Brain’s Own Pain Relievers At Work in Placebo Effect, Study Suggests
Sometimes, just thinking you are receiving treatment is enough to make you feel better, a phenomenon known as the placebo effect. Scientists have long wondered what causes this outcome, the magnitude of which is not the same for all people. A new brain imaging study suggests that the body’s natural painkillers, endorphins, play a significant role.Previous studies had shown general changes in brain activity associated with the placebo effect by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, and scientists had hypothesized that the brain’s opioid system was involved. This time, by utilizing positron emission tomography (PET) brain scans for the new work, the researchers were able to focus on a specific type of brain receptor and track its response to a placebo. The PET scans employed by Jon-Kar Zubieta of the University of Michigan and his colleagues measured the activity of mu-opioid receptors, which are an integral part of the body’s natural painkilling system and help transmit pain signals from one nerve cell to the next. The team asked 14 healthy male volunteers to undergo the slightly painful but harmless procedure of having saltwater injected into their jaws. Over the course of a 20-minute procedure, volunteers recorded the intensity of their pain every 15 seconds and then summarized their experience afterward. In a randomized trial, some subjects received an analgesic medication, whereas others were told they were being given medication, but received none.
According to a report published today in the Journal of Neuroscience, all of the participants who were told to expect medicine but got a placebo instead showed an increase in the activity of their endorphin system. Four brain regions were involved and activity in specific areas was also associated with the subjects’ own descriptions of the pain they felt. For example, activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex correlated to how effective the volunteers were expecting the medicine to be at relieving their pain.
The results are the first direct evidence that endorphins can help explain the placebo effect. “This deals a serious blow to the idea that the placebo effect is a purely psychological, not physical, phenomenon,” Zubieta says. “We were able to see that the endorphin system was activated in pain-related areas of the brain, and that activity increased when someone was told they were receiving a medicine to ease their pain.” The results may not apply to all groups, however, and further investigation is needed to determine variations based on age, gender and confounding factors such as illness. –Sarah Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>………..
in other news…………..
[begin another rant]
Words at their most basic are just pictures, capturing thought while serving as a snapshot of a particular moment [ethos] in time. A record of its history……..
Logic, at its most basic, is zero’s and one’s. Whether something exist or not, true or false, survives as a sequence of time before, after, current time, comparison, greater, lessor and/or equal……
This makes looking at words and how we use them (logic) interesting and gives us some insight into our thoughts and the differences between those thoughts at different periods in time.
Innocence is an interesting word because of its part in a principle, ‘innocent until proven guilty’…….Which, without an understanding of the word makes it difficult, if not impossible, to know why ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a defining principle, rather than just a good idea or folksy saying.
Innocent is a word from nocere, which is in turn from the word noxius = harmful. The addition of the “in” gives the complete word innocent = incapable of doing harm. This understanding of its definition really begins to shed some light on the principle.
The first thing that this definition shows is that innocence has nothing to do with the subjective term ‘good or bad’. It is about objective reality.
The first thing item that needs to be shown in many court cases is that a harm has been done.
The second item is ‘who was capable’, (a word meaning able to hold, or contain).
The third, HOW was the WHO capable.
Which means that when a judge says, based on an accusation alone, “it is best to err on the side of caution,” he is NOT making one assumption, but at least three……
1) He assumes a harm has been done.
2) He assumes the one accused was capable (obviously, if the person was a thousand miles away, the capability is a question never answered.)
3) Lastly, he assumes ‘the who’ is the individual the finger is pointing at.
Which means that ‘erring on the side of caution’ assumes there was something to be cautious of in the first place and in itself is an error.
So the position is really a statement of, ‘it is best to err by erring.’
This is a portrait of the poor state of the US court system……as it advocates doing harm.
The second word is fraud = to cheat.
Fraud comes from the word frustra = frustrate = to drag things out = to render (an action) vain, or void or empty.
This is quite interesting bc fraud is about rendering an action pointless, which is exactly what no fault divorce [separation] does, making the whole action pointless. But if the action accomplishes something, like a child, then it is claimed that an obligation to the ‘void’ is now valid, which is just another fraud.
What a pretty picture……..A body claiming to be a court founded on errs and fraud.
Is anyone shocked why justice is rarely found in the US court system?
“It is best to err on the side of caution” is just another way of saying “I can’t prove you’re guilty and I think you’re guilty, so therefore you are guilty, case closed”………
………..however it is actually far worse than that……
There is nothing to prove. It is just a judge violating an individual without ANY reason whatsoever.
It is a cover for their crime, by claiming no wrong can be done if met with good intentions. This amounts to nothing more than them serving a different standard for themselves and everyone else. They can do no wrong because they are good. You can do no right because you are bad.
It is a subjective standard every tyrant has imposed to subjugate people to their absolute rule.
If any of the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be ashamed of what this nation has become and only feel contempt for individuals whom claim to be free and yet allow such abuse.
Tags: judge fraud
Leave A Regular Reply: