The neurotoxin aluminium

Paper dump for SEO, a solid starting point.

http://www.drpepi.com/aluminum-poisoning.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
Anecdotal but observational science: Baby Boomers have record Alzheimer’s rates. Boomers are also the first generation raised with aluminium, as “safer” than tin.
…It’s also cheaper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455809

A lot of restaurants don’t want to get sued (cosmetics companies neither).
The claims of papers like these, widely/falsely cited as ‘debunking’, don’t hold up to a basic level of biological knowledge. They are critical of a hypothesis for theoretical reasons they do not actively study, so it is not the all-clear being claimed by the intellectually dishonest, which would require actually testing them in a longitudinal experimental study (medical field standard). This is particularly important as any method design with heavy metals, which build up in the body (forming compounds together, in a cocktail effect) over decades. Rat studies go one-by-one, an element at a time, which lacks external validity/ real-world relevance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018
1. the blood-brain barrier thins with age. This is a fact.
2. Aluminium can combine with other elements e.g. fluoride, to form a compound which might pass the barrier where healthy and young.
If you look at what’s literally IN the brain tissue of dead patients?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/180/4085/511
Aluminium.

Respectfully, to the critics:

How the hell did it get there?

There’s your smoking gun, your bloodied Macbeth hands.

That is rock solid, irrefutable proof. As it stands, here is more proof.
Evidence for point 2: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611860400015936
Known since at least 1998: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html
EU drinking/cooking water may contain arsenic, which explains a lot:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/2.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000365

This is like the talc-cancer thing that recently came out in all the lawsuits.
I don’t have to explain that to you, do I?

Social, sexual peptides and mental illness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479945

It’s all well and good discussing amygdala – like you could find it easier than a clitoris – but if you won’t look at the chemistry you’re going into a wet subject totally dry.

Video: James Fallon, psychopathy and the dead amygdala

Is this an old drum? Yes, it’s made of human skin. Deal with it.

We’re going into virgin ground, it’s going to be creepy. You’re used to it with me, with me, the questions get asked and nobody can say I’m braindead, at least. We’re trying, here.

Cut to 14 minutes in if you already know who this is.
Limbic system generally, deep cortex, and the amygdala structure referenced first.

This is intentional. From a lecturer, order matters.

Reader, pretending to care:


“It’s not something you can get used to”
louder for the naive psychopath worshipers at the back.
You cannot train it, it’s dead.
“It’s, it’s – The first part that develops, the cortex, in an infant”
“Before puberty: They’re full of emotion, or full of- morality.”

You might note similarities in the way he expresses himself, and the way I express myself.
Academese, mon amis.

He means there is only id and superego, devil and angel, “the orbital cortex is intimately connected to the amygdala…”
“In a psychopath, there is NO SENSE OF MORAL REASONING.”
So you can’t be moral and use psychopathic techniques.
It’s physically, biologically impossible.
You don’t get to claim to be a cool-headed psycho, but also a really nice, prosocial guy with a strong moral compass.
They have NO principles, that IS their principle.
Everything is totally, 100% selfish.
There are “impulsive” people with weak orbital cortex (DS: need training) that shut off “but they know what they’re doing is wrong.” Hedonists, this is very important. That is why they hide it, the personal and professional splinter, that dissociate compartmentalization. It also preserves the ego, as well as public persona.
In psychopaths, ‘morality’ doesn’t connect as something to countenance, it literally isn’t anywhere in their head.
They can predict other people probably care, but this is if you ask, if you plant the seed and make them think, referring to the hypotheticals of the interactions they’ve had with neurotypicals.
“A kid is really moral, oftentimes, hypermoral.”
I can see where he’s going but fear of punishment, a little different.
Naturally, he can’t see the difference.
Children have a strong sense (moral absolutism) because they are so weak and helpless. They see it clearly, good/evil and don’t rationalize excuses to be a shitty person like adults often do to ‘save face’, in part because no one would listen anyway. They’re not allowed excuses, only to obey the rules.
Where it’s “turned off” is epigenetic switching.
A psychopath has no instinct for what’s right. A latent psychopath still doesn’t, but they’re less inclined to act out, the
so-called successful sociopath. They can comply with the right authorities.

“Ethics is the rules of the game, psychopaths really know the rules of the game. They understand what you think and can therefore, play off it, but there’s no INNER sense of morality.

Empty, hollow, dead inside (that part of humanity).

Culture brainwashes you out of what natures instructs.

We know now Plato was correct, more than anybody, where you’re born with an innate sense of morality, you don’t have to tell a kid ‘don’t steal, don’t kill…’ they know it, we know now that you don’t have to be taught languages, you’re ready, your BRAIN is ready when you’re born.”

Fetal psychology?
Could this be the answer?
Could this be a form of birth defect when maladaptive to its Darwinian environment? In the extreme cases?

The same thing with beauty, there’s an innate sense of beauty so-“

I love how that’s the next thing he immediately latches onto.
I wanna see those studies, God-damn… imagine it…. but what would psychopathic art be? An instinct for corruption, decay and ugliness? It’s the deepest heart of emotion, so it must be the flipside.
Beauty must be limbic too, right? It’s gratifying to see my own thoughts align with other intelligent people.
“We accept instincts in animals but we’re not above that. No, we’re not. That’s innately there.”
The correct term is biological determinism.
The evolutionary stages of the fetus in the uterus is also BD.
SJWs are all about opposing any form of it, that’s insane. Completely disconnected from the biological realities, since all of biology, to be philosophical and technically accurate, all of biology is deterministic. It all grows in a precise pattern like chemical crystals, there’s a process and structure – you can’t have a diamond that isn’t related to graphite. Deterministic. Rare word outside of ivory towers, like reductionistic; related in practice. We can reduce a human to cells, human cells are deterministic of the human species, we grow from those stem cells.

See?
Back to instinct.
“Unless that area doesn’t develop, and it’s NOT THERE. It’s a kind of a blind spot. For morality, in psychopaths, it’s NOT There.”

Brain damage? I suppose most variations must be… depending on the rest of the structure, naturally.

“But the ethics they can learn and they use it against you.”
The antisocial rely on everyone else being prosocial. Predators rely on nice docile prey, even intraspecies predators, well, especially those.
In game theory, if you never punish, even the supposed Good players take advantage of you.
In a fake game where the stakes are ego.
Golden Rule involves reward AND punishment, at the same intensity. If your understanding of the Golden Rule isn’t 2+2=4, action and consequence, then you have understood it wrong.

I’m going to stop at the 20m mark, please read the book and watch the rest yourself, I wanted to show – since I haven’t for a while, that there is sound academic backing for some of the things I’m saying.

They sound off because I’m not lying – school was.

Dr Fallon has also done TED among other things, he gets around.
He shows it’s possible for someone with that brain to be a productive member of society.
Great guy.
You can find interesting write-ups.

RETURN TO FREUD.

YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

Come to the Dark Side, the cookies are choc-chip.

We have biological correlates now, you can’t resist us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientist-related-killers-learns-psychopaths-brain/story?id=21029246
“Conscience and a sense of morality and impulse control lie in the limbic system and in the orbital cortex in the brain, according to Fallon.
“They connect and inhibit each other not unlike the super-ego controlling the id,” he said. “It’s the interface between the intellectual mind and the emotions attending to them.”
Fallon’s brain scans show low activity in both regions of the brain.
“No behavior is really evil or bad — it’s all contextual,” he said.

[what moral relativism was initially, Darwin]

“There is a time for sex and a time for killing, when someone attacks the family. But it’s done in context. The orbital cortex adjudicates the idea of morality and interacts with the amygdala’s drive to eat, drink and screw. There would be mayhem if it didn’t exist.” [which label do I cite? degeneracy, moral decay, dysgenics, dyscivics et cetera et cetera]
As a neuroscientist, Fallon said he always believed humans were ruled solely by their genes and not their environment in the nature versus nurture debate.
“I never took it seriously,” he said. “I was the poster boy for genes causing everything. But I had to eat crow and say I was wrong.” [he wasn’t though, it’s still natural and not manmade in CAUSE]
His personal story was the subject of a TED talk that went viral on YouTube in 2007 and he even had a guest role on the television show, “Criminal Minds.” Fallon was contacted by literary agents last year to write a book about his experience.
He blames abuse in the first three years of life, combined with biological features that turn off serotonin in the brain, leading to psychopathic violence.”

Loudspeaker: Epigenetics is still genetic.

The clue, is in, the name!
If political left-wingedness has a defective, atrophied, shrunken amygdala (lower volume, to put it clinically), that puts them closer on the Spectrum of Development to a psychopath, I find it funny he’s a moral relativist who stresses his own safety, moments after discussing revenge.
They think you don’t notice their slips. You’re not allowed to question their authority, think Cartman.
Serotonin, again, implicated, again…
I’m tired of being right. So, so tired…
Why are so many lefties needing to be on SSRIs? In good times, historically novel?
What happens when the meds aren’t made?

Here’s the emotional reaction of a neurotypical to violence, in colour.


Literal coldness in the psychopathic. Cold, hard reasoning. Calm in a crisis, calm enough to coolly kill you.
No emotion.

In the ABC article;
“I don’t have special emotional bonds with those who are close to me –– I treat everyone the same,” he said. “I am involved in a lot of charities and good works, and my intentions are good for the world. [he lives here] But I don’t have the sense of romance or love I am supposed to have for my wife. It’s not there.” [broken pair bonding, faulty attachment mechanisms]

I’d love to see Dr. Fallon and Anonymous Conservative interviewed by Stefan Molyneux.

A girl can dream.

I’m gonna throw out a theory here, while I’m here.

K-types have well-developed orbital cortex pathways.
In the future, there will be no leader, moral or otherwise, who doesn’t need to provide this proof of moral agency.
Otherwise, no one will trust them not to screw the ingroup.

Think of the scope of this information, it changes everything.
It needs to become public, it will eventually.

I wonder if there’s a hyper-K version with mild psychopathy (to protect one’s own) and strong conservatism in the amygdala?
Can we genetically engineer for this? Where can I sign that petition?

Dark Triad are losers

He reframes reality to fit with his narcissistic delusions. Sleaziness, violence, stalking and perversion-sadistic games played at other people’s expense–are framed as “hedonism”,  “childlike innocence and playfulness” or “libertine freedom”. Lies are framed as “creative interpretations of reality” or clever “modes of persuasion”. Manipulativeness, slander and back-stabbing become, in his deranged mind, “Machiavellianism” or “cunning”. As the psychopath’s idiotic grins which often accompany his malicious actions reveal time after time, his behavior and intentions are as far removed from “childlike” or “harmless fun” as possible. “Freedom” too is a meaningless concept, given that his main goal is to trample on the freedom and rights of others. He intends to control and harm others: control by harming them, to be precise. 

https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/category/psychopaths-are-losers-who-view-themselves-as-leaders/

Read the guy who came up with the clinical concept and measured it before you apply it improperly like a retard.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510

It’s nothing to be proud of, if you search “psychopaths are losers” you find plenty of resources explaining their parasitism. That is the opposite of strength.

“In 1998, McHoskey, Worzel, and Szyarto[13] provoked a controversy by claiming that narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more or less interchangeable in normal samples.”

They are, so there’s no ‘good’ side to it.

It’s like saying serial killers are culling the gullible. It’s victim blame.

Even other DTs want non-DT friends. Clue?

Video: Why do young people fake mental illness? Laziness

This discussion is important. Why are the number of claims in excess of the real ill?

  • Absolution of responsibility.
  • Victim cred, can be exchanged for a career as Professional Victim.
  • A bulletproof excuse.
  • Argument winner (that’s low, mentally ill people are conflict-avoidant in the first place).

n.b. The people who went to a therapist in good faith, told the truth and were among the overdiagnosed who actually have nothing wrong with themselves? You have my sympathy. You were let down. You should be glad you aren’t ill, you don’t have a disease. The therapist in a position of trust let you down, they weren’t being objective and you should consider suing, especially if you were on harmful medications. I don’t address you herein. You go away, you do you honeys. I’m here if you wanna vent.

rdj claps applause mhmm

The people who think it’s like picking out sweets to excuse their personal failings going through the DSM and self-diagnosing, with no training or background, who refuse to see a professional or listen to someone objective or lie to the therapist? For personal gain? No personal suffering unless you count being insufferable to those around you? Fuck you. That’s disgusting. It’s the mental equivalent of pretending to be disabled.

Most people can’t be mentally ill. The abnormal cannot be the norm, it’s an oxymoron and mathematically impossible.

Often, the fakers, ignoring Munchausen which would be deeply ironic, present their character flaws as a clinical problem because they were raised to rely upon the authority of the Medical Model instead of their parents. This is why Freud started out as a surgeon and brought in childhood stuff, recently validated in epigenetics.

However, your past doesn’t excuse your present if you aren’t literally ill. Medical test, brain scan ill. Positive psychology is for normal people who want to self-improve, the self-improvement sector stems from this line of theoretical thought. You aren’t ill, you’re capable of change and your brain is plastic. Well done.

Those with the temerity to self-diagnose (ignoring the people whose parasites gaslight them into believing they’re ill for personal gain, those parasite people in your social sphere might be ill themselves ironically) even avoid the clinical responsibility to work on their “disorder”. This is vital. A mental illness causes suffering. You want to do the work. For years. Decades. Forever. You want the pain to stop. You want to be “better”. Absence of this desire (barring anhedonia, you can test for) is …alarming.

Patients have as much responsibility for their condition as their therapist. This is what they mean by “You have to want XYZ” because you work together, you work with them. This differs from regular medicine unless you count the niche of lifestyle factors, and the fakes have trouble with this fact for obvious reasons. They hate standards.

Mental illness is for life, and then comes the liar’s rejection of the whole shebang because hard work is hard.

They skip appointments out of laziness, they refuse medication knowing and sometimes openly complaining it does nothing (regular patients want it to do something). Having any illness and following any prescribed work is hard work, and you can spot those people like red flags in a sea of white when they start acting up with their character flaws and pretending to be without agency when it’s convenient (a chorus of – I can’t! I can’t! I can’t!) or that they can’t be at fault or blamed for anything because Condition. Real mentally ill people are mortified at this abuse of their illness for expedience and never do it. This is a known problem when they take on too much, refusing to acknowledge the limits of their condition from pure motive: they try too hard. Often for the sake of loved ones. Sometimes they break down and grudgingly admit their condition was the cause of some problem or perceived failing, but surely observers can see the difference between the real deal and the fakes?

Some bad therapists use these fake people like cash cows, knowingly diagnosing them to either 1. make them go away foisted onto someone else or 2 make money off the diagnosis (yes, they do) and the pills (whether they’re taken or not). This is part of the reason we have personality disorders, treated in spite of the acknowledgement they can never be treated (go team logic). Essentially, their job is to stop the character flaws harming those around the cause, nothing about protecting the cause themselves.

Around the Turn of the Century, psychology went from discussion of character to personality. Personality is often nonsense, useful for hiring and other practical applications but clinically invalid. Character is about building up and working on skills and yourself. It’s a maturation process of growth anathema to the Millennials this in-authenticity afflicts in particular. The 20th century chose the easier convenience approach to Self and has been regretting it ever since. It doesn’t bloody work.

A great therapist hurts your feelings for your own good.

That is their job. They don’t tiptoe around your problems so you’ll be a good feeding trough. They want results.

They aren’t an adult nanny. They aren’t Mary Poppins of the Mind. You aren’t supposed to like them, that’s child psychologists for literal children (owing to the lack of maturation again).
They have more in common with Hannibal Lecter. They will go deeper into your psyche than you are comfortable with and extract the worst pain, watch you cry, be truly vulnerable, then comfort you and help you move on from it productively. You become a better person in their hands because they force you to become one, they mold you into a better version of yourself.

Yeah that’s all I can say on the subject of fakery without getting angry and unprofessional.

Equal ≠ Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain

http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_%E2%89%A0_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/

…The answer to the first question is that the biomedical community has long operated on what is increasingly being viewed as a false assumption: that biological sex matters little, if at all, in most areas of medicine…

Technically, feminism has encouraged doctors to kill people.

I’ll quote the Darwinian part since some pricks people keep getting this finer point wrong confused;

What Darwin Actually Said
We should have expected all along that the brains of men and women are a complex mix of similarities and differences, at least if we believed in evolution as Charles Darwin described it. Darwin did not believe that evolution proceeded by natural selection. In fact, he was completely clear that, in his view, evolution by natural selection alone must fail. He knew that natural selection alone failed to explain far too many phenomena (most famously the male peacock’s tail). What Darwin actually said was that evolution proceeded largely through two distinct mechanisms: natural selection and sexual selection. The former acted on the basis of whether an organism survived; the latter acted on whether it made a baby. In his second book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin developed this idea (first presented in the original edition of The Origin of Species) and made explicit his view that the beneficial effects of sexual selection must at times outweigh the negative effects of natural selection (again, think of the male peacock’s tail)….

I've been waiting ages to use this one, it's so apt to academics

Good rule of thumb: Darwin is always right.

I’ll be posting at least one study on this again today. Probably two.

 

The Depressive Personality and why the drugs don’t work (SSRIs)

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/modern-depression-and-bipolar-disorder.html

It becomes a handy excuse too.

Pop the pills, blame your condition for your failures….

Yes, that’s right.
It even has a clinical term I’m surprised Bruce Charlton doesn’t know/mention: the absolution of responsibility.
It used to be applied to the clinician, a duty of care, but increasingly it is discussed among overdiagnosis (a tragedy of the commons with prescriptions) issues and whether “patients” are embellishing or lying for instrumental gain (welfare, sympathy, an excuse to be a worthless piece of…. I digress).

Most would be better off with placebo pills, as TLP knows (where is she, anyone?). For example, they enjoy the idea they’re broken (hipsters) and hence nothing in/about their life is their fault (ignore the non-sequitur, I know). There is an escalation common in psychiatry, you start on the easy candy stuff like Ritalin and eventually it’s anti-psychotics, with the fun side effect of causing mass murder and shooting sprees you hear about on the news. This is also why feminists wish to drug little boys, it damages them for life and they think it’s revenge for the slutty ones ‘needing’ the Pill. Don’t expect logic.

Drugs should be a last resort, not as casual as an after-dinner mint. A single one begins irreversible changes in the brain. If you weren’t fucked up before, you will be. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282784.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

n.b. The chemical imbalance hypothesis is bollocks. Rarely it might apply but there are chemical tests (serotonin for example), as you can probably gather (and CSF, ouch) and those will only get better. It’s an easy theory that sounds scientific but it’s unfalsifiable. Everyone has chemicals. There is no normal pattern either. It’s like choosing introverts or extraverts. Apples and oranges. It ignores genetics and brain structure because Narrative.

How likely is it that a series of disparate imbalances of simple chemicals cause the exact same disorders and conditions as they’re set out purely in the latest DSM-V and ICD-10? It is more likely that I am a bisexual goat.

Take a look: http://www.priory.com/psych/ICD.htm
To this day, those error codes give me a headache.