Satanists,
as a rule, accept that man is just another kind of animal, subject to the same
things that other animals are subject to. Satanists accept that animals can think
and feel, just like humans can. Many Satanic readers already know about animal
intelligence, cats, dogs, etc., and some even know about insect intelligence;
but what about this? Words that I want you to focus on and put to the forefront
are in capitalized letters for a reason: these are words defining things normally
attributed to human intelligence, planning, etc.
Worms
Let us look at Sabella and Owenia. This article
brought a smile to many readers when it was first posted.
Sabella CONSTRUCTS a home that is shaped like a tube. Sabella constructs the tube
of sand grains imbedded in mucus. Sabella SORTS detritus she COLLECTS and sand
grains of SUITABLE SIZE. That is, Sabella has to determine which grains are suitable
and which are not and be able to sort them out properly and determine size properly:
not too big, not too small. She also has to be well AWARE that she is collecting
all of this in order to construct a home she PLANS to live in. The sorted detritus
and right-sized sand grains are STORED. She is AWARE that she is storing these
for later use. Later, the sand is mixed with mucus. When and if additions to the
tube (size of home) are to be made, Sabella produces a rope-like string of mucus
mixed with sand. Surely, she doesn't wait until the last minute to DECIDE whether
or not to add to the tube-home. She then rotates slowly: not too fast, but not
TOO slow; just at the right speed. Collar folds she has act LIKE A PAIR OF HANDS,
molding and attaching the rope to the end of the tube. She has to mold them properly
and attach them all the right way. All of this is quite similar to the Indian
method of pottery making.
Owenia, on the other
hand, lives like a nomad with a movable home. She carries her tube around and
uses the chimney-end of the tube like a screw. Flexibility in her tube is attained
by the use of flat sand grains, attached at one edge and overlapping adjacent
grains of sand. It resembles tile roofing. Most people born into the world without
being taught, would be hard put to BUILD a home for themselves. They'd not know
how much to mix, what to mix, how to apply, how to attach or shape it, nor would
most humans have the FORESIGHT to store materials for building such a thing as
a home. And even when taught, most humans do a LOUSY job of planning and/or building:
FEW among them know how to do this without being taught by rote. NO ONE taught
Sabella or Owenia. They either figured it out on their own or they'd PERISH.
Sabella
and Owenia are polychaete annelids; i.e., WORMS.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do Rats
Ever Like Cats?
A protozoan (single celled
eukaryote organism, not a bacteria) that infects rats dims their wariness around
cats and can even lead to "fatal attraction!" (Oxford researchers).
That's
really bad for a rat to be attracted to a cat but it's great for this protozoan
parasite. The protozoan, "Toxoplasma gondii," needs to jump from the
rat to the cat to complete ITS life cycle. The rat's getting caught by a cat fits
the parasite's agenda, but certainly is not good for the rat at all (Proceedings
of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences, August 7 2000). Put this into a human
frame and you can imagine the rat's brothers probably thinking, "Gee, that
rat is self destructive, I wonder why our fellow rat is acting so crazy: maybe
that rat had a bad upbringing or something? They might even think that the rat
is acting like a peacenik or a liberal. :)
The
infected rats respond to the cat odor. Normal rats avoid places where cat odor
is present. Infected rats not only lose their wariness, but even PREFER cat fragrance.
The rat's personality change shows the clearest example yet of a parasite manipulating
the victimized MAMMAL, manipulating its behavior, even its ability to logically
think: "CAT IS HERE, LET ME GET OUT OF HERE FAST!"
This
parasite can infect many types of mammals but it reproduces in only a few. In
humans, a latent infection can flair up and cause mental decline. Low grade infections
may result in more subtle effects, such as odd behavior and perhaps IQ dips. The
researchers estimate that the parasite infects 22% of the United Kingdom's residents
and 88% of the French. (Science News, August 12, 2000, p 109). What else does
this infection make humans do?
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do Parasites
Rule? (Another look at "free will")
And
now for the mind-boggler of them all: STRATEGIES that humans can't even hope to
compete with; and please note, they are not "yang" strategies; they
are "yin." This article will not make you smile: it might terrify you.
Excerpts from this article that are pertinent
(no fluff) are here and notes to focus your attention are added in ( ) or indicated
by the word "Note:" before my note is written.
From
DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 8 (August 2000)
"Do
Parasites Rule the World? New evidence indicates our idea of how nature really
works could be wrong." By Carl Zimmer
On
a clear summer day on the California coast, the carpinteria salt marsh vibrates
with life. Along the banks of the 120-acre preserve, 80 miles northwest of Los
Angeles, thousands of horn snails, their conical shells looking like miniature
party hats, graze the algae. Arrow gobies slip through the water, while killifish
dart around, every now and then turning to expose the brilliant glint of their
bellies. Fiddler crabs slowly crawl out of fist-size holes and salute the new
day with their giant claws, while their bigger cousins—lined-shore crabs—
crack open snails as if they were walnuts. Meanwhile, a carnival of birds—
Caspian terns, willet, plover, yellowleg sandpipers, curlews, and dowitchers—
feast on littleneck clams and other prey burrowed in the marsh bottom.
Standing
on a promontory, Kevin Lafferty, a marine biologist at the University of California
at Santa Barbara, watches the teeming scene and sees another, more compelling
drama. For him, the real drama of the marsh lies beneath the surface in the life
of its invisible inhabitants: the parasites. A curlew grabs a clam from its hole.
"Just got infected," Lafferty says. He looks at the bank of snails.
"More than 40 percent of these snails are infected," he pronounces.
"They're really just parasites in disguise." (I.e., they LOOK like snails,
but they behave in accordance with, and for the benefit of the PARASITE.) He points
to the snowy constellation of bird droppings along the bank. "There are boxcars
of parasite biomass here; those are just packages of fluke eggs."
Every
living thing has at least one parasite that lives inside or on it, and many, including
humans, have far more. Leopard frogs may harbor a dozen species of parasites,
including nematodes in their ears, filarial worms in their veins, and flukes in
their kidneys, bladders, and intestines. One species of Mexican parrot carries
30 different species of mites on its feathers alone. Often the parasites themselves
have parasites, and some of those parasites have parasites of their own. Scientists
have no idea of the exact number of species of parasites, but they do know one
fact: Parasites make up the majority of species on Earth. Parasites can take the
form of animals, including insects, flatworms, and crustaceans, as well as protozoa,
fungi, plants, and viruses and bacteria. By one estimate, parasites may outnumber
free-living species four to one. Indeed, the study of life is, for the most part,
parasitology.
Most of the past century's research
on parasites has gone into trying to fight the ones that cause devastating illness
in humans, such as malaria, AIDS, and tuberculosis. But otherwise, parasites have
largely been neglected. Scientists have treated them with indifference, even contempt,
viewing them as essentially hitchhikers on life's road. But recent research reveals
that parasites are remarkably sophisticated and tenacious and may be as important
to ecosystems as the predators at the top of the food chain. Some castrate their
hosts and take over their minds. (!!!!!) (Read that LITERALLY, not as a metaphor.)
Others completely shut down the immune systems of their hosts. Some scientists
now think parasites have been a dominant force, perhaps the dominant force, in
the evolution of life. (How about connecting this to the Tree of Destruction!!)
Note:
consider also, the parasite would make the hosts DO things in relation to others
of the host's species! The implications are HUGE. In other words, they could make
humans behave toward other humans in a way that would benefit the parasite, not
benefit the human except perhaps in terms of making it pleasurable for the human
so that the human would continue to do it. A virus can also do this: the sneeze
aids the adenovirus in spreading; the sneeze is a human behavior that co-evolved
with the virus! What about retroviruses? They can alter your DNA - but what ELSE
can they do? Well, they have a Will to Spread.
Sacculina
carcini, a barnacle that morphs into plantlike roots, is not the kind of organism
that commands immediate respect. Indeed, at first glance Sacculina appears to
slide down the ladder of evolution during its brief lifetime. Biologists are just
beginning to realize that this backward-looking creature is a powerhouse in disguise.
Sacculina starts life as a free-swimming larva.
Through a microscope, the tiny crustacean looks like a teardrop equipped with
fluttering legs and a pair of dark eyespots. Nineteenth-century biologists thought
Sacculina was a hermaphrodite, but in fact it comes in two sexes. The female larva
is the first to colonize its host, the crab. Sense organs on the female Sacculina's
legs catch the scent of a crab, and she dances through the water until she lands
on its armor. She crawls along an arm as the crab twitches in irritation—
or perhaps the crustacean equivalent of panic— until she comes to a joint
on the arm where the hard exoskeleton bends at a soft chink. There she looks for
the small hairs that sprout out of the crab's arm, each anchored in its own hole.
She jabs a long hollow dagger through one of the holes, and through it squirts
a blob made up of a few cells. The injection, which takes only a few seconds,
is a variation on the molting that crustaceans and insects go through in order
to grow. For example, a cicada sitting in a tree separates a thin outer husk from
the rest of its body and then pushes its way out of the shell, emerging with a
new, soft exoskeleton that stretches throughout the insect's growth spurt. In
the case of the female Sacculina, however, most of her body becomes the husk that
is left behind. The part that lives on looks less like a barnacle than like a
microscopic slug.
The slug plunges into the depth
of the crab. In time it settles in the crab's underside and grows, forming a bulge
in its shell and sprouting a set of rootlike tendrils, which spread throughout
the crab's body, even wrapping around its eyestalks. Covered with fine, fleshy
fingers much like the ones lining the human intestine, these roots draw in nutrients
dissolved in the crab's blood. Remarkably, this gross invasion fails to trigger
any immune response in the crab, which continues to wander through the surf, eating
clams and mussels.
Meanwhile, the female Sacculina
continues to grow, and the bulge in the crab's underside turns into a knob. As
the crab scuttles around, the knob's outer layer slowly chips away, revealing
a portal. Sacculina will remain at this stage for the rest of her life, unless
a male larva lands on the crab and finds the knob's pin-size opening. It's too
small for him to fit into, and so, like the female before him, he molts off most
of himself, injecting the vestige into the hole. This male cargo— a spiny,
reddish-brown torpedo 1/100,000 inch long— slips into a pulsing, throbbing
canal, which carries him deep into the female's body. He casts off his spiny coat
as he goes and in 10 hours ends up at the bottom of the canal. There he fuses
to the female's visceral sac and begins making sperm. There are two of these wells
in each female Sacculina, and she typically carries two males with her for her
entire life. They endlessly fertilize her eggs, and every few weeks she produces
thousands of new Sacculina larvae.
Eventually,
the crab begins to change into a new sort of creature, one that exists to serve
the parasite. (!!! yet consider, it still LOOKS like a crab.) It can no longer
do the things that would get in the way of Sacculina's growth. It stops molting
and growing, which would funnel away energy from the parasite. Crabs can typically
escape from predators by severing a claw and regrowing it later on. Crabs carrying
Sacculina can lose a claw, but they can't grow a new one in its place. And while
other crabs mate and produce new generations, parasitized crabs simply go on eating
and eating. They have been spayed by the parasite. (In other words, they no longer
have the DESIRE to mate with their own kind!)
Despite
having been castrated (not literally, but the desire to mate is gone), the crab
doesn't lose its urge to nurture. It simply directs its affection toward the parasite.
(Consider this in HUMAN terms.) A healthy female crab carries her fertilized eggs
in a brood pouch on her underside, and as her eggs mature she carefully grooms
the pouch, scraping away algae and fungi. When the crab larvae hatch and need
to escape, their mother finds a high rock on which to stand, then bobs up and
down to release them from the pouch into the ocean current, waving her claws to
stir up more flow. The knob that Sacculina forms sits exactly where the crab's
brood pouch would be, and the crab treats the parasite knob as such. She strokes
it clean as the larvae grow, and when they are ready to emerge she forces them
out in pulses, shooting out heavy clouds of parasites. As they spray out from
her body, she waves her claws to help them on their way. Male crabs succumb to
Sacculina's powers as well. Males normally develop a narrow abdomen, but infected
males grow abdomens as wide as those of females, wide enough to accommodate a
brood pouch or a Sacculina knob. A male crab even acts as if he had a female's
brood pouch, grooming it as the parasite larvae grow and bobbing in the waves
to release them. (Males behave like females.)
Sacculina's
adaptations reflect a relatively simple life cycle for a parasite— it makes
its way from one crab to another. But for many other parasites, the game is more
complicated—they must journey through a series of animal species in order
to survive and procreate. Such parasites exert extraordinary control over their
hosts, transforming them into seemingly different creatures. They can change a
host's looks or scent to appeal to a predator. They can even alter its behavior
to force it into the next host's path. (Could it also change the creature's behavior
in a way where it would induce OTHERS of its own species to succumb to the parasite?
Yes.)
The mature lancet fluke, Dicrocoelium dendriticum,
nestles in cows and other grazers, which spread the fluke's eggs in their manure.
Hungry snails swallow the eggs, which hatch in their intestines. The immature
parasites drill through the wall of a snail's gut and settle in the digestive
gland. There the flukes produce offspring, which make their way to the surface
of the snail's body. The snail tries to defend itself by walling the parasites
off in balls of slime, which it then coughs up and leaves behind in the grass.
Along comes an ant, which swallows a slime ball
loaded with hundreds of lancet flukes. The parasites slide down into the ant's
gut and then wander for a while through its body, eventually moving to the cluster
of nerves that control the ant's mandibles. Most of the lancet flukes head back
to the abdomen, where they form cysts, but one or two stay behind in the ant's
head.
There the flukes do some parasitic voodoo
on their hosts. As the evening approaches and the air cools, the ants find themselves
drawn away from their fellows on the ground and upward to the top of a blade of
grass. Clamped to the tip of the blade, the infected ant waits to be devoured
by a cow or some other grazer passing by. (It elicits what we'd call Thanatos
behavior, self-destructive behavior!)
If the ant
sits the whole night without being eaten and the sun rises, the flukes let the
ant loosen its grip on the grass. The ant scurries back down to the ground and
spends the day acting like a regular insect again. If the host were to bake in
the heat of the direct sun, the parasites would die with it. When evening comes
again, they send the ant back up a blade of grass for another try. After the ant
finally tumbles into a cow's stomach, the flukes burst out and make their way
to the cow's liver, where they will live out their lives as adults.
As
scientists discover more and more parasites and uncover the extent and complexity
of their machinations, they are fast coming to an unsettling conclusion: Far from
simply being along for the ride, parasites may be one of nature's most powerful
driving forces. At the Carpinteria salt marsh, Kevin Lafferty has been exploring
how parasites may shape an entire region's ecology. In a series of exacting experiments,
he has found that a single species of fluke— Euhaplorchis californiensis—
journeys through three hosts and plays a critical role in orchestrating the marsh's
balance of nature.
Birds release the fluke's
eggs in their droppings, which are eaten by horn snails. The eggs hatch, and the
resulting flukes castrate the snail and produce offspring, which come swimming
out of their host and begin exploring the marsh for their next host, the California
killifish. Latching onto the fish's gills, the flukes work their way through fine
blood vessels to a nerve, which they crawl along to the brain. They don't actually
penetrate the killifish's brain but form a thin carpet on top of it, looking like
a layer of caviar. There the parasites wait for the fish to be eaten by a shorebird.
When the fish reaches the bird's stomach, the flukes break out of the fish's head
and move into the bird's gut, stealing its food from within and sowing eggs in
its droppings to be spread into marshes and ponds.
In
his research, Lafferty set out to answer one main question: Would Carpinteria
look the same if there were no flukes? He began by examining the snail stage of
the cycle. The relationship between fluke and snail is not like the one between
predator and prey. In a genetic sense, infected snails are dead, because they
can no longer reproduce. (i.e., an animal that does not reproduce is genetically
dead.) But they live on, grazing on algae to feed the flukes inside them. That
puts them in direct competition with the marsh's uninfected snails.
To
see how the contest plays out, Lafferty put healthy and fluke-infested snails
in separate mesh cages at sites around the marsh. "The tops were open so
the sun could shine through and algae could grow on the bottom," says Lafferty.
What he found was that the uninfected snails grew faster, released far more eggs,
and could thrive in far more crowded conditions. The implication: In nature, the
parasites were competing so intensely that the healthy snails couldn't reproduce
fast enough to take full advantage of the salt marsh. In fact, if flukes were
absent from the marsh, the snail population would nearly double. That explosion
would ripple out through much of the salt marsh ecosystem, thinning out the carpet
of algae and making it easier for the snails' predators, such as crabs, to thrive.
Lafferty then studied the killifish. Initially,
he found little evidence that flukes harmed or changed the fish they colonized;
the fish didn't even mount an immune response. But Lafferty was suspicious. He
figured that flukes sitting on the brain were in a good position to be doing something.
So he plucked 42 fish from the marsh, dumped them into a 75-gallon aquarium in
the lab, and gave his student Kimo Morris the laborious task of watching them.
Morris would pick out one fish and stare at it for half an hour, recording every
move it made. When he was done, he'd scoop the fish out and dissect it to see
whether its brain was caked with parasites. Then he'd focus on another killifish.
What was hidden to the naked eye came leaping
out of the data. As killifish search for prey, they alternate between hovering
and darting around. But every now and then, Morris would spot a fish shimmying,
jerking, flashing its belly as it swam on one side, or darting close to the surface—
all risky things for a fish to do if a bird is scanning the water. It turns out
that fish with parasites were four times more likely to shimmy, jerk, flash, and
surface than their healthy counterparts.
Lafferty
and Morris followed up with a marsh experiment in which they set up two pens,
each filled with 53 uninfected killifish and 95 infected fish. To distinguish
between the two groups, the researchers clipped the left pectoral fin of the healthy
fish and the right fin of the parasitized ones. One pen was covered with netting
to protect it from birds; the other was left open so birds could easily wade or
land inside. After two days, a great egret waded into the open pen. It stepped
slowly into the muddy water and struck it a few times, the last time bringing
up a killifish. After birds had visited the pen for three weeks, Lafferty and
Morris added up how many fish were alive. (The covered pen acted as a control
for the researchers to see how many fish died of natural causes.) The results
were startling: The birds were 30 times more likely to feast on one of the flailing,
parasitized fish than on a healthy fish.
Predators
are often very careful about the prey they eat, avoiding poisonous insects and
frogs, for example. So why would birds pick so many fish that are guaranteed to
pass on an energy-sucking intestinal parasite? The flukes do drain a bit of energy
from the birds. But that is more than offset by the benefit they provide: They
make finding food very easy for the birds.
Scientists
have been stunned by the implications of these findings.
Note:
Here is an example that I intend to use to get you upset :) Actually, to make
you THINK STRONGLY about it. Let us take humans that use the digestive canal (mouth
OR anus) for sexual pleasure and obsess over that? They desire far MORE sex of
that nature than do "normals" or mating male/female types. Maybe it
has nothing to do with mental fetishes or upbringing or anything human-centered
at all. Ask this: What's in the digestive tract? LOTS of parasites, bacteria,
etc. This is a non-mating act that is DESIRED over and above the mating act: but
WHO is doing the desiring? The human? Or Something Else? What OTHER behaviors
are strange? What about self-destructive stuff? Is the human destroying himself
due to some psychological reason, or is Something Else surviving and benefiting
its own species when its human host does these things? It would explain a LOT.
The birds that frequent coastal wetlands depend
on fish for much of their diet. Without parasites throwing prey their way, the
birds of Carpinteria might have to put far more time and effort into eating and
might reproduce at a lower rate. "Could we have so many birds out there if
it were 30 times harder for them to get their food?" asks marine biologist
Armand Kuris, also of the University of California at Santa Barbara. "Parasites
don't just modify individual behavior, they're really powerful— they may
be running a large part of the waterbird ecology."
The
fluke that Lafferty studied is but one parasite, living in one salt marsh. There
are a dozen other species of fluke that live in the snails of Carpinteria and
other parasites that dwell in other animals of the marsh. Every ecosystem on Earth
is just as rife with parasites that can exert extraordinary control over their
hosts, riddling them with disease, castrating them, or transforming their natural
behavior.
Note: repeat this: They can exert extraordinary
control over their hosts, castrating them (not literally, just ensuring that they
don't reproduce their own kind anymore, ensuring that they don't even DESIRE to
reproduce their own kind!), or transforming their NATURAL behavior.
Scientists
like Lafferty are only just beginning to discover exactly how powerful these hidden
inhabitants can be, but their research is pointing to a remarkable possibility:
Parasites may rule the world.
The notion that
tiny creatures we've largely taken for granted are such a dominant force is immensely
disturbing. Even after Copernicus took Earth out of the center of the universe
and Darwin took humans out of the center of the living world, we still go through
life pretending that we are exalted above other animals. Yet we know that we,
too, are collections of cells that work together, kept harmonized by chemical
signals. If an organism can control those signals— an organism like a parasite—
then it can control us. And therein lies the peculiar and precise horror of parasites.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And
finally:
Lambs do not lay down near lions
unless they are crazy (of something else wants them to lay down near the lion?)
And the only lions that lay down with lambs either just had a good meal or are
laying down as dead lions.
So then, what would
make HUMANS prone to severe religiosity that way? Borna Virus is one indicator.
Excerpts from Andrei A. V.'s paper on Borna
Virus and religious psychopathology:
The
evidence of links between hyper-religiosity, hyper-moralism, prevalence of "ethics"
over logic, mystical experiences and well - researched psychopathological conditions
such as schizophrenia and, especially, temporal epilepsy, mounts every passing
hour. Listing all well - supported arguments in the field of neuropathological
evaluation of religious behavior is a tedious task - this particular topic deserves
a book on it's own, consisting of multiple volumes outlining different methodological
approaches to this problem. Instead, the interested reader is referred to a list
of references on neuropathology of religiosity provided with this article. Perhaps,
the most comprehensive reference on the list is "The Neuronal Substrates
of Religious Experience" by J. L. Saver (M. D.) and J. Rabin (M. D.). If
you can get hold of it - get it.
The first question
is "how does Borna Virus enter the body?" It may be transmitted from
mother to an embryo. It can be passed from rodents by ticks, as it was already
mentioned. But the main way of dissemination is inhalational. Literally,
it is sniffed in and gets into the olfactory nerves. After getting into the nerves
it travels inside of them deep into the brain, where it starts multiplying. And
where do the olfactory nerves lead ? What is "the nose brain" that perceives
and processes the information we get in the form of various smells ? The "nose
brain" (or rhinenecephalon) consists of olfactory bulbs, AMYGDALA and HIPPOCAMPUS.
In fact, hippocampus (or, at least it's first-to-appear dorsal part ("the
one on the back side") had EVOLVED from the olfactory bulbs.
It
is hippocampus and amygdala (which is less sensitive to insults & injuries
than the hippocampus) where the virus enters the brain first, employs it as a
breeding ground and, as time passes, wrecks havoc. The direct link from the outside
environment to the most sensitive/fragile part of the human brain via the olfactory
nerve is a clear-cut "exploit," and it comes as no surprise that once
upon a time there came a microscopic invader which used that weak spot to its
benefit and caused trouble for the whole mankind !
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
References:
a)
Scrip Industrial Report. BS 696. Schizophrenia/Manic depression. 1994.
b)
Neuropsyhiatry. Fogel at al. , Williams and Wilkins, 1996.
Cortical
Plasticity : LTP and LTD. Fazeli&Collingridge. Bios 1996.
c)
Jeffrey L. Saver & John Rabin, The Neural Substrates of Religious Experience.
The Journal of neuropsychiatry, special issue : the neuropsychiatry of limbic
and subcortical disorders. Vol 9, Number 3, Summer 1997, pp. 498 - 510. (Highly
recommended)
d) Waller et al, Genetic and Environmental
influences on religious interests, attitudes and values: a study of twins reared
apart and together. Journal of Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 138 - 142 (that
twin method ! :-)
e) Hardy A. The Biology of God.
New York, Taplinger, 1975.
f) Devinskiy O, Luciano
D. Psychic phenomena in partial seizures. Seminars of Neurology, 1991; 11 : 100
- 109.
g) Gloor P. , Oliver A. , Quesney L. F.
et al. The role of the limbic system in experimental phenomena of temporal lobe
epilepsy. Ann. Neurol. 1982; 23: 129 - 144.
h)
Voskuil P. H. A. The epilepsy of Dostoevskiy. Epilepsia 1983 ; 24 : 658 - 667.
i) Stevens J. R. Mark V. H. Ervin F et al. ,
Deep Temporal Stimulation in Man. Arch. Neurology, 1969; 21:157 - 169.
j)
Dewhurst K. , Beard A. V. Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy.
British Journal of Psychiatry 1970; 117: 497 - 507.
k)
Waxman S. G. , Geschwind N. The interictal behaviour syndrome of temporal lobe
epilepsy. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 1975; 32:1580 - 1586.
l)
Senskiy T, Wilson A, Petty R et al, The interictal personality traits of temporal
lobe epileptics: religious belief and its association with reported mystical experiences.
In Advances of Epileptology, New York, 1984; pp. 545 - 549.
m)
Serafetinides E. A. The significance of the temporal lobes and of hemisphere dominance
in the production of the LSD - 25 symptomatology in man. Neuropsychologia, 1965;
95:53 - 63.
n) Delusional Beliefs. Ottmans T.
F and Maher B. A. New York, Wiley, 1988.
o) Psychiatry
and Religion: Overlapping Concerns. Edited by Robinson D. H. American Psychiatric
Press, 1986.
p) Von Damirus. The specific laws
of logic in schizophrenia. In Language and Thought in Schizophrenia, edited by
J. S. Kasanin, University of California Press, 1944, pp 30 - 44.
q)
Aggleton J. P. The contribution of amygdala to normal and abnormal emotional states.
TINS, 1993, 16: 328 - 333.
r) Lex B. W. The neurobiology
of ritual trance. In The Spectrum of Ritual, edited by D'Aquili et al, New York,
Columbia University Press, 1979, pp 117 - 151.
s)
Landsborough D. St. Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy. J. Neurol. Neurosurgery and
Psychiatry. 1987, 50: 659 - 664.
t) Buckley P.
Mystical experiences and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1981; 7: 516 -
521.
u) Mysticism: Spitiual Quest or Psychic
Disorder ? Group for the Advancements of Psychiatry, New York, Mental Health Materials
Center, 1976, Vol 9 publication 97.
v) R. Joseph.
Neuropsychiatry, Neurpsychology and Clinical Neurscience: Emotion, Evolution,
Cognition, Language, Memory, Brain Damage and Abnormal Behaviour. Second Edition,
Williams & Wilkins, 1996. (Reccommended as both general and more specific
source)
There is also an interesting paper written
by a schizophrenic patient turned to Christianity thus worsening the disease :
Schizophrenia Bulletin Vol. 23, No 3, 1997.
Other
related/useful references in this field:
Brain
mechanisms and psychotropic drugs. Gary Remington. CRS press. 1996.
Different
updates of the DSM - 4 scale. (Well, you know what is it . . . )
The
Brain and Emotion. Edmund T. Rolls, Oxford University Press, 1999. (Exellent!)
The
Brain and Behavior. Assessing Cortical Dysfunction Through Activities of Daily
Living. Gudrun Arnadottir. The C. V. Mosby Company. 1990. (Superb for "exploit
assesement and Manipulation)
The Prefrontal Cortex.
Anatomy, Physiology and Neuropsychology of the Frontal Lobe. Joaquin M. Fuster.
Third Edition. Lippincott - Raven, 1997.
References
on Neuronal Damage, Epileptogenesis, Degeneration and Death.
These
are multiple, I'll give you the most general and encompassing hardcover ones,
from which you can look for further data if interested.
Cortical
Plasticity : LTP and LTD. Fazeli and Collingridge. Bios,1996.
Cell
Death and Diseases of Nervous System. Vassilis R. Koliatsos and Rajiv R. Ratan.
Humana Press, 1999.
Mitochondria & Free Radicals
in Neurodegenerative Diseases. M. Flint Beal et al; Wiley - Liss, 1997.
Highly
Selective Neurotoxins. Basic and Clinical Applications. Edited by Richard M. Kostrzewa.
Humana Press. 1998.
Selective Neurotoxicity.
H. Herken, F. Hucho, Springer - Verlag, 1994.
When
Cells Die. A comprehensive evaluation of Apoptosis and Programmed Cell Death.
Richard A. Lockshin et al. , 1998.
That should
be more than enough.
References on Borna Virus.
a) CTMI 190 - Current Topics in Microbiology
and Immunology. H. Koprovski and W. I. Lipkin. Borna Disease. Springer, 1995 Includes:
Molecular Biology of Borna Virus, Natural and Experimental Borna Disease in Animals,
Borna Disease - Neuropathology and Pathogenesis, Immunopathogenesis of Borna,
Behavioural Disturbances and Pharmacology of Borna Disease, Human Infections with
Borna and Potential Pathogenic Implications. If you are interested in the virus
you must have this one !
b) Ter Meulen V. , Katz
M. , Slow virus infections of the central nervous system. Springer, 1977.
c)
Danner K. , Mayr A. In vitro studies on borna virus. Properties of the virus.
Arch. Virol. 61, 261 - 271.
d) Dittrich W, Bode
L, Ludwig H, et al. Learning deficiencies in Borna disease virus - infected but
clinically healthy rats. 1989. Biol. Psychiatry 26: 818 828 (a very enlightening
study !)
e) Morales et al. Axonal transport of
Borna disease virus along olfactory pathways in spontaneously and experimentally
infected rats. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 177: 51 - 68.
f)
Rott R et al. Borna Disease, a possible hazard for man ? Arch. Virol. 118: 143
- 149, 1991.
g) Caplazi P. et al. Borna disease
in naturally infected cattle. J. Comp. Path 111: 65 - 72, 1994.
h)
Lundgren A. L. Natural Borna disease in domestic animals others than horses and
sheep. J. Vet. Med. B40: 298 - 303.
i) Grigson
C. Shiqmim: pastoralism and other aspects of animal management in the Chalcolithic
of the Nothern Negev, Israel. British Archeological Trust, Oxford, BAR international
series, 356, Chap. 7, page 219, 1987.
j) Paz
U. The birds of Israel: order struthioniformes (ostriches). Greene, Lexington,
1987.
k) Daubney R. Mahlau E. A. Viral encephalomyelitis
of equines and domestic ruminants in the Near East. Res. Vet. Sci. 8: 375.
l)Malkinson
M. et al. Borna disease in sheep: first case recorded in Israel. Isr. J. Vet.
Med N 49.
m) Gozstonyi et al. Rabies and Borna
disease - a comparative pathogenic study of two neurovirulent agents. Lab. Investigations.
1993. 68: 285 - 295.
n) Lipkin et al. Neurotransmitter
abnormatilies in Borna Disease. Brain Research, 475 : 366 - 370.
o)
Kao M. et al. Adaptation of Borna disease virus to the mouse. J. Gen. Virol. 1984.
65: 1845 - 1849.
p) Narayan O. et al. Behavioural
disease in rats caused by immunopathological responses to persistent Borna virus
in the brain. Science, 1983, 220: 1401 - 1403.
q)
Solbrig M. V. et al. Borna disease virus causes dopamine disturbances in rats.
Society for Neuroscience, 1992. 1: 665 (abstract)
r)
Sprankel H. et al. Behavioural alterations in tree shrewds induced by Borna disease
virus. Med. Microbiology and Immunology, 1978, 165 : 1-18.
s)
Bechter et al. Possible significance of Borna disease for humans. Neurol. Psychiatr.
Brain Research, 1992, 1:23 - 29.
u) Bode et. al. Borna
disease virus genome transcribed and expressed in psychiatric patients. Nature
Medicine, 1995, 1(3):232-236.
v) Stitz L, Krey
H. F, Ludwig H. Borna disease in rhesus monkeys as a model for uveo - cerebral
symptoms. J. Med. Virol. 6: 333 - 340.
w) Vande
Woude S. et al. A Borna virus cDNA encoding a protein recognized by antibodies
in humans with behavioral diseases. Science, 1990, 250:1278 - 1281.
