A Tale of Two Suppressed Studies

Let me tell you a story. A big, powerful institution commissioned a report into something important. But the authors ended up writing something that the institution’s leaders couldn’t accept. They found it unpalatable. It went against their orthodox dogmas. So, they suppressed it. It never saw the light of day. It’s the report they didn’t want you to read.

Nice story. But does that mean the report is true? Couldn’t they be smarter than the authors of the report? Is “Commissioned to write a report by a big powerful institution” a qualification you would respect in any other context? Maybe they didn’t want you to read the report because it was just a bit rubbish?

The past couple of weeks has seen two classic texts from the ever-popular genre of Suppressed Reports. There was the World Health Organization study on cocaine that concluded that it isn’t all that harmful. And then there was the Environmental Protection Agency report that was sceptical of global warming. They didn’t want you to read either, so we’re told.

I’m not saying these reports are wrong. I haven’t read either. But it’s odd that their "suppression" has granted them the kind of uncritical attention that they would never have had if they’d just been published normally. How many global warming skeptics take what the Environmental Protection Agency says seriously? Yet when they deliberately don’t say something, they’re all ears. It’s like Catholics taking the Pope’s word as infallible, but only when he doesn’t want them to. It’s the argument from authority in reverse.

A Tale of Two Suppressed Studies

Let me tell you a story. A big, powerful institution commissioned a report into something important. But the authors ended up writing something that the institution’s leaders couldn’t accept. They found it unpalatable. It went against their orthodox dogmas. So, they suppressed it. It never saw the light of day. It’s the report they didn’t want you to read.

Nice story. But does that mean the report is true? Couldn’t they be smarter than the authors of the report? Is “Commissioned to write a report by a big powerful institution” a qualification you would respect in any other context? Maybe they didn’t want you to read the report because it was just a bit rubbish?

The past couple of weeks has seen two classic texts from the ever-popular genre of Suppressed Reports. There was the World Health Organization study on cocaine that concluded that it isn’t all that harmful. And then there was the Environmental Protection Agency report that was sceptical of global warming. They didn’t want you to read either, so we’re told.

I’m not saying these reports are wrong. I haven’t read either. But it’s odd that their "suppression" has granted them the kind of uncritical attention that they would never have had if they’d just been published normally. How many global warming skeptics take what the Environmental Protection Agency says seriously? Yet when they deliberately don’t say something, they’re all ears. It’s like Catholics taking the Pope’s word as infallible, but only when he doesn’t want them to. It’s the argument from authority in reverse.

The Shotgun Approach to Psych Drug Discovery

A foundation is offering to fund research into novel psychiatric medications, we read in the latest Nature Neuroscience:

The Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts has launched an initiative called ‘PsychHTS’ inviting scientists with ideas and data suggesting novel mechanisms contributing to psychiatric disease to apply for access to the Broad’s infrastructure and expertise for high throughput screening (HTS) of chemical compound libraries.

HTS is a clever technique for discovering new drugs, based on the crude but effective principle of trying hundreds of thousands of different chemicals until you find one which works, by using machines to automatically run the experiments (“assays”) extremely quickly. Hence, “high throughput”. It’s pretty cool.

The Stanley Medical Research Institute wants to use HTS to find new psychiatric drugs. There have been no truly new drugs in psychiatry for a long time: there are dozens of different antidepressants, for example, but they all work (if and when they work) by increasing brain monoamine levels, just like the very first antidepressants, iproniazid and imipramine, discovered in the early 1950s. The same is true of antipsychotics, which all block dopamine D2 receptors, just like the very first, chlorpromazine.

So new drugs for the mind would be great. But how are you going to find them by doing experiments in test-tubes, even if you have 50,000 test-tubes? The mind doesn’t fit in a test-tube. Here’s where the proposal gets a bit iffy:

Readouts may be anything from classical enzymatic reactions ... up to subcellular changes captured by automated high-content imaging. ... ‘Hits’—compounds that affect the assay results in a way that indicates potential usefulness in a psychiatric research context—are automatically retested at several concentrations...

So, the idea is that potential new drugs will be found by measuring how they affect certain cellular processes or chemical pathways. But which ones? Until we know what cellular or protein or enzymatic changes underlie mental illness, we won’t know what to look for. And the whole problem is that we don’t know much about that – if we did we’d have lots of new drugs already.

The article suggests only one route to finding truly novel mechanisms – genetics. In the past few years, there have been many genetic studies trying to find genes which cause mental illnesses. Some of them have identified risk genes which seem to imply new biological pathways. For example, the current orthodoxy is that schizophrenia is caused by abnormalities in the brain’s dopamine system. But the gene most strongly implicated in schizophrenia is called “neuregulin-1”, and it has nothing to do with dopamine. That’s interesting but unfortunately -

Recent genetic studies have indeed suggested new targets, but the identification of specific genetic risk factors remains elusive. The genetic results are themselves variable, often have small effect sizes and need independent replication.

In other words, the genetics evidence is so patchy, that using it as a basis for finding new drugs is like building a house on very shaky foundations. It might stand. But if the genetic links turn out to be spurious, all the subsequent research will have been in vain.

Personally, while I welcome any truly groundbreaking work in psychiatry, I would rather people spend time and money doing better research on the drugs we already have.

Nature Neuroscience Editorial (2009). Mining chemistry for psychiatry Nature Neuroscience, 12 (7), 809-809 DOI: 10.1038/nn0709-809

The Shotgun Approach to Psych Drug Discovery

A foundation is offering to fund research into novel psychiatric medications, we read in the latest Nature Neuroscience:

The Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts has launched an initiative called ‘PsychHTS’ inviting scientists with ideas and data suggesting novel mechanisms contributing to psychiatric disease to apply for access to the Broad’s infrastructure and expertise for high throughput screening (HTS) of chemical compound libraries.

HTS is a clever technique for discovering new drugs, based on the crude but effective principle of trying hundreds of thousands of different chemicals until you find one which works, by using machines to automatically run the experiments (“assays”) extremely quickly. Hence, “high throughput”. It’s pretty cool.

The Stanley Medical Research Institute wants to use HTS to find new psychiatric drugs. There have been no truly new drugs in psychiatry for a long time: there are dozens of different antidepressants, for example, but they all work (if and when they work) by increasing brain monoamine levels, just like the very first antidepressants, iproniazid and imipramine, discovered in the early 1950s. The same is true of antipsychotics, which all block dopamine D2 receptors, just like the very first, chlorpromazine.

So new drugs for the mind would be great. But how are you going to find them by doing experiments in test-tubes, even if you have 50,000 test-tubes? The mind doesn’t fit in a test-tube. Here’s where the proposal gets a bit iffy:

Readouts may be anything from classical enzymatic reactions ... up to subcellular changes captured by automated high-content imaging. ... ‘Hits’—compounds that affect the assay results in a way that indicates potential usefulness in a psychiatric research context—are automatically retested at several concentrations...

So, the idea is that potential new drugs will be found by measuring how they affect certain cellular processes or chemical pathways. But which ones? Until we know what cellular or protein or enzymatic changes underlie mental illness, we won’t know what to look for. And the whole problem is that we don’t know much about that – if we did we’d have lots of new drugs already.

The article suggests only one route to finding truly novel mechanisms – genetics. In the past few years, there have been many genetic studies trying to find genes which cause mental illnesses. Some of them have identified risk genes which seem to imply new biological pathways. For example, the current orthodoxy is that schizophrenia is caused by abnormalities in the brain’s dopamine system. But the gene most strongly implicated in schizophrenia is called “neuregulin-1”, and it has nothing to do with dopamine. That’s interesting but unfortunately -

Recent genetic studies have indeed suggested new targets, but the identification of specific genetic risk factors remains elusive. The genetic results are themselves variable, often have small effect sizes and need independent replication.

In other words, the genetics evidence is so patchy, that using it as a basis for finding new drugs is like building a house on very shaky foundations. It might stand. But if the genetic links turn out to be spurious, all the subsequent research will have been in vain.

Personally, while I welcome any truly groundbreaking work in psychiatry, I would rather people spend time and money doing better research on the drugs we already have.

Nature Neuroscience Editorial (2009). Mining chemistry for psychiatry Nature Neuroscience, 12 (7), 809-809 DOI: 10.1038/nn0709-809

Receitas com pinhão

CONFORME HAVIA PROMETIDO, AI VAI DUAS RECEITAS BEM GOSTOSAS COM PINHÃO.
BOM APETITE.

Paçoca de Pinhão

1 quilo de pinhões
5 colheres de (sopa) de tempero pronto tipo alho e sal
1 colher de (sopa) de salsinha picada
2 colheres de (sopa) de óleo
1 cebola pequena picada
2 envelopes de sazón laranja
2 e ½ litro de água


Em uma panela de pressão, coloque os pinhões com as pontas cortadas, a água e o tempero pronto, cozinhe em fogo alto por 40 minutos após o início da fervura.

Retire do fogo, espere esfriar,

descasque os pinhões e passe-os pelo processador.

Reserve.

Em uma panela média, coloque o óleo e leve ao fogo alto para aquecer. Junte a cebola e refogue por 3 minutos ou até começar a dourar. Acrescente os pinhões, tempere com o sazón e cozinhe, mexendo sempre com o auxílio de um garfo, por 3 minutos ou até que o tempero esteja distribuído uniformemente.

Junte a salsa, misture e retiredo fogo.

Sirva acompanhando carnes, aves ou peixes

Variações: Faça um refogado com carne bovina em cubos e incorpore a paçoca de pinhão. Substitua a salsa por hortelã picada, a gosto.

Bolo de Pinhão

Massa:

1 COLHER (sopa) de fermento em pó

1 XICARA (chá) de pinhão cozido e moído

1 XICARA (chá) de farinha de trigo

1 COLHER (chá) de manteiga

1 lata de leite condensado 1 pitada de sal 4 claras em neve 4 gemas

Calda: 1 XICARA (chá) de pinhão cozido e triturado

1 vidro pequeno de leite de coco 200 gramas d

e açúcar 4 gemas


Massa:

Bater a manteiga até formar um creme.

Juntar as gemas uma a uma, o leite condensado aos poucos, a pitada de sal e a farinha de pinhão.

Misturar a farinha de trigo com o fermento.

Juntar aos poucos batendo sempre.

Por último, misturar delicadamente as claras em neve. Despejar uma forma com buraco no meio, untada e enfarinhada, e levar para assar em forno médio por cerca de 30 minutos.

Calda: Misturar o açúcar ao leite de coco e levar ao fogo. Deixar ferver e juntar o pinhão (tem de ficar em ponto de fio, escorrendo na colher ). Deixar esfriar a calda. Acrescentar as gemas. Voltar ao fogo e deixar engrossar. Despejar sobre o bolo com a calda ainda quente.

SE VOCÊ NÃO LEVOU, AINDA DÁ TEMPO

Hoje é dia 30.06.- embora esta postagem saiu com a data do dia 29.06.

Não posso mais mudar, pois já tem recadinho.

Hoje tem desafio da Carmem. Estou participando.

PASSE NO BLOG Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos.

Estou te esperando.

Os sabores do Pinhão....

Passeando pelo blog Guardados e Achados da Estela encontrei esta maravilha de pinhão, que quero compartilhar com vocês. E durante a semana, quero estar postando outras curiosidades. Pois moro a 300 km. dessa cidade maravilhosa chamada Lages, a terra do Pinhão

Uma Gostosa Receita da blog da Estela.

“Pinhão quentinho / Quentinho o pinhão
E você bem juntinho / Do meu coração.”
Mario Quintana

Foi por causa desses versos de Quintana que eu resolvi experimentar o pinhão... e fiquei apaixonada pelo seu sabor.



O pinhão é a semente do pinheiro, (Araucária angustifólia), originário do sul do Brasil. Se forma dentro da pinha, fechada, que com o tempo vai-se abrindo, e libertando o pinhão.
Seu formato, com uma asa, lhe proporciona ser espalhada pelo vento, garantindo a perpetuação da espécie.


O pinhão garante a alimentação de muitas espécies animais, principalmente roedores e pássaros e, se tornou item obrigatório no cardápio de outono e inverno em milhares de residências do Sul.
Cozido em água ou assado na brasa, o pinhão é uma festa para o paladar.
Pode ser consumido puro ou aplicado em receitas como: bolos, biscoitos, cremes, arroz, etc.

E, eu que não resisto a um pinhão... fiz uma receitinha deliciosa:


Cozinhei os pinhões na água com sal por mais ou menos 50 minutos (em panela de pressão leva menos tempo – mais ou menos 30 minutos)
Deixei esfriar, descasquei e reservei.

ARROZ DE PINHÃO
½ xícara de pinhão cozido e picado
1 xícara de arroz
2 ½ xícaras de água
Cebola picada (mais ou menos meia xícara)
1 colher de sopa de óleo
Sal a gosto.
Preparar o arroz como se faz normalmente, refogando a cebola junto com o pinhão, juntar o arroz, o sal e por fim a água fervente. Cozinhar em fogo baixo e quando começar a secar, tampar e desligar o fogo.






Um sabor sem igual e, tão... simples de fazer.

Valeu amiga.
Aqui se compartilha conhecimento. E é muita coincidência encontrar no seu blog, uma preciosidade dessa, claro a receita. Obrigada amiga.
Aqui compartilhamos e aprendemos um com o outro.

APROVEITO PARA PARABENIZAR, TODOS OS BRASILEIROS PELA A GRANDE VITORIA, DO NOSSO BRASIL.
É ISSO DAI TIMÃO!

LEVE ESTE PINHÃO SABOROSO PARA VOCÊ,
DEGUSTAR MAIS TARDE.
EM ESPECIAL, QUERO OFERECER A ESTELA
DO BLOG GUARDADOS E ACHADOS.

On Psychiatric Cool

At Somatosphere, "Liz Oloft" (heh) writes about the dilemmas of "coming out" as a user of psychiatric meds while being an academic who researches them: Prozac In The Closet.

Liz is a social scientist, while I'm a card-carrying neuroscientist, but like her I also take antidepressants while studying them, and I identify strongly with her thoughts.

One sentence in particular struck a chord -

Depending on who you ask ... to engage in Lacanian psychoanalysis for neurotic problems of living might be cool, to take an antidepressant for depression without psychotherapy is less cool, and to take a cocktail for bipolar might be even less so (although bipolar disorder may be more legitimate than depression because it seems to be more widely accepted as a “real biological disease”).

This is something which isn't much talked about, but it's absolutely true. Some mental illnesses are just cooler than others. Cool is a famously elusive concept, maybe undefinable. Either you got it or you don't. But some diagnoses certainly have more of it than others. From most cool to least the pecking-order seems to be:

1. "Issues" – problems of living and/or "stress", rather than illness
2. "Physical" conditions with psychiatric symptoms, such as thyroid problems and PMT
3. Anxiety, phobias, panic attacks
4. Substance abuse & addiction
5. Bipolar disorder (manic-depression)
6. Eating disorders
7. Unipolar depression
8. "Personality Disorders"
9. Schizophrenia

This list is, of course, subjective - "cool" inherently is – and it goes without saying that I’m not endorsing this hierarchy, just reporting it as I perceive it. I’m no slave to cool as a glance at my iTunes library would verify.

What does it mean for one thing to be higher on the list than other? Amongst much else it means - that people are more comfortable talking about it and being in the presence of it; that people will tend to prefer it as a diagnosis for themself or a loved-one; and that it's easier to think of "cool" people who have it. And, simply, it means it that it’s easier to “come out” as having it.

Some of the rankings may surprise at first glance. If you read the textbooks, you'd think that bipolar disorder is generally speaking "worse" than unipolar depression. And in many ways it is. But it's still cooler, I think. Cobain sang about "Lithium", the quintessential treatment for mania, not "Imipramine". Hendrix sang "Manic-Depression", not "Depression". Lots of cool, or at any rate famous, people, are bipolar, or are widely believed to be. By contrast, try to think of a famous unipolar depressive, and you'll come up with Winston Churchill with his Black Dog and... who else?

The key factor behind psychiatric coolness seems to be the degree to which a problem is seen as internal to the self. There's little shame in being "stressed" due to things that happen to you, because then the problem is external. You're "normal", it's the situation that's screwed up.

Likewise, as Liz says, bipolar disorder is in an important way cooler than depression, because it's seen a closer to being a "physical” illness that happens to you, like a thyroid problem. That’s as opposed to a weakness or failure of you as a person, which is the most damaging and most persistent stigma of unipolar depression.

The one apparent exception is schizophrenia, which is profoundly stigmatized despite being widely viewed as a biological disease. But isn't this because schizophrenia is seen as a disease that disturbs the self, leaving someone merely "mad" or "insane", no longer responsible for their actions and therefore no longer really a person?

On Psychiatric Cool

At Somatosphere, "Liz Oloft" (heh) writes about the dilemmas of "coming out" as a user of psychiatric meds while being an academic who researches them: Prozac In The Closet.

Liz is a social scientist, while I'm a card-carrying neuroscientist, but like her I also take antidepressants while studying them, and I identify strongly with her thoughts.

One sentence in particular struck a chord -

Depending on who you ask ... to engage in Lacanian psychoanalysis for neurotic problems of living might be cool, to take an antidepressant for depression without psychotherapy is less cool, and to take a cocktail for bipolar might be even less so (although bipolar disorder may be more legitimate than depression because it seems to be more widely accepted as a “real biological disease”).

This is something which isn't much talked about, but it's absolutely true. Some mental illnesses are just cooler than others. Cool is a famously elusive concept, maybe undefinable. Either you got it or you don't. But some diagnoses certainly have more of it than others. From most cool to least the pecking-order seems to be:

1. "Issues" – problems of living and/or "stress", rather than illness
2. "Physical" conditions with psychiatric symptoms, such as thyroid problems and PMT
3. Anxiety, phobias, panic attacks
4. Substance abuse & addiction
5. Bipolar disorder (manic-depression)
6. Eating disorders
7. Unipolar depression
8. "Personality Disorders"
9. Schizophrenia

This list is, of course, subjective - "cool" inherently is – and it goes without saying that I’m not endorsing this hierarchy, just reporting it as I perceive it. I’m no slave to cool as a glance at my iTunes library would verify.

What does it mean for one thing to be higher on the list than other? Amongst much else it means - that people are more comfortable talking about it and being in the presence of it; that people will tend to prefer it as a diagnosis for themself or a loved-one; and that it's easier to think of "cool" people who have it. And, simply, it means it that it’s easier to “come out” as having it.

Some of the rankings may surprise at first glance. If you read the textbooks, you'd think that bipolar disorder is generally speaking "worse" than unipolar depression. And in many ways it is. But it's still cooler, I think. Cobain sang about "Lithium", the quintessential treatment for mania, not "Imipramine". Hendrix sang "Manic-Depression", not "Depression". Lots of cool, or at any rate famous, people, are bipolar, or are widely believed to be. By contrast, try to think of a famous unipolar depressive, and you'll come up with Winston Churchill with his Black Dog and... who else?

The key factor behind psychiatric coolness seems to be the degree to which a problem is seen as internal to the self. There's little shame in being "stressed" due to things that happen to you, because then the problem is external. You're "normal", it's the situation that's screwed up.

Likewise, as Liz says, bipolar disorder is in an important way cooler than depression, because it's seen a closer to being a "physical” illness that happens to you, like a thyroid problem. That’s as opposed to a weakness or failure of you as a person, which is the most damaging and most persistent stigma of unipolar depression.

The one apparent exception is schizophrenia, which is profoundly stigmatized despite being widely viewed as a biological disease. But isn't this because schizophrenia is seen as a disease that disturbs the self, leaving someone merely "mad" or "insane", no longer responsible for their actions and therefore no longer really a person?

CONVITE DA MARCIA.

BOM DIA A TODOS VOCÊS, NESTE DIA FRIOZINHO E COM CHUVA. LÁ FORA UMA GAROA FINA E FRIA. NÃO SEI ATÉ QUANDO VAI. MAS NÃO IMPORTA. O IMPORTANTE É O CALOR DA NOSSA AMIZADE.
OFEREÇO UM GOSTOSO CAFÉZINHO PARA ESQUENTAR ESTE FRIOZINHO.

E SE FALANDO EM AMIZADE, DEIXO PARA VOCÊS, UM BOM DIA MUITO GOSTOSO DA PRESENÇA DA NOSSA AMIGA ESTER, QUE ESTÁ FORA POR UNS TEMPOS, MAS QUE LOGO VOLTARA, PARA JUNTO DE NÓS.

AGORA FIQUEI COM O CONVITE DA MINHA QUERIDA AMIGA E MADRINHA MARCIA.

festa no blog meus pensamentos

em Julho este blog meus pensamentos fará um 1 ano de vida!

e graça a todos vocês ele tem me dado grandes alegria

entre elas :

conhecer pessoas maravilhosas

amigas

alegres compartilhadoras de espaço e tempo

como o aniversário é no fim do mês de Julho

começarei as festas no primeiro dia do mês

e convido você a fazer parte desta festa!

programação :

haverá postagens de amigos

homenagens especiais a seguidores e seus blogs

premiação para blogs

selos especiais

postagens de e-mais e presentes enviados por cada um de vocês

não a melhor comemoração do que aquela em que todos os amigos e seguidores estejam presente, peço

sua ajuda para divulgação!

caso queira participar de uma forma especial

como e-mail

enviando recados flores presentes o que você quiser

desde já agradeço o seu carinho e apoio até lá!!!!

meu e-mail:marcia_melo_morais@hotmail.com



NÃO SAIA SEM TOMAR O CAFÉ.

How Far Off Is Mind-Reading?

PopSci.com has a somewhat enthusiastic article about the possibility of using fMRI to "uncover your private thoughts"- Mind-Reading Tech May Not Be Far Off.

Neuroscientists are already able to read some basic thoughts, like whether an individual test subject is looking at a picture of a cat or an image with a specific left or right orientation. They can even read pictures that you're simply imagining in your mind's eye. Even leaders in the field are shocked by how far we've come in our ability to peer into people's minds. Will brain scans of the future be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth? ... While we aren't there yet, these possibilities have dramatic social, legal and ethical implications.

But what do we mean by "mind-reading"? I guess what most people mean by the term is being able to tell what someone is thinking, being able to "hear" their private thoughts. A stereotypical fictional "telepath" can get inside their targets minds and tell exactly what's going through them.

Sadly, what most fMRI "mind-reading" experiments have done is rather less impressive. they've shown that it's possible to tell whether someone is thinking about one thing as opposed to a second thing. But only if you already know what both things are, and only if you have already "read" the pattern of neural activity that corresponds to each one.

So, you could scan someone while they are thinking about, say, cats, and then again while they are thinking about dogs. From that, you could work out whether they are thinking about cats or dogs at any given point in time (here's how). If they were thinking about anything else, you'd have no idea what it was, or worse, you'd think it was either a cat or a dog. A lion, for example, would probably activate many of the same pathways that a cat does.

The great majority of "mind-reading" studies are like this. It's still pretty cool, but it's no telepathy. Is there any prospect of true "mind-reading"? In other words, could you read a mental state without knowing what you were looking for in advance?

Maybe. The parts of the brain concerned with visual processing happen to be arranged in a relatively straightforward way,which means that there are predictable relationships between visual stimuli and the areas of the brain that are activated when looking at them. Reports have claimed that it's possible to infer which picture someone is looking at out of a large set (1) and even to reconstruct the image that someone is looking at based purely on the visual cortex activity (2,3). For a good explanation of the last paper, which attracted a lot of attention, see Neurophilosophy.

Such studies come closer to true "mind-reading", but thus far the technique only works with vision. Even assuming that the same areas of the brain light up when you're thinking about something (visual imagery) compared to when you're looking at it (visual perception), the best this method could achieve would be to tell what picture was in someone's head at a given time. In ten years it might be possible to put someone in a scanner and tell, straight off the bat, that they were picturing a small white dog. But if you wanted to know what they were thinking about that dog, you'd be out of luck.

To truly read someone's mind you would need to understand how every brain state relates to every mental state. In other words, you would need to know how the brain allows us to think. At the moment, we really have no ide about that, so true mind-reading remains over the horizon.

Edit: I must be telepathic because I just saw that Mind Hacks covered a new study about mind reading a few hours ago: I know where you are secretly attending! Yet again, it involves the visual cortex.

How Far Off Is Mind-Reading?

PopSci.com has a somewhat enthusiastic article about the possibility of using fMRI to "uncover your private thoughts"- Mind-Reading Tech May Not Be Far Off.

Neuroscientists are already able to read some basic thoughts, like whether an individual test subject is looking at a picture of a cat or an image with a specific left or right orientation. They can even read pictures that you're simply imagining in your mind's eye. Even leaders in the field are shocked by how far we've come in our ability to peer into people's minds. Will brain scans of the future be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth? ... While we aren't there yet, these possibilities have dramatic social, legal and ethical implications.

But what do we mean by "mind-reading"? I guess what most people mean by the term is being able to tell what someone is thinking, being able to "hear" their private thoughts. A stereotypical fictional "telepath" can get inside their targets minds and tell exactly what's going through them.

Sadly, what most fMRI "mind-reading" experiments have done is rather less impressive. they've shown that it's possible to tell whether someone is thinking about one thing as opposed to a second thing. But only if you already know what both things are, and only if you have already "read" the pattern of neural activity that corresponds to each one.

So, you could scan someone while they are thinking about, say, cats, and then again while they are thinking about dogs. From that, you could work out whether they are thinking about cats or dogs at any given point in time (here's how). If they were thinking about anything else, you'd have no idea what it was, or worse, you'd think it was either a cat or a dog. A lion, for example, would probably activate many of the same pathways that a cat does.

The great majority of "mind-reading" studies are like this. It's still pretty cool, but it's no telepathy. Is there any prospect of true "mind-reading"? In other words, could you read a mental state without knowing what you were looking for in advance?

Maybe. The parts of the brain concerned with visual processing happen to be arranged in a relatively straightforward way,which means that there are predictable relationships between visual stimuli and the areas of the brain that are activated when looking at them. Reports have claimed that it's possible to infer which picture someone is looking at out of a large set (1) and even to reconstruct the image that someone is looking at based purely on the visual cortex activity (2,3). For a good explanation of the last paper, which attracted a lot of attention, see Neurophilosophy.

Such studies come closer to true "mind-reading", but thus far the technique only works with vision. Even assuming that the same areas of the brain light up when you're thinking about something (visual imagery) compared to when you're looking at it (visual perception), the best this method could achieve would be to tell what picture was in someone's head at a given time. In ten years it might be possible to put someone in a scanner and tell, straight off the bat, that they were picturing a small white dog. But if you wanted to know what they were thinking about that dog, you'd be out of luck.

To truly read someone's mind you would need to understand how every brain state relates to every mental state. In other words, you would need to know how the brain allows us to think. At the moment, we really have no ide about that, so true mind-reading remains over the horizon.

Edit: I must be telepathic because I just saw that Mind Hacks covered a new study about mind reading a few hours ago: I know where you are secretly attending! Yet again, it involves the visual cortex.

A MORTE DO MICHAEL JACKSON

A triste história que comoveu o mundo inteiro.
Quem diria que ele, pudesse ter conquistado o mundo todo, com o seu carinho e amor.
Uma pessoa humilde, simples, solitária com o seu próprio EU, conseguiu seduzir tantas pessoas.
Por onde andou plantou, semeou amor, e que agora deu muitos frutos.
Uma multidão de pessoas carregou consigo.
Ontem, procurei assistir todos os documentários, referente a sua pessoa.
É incrível o que este CARA, fazia.
Quanta lição, aprendizado, deixou para classe dos artistas, dramaturgia, enfim a arte toda.
Ensinou a dança, através do seu corpo, pois ia muito além, daquilo que se esperava.
Não tinha medo e nem preconceito de expor a beleza da arte, que estava dentro de si.
Na música falava da vida, dos amigos, da solidariedade, da responsabilidade e da igualdade.
No trabalho, fazia com muita responsabilidade e dedicação. Ama a perfeição, e extrapola os seus limites. Como ele mesmo sempre dizia:" O céu é o limite". Lindo isso.
Pois, sabemos que o Ser Humano, tem um valor, uma possibilidade de criação, muito grande.
E que é capaz de realizar, coisas impressionantes, basta tentar.
Sem medo de errar, Pois estamos aqui, para aprender e acertar.
Infelizmente ele foi levado pelas emoção e pelas duras palavras, ouvidas durante a sua infância.
Outro dia eu escrevi um texto sobre as duras palavras, do qual está postado,
em Poetas-Um Vôo Livre.
As palavras tem um poder enorme de influência as pessoas. Pode até mudar toda a sua vida.
Foi o que aconteceu com nosso querido Michael.
A preocupação da saber o que falar e dizer para uma criança, ou para qualquer pessoa, é muito grande.
Se ela não tem um auto-estima bom, ela se deixa levar, pelas duras palavras ouvidas a vida toda.
Pois elas, nos ferem, machucam e correm a alma, a mente.
Michael Jackson, deixou muitos ensinamentos bons para todos nós.
Mesmo com todos os erros que comentem, e quem é que não comete, ele mostrou,
que o amor vale muito. A solidariedade é fundamental.
Realizar as coisas com alegria é uma arte.
Fazer da vida um momento único é o grande sonho.
As vezes a perfeição do corpo tem um custo muito alto.
Foi o que aconteceu com ele, por não se aceitar como era.
Motivos: as duras palavras, ouvidas durante toda a sua infância, por um pai,
talvez, sem instrução, e egoísmo, acabou levando o nosso querido Michael a realizar tantas cirurgias plásticas, para viver um personagem,
ou até mesmo, uma fantasia,
que estava dentro do seu SER.
Ser alguém, que na verdade não era ele, próprio.
Mas sim, para mostrar que ele conseguiu ser aquilo, que outros queriam que fosse.
Ou então, não soube entender ou interpretar essas duras palavras, que seu pai sempre falou, durante a sua humilde infância, mas que tornou-o um menino prodígio na música POP, do mundo todo.

E assim a história continuará, sempre.
Acho que é preciso, que retomamos, esta questão da beleza, e nos aceitarmos como somos. Pessoas lindas, belas, que DEUS, fez.
A morte de Michael, faz a gente refletir muitas questões.
Ele principalmente falava em mudanças, a atitudes. Só que infelizmente nesta questão de beleza e aceitação foi cruel, consigo mesmo.
O Preço??? A Morte!
Tenho certeza que essa reflexão teria muito e muito a ser decorrido aqui, mas não tem espaço para tanto.
Mas deixo aberto esse canal de discussão sobre:
O preço da beleza?
O nosso comportamento, perante a sociedade?
Atitudes, solidariedade, Amor?
Palavras de Amor, Valem muito mais que as Duras Palavras.
ADEUS MICHAEL JACKSON.
VOCÊ FICARÁ PARA SEMPRE EM NOSSOS CORAÇÕES.

EU AMO ESSAS DUAS MUSICAS:

Dia de Blogagem Coletiva.

Hoje 26.06.09 tem blogagem coletiva.
Então passe em Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos,
para ver o texto.

Te espero lá. Vamos compartilhar estas informações,
referente ao Dia Internacional do Combate às Drogas.

O MUNDO CHORA A MORTE DE MICHAEL JACKSON.

CONSIDERADO O REI DA MÚSICA POP.

TODOS NÓS VIVEMOS UM POUCO DESSE SHOW.
DANÇAMOS E CANTAMOS MÚSICAS DE MICHAEL JACKSON.
INFELIZMENTE CHEGOU O MOMENTO DELE.
PARTIU MAIS DEIXOU E DEIXARÁ GRANDES LEMBRANÇAS.

A seguir as principais datas na vida e na carreira do pop star Michael Jackson.

- 29 de agosto de 1958: nasce em Gary, Indiana

- agosto de 1962: estréia cantando com seus irmãos no grupo The Jackson Five

- março de 1969: primeiro contrato com a Motown. A voz de Michael se destaca em sucessos como ''ABC'' e ''I'll Be There''

- 1970: lançamento de sua carreira solo, junto com a dos Jackson Five

- agosto de 1979: lançamento de ''Off The Wall'', álbum produzido por Quincy Jones, que venceu 11 milhões de cópias

- dezembro de 1982: lançamento de ''Thriller'', álbum que incluía sete hits, entre eles ''Billie Jean'' e ''Beat It'', registrando vendas de 50 milhões de cópias no mundo todo

- 1984: Michael Jackson se queima no rosto durante a gravação de uma propaganda da Pepsi

- 1985: compra a ATV Music - uma companhia que detinha os direitos das músicas de John Lennon e Paul McCartney - por 47,5 milhões de dólares

- 1985: Jackson compõe ''We Are The World'', clipe que ajudou na luta contra a fome na África

- 1987: lançamento de ''Bad'', que 26 milhões de cópias e marcou o fim de sua colaboração com Quincy Jones

- 1988: sua autobiografia ''Moonwalk'' é lançada

- 1990: Michael Jackson é visto pela primeira vez usando máscara cirúrgica em público

- 1992: lançaento de "Dangerous", que vendeu 22 milhões de cópias

- agosto de 1993: um pai acusa Jackson de assediar seu filho de 13 anos, mas fez um acordo judicial

- maio de 1994-fevereiro de 996: casamento com Lisa Marie Presley, filha de Elvis

- novembro de 1996-outubro de 1999: casamento com Debbie Rowe, uma enfermeira de 37 anos com quem teve dois filhos, Prince Michael e Paris Michael Katherine

- outubro de 2001: lançamento de ''Invincible''

- julho de 2002: Jackson acusa as gravadoras de explorar os artistas, principalmente os afro-americanos

- 19 novembro de 2002: causa escândalo ao balançar perigosamente seu filho de 9 meses, Prince Michael II, em uma janela de um hotel em Berlim

- 31 janeiro de 2003: a Sotheby´s abre processo pelo não pagamento de 1,7 milhão de dólares por duas pinturas

- 3 de fevereiro de 2003: no documentário ''Living with Michael Jackson'' Jackson alega nunca ter abusado de uma criança, apenas dividido sua cama com elas

- 18 de novembro: a polícia faz um cerco ao rancho de Jackson, 'Neverland´, enquanto que na Califória o álbum ''Number Ones'' era lançado

- 19 de novembro: uma ordem de prisão é emitida contra Michael Jackson por várias acusações de molestar crianças

- 20 de novembro: Jackson é preso e algemado depois de se render à polícia, mas é libertado depois do pagamento da fiança

- 18 de dezembro: é formalmente indiciado

- 16 de janeiro de 2004: Jackson alega inocência durante sua primeira aparição para a mídia

- 31 de janeiro de 2005: o julgamento de Michael Jackson começa com a seleção do júri

- 28 de fevereiro de 2005: início do julgamento

- 13 de junho de 2005: Jackson é absolvido de todas as acusações contra ele. Deixa a Califórnia para viver no Bahrein, depois na Europa e em Las Vegas

- 5 de março de 2009: Jackson anuncia uma série de show em Londres

- 20 de maio de 2009: Jackson adia a volta aos shows. Os organizadores dizem que a saúde do cantor é ''fantástica''

- 25 de junho de 2009: morre Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson, que estreou na carreira quando tinha apenas 5 anos, gravou nove álbuns solo de 1972 a 2001, sendo que o mais famoso de todos foi Thriller (1982), que ficou 37 semanas consecutivas no primeiro lugar do hit parade, com cerca de 60 milhões de cópias vendidas no mundo.

O selo Motown, que produzia os discos do Jackson Five no final dos anos 60, fez com que ele iniciasse paralelamente uma carreira solo em 1972 com o álbum ''Got to be there''.

Seu primeiro álbum como cantor adulto foi lançado em 1979 e ''Off the wall'' teve produção do lendário Quincy Jones.

Seu último álbum solo, ''Invincible'', foi lançado em 2001.

No total, segundo cifras divulgadas nos Estados Unidos, Michael Jackson vendeu 750 milhões de discos.

- 1972 - ''Got to be there'', Motown

- 1972 - ''Ben'', Motown

- 1973 - ''Music & Me'', Motown

- 1975 - ''Forever, Michael'', Motown

- 1979 - ''Off the wall'', Epic

- 1982 - ''Thriller'', Epic

- 1987 - ''Bad'', Epic

- 1991 - ''Dangerous'', Epic

- 1995 - ''History, past, present, future'', Epic

- 2001 - ''Invincible'', Epic.

Michael Jackson

Por Elisa Duarte

Jackson´s Five

Quando Michael Jackson apareceu ao lado dos irmãos Jackie, Tito, Jermaine e Marlon, em 1962, todo espevitado, fazendo passos do James Brown, não precisou de mais nada para deixar o mundo aos seus pés. Com apenas 5 anos de idade cantava um repertório de r&b, soul e funk, junto ao Jackson´s Five, grupo que abalou as estruturas da industria fonográficas com sucessos como I want You Back e ABC.

Menino Prodígio

O talento de Michael destoou dos irmãos e logo o caçula de voz aguda ganhou destaque na mídia e a simpatia do público. Em 1970, ele começou a se apresentar sozinho, paralelo aos show que fazia com o Jackson´s Five.De cabelo black-power era chamado de menino-prodígio e já sentia enorme pressão interna da família e externa dos críticos.

Vôo solo

O disco Off The Wall, produzido por Quincy Jones em 1979, eleva a carreira de Michael Jackson ao estrelato. Seus clipes e sua dança começam a magnetizar a massa. Rock With You traz os trejeitos que são suas marcas registradas até hoje.

Thriller

Com o lançamento do álbum Thriller , Michael abre o caminho dos artistas negros na MTV com o seu curta-metragem vanguardista, repleto de monstros, coreografias, suspense, romance e terror, produzido pelo cineasta John Landis, que mais tarde dirigiria Black or White. Entra no livro dos recordes como o disco mais vendido, ganha 8 estatuetas do Grammy, 7 American Music Award, 9 meses na primeira posição dos discos mais vendidos nos EUA e massificação da música nas rádios e TV. São deste disco, os top hits da Billboard Billie Jean e Beat it.

Who´s bad?

O álbum Bad foi um dos últimos a trazer na capa a imagem do cantor ainda sem deformações. O hit levou o disco a vender 25 milhões de cópias. Na época falava-se muito do acidente na gravação do comercial da Pepsi, ocorrido em 1984 quando o cantor queimou o cabeça. Após o lançamento de Bad, ele lançou Moonwalker, nome dado em alusão ao passo de dança do cantor no qual ele anda para trás.

Micheal no Brasil

Com o prestigio abalado pelo clareamento da pele e pelas primeiras acusações de pedofilia, Michael Jackson vem ao Brasil e grava a engajada They Don´t Care About Us no Morro Dona Marta, no Rio de Janeiro. O astro também viajou à Bahia para gravar cenas para o clipe da mesma canção. Na ocasião, uma multidão acompanhou a gravação do cantor com participação do Olodum. Uma baiana agarrou Michael e chegou a dar depoimento da maquiagem do cantor que ficou em sua pele.

Casamento com filha do rei do rock

Em 1994 o rei do pop casa-se coma filha do rei do rock, Priscila Presley, com 26 anos. Os dois gravaram juntos o clipe I Just Can't Stop Loving You onde os dois encenam cenas de amor seminus em palácio. Com a união do casal a fortuna de um provável filho estaria estimada em cem milhões de dólares. Boatos sobre o casamento de aparência para reverter a imagem do cantor, abalada por suas esquisitices circulavam aos quatro cantos. Em 1996, os dois se separaram.

O papai Michael

Em 1996 Michael assume um caso com a enfermeira Deborah rove com quem teve seus dois primeiros filhos, Prince Michel Jr (1997) e Paris Michael Katherine (1998). Novamente cercado por boatos o casamento acaba em 1999. Anos mais tarde, em 2001, o cantor tem seu terceiro filho, Prince Michael II, que ainda bebê foi pendurado pelo pai elo lado de fora de uma sacada com uma fralda na cabeça.

Brazilian colection

Em comemoração aos 50 anos de idade do cantor, comemorados no dia 29 de agosto de 2008, som Livre em parceria com a SonyBMG lançarão no Brasil uma coletânea com os hits do astro. O diferencial do disco é que as músicas foram escolhidas pelos fãs através de votação do site do canal Multishow. Em outubro, as canções mais votadas farão parte do álbum comemorativo.

Para sempre Michael

Pedófilo, esquisito, branquelo, sem nariz, não importa. A vida pessoal do cantor ou sua decadência não apagam o legado deixado por ele nas décadas de 70, 80. Suas influências no modo de cantar e seus videoclipes são referências dos atuais astros pop. Britney Spears, Chris Brown, Justin Timberlake, apenas para falar dos mais óbvios, e todos aqueles que dançarem à frente de um batalhão com a mesma coreografia estarão sempre a revisitar a criação de Jackson.

FICA O NOSSO ADEUS AO GRANDE CANTOR ROMÂNTICO.

GLOBO APRESENTA HOJE A NOITE MOMENTOS DA VIDA DO CANTOR

(GLOBO REPORTER)

(FONTE DA GOOGLE )
Revista Contigo.

A vida.- Um pouco de Palavras Doces.

Acho que este texto que recebi do Valdemir Reis, vem bem de encontro com tudo o que passei esta semana. Minhas angustias, meus sofrimentos com relação ao Blog.
Mas uma coisa ele tem razão quando escreve: DESISTIR NUNCA. E QUE MARES CALMO NÃO FAZEM BONS MARINHEIROS. Com certeza, se eu não tivesse passado por isso que passei, não estaria aqui e agora. Lutando e brigando pelo o que é meu. O meu blog e a minha AMIZADE QUE TENHO POR TODOS VOCÊS.
Obrigado Valdemir.
Agradeço muito a GE, do blog Saia Justa que me proporcionou novos conhecimentos e que me deu uma grande força também. Para VOCÊ MARCIA, que sempre está do meu lado, como uma irmã defensora e que me apoio, meu muito obrigada amiga.
Repasso essas doces palavras a todos vocês, que estiveram junto de minha esta semana, sendo muito solidários.

Valdemir Reis

Olá amiga Sandra, bom te ver! Belíssimo trabalho, encantado, maravilhoso, parabéns. Apresento o texto abaixo:
“Antes de falar, escute.
Antes de julgar, espere.
Antes de rezar, perdoe.
Antes de escrever, pense.
Antes de desistir, tente.
Na busca por mim, descobri a verdade.
Na busca pela verdade, descobri o amor.
Na busca pelo amor, descobri Deus.
E em Deus, tenho encontrado tudo.
Enquanto navegar pela vida
Não evite tempestades e águas bravias.
Apenas deixe-as passar.
Apenas navegue e continue.
Sempre se lembre:
mares calmos não fazem bons marinheiros.
O mais importante em qualquer jogo não é vencer,
mas participar.
Da mesma forma, o mais importante na vida não é o triunfo, mas o empenho.
O essencial não é ter vencido, mas ter lutado bem.” A. d.
Agradeço fortemente de coração a sua atenção e a sua gentileza. Deixo votos de uma semana repleta de muitas conquistas, muitas bênçãos e que reine a paz, saúde e proteção, brilhe sempre! Fique com Deus. Encontraremos-nos sempre por aqui. Felicidades.
Com todo o meu carinho.

Sandra

Não vamos deixar ninguém apagar as nossas luzes. Eles até podem tentar. Vão soprar muito, mas não conseguiram. Sabe por que??

DEUS ESTÁ DO NOSSO LADO E NOS AMA.

O BEM VENCE O MAL.

NUNCA VAMOS DESISTIR PERANTE AS TEMPESTADES. PORQUE DEPOIS O SOL VOLTA A BRILHAR.

ESTE SELO É A NOSSA LUZ ACESA.

ELE VAI SEGUIR VOCÊ!!!

( se tiver um tempinho passeBlog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos)

Are 1 in 64 Kids Autistic?

Quite possibly, yes. In the last post I discussed the interesting background to a new paper about the prevalence of autism in British children, Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study. Here's some more about the study itself.

The authors, Simon Baron-Cohen et al from the University of Cambridge, set out to assess the prevalence of “autistic spectrum conditions” in the county of Cambridgeshire, England, by sampling all of the school children aged 5 to 9 years during 2003-2004.

The most recent major study examining the prevalence of autistic spectrum conditions in Britain was Baird et al (2006), who reported a prevalence of about 1 in 86. But Baron-Cohen et al point out that this may have been too low, since Baird only looked for autism in children who were already on the government's “Special Educational Needs (SEN)” register of children with difficulties in school. If there were autistic children who were doing OK in school, or at least well enough to get by without attracting concern, they’d have been missed.

So, Baron-Cohen’s team first wrote to every school in Cambridgeshire (162 of them) and asked them to report how many of their children had been diagnosed with an autism-spectrum condition. 79 schools replied and reported 83 children diagnosed out of 8824 total, or 1 in 106 children – pretty close to Baird et al's in 2006.

But those were only the kids who had already got a diagnosis. In order to try to find undiagnosed cases, they then sent questionnaires to the parents of 11,635 children. The questionnaires included a screening form developed in Cambridge called the CAST, which asks parents about various aspects of their child’s behaviour (“Does s/he come up to you spontaneously for a chat?” “Does s/he like to do things over and over again, in the same way all the time?” Etc.)

The authors invited all of the kids who scored highly on the CAST to a face-to-face assessment to confirm whether they really had the condition. The end result was that out of 3373 kids whose questionnaires were returned, 11 were judged (in the opinion of the research team) to have an autism-spectrum condition which had never been previously diagnosed.

What does this mean? Well, good question. All it strictly means is that 11 out of 3373 children had undiagnosed autism. However, because not all of the children who scored highly on the CAST agreed to be interviewed, the authors estimate that the true figure was probably more like 22. That compares to 33 out of those 3373 whose parents reported already diagnosed autism. (Actually it was 41 reported, but only an estimated 33 were declared “confirmed”. See page 503 if you’re sceptical of this fudge, but it seems kosher to me.)

The bottom line: for every 3 children with a diagnosis, 2 others went undiagnosed. Since about 1 in 100 children have diagnosed autism, that makes 1 in 64 children with autistic spectrum conditions in total.

But this relies on some assumptions. In particular, this only works if you assume that the parents of autistic children were no more or less likely to complete the CAST questionnaire, and no more or less likely to agree to a face-to-face interview, than parents of the non-autistic kids.

However, it could well be that the parents of autistic children were already concerned that there was “something wrong” with their child and wanted to get a professional opinion, so they were keen to take part – that would mean that this study overestimated the rate of undiagnosed autism. On the other hand, it could equally well be that the autistic children were less likely to get included in the study. Maybe they just didn't want to go along to the interview with a stranger. In which case, the rate of autism would be underestimated.

Because only 29% of parents did the questionnaire and even then only about 60% of the children who scored high came up for the face-to-face, the potential for bias is great. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing which way the bias operates. The authors acknowledge these concerns and admit that their estimates are not exact.

But this is still an important study. Even if you assume that the data were extremely biased towards finding autistic children there were still 11 cases of undiagnosed autism out of about 11,000 kids aged 5-9, compared to 83 diagnosed, which means that at an absolute minimum 1 in 9 children with autism of that age are undiagnosed. And the true figure is likely to be a lot higher, maybe 2 in 5 as the paper claims.

On this blog I've often been skeptical of claims that mental illness is extremely common. But I can easily believe that 1 in 64 children has a significant autism spectrum-condition, and that some cases go undiagnosed in primary school. While we still don't know the exact numbers, and these will always be somewhat arbitrary since they depend upon the chosen diagnostic, about 1 in 50 sounds about right. Certainly, the idea that autism is an extremely rare condition affecting more like 1 in 2000, as was believed twenty years ago, is out of date.

Baron-Cohen, S., Scott, F., Allison, C., Williams, J., Bolton, P., Matthews, F., & Brayne, C. (2009). Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study The British Journal of Psychiatry, 194 (6), 500-509 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.059345