska Southeast and Mike Murray of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Understanding energy use in animals adapted to life in the cold may also provide clues for manipulating human metabolism.

Sea otter metabolism

It is especially difficult for water-living mammals to stay warm because water conducts heat away from the body much faster than air. Most marine mammals have large bodies and a thick layer of fat or blubber for insulation.

Sea otters are the smallest of marine mammals and do not have this thick layer of blubber. Instead, they are insulated by the densest fur of any mammal, with as many as a million hairs per square inch. This fur, however, is high maintenance, requiring regular grooming. About 10% of sea otters’ daily activity involves maintaining the insulating layer of air trapped in their fur.

Grooming is a never-ending job.

Dense fur is not enough, by itself, to keep sea otters warm. To generate enough body heat, their metabolic rate at rest is about three times higher than that of most mammals of similar size. This high metabolic rate has a cost, though.

To obtain enough energy to fuel the high demand, sea otters must eat more than 20% of their body mass in food each day. In comparison, humans eat around 2% of their body mass – about 3 pounds (1.3 kilograms) of food per day for a 155-pound (70 kg) person.

Where does the heat come from?

When animals eat, the energy in their food cannot be used directly by cells to do work. Instead, the food is broken down into simple nutrients, such as fats and sugars. These nutrients are then transported in the blood and absorbed by cells.

Within the cell are compartments called mitochondria where nutrients are converted into ATP – a high-energy molecule that acts as the energy currency of the cell.

The process of converting nutrients into ATP is similar to how a dam turns stored water into electricity. As water flows out from the dam, it makes electricity by spinning blades connected to a generator – similar to wind turning the blades on a windmill. If the dam is leaky, some water – or stored energy – is lost and cannot be used to make electricity.

Similarly, leaky mitochondria are less efficient at making ATP from nutrients. Although the leaked energy in the mitochondria cannot be used to do work, it generates heat to warm the sea otter’s body.

All tissues in the body use energy and make heat, but some tissues are larger and more active than others. Muscle makes up 30% of the body mass of most mammals. When active, muscles consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of heat. You have undoubtedly experienced this, whether getting hot during exercise or shivering when cold.

To find out if muscle metabolism helps keep sea otters warm, we studied small muscle samples from sea otters ranging in size and age from newborn pups to adults. We placed the muscle samples in small chambers designed to monitor oxygen consumption – a measure of how much energy is used. By adding different solutions that stimulated or inhibited various metabolic processes, we determined how much energy the mitochondria could use to make ATP – and how much energy could go into a heat-producing leak.

We discovered the mitochondria in sea otter muscles could be very leaky, allowing otters to turn up the heat in their muscles without physical activity or shivering. It turns out that sea otter muscle is good at being inefficient. The energy “lost” as heat while turning nutrients into movement allows them to survive the cold.

Remarkably, we found newborn pups have the same metabolic ability as adults, even though their muscles have not yet matured for swimming and diving.

Broader implications

Our research clearly demonstrates that muscle is important for more than just movement. Because muscle makes up such a large portion of body mass, even a small increase in muscle metabolism can dramatically increase how much energy an animal uses.

[More than 140,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters. Join the list today.]

This has important implications for human health. If scientists discover ways to safely and reversibly increase skeletal muscle metabolism at rest, doctors could possibly use this as a tool to reduce climbing rates of obesity by increasing the number of calories a patient can burn. Conversely, reducing skeletal muscle metabolism could conserve energy in patients suffering from cancer or other wasting diseases and could reduce food and resources needed to support astronauts on long-duration spaceflight.The Conversation

By Traver Wright, Research Assistant Professor of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University; Melinda Sheffield-Moore, Professor of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, and Randall Davis, Regents Professor, Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.




What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found In Overlooked DNA

By Lund University | Science Daily

Our DNA is very similar to that of the chimpanzee, which in evolutionary terms is our closest living relative. Stem cell researchers at Lund University in Sweden have now found a previously overlooked part of our DNA, so-called non-coded DNA, that appears to contribute to a difference which, despite all our similarities, may explain why our brains work differently. The study is published in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

The chimpanzee is our closest living relative in evolutionary terms and research suggests our kinship derives from a common ancestor. About five to six million years ago, our evolutionary paths separated, leading to the chimpanzee of today, and Homo Sapiens, humankind in the 21st century.

In a new study, stem cell researchers at Lund examined what it is in our DNA that makes human and chimpanzee brains different — and they have found answers.

“Instead of studying living humans and chimpanzees, we used stem cells grown in a lab. The stem cells were reprogrammed from skin cells by our partners in Germany, the USA, and Japan. Then we examined the stem cells that we had developed into brain cells,” explains Johan Jakobsson, professor of neuroscience at Lund University, who led the study.

Using the stem cells, the researchers specifically grew brain cells from humans and chimpanzees and compared the two cell types. The researchers then found that humans and chimpanzees use a part of their DNA in different ways, which appears to play a considerable role in the development of our brains.

“The part of our DNA identified as different was unexpected. It was a so-called structural variant of DNA that was previously called “junk DNA,” a long repetitive DNA string that has long been deemed to have no function. Previously, researchers have looked for answers in the part of the DNA where the protein-producing genes are — which only makes up about two percent of our entire DNA — and examined the proteins themselves to find examples of differences.”

The new findings thus indicate that the differences appear to lie outside the protein-coding genes in what has been labeled as “junk DNA,” which was thought to have no function and which constitutes the majority of our DNA.

“This suggests that the basis for the human brain’s evolution are genetic mechanisms that are probably a lot more complex than previously thought, as it was supposed that the answer was in those two percent of the genetic DNA. Our results indicate that what has been significant for the brain’s development is instead perhaps hidden in the overlooked 98 percent, which appears to be important. This is a surprising finding.”

The stem cell technique used by the researchers in Lund is revolutionary and has enabled this type of research. The technique was recognized by the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It was the Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka who discovered that specialized cells can be reprogrammed and developed into all types of body tissue. And in the Lund researchers’ case, into brain cells. Without this technique, it would not have been possible to study the differences between humans and chimpanzees using ethically defensible methods.

Why did the researchers want to investigate the difference between humans and chimpanzees?

“I believe that the brain is the key to understanding what it is that makes humans human. How did it come about that humans can use their brains in such a way that they can build societies, educate their children and develop advanced technology? It is fascinating!”

Johan Jakobsson believes that in the future the new findings may also contribute to genetically-based answers to questions about psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, a disorder that appears to be unique to humans.

“But there is a long way to go before we reach that point, as instead of carrying out further research on the two percent of coded DNA, we may now be forced to delve deeper into all 100 percent — a considerably more complicated task for research,” he concludes.


Story Source:

Materials provided by Lund University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Pia A. Johansson, Per Ludvik Brattås, Christopher H. Douse, PingHsun Hsieh, Anita Adami, Julien Pontis, Daniela Grassi, Raquel Garza, Edoardo Sozzi, Rodrigo Cataldo, Marie E. Jönsson, Diahann A.M. Atacho, Karolina Pircs, Feride Eren, Yogita Sharma, Jenny Johansson, Alessandro Fiorenzano, Malin Parmar, Malin Fex, Didier Trono, Evan E. Eichler, Johan Jakobsson. A cis-acting structural variation at the ZNF558 locus controls a gene regulatory network in human brain development. Cell Stem Cell, 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2021.09.008



DISCOVERY: Luminescent “Windows” Could Transform Light Into Power

Engineers from Rice University in Houston developed a novel method of generating power through the use of glowing “windows” that redirect light to the solar cells lining their edges. The windows, known as luminescent solar concentrates (LSCs), are composed of a conjugated polymer sandwiched between two acrylic panels.

The polymer, a light-emitting compound dubbed PNV (poly[naphthalene-alt-vinylene]), is designed to absorb light from the sun and other light sources indoors before channeling it toward the solar cells along the edge of each window pane. The solar cells then convert the light into electricity as usual.

PNV initially absorbed and emitted only red light. But the engineers modified it so that it can absorb light in a variety of colors. Lead author Yilin Li said he began the project as part of a “smart glass” competition. But it quickly grew into a study motivated by the need to solve energy issues for buildings.

Solar rooftops have long been the mainstream solution to that problem. But according to Li, solar panels need to be oriented toward the sun to maximize their efficiency. Their appearance is not very pleasing either. The solution Li and his team came up with was integrated photovoltaics. He said the idea was to build colorful, transparent, or translucent solar collectors and apply them to the outside of buildings.

Their research paper appeared online in the journal Polymer International.

“Windows” could generate power from light

Conjugated polymers are organic macromolecules that can be modified to have specific properties, physical or chemical, for a variety of applications. Today, conjugated polymers are typically used to fabricate organic light-emitting diodes (LED) and optoelectronic devices because of their unique optical properties.

Experts have developed many kinds of luminophores–atoms that manifest luminescence–over the last decade. But experts have rarely done the same using conjugated polymers, said Rafael Verduzco, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Rice University who also took part in the research.

Part of the problem with using conjugated polymers is that they can be unstable. They can also degrade rather quickly. “But we’ve learned a lot about improving the stability of conjugated polymers in recent years,” said Verduzco. In the future, they may be able to engineer the polymers for stability and optical properties.

However, it is worth noting that the amount of power generated by the luminescent panels is far less than that collected by the average solar cells used in commercially available panels. Those panels routinely convert roughly 20 percent of sunlight into electricity.

But the good thing about the group’s luminescent panels is that they never stop working. The panels routinely convert light from inside the building into electricity even after the sun has gone down.

When the group tested how the panels convert sunlight and ambient LED light into electricity, they found that the panels had a power conversion efficiency of 2.9 percent in direct sunlight and 3.6 percent under an ambient LED light. This means that the panels were more efficient at converting ambient LED light into electricity.

The group also simulated the return of energy from panels as big as 120 square inches. They found that panels like these would provide less energy. But they would still contribute to a household’s needs.

Li suggested that their polymer compound could also be modified to convert infrared and ultraviolet light into electricity. Both lights would allow the panels to remain transparent instead of colored.

PNV may even be printed in patterns on the panels so that they can be turned into artwork, said Li.

For full references please use the source link below.

By Divina Ramirez | Science.News



Are We Living in A Computer Simulation? | Gregg Braden

Video Source: Inspired

Numerous scientists believe that we live in a simulated, virtual reality. Gregg Braden discusses this belief.




Science Journals Engaged in Massive Disinformation Campaign

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The Lancet and Nature have both promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 and protected the theory by refusing to publish counterarguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest
  • The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He was recently taken off the Commission due to controversy over his large number of conflicts of interest
  • The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission also includes Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. Anderson’s Commission biography does not mention that she worked at the WIV
  • In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” The submission was rejected with the justification that the topic was “not a priority” for the journal
  • Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate

More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1

Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”

June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2

As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and non-financial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.

First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”

Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”

The Lancet Accused of Kowtowing to China

The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3

“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.

It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …

Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …

Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.

‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4

In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5

Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6

“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”

Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.

This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?

What’s Behind Science Journals’ Censorship?

What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021, article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”

The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9

Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”

One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.

Gaslighting Alert: Abusers Now Play the Victim Card

For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters, and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, de-platformed, and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.

Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural-origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10

Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.

The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.

To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12,13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that:14,15

“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”

His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17

“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science™, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science™ such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”

Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18

This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vax hate speech.”19

Billions of Dollars at Stake

To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.

As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.

Here’s another case in point: On June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20

“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?

I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.

As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security Biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.

This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.

Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.

For full references please use THIS source link.



The Largest Meat-Eating Dinosaur: 11 Facts About the Spinosaurus

Dinosaurs are some of the most fascinating and astonishing creatures ever to walk the earth. Some of the most popular meat-eating dinosaurs are the Tyrannosaurus rex, velociraptor, and Spinosaurus.

While the Spinosaurus is popularly seen in many movies, video games, and cartoons, most people aren’t too aware of details about it, aside from the fact that it’s a carnivore. To learn more about this fantastic creature, here are some exciting facts and theories.

1. Spinosaurus Means’ Spine Lizard’

The name Spinosaurus is fitting because it means ‘spine lizard’. However, its scientific name is Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, which is a mouthful. It was the name given by Ernst Freiherr Stromer von Rechenbach all the way back in 1915. He was a German paleontologist, which means he studied fossils to classify organisms and learn more about how they lived with other creatures and their environment.

2. The First Remains Were Found In 1912

The first partial remains of this carnivorous semi-aquatic dinosaur were found in 1912 by Ernst Stromer. Unfortunately, complete remains haven’t yet been discovered. But, here are what Strormer found:

  • Lower jaw bone
  • Other bones that belong to the jaw area
  • Twenty teeth
  • Two cervical vertebrae
  • Seven dorsal vertebrae
  • Three sacral vertebrae
  • One caudal vertebra
  • Four thoracic ribs
  • Gastralia

One exciting finding about the spine is that the longest one measured up to 5.4 feet or 1.65 meters. There were some drawings of the fossil remains, but the teeth, vertebrae, ribs, and gastralia were not illustrated.

3. The First Fossil Remains Were Destroyed In World War 2

Although the remains found survived through World War 1, they wouldn’t make it past World War 2. They kept the bones in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. However, an Allied bombing raid in 1944 completely devastated the Spinosaurus remains. Since then, plaster casts were used as fossils of this specimen are rare.

4. The Spinosaurus Lived In The Cenomanian Period

After finding and examining these remains, Stromer believed that this particular Spinosaurus lived in the early Cenomanian period, about 97 million years ago. However, the species is believed to have existed somewhere between 112 to 97 million years ago.

5. They Lived In Northern Africa

When Ernst Stromer found the first Spinosaurus remains, he was in Egypt. Thus, ‘aegyptiacus’ was used. However, the species, including its other types, is believed to have lived all over Northern Africa, specifically Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco. It probably lived somewhere near the seashore as well.

6. They Might Have Been Swimmers

Based on where they lived and how they were built, experts believe that the Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic. This means that they could have been able to swim around and also live on land. For instance, their cylindrical and widely-spaced teeth in their long narrow jaws indicated that they could have had a fish diet. In addition, their skull was shaped a lot like a crocodile’s

The nostrils were also different from other dinosaurs as the Spinosaurus’ were nearer the eyes, on top of the nose. So, you could imagine how this made it easier for them to breathe while they waded and hunted for food in bodies of water. It’s also notable that other species from the spinosaurid family were fish-eaters too.

7. They Might Have Had A Fin

Another thing that’s unique about the Spinosaurus is that they might have had a large sail-like fin on their backs. Unfortunately, it’s challenging to be sure of what they were for, but here are some theories:

  • Temperature control
  • Attracting mates
  • Swimming

But, did you know that scientists aren’t exactly sure if the spine had a fin or a lump on the back? With only bones to help them out, there are limitations to what they could accurately propose a Spinosaurus looked like.

8. They Weren’t Restricted To Eating Fish

It’s believed that they mostly ate fish, but not tiny ones as it wouldn’t have sufficed. They probably caught massive fish species that also existed in their era. But, they probably hunted other prey too. However, experts could only theorize what other creatures were hunted, depending on other species that lived in the ecosystem.

Here are some possible food sources for the Spinosaurus:

  • Lepidotes sp.
  • Onchopristis numidus
  • Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
  • Bawitius bartheli
  • Polycotylidae incertae sedis
  • Mawsonia libyca
  • Cretolamna appendiculata
  • Asteracanthus aegyptiacus
  • Neoceratodus africanus
  • Retodus tuberculatus
  • Apertotemporalis baharijensis
  • Paranogmius doederleini
  • Schizorhiza stromeri
  • Squalicorax baharijensis

9. They Probably Walked On Twos
The next fact about the Spinosaurus is that it was a theropod. This means that it walked on twos. The name ‘theropod’ was derived from Greek, which essentially translated to ‘wild beast’ and ‘foot’.

On the other hand, the velociraptor is a different kind, belonging to dromaeosaurid theropods. Dromaeosaurid indicates that velociraptors were a kind of theropod that had feathers. The Spinosaurus didn’t have feathers, but what sets theropods apart is that they had hollow bones and limbs characterized by their three toes. Other theropod groups include:

  • Herrerasauria
  • Coelophysoidea
  • Dilophosauridae
  • Ceratosauria
  • Tetanurae

However, the Spinosaurus’ long front limbs indicated to experts that it might have been able to walk on fours too. If not, it’s believed that it evolved from being quadrupeds to theropods.

10. They Might Have Been The Biggest Meat-Eating Dinosaur

While the Tyrannosaurus rex is the most popular meat-eating dinosaur, it’s not the biggest. The ferocious Spinosaurus is believed to be the biggest carnivorous dinosaur, measuring an average of 50 feet long. It also weighed somewhere between 7-23 tons, so it was probably one of the most fearsome predators at that time.

11. There Could Have Been Two Kinds Of Spinosaurus

Although it’s pretty challenging to find their remains, there were two types of Spinosaurus species that had been named. The first is the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, which was what Ernst Stromer found in Egypt. Its name translates to ‘Egyptian spine lizard’.

There’s also the Spinosaurus maroccanus found in Morocco and was described by Dale Russel as an entirely different Spinosaurus species. He made this determination based on how long the neck vertebrae were.  However, experts debate the Spinosaurus Maroccanus’ validity as an entirely different species because Spinosaurus aegyptiacus possibly had varying neck lengths.

Conclusion

Because dinosaurs are believed to have become extinct due to an asteroid, it isn’t easy to be precise about specific details of dinosaurs, including the Spinosaurus. Thankfully, with discoveries and studies from experts like paleontologists, one could get an idea about how big they were, what they ate, and how they lived in their age. It also helps to imagine what they could have looked like, especially their color and how they moved.




The Benefits and Risks of LSD: Everything You Need to Know Available on Psychable

LSD is a potent psychedelic that has been around for a long time, but what exactly is it? Why do people take it? What are the risks and benefits of LSD use? Psychable is an online community connecting those interested in psychedelic therapy with professionals that can support them.  We have gone through Psychable’s content library on LSD to gather information for you on the benefits and risks of LSD.

What is LSD?

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a psychedelic substance derived from the ergot fungus that is found in rye and other grains. Ergot was once called “common spirit” and was used medicinally by midwives to help ease labor pains as early as the 1500s.

LSD was discovered in 1938 by Swiss scientist Albert Hofmann, who experienced its mind-altering effects firsthand when he accidentally ingested it while studying ergot in a lab. It wasn’t until 1943, however, that he intentionally ingested LSD to study its hallucinogenic effects. It was studied by other scientists in the 1950s and 1960s, and gained popularity among members of the counterculture movement during the 1960s and 1970s, but it still retains an aura of a mystery today.

In recent decades, research on LSD has been conducted by private institutions in Europe and North America. The substance remains illegal worldwide under UN conventions on narcotics and is considered a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act and is illegal for use in the United States.

How does it work?

“LSD interacts with chemical messengers (serotonin) within your cells to produce an altered state of consciousness and change how you experience things; for example, music may sound better or colors may look more vivid than usual”, explains Matt Zemon, Psychable Chief Strategy Officer and Co-Founder.

Matt Zemon, Psychable Chief Strategy Officer and Co-Founder

LSD is typically taken by placing a tab underneath the tongue, but can also be administered in liquid form or in gelatin or sugar cubes. By placing a blotter paper or tab of LSD underneath the tongue, the chemicals dissolve into mucous membranes and enter into circulation quickly without being metabolized by stomach acids first. The onset of effects usually begins in the first 30-60 minutes and has an average duration of about 12 hours depending on the dose and how it was ingested.

The Importance of Set & Setting

There are two fundamental factors that go into the experience of taking LSD; set and setting. Set refers to both the short-term mindset one is in as well as one’s overall outlook on life, including any past traumas that may affect the psychedelic experience. Setting refers to the physical surroundings where one takes LSD, as well as the people involved in the experience. These two elements combined will determine how an individual will react to the drug. It is also important to note that set and setting may be different each time a person experiences a psychedelic trip, meaning that the same person can react differently each time.

If someone has a positive outlook on life, they may have a better time with their trip than if they were feeling anxiety or fear about it beforehand. If somebody takes LSD at home alone or with a sober guide, rather than out in public, it is less likely that they will experience an adverse reaction.

Is there a safe dose for taking LSD?

Although lethal doses have been determined from experiments in several animal models, there has never been a recorded case of death exclusively attributed to LSD in humans. The appropriate amount of LSD to take will depend on the desired outcome.

Dosage can vary depending on the type of LSD as well as where it is sourced from but generally falls into one of two categories: a full dose, or a microdose. A full dose (100-200 micrograms) is typically used for spiritual purposes and will produce mind-altering effects. A microdose, which is a sub-perceptual amount of LSD (usually 20-30 micrograms) is often used to increase creativity and can be taken while going about one’s daily activities. While a full dose of LSD can last for up to 12 hours, a sub-perceptual amount can last up to six or eight hours.

What are the benefits of taking LSD?

“LSD has been shown to help people have meaningful experiences, giving way for insightful new ideas,” says Jemie Sae Koo, Psychable CEO and Co-Founder. “Some people report that LSD helped them gain insight into themselves, their lives, and the nature of the universe. In one study, healthy subjects who were given a single 200 μg dose of LSD reported positive mood changes, positive social effects, and positive attitudes about life”.

Jemie Sae Koo, Psychable CEO and Co-Founder

The benefits of taking LSD in sub-perceptual dosages (microdosing) may include feeling happier, increased self-awareness or insight into oneself, heightened sensory perception and increased creativity and productivity.

There has been clinical research conducted on the use of LSD as a therapeutic tool to treat alcoholism and addiction to drugs such as heroin, morphine, or methadone. While more research is needed, clinical trials have shown promising results so far. The studies have shown that LSD may be able to help an individual break the cycle of dependency by effectively altering their mental state and their self-perception, which is a huge factor in the success of curing alcohol dependency.

What are the risks of taking LSD?

Studies have shown that no severe acute adverse effects have been observed when administering LSD to healthy subjects in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Mild adverse effects in some people included psychological reactions such as:

  • Anxiety
  • Delusions
  • hallucinations
  • panic attacks
  • paranoia and feelings of confusion

and physical reactions such as:

  • increased heart rate
  • muscle tension
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • sweating profusely
  • numbness or tingling sensations around the mouth or extremities (hands/feet)
  • dizziness/lightheadedness
  • chills/shivering spells
  • blurred vision
  • dry mouth
  • tremors
  • palpitations

In those who experienced them, these effects were shown to have completely subsided within 72 hours of dosage.

People who have a personal or family history of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia should not take LSD. In such individuals, there is an increased risk of prolonged psychosis or chronic depression.

Probably the most common psychological risk of LSD is the fear of having a “bad trip” or what the psychedelic therapy world refers to as a challenging trip, so as to not label the experience good or bad, as many insights that are beneficial can come from difficult journeys. Psychedelics have a way of bringing up memories and emotions from the past. Though this is not necessarily a bad thing, it can sometimes lead to intense bouts of anxiety or depression. Additionally, altered perceptions of time and reality can lead to paranoia. Taking time to properly prepare for a psychedelic experience can help reduce the chances of experiencing a bad trip.

How to Minimize the Risk of a Challenging Trip

If you’re looking to have a psychedelic experience, it is recommended that you find a trained guide who is not under the influence of LSD as well. The role of this guide is to prevent you from engaging in dangerous activities and to help bring you back to a state of calm if you begin to feel scared or anxious.

A trained guide or “sitter” can help you ground your mind in the present moment by doing things like helping you focusing on an object or listening closely for familiar sounds around yourself like the sounds of birds singing or of soft music. The guide should also help you address physical needs, like staying hydrated.

If you begin to feel like you’re having a challenging trip, there are a few things you can do (with the help of your guide).

  • Try to keep calm and focus on your breathing. You can do this by sitting down, closing the curtains or blinds or turning off the light, and turning off any music that might be playing loudly nearby.
  • You can also try to remember that hallucinogenic drugs can make you see, feel, and even hear things that are distorted or have no basis in reality. This is why it’s important to be in a safe space and with people you trust. Your sitter or guide can help remind you of this.
  • Knowing that time will return to its normal state of consciousness is also important. Those who understand this are less likely to experience anxiety or bad trips, making it an easier and more enjoyable journey overall.

Are there any long-term effects of taking LSD?

Research subjects given a single dose of LSD reported some long-lasting positive effects. These positive effects include increased optimism about the future and a sense of increased well-being and self-esteem as long-lasting changes.

Physically, LSD is considered to be one of the least toxic drugs. This is because it does not have any addictive properties and can be used in small doses. There are no documented deaths from an LSD overdose. LSD does not cause users to commit violent crimes or act recklessly without regard for their own safety.

It is important to note that scientific research on the use of LSD is ongoing, but survey data indicates that LSD is one of the least dangerous recreational drugs, along with psilocybin mushrooms and cannabis. Even so, if you are considering using LSD you should be sure to weigh the potential risks and benefits for your unique situation and make an informed, educated decision.