Not for me, I won't join the Borg. Just like I won't do a head transplant.
head transplant (4 posts to February 2015)
Rationale of replacing the upper part of the human skull with a biocompatible, re-chargeable, re-fillable and re-cleanable electrical/molecular device to safely and effectively treat and/or cure severe, currently intractable brain disorders
2021, Academia Letters
6 Pages
1 File ▾
Original PDF
Summary
Related
This article was written in response to the 8/6/2021 emailed request from the Academia Teamof
Academia Letters
based in San Francisco. Considering the useful reviews of the first version, I extended the Letter to its present length and this version is considered final.The thesis of this Letter, fully described in the title, is based on my 35 years of basic and applied neuroscience research, recorded in 5 book chapters, 6 US patents, several online papers and 51 peer-reviewed journal articles registered in PubMed, including those listed in REFERENCES [1 - 6]. Why do I not just recommend the use of an “electrical/molecular device” for severe, currently intractable brain disorders but recommend the replacement of most of the upper part of the skull, the neurocranium, with such a device as well? There are 4 reasons for this recommendation.First, current medical technologies are inadequate for the safe and effective treatment of most severe neurological and psychiatric disorders. The 6 drugs available for American psychiatrists for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are all useless, and this is known. As for stroke, the CDC website, https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm tells any visitor that “every4 minutes someone dies of stroke”, including hospitalized patients. Malignant brain tumors are as deadly today as in the time of Senator Edward Kennedy, who died of glioblastoma 12 years ago, within a year of his diagnosis despite the treatment he received at the best US clinics. The devastating seizures of at least 20% of epileptic patients cannot be eliminated with drugs, neurosurgical intervention or electrical stimulators [3 - 4]. Therefore, those who wish to change this situation must expand their thinking beyond the therapeutic repertoire of current neurology and psychiatry.Second, just as the only way to stop the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was to go 5,000 feet underwater and fix the problem onsite, or just as Space Shuttle missions were needed to fix all five problems with the Hubble telescope onsite from 1993 through 2009,– most problems of the brain also need site-specific treatment, inside the brain, where the problems occur. Why is this? This is because flooding the whole body with drugs, vectors, This article was written in response to the 8/6/2021 emailed request from the Academia Team of
Academia Letters
based in San Francisco. Considering the useful reviews of the first version, I extended the Letter to its present length and this version is considered final.The thesis of this Letter, fully described in the title, is based on my 35 years of basic and applied neuroscience research, recorded in 5 book chapters, 6 US patents, several online papers and 51 peer-reviewed journal articles registered in PubMed, including those listed inREFERENCES [1 - 6]. Why do I not just recommend the use of an “electrical/molecular device” for severe, currently intractable brain disorders but recommend the replacement of most of the upper part of the skull, the neurocranium, with such a device as well?There are 4 reasons for this recommendation.First, current medical technologies are inadequate for the safe and effective treatment of most severe neurological and psychiatric disorders. The 6 drugs available for American psychiatrists for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are all useless, and this is known. As for stroke, the CDC website, https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm tells any visitor that “every 4 minutes
clinics. The devastating seizures of at least 20% of epileptic patients cannot be eliminated with drugs, neurosurgical intervention or electrical stimulators [3 - 4]. Therefore, those who wish to change this situation must expand their thinking beyond the therapeutic repertoire of current neurology and psychiatry.Second, just as the only way to stop the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was to go 5,000 feet underwater and x the problem onsite, or just as Space Shuttle missions were needed to fix all five problems with the Hubble telescope onsite from 1993 through 2009,– most problems of the brain also need site specific treatment, inside the brain, where the problems occur. Why is this? This is because flooding the whole body with drugs, vectors, electroceuticals, nanoparticles or other treatments delivered via the bloodstream will always cause potentially severe side-effects in most organs which have nothing to do with the original brain disease. Furthermore, the Blood-Brain-Barrier (BBB) prevents most relatively large compounds – including proteins, nanoparticle encapsulated RNAs, gene vectors and electroceuticals, – to enter the brain even if they would do good if crossed this barrier.Therefore, those who wish to overcome these difficulties have no choice than treating the diseased brain tissue locally, onsite, with implants accessing the subarachnoid cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) compartment to bypass the BBB.Third, it is true that various electrical brain implants (RNS, DBS, etc.) have been introduced into the treatment of brain disorders. Yet they haven’t resulted in medical break throughs. Although made by the best scientific and engineering minds, all of these devices have the same, significant problem. Namely, they perform electrical stimulation only to correct the abnormal functions of diseased neural cells and networks. But the brain is a biological machinery fundamentally different from computers. Namely, the brain is not a digital electronic machinery, but a machinery in which digital electronic processes are controlled,adjusted and continuously refined with analog molecular processes. The brain is a hybrid computer where electrophysiological and neurochemical/molecular processes work together to let some brains initiate, create, and manage products like the “Philosophiae Naturalis -Principia Mathematica”, “Tristan and Isolde”, or the design of the Taj Mahal and the Lunar Module Eagle. I argued for the importance of this approach to therapeutic brain implants as early as 2000 [1]. Since then, several more elegant and more sophisticated articles have been published on the analog - digital nature of brain functions and its significance [7 - 9], – as pointed out by Reviewer Chand. Therefore, those who wish to treat errors of the electronic molecular machinery of the brain with the right implant have no choice than make this implantable to correct both electrophysiological and neurochemical/molecular abnormalities[10-13]of Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, malignant brain tumors, intractable epilepsy and other brain diseases.
Academia Letters
based in San Francisco. Considering the useful reviews of the first version, I extended the Letter to its present length and this version is considered final.The thesis of this Letter, fully described in the title, is based on my 35 years of basic and applied neuroscience research, recorded in 5 book chapters, 6 US patents, several online papers and 51 peer-reviewed journal articles registered in PubMed, including those listed in REFERENCES [1 - 6]. Why do I not just recommend the use of an “electrical/molecular device” for severe, currently intractable brain disorders but recommend the replacement of most of the upper part of the skull, the neurocranium, with such a device as well? There are 4 reasons for this recommendation.First, current medical technologies are inadequate for the safe and effective treatment of most severe neurological and psychiatric disorders. The 6 drugs available for American psychiatrists for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are all useless, and this is known. As for stroke, the CDC website, https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm tells any visitor that “every4 minutes someone dies of stroke”, including hospitalized patients. Malignant brain tumors are as deadly today as in the time of Senator Edward Kennedy, who died of glioblastoma 12 years ago, within a year of his diagnosis despite the treatment he received at the best US clinics. The devastating seizures of at least 20% of epileptic patients cannot be eliminated with drugs, neurosurgical intervention or electrical stimulators [3 - 4]. Therefore, those who wish to change this situation must expand their thinking beyond the therapeutic repertoire of current neurology and psychiatry.Second, just as the only way to stop the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was to go 5,000 feet underwater and fix the problem onsite, or just as Space Shuttle missions were needed to fix all five problems with the Hubble telescope onsite from 1993 through 2009,– most problems of the brain also need site-specific treatment, inside the brain, where the problems occur. Why is this? This is because flooding the whole body with drugs, vectors, This article was written in response to the 8/6/2021 emailed request from the Academia Team of
Academia Letters
based in San Francisco. Considering the useful reviews of the first version, I extended the Letter to its present length and this version is considered final.The thesis of this Letter, fully described in the title, is based on my 35 years of basic and applied neuroscience research, recorded in 5 book chapters, 6 US patents, several online papers and 51 peer-reviewed journal articles registered in PubMed, including those listed inREFERENCES [1 - 6]. Why do I not just recommend the use of an “electrical/molecular device” for severe, currently intractable brain disorders but recommend the replacement of most of the upper part of the skull, the neurocranium, with such a device as well?There are 4 reasons for this recommendation.First, current medical technologies are inadequate for the safe and effective treatment of most severe neurological and psychiatric disorders. The 6 drugs available for American psychiatrists for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are all useless, and this is known. As for stroke, the CDC website, https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm tells any visitor that “every 4 minutes
clinics. The devastating seizures of at least 20% of epileptic patients cannot be eliminated with drugs, neurosurgical intervention or electrical stimulators [3 - 4]. Therefore, those who wish to change this situation must expand their thinking beyond the therapeutic repertoire of current neurology and psychiatry.Second, just as the only way to stop the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was to go 5,000 feet underwater and x the problem onsite, or just as Space Shuttle missions were needed to fix all five problems with the Hubble telescope onsite from 1993 through 2009,– most problems of the brain also need site specific treatment, inside the brain, where the problems occur. Why is this? This is because flooding the whole body with drugs, vectors, electroceuticals, nanoparticles or other treatments delivered via the bloodstream will always cause potentially severe side-effects in most organs which have nothing to do with the original brain disease. Furthermore, the Blood-Brain-Barrier (BBB) prevents most relatively large compounds – including proteins, nanoparticle encapsulated RNAs, gene vectors and electroceuticals, – to enter the brain even if they would do good if crossed this barrier.Therefore, those who wish to overcome these difficulties have no choice than treating the diseased brain tissue locally, onsite, with implants accessing the subarachnoid cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) compartment to bypass the BBB.Third, it is true that various electrical brain implants (RNS, DBS, etc.) have been introduced into the treatment of brain disorders. Yet they haven’t resulted in medical break throughs. Although made by the best scientific and engineering minds, all of these devices have the same, significant problem. Namely, they perform electrical stimulation only to correct the abnormal functions of diseased neural cells and networks. But the brain is a biological machinery fundamentally different from computers. Namely, the brain is not a digital electronic machinery, but a machinery in which digital electronic processes are controlled,adjusted and continuously refined with analog molecular processes. The brain is a hybrid computer where electrophysiological and neurochemical/molecular processes work together to let some brains initiate, create, and manage products like the “Philosophiae Naturalis -Principia Mathematica”, “Tristan and Isolde”, or the design of the Taj Mahal and the Lunar Module Eagle. I argued for the importance of this approach to therapeutic brain implants as early as 2000 [1]. Since then, several more elegant and more sophisticated articles have been published on the analog - digital nature of brain functions and its significance [7 - 9], – as pointed out by Reviewer Chand. Therefore, those who wish to treat errors of the electronic molecular machinery of the brain with the right implant have no choice than make this implantable to correct both electrophysiological and neurochemical/molecular abnormalities[10-13]of Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, malignant brain tumors, intractable epilepsy and other brain diseases.
No comments:
Post a Comment