Compiled By Comrade TJ

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.


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 !

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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.

t) Bode et. al. Borna disease virus infection and affective disorders in man. Arch. Virol. Suppl 7, 1993, 159 - 167.

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.

Back to Satanic Reds index


Back to Satanic Reds index