Feb 162016

A scientist selling a book wants people to believe that the pain people experience on breaking up a relationship is caused by changing chemicals in the brain. This claim is another example of Scientists Being Stoopid.

Human beings have what is commonly referred to as “energy”. This energy can leave the body and enter into another body where it influences the second body. That is exactly what happens between two human beings in a relationship. The energy of each person leaves their body and enters into and entwines with the body of the other human being in the relationship, or the energy of just one of the human beings in the relationship enters into and entwines with the body of the other human being in the relationship.

The reason “breaking up a relationship” is painful is basically due to exactly what the phrase says. The “breaking up” of the energy linkage between the two human beings.

An easy way to visualize what is going on is to think of two human beings in a relationship as two pieces of a puzzle. When two puzzle pieces are pulled apart, one of the puzzle pieces has a gap in it where the other puzzle piece connected it to it. When two human beings “break up”, a void or “gap” is created in one or both of the human beings in the relationship. It is that void or “gap” in the energy body that causes the pain associated with “breaking up” a relationship.

Scientist R Stoopid. Sometimes they are stoopid on purpose to create false beliefs in people which make the people easier to control because of their faulty world view, and sometimes well meaning scientists r stoopid because they do not know any better. Regardless of the reason why Scientists R Stoopid, it is always best for any person to immediately assume any proclamation or claim by a scientist is stoopid. It is almost always safer and more accurate to trust one’s own judgement about whatever issue some scientist is making a proclamation or claim about.

That advice of course applies mainly to proclamations and claims involving human beings, their reactions, and their motivations. It is likely that a scientist making claims about something such as how a metal or chemical reacts in a particular way when interacting with other metals or chemicals for instance, are more correct than the ideas or feelings a layman or untrained person would have about such interactions.

It is necessary to say that there might be a correlation between changing chemical levels in the brain as the body of a person involved in a relationship breakup reacts to the loss of the energy linkage that took place when they were in the relationship, but those chemical levels are not the main cause of the negative reactions associated with a relationship breakup.

The news story describing the release of the scientist’s book is reprinted below.


wWhen two human beings are in a relationship tHave you ever found yourself in the foetal position on the sofa for days on end, curtains drawn, phone unanswered, moving only to haphazardly wipe the snot and tears from your face? All that has happened is you’ve been made aware that you won’t be seeing a person you had a lot of interaction with much any more. That’s it. So why does it leave you reeling for weeks, months, even for the rest of your life, in some cases?

Humans seem primed to seek out and form monogamous romantic relationships, and this is reflected in a number of weird things the brain does when we end up falling for someone. Attraction is governed by many factors. Many species develope secondary sex characteristics, which are features that occur during sexual maturity but that aren’t directly involved in the reproductive process; for instance, a moose’s antlers or a peacock’s tail. They are impressive and show how fit and healthy the individual creature is, but they don’t do much beyond that.

Humans are no different. As adults, we develop many features that are apparently largely for physically attracting others: the deep voice, enlarged frames and facial hair of men, or the protruding breasts and pronounced curves of women. None of these things are “essential”, but in the distant past, some of our ancestors decided that is what they wanted in a partner, and evolution took over from there. But then we end up with something of a chicken-and-egg scenario with regards to the brain, in that the human brain inherently finds certain features attractive because it has evolved to do so. Which came first, the attraction or the primitive brain’s recognition of it? Hard to say.

It is important, however, to differentiate between a desire for sex, AKA lust, and the deeper, more personal attraction and bonding we associate with romance and love, things more often sought and found with long-term relationships. People can (and frequently do) enjoy purely physical sexual interactions with others that they have no real “fondness” for apart from an appreciation for their appearance, and even that is not essential. Sex is a tricky thing to pin down with the brain, as it underlies much of our adult thinking and behaviour.

But this isn’t really about lust; we’re talking more about love, in the romantic sense, for one specific individual. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the brain processes love differently. Studies by Bartels and Zeki suggest that when individuals who describe themselves as in love are shown images of their romantic partners, there is raised activity (not seen in lust or more platonic relationships) in a network of brain regions including the medial insula, anterior cingulate cortex, caudate nucleus and putamen.

There is also lower activity in the posterior cingulate gyrus and in the amygdala. The posterior cingulate gyrus is often associated with painful emotion perception, so it makes sense that your loved one’s presence would shut this down a bit. The amygdala processes emotions and memory, but often for negative things such as fear and anger, so again, it makes sense that it’s not so active now. People in committed relationships can often seem more relaxed and less bothered about day-to-day annoyances, regularly coming across as “smug” to the independent observer.

One type of chemical often associated with attraction are pheromones, specific substances given off in sweat that other individuals detect and that alter their behaviour. While human pheromones are regularly referred to (you can seemingly buy sprays laced with them if you’re looking to increase your sexual appeal), there is currently no definitive evidence that humans have specific pheromones that influence attraction and arousal. The brain may often be an idiot, but it is not so easily manipulated.

However, being in love seems to elevate dopamine activity in the reward pathway, meaning we experience pleasure in our partner’s presence, almost like a drug. And oxytocin is often referred to as the “love hormone” or similar, which is a ridiculous oversimplification of a complex substance, but it does seem to be elevated in people in relationships, and it has been linked to feelings of trust and connection in humans.

The flexibility of the brain means that, in response to all this deep and intense stuff, it adapts to expect it. And then it ends. Consider everything the brain invests in sustaining a relationship, all the changes it undergoes, all the value it places on being in one. If you remove all this in one fell swoop, the brain is going to be seriously negatively affected. All the positive sensations it has grown to expect suddenly cease, which is incredibly distressing for an organ that doesn’t deal with uncertainty and ambiguity well at all. Studies have shown that a relationship breakup activates the same brain regions that process physical pain.

Addiction and withdrawal can be very disruptive and damaging to the brain, and a not dissimilar process is happening here. This isn’t to say the brain doesn’t have the ability to deal with a breakup. It can put everything back together eventually, even if it’s a slow process. Some experiments showed that specifically focusing on the positive outcomes of a breakup can cause more rapid recovery and growth. And, just sometimes, science and cliches match up, and things really do get better with time.

Feb 112016

One of the main claims of Happeh Theory is that the masturbation can change other parts of the body. Many people find it hard to accept that something that happens at the groin, masturbation, can affect other areas of the body. Masturbation changes other areas of the body because the entire body is interconnected, which is another one of the main claims of Happeh Theory, and another claim that many people find hard to accept.

The science study referenced in this blog entry found a linkage between exercise and larger brain size in older age people. How can that be if the readers who doubt the entire body is connected are right? How could exercise, something the body is doing, affect the brain which is isolated inside of the skull?

The only way exercise could affect brain size is if the entire body is connected. So the scientific study referenced in the news story reprinted below supports the claim by Happeh Theory that the entire body is interconnected, and it also supports the claim that something that happens at the groin, masturbation, can affect the arms, the legs, the torso, or the head.


Exercising in your forties could stop brain shrinking

A new study has suggested that exercising in your 40s could stop the brain shrinking, adding years to life expectancy

Exercising when aged between 40 and 50 could help prevent the brain shrinking, potentially adding years to life expectancy, a new study has revealed.

The research suggests that people with poor levels of physical fitness in their thirties and forties may be linked to a smaller brain size 20 years later.

Study author Doctor Nicole Spartano, of Boston University School of Medicine in the United States, said: “We found a direct correlation in our study between poor fitness and brain volume decades later, which indicates accelerated brain ageing.”

For the study, 1,583 people enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study, with an average age of 40 and without dementia or heart disease, took a treadmill test.

They took another one two decades later, along with MRI brain scans.

The researchers also analysed the results when they excluded participants who developed heart disease or started taking beta blockers to control blood pressure or heart problems; this group had 1,094 people.

The participants had an average estimated exercise capacity of 39 mL/kg/min, which is also known as peak VO2, or the maximum amount of oxygen the body is capable of using in one minute.

“While not yet studied on a large scale, these results suggest that fitness in middle age may be particularly important for the many millions of people around the world who already have evidence of heart disease.” Dr Spartano.

Exercise capacity was estimated using the length of time participants were able to exercise on the treadmill before their heart rate reached a certain level.

For every eight units lower a person performed on the treadmill test, their brain volume two decades later was smaller, equivalent to two years of accelerated brain ageing.

When the people with heart disease or those taking beta blockers were excluded, every eight units of lower physical performance was associated with reductions of brain volume equal to one year of accelerated brain ageing.

The study, published online by the journal Neurology, also showed that people whose blood pressure and heart rate went up at a higher rate during exercise also were more likely to have smaller brain volumes two decades later.

Dr Spartano said that people with poor physical fitness often have higher blood pressure and heart rate responses to low levels of exercise compared to people with better fitness.

She noted that the study is observational. It does not prove that poor physical fitness causes a loss of brain volume; it shows the association.

But she added: “While not yet studied on a large scale, these results suggest that fitness in middle age may be particularly important for the many millions of people around the world who already have evidence of heart disease.”

Feb 042016

Happeh Theory makes various claims that are frequently derided or rejected because they contradict findings and statements by scientists and doctors. Because the public is trained to respect, trust and believe anything scientists and doctors say, it is difficult to convince people who come across the claims of Happeh Theory to give them serious consideration. Many people simply reject the claims of Happeh Theory without giving and thought or consideration to the ideas at all, because they are unable or simply refuse to question what they have been told by scientists or doctors.

The posts in this section of the website present examples of situations in which doctors and scientists admit they are wrong, are proven to be wrong, or turn out to be wrong, because a trusting member of the public has died or suffered serious trauma or injury due to their unquestioning trust in a doctor or scientist.

This particular blog post contains a news story about a poor young women of only 18 years of age who went to the doctor complaining of feeling ill. The doctor examined her and decided to send her home with ibuprofen. Later that day the young woman died.

Doctors these days are trained to save money for the hospital as a first priority, then treat illness as a second priority. The author of this blog has been the victim of treatment similar to the treatment of this young woman, proving her case is not a one time accident. In fact, almost every one of the few visits the author of this blog has made to a doctor have all resulted in the standard hospital cost saving advice “to go to the store and buy some ibuprofen”. The latest instance of that type of advice resulted in the author suffering from extreme pain for a period of 8 months.

Anyone reading this blog should never unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of scientists or doctors, because scientists and doctors are frequentlywrong, and can be wrong in situations so serious they can result in someone’s death. And if doctors and scientists can be wrong in serious situations that result in someone’s death, then it is reasonable to believe that they can be wrong in the advice and pronouncements they make that contradict the claims of Happeh Theory.

The original news story about the poor young woman dying as a result of trusting a doctor can be found below.


A young Great Britain athlete died from meningitis just hours after a junior doctor on his first week in A&E wrongly diagnosed a stomach bug, an inquest heard.

Ellie Penrose, a promising 18-year-old triathlete, was taken to hospital by her family after complaining of a headache and sensitivity to light.


She was seen by newly-qualified Dr Don Hettiarachchi who diagnosed gastroenteritis and dehydration and sent her home with paracetamol and ibuprofen.

But an inquest heard she was “inappropriately discharged” from Hull Royal Infirmary, in East Yorkshire, after the “failure in care”.

“I did not treat it as meningitis because I felt it didn’t fit with the general picture” Dr Don Hettiarachchi

Hours later, her parents Tom and Pauline dialled 999 after finding her critically ill on her bed at their home. She was taken to hospital, but died later the same day from “overwhelming sepsis” caused by meningococcal septicaemia.

Hours before she died last August, Miss Penrose discovered she had excelled in her A-levels and was destined for university.

Dr Hettiarachchi admitted to the Hull inquest he was “not 100 per cent sure” of the root cause of Miss Penrose’s illness when he saw her in the hospital at 3am on August 12 last year.

With no consultant available, he consulted with fellow trainee Dr Ayman Ghoneim in a corridor before discharging her.

Coroner Professor Paul Marks asked if he had considered meningitis and Dr Hettiarachchi replied: “I did. When I examined her there was no rash. There was blotching on her face. I felt it was more viral.”

Questioned by the Penrose family’s lawyer, Dr Hettiarachchi added: “I did not treat it as meningitis because I felt it didn’t fit with the general picture.”

Asked if he would have done anything differently, he replied: “Lots of things. I would have consulted with a registrar or above.”

Dr Hettiarachchi accepted he did not highlight key observations – crucially, Miss Penrose’s high blood pressure, low pulse rate and skin blotching – to Dr Ghoneim, but denied a claim that he had already reached a diagnosis.

Dr Ghoneim told the inquest: “He (Dr Hettiarachchi) said observations were normal.”

Mrs Penrose said Miss Penrose, a student at private Hymers College in Hull, had felt tired the day before she died.

She said: “At 6.30pm I told Ellie that tea was ready. She said that she had a headache and could not bear the light being on. I was becoming concerned and rang NHS Direct.”

Mrs Penrose, from Cottingham, East Yorkshire, was advised to take her daughter to the East Riding Community Hospital in Beverley where they arrived at 9pm.

She added: “A nurse announced that staff were dealing with two serious cases. Unless you presented with a serious medical condition you were told to leave A&E.”

The mother and daughter were advised to go to A&E and they arrived at Hull Royal Infirmary at 11pm, where they were eventually seen by Dr Hettiarachchi.

“The doctor said Ellie was dehydrated and was suffering from gastroenteritis,” said Mrs Penrose.

“Our thoughts are with her family at this difficult time, and we are very sorry for their loss” Kevin Phillips, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust”

She was too ill to collect her A-level results at 7.30am, but discovered online that she had been awarded a place at the University of York to study maths.

Shortly afterwards, she complained of pins and needles in her face, neck and back. An ambulance was called and took Miss Penrose – now complaining of abdominal pain – back to A&E.

She was seen quickly at 11.30am, but was not given antibiotics until 1pm, around the same time a scan revealed her body was in “shutdown”. She died a short time later.

Dr Mark Simpson, clinical director for emergency medicine at Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, wrote a serious incident report after the death.

He said there had been “a failure in care” and Miss Penrose had been “inappropriately discharged”.

He criticised the delay in administering antibiotics, while denouncing “human errors made by junior doctors” and “the failure to identify key observations”.

Dr Simpson said Miss Penrose would have had the “optimum” chance of survival had antibiotics been administered at 3am, but was unable to say if she would have lived.

The coroner adjourned the hearing, saying he wanted an expert to assess whether she would have survived if she had been given antibiotics sooner.

Kevin Phillips, chief medical officer for Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, said: “It is clear that this is a very tragic case. Our thoughts are with her family at this difficult time, and we are very sorry for their loss.”

Feb 032016


Scientists R Stoopid. Really Stoopid. So Stoopid that roughly 50% of what they say and claim can be completely disregarded. So Stoopid that taking scientific advice or acting on scientific claims will frequently cause harm to anyone who does so. And so stoopid that believing them will lead to a completely warped and incorrect view of the world and/or how things work.

And when scientists are not being stoopid, they purposefully promote false beliefs in order to prevent the average person from understanding the correct reasons for how and why the human body functions and reacts to stimuli. They do this because a human being who does not understand the correct reasons for how and why a human body behaves and reacts the way it does is weaker, and can be taken advantage of, by human beings who do understand the correct reasons why the human body behaves and reacts in the way it does.

The news story that this particular blog post is based on reports that scientists claim women are more susceptible to “contagious yawning” than men because women are more empathic.

Thing about that statement for a moment. What does “more empathic” mean? Nobody really knows, do they? There is a dictionary definition for empathy of course, which is “the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions”. Think about that definition for a moment, then ask yourself, why would understanding or sharing another human being’s experiences and emotions make you yawn if they were yawning?

If you spend some time thinking about that idea, you will realize that the statement by scientists “women are more susceptible to contagious yawning than men because women are more empathic than men”, is just a bunch of nonsense. Nonsense they are promulgating because scientists are stoopid, or because they want the average person to believe nonsense so they become weak and easy to control because they hold nonsense beliefs.

What is the true reason women are susceptible to contagious yawning than men? The true reason women are more susceptible to contagious yawning than men is that human beings have and emit what is commonly called “energy”, and women are more sensitive to the energy emitted by another human being. If you think about that claim for awhile, whether you believe it or not, you must realize that it sounds more believable and more logical than the statement “women ar more susceptible to contagious yawning than men because women are more empathetic”.

Energy is something concrete. If you accept that a human being has and emits energy, then visualizing that energy leaving one human body and impinging on another human body where it stimulates that human body can be related to real world experiences that cannot be denied. For instance. Think of a person throwing a stone in a pool of water. Human energy is like the waves that leave the point of impact of the stone on the water. Anyone who has thrown a stone in the water knows that when those waves which move up and down contact some other object in the water, like a leaf floating in the water, the waves transmit their up and down energy to the leaf and make the leaf move up and down.

That is exactly how human energy works. The energy of a human being who yawns, or performs any other physical activity for that matter, expands away from their body. When that energy contacts another nearby human body, that human body will tend to react to the energy. So if it is the energy of a yawn that is emitted from one human being, then when that “yawning energy” contacts another nearby human body, that human body will experience the urge to yawn also.

So the actual reason women are more susceptible to contagious yawning than men, is that the body of women are more sensitive the energy emitted by other human bodies.

Never believe what a scientists claim until you first consider whether what they are saying makes any common sense. If what they are saying doesn’t make common sense to you, you are most likely correct, and the scientist is either being stoopid, or trying to make you believe something incorrect so that other people can take advantage of your weakness and gullibility.

The original news story that is the basis for this blog post is reprinted below.


Yawns are twice as “catching” in women as they are in men, a study has shown.

The finding can be explained by the fact that women are the more empathic sex, say researchers.

Growing evidence suggests that yawn “contagion” is closely linked to empathy, the ability to step into the shoes of others and understand what they are feeling.

Even in higher animals, such as apes and monkeys, yawns can be catching. One individual yawning can trigger an epidemic of yawns in their neighbours.

Research has shown that in apes, females are more susceptible to yawns than males.

Now a new study has shown that the same is true for humans.

“The completely new finding of this study is that under natural conditions women from our population sample contagiously yawned at significantly higher rates than men.”

After observing 1,461 yawning bouts in everyday situations over a period of five years, a team of researchers found that women were roughly twice as likely to “catch” a yawn as men.

None of the individuals involved were aware they were being watched.

Yawn contagion rates were also found to be significantly lower between acquaintances than between friends and relations.

The scientists, led by Dr Elisabetta Palagi, from the University of Pisa in Italy, wrote in the journal Royal Society Open Science: “The completely new finding of this study is that under natural conditions women from our population sample contagiously yawned at significantly higher rates than men.

“This result further supports the empathic ground of yawn contagion, in the light of the existing psychological, clinical and neurobiological evidence in favour of higher empathic abilities of women compared with men.”

Previous studies have shown that yawn contagion is by no means universal. Under laboratory conditions 40% to 60% of individuals are never “infected” by other people yawning.

Jan 222016

This blog entry is based on reports about scientific studies that concluded a health problem called “Seasonal Affective Disorder” is not a real health problem.

I remember way back during the Gulf War when the TV was pushing fear 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, that CNN started running these shows on how if people were depressed, it wasn’t because CNN and other news outlets were telling them every minute of every day that they were going to die in some kind of attack, it was because they were not getting enough light and were suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder.

I remember CNN telling people to sit in front of banks of bright lights for hours a day and they would feel better, and by the way, here was a company or three that sold lights specially designed to be extra effective at treating Seasonal Affective Disorder.

Now, 15 years later, scientists are coming out and saying , “Yes. Seasonal Affective Disorder is just a bunch of stupidity we sold you on. What they are not saying but is obvious from the information in the previous two paragraphs, is that scientists pushed Seasonal Affective Disorder stupidity in the first place because politicians wanted them to so people would not complain about the fear they were feeling as a result of the war the politicians were engaging in, and because various corporations were making big money selling $10 worth of light bulbs for $1000 as special light bulbs guaranteed to treat Seasonal Affective Disorder.

Never believe scientists because they are stupid, they will say anything a politician tells them to say, and they will say anything that will financially enrich themselves or their relatives.

The original news story is reprinted below.

Seasonal Affective Disorder, the condition where people become depressed because of the lack of sunlight in the winter time, is probably myth, scientists have concluded.

Continue reading »