Herbal Medicine

Herbal Medicine is the therapeutic use of plants to safely assist the body in healing various disease conditions. Regarded as the oldest known form of medicine, herbs have a history stemming from most ancient cultures of the world, including the Greeks, Romans, Chinese as well as India and Egypt. Still today, it is the primary form of medicine for most of the worlds population.

Herbal medicine originally formed the basis for modern pharmaceutical medications. By isolating a herbs active ingredient, synthesized drugs can be formed. Although orthodox medicine prefers to ignore their true origins within herbal medicine.

Herbs act to nourish and support the body’s organs, restore and strengthen damaged tissue as well as detoxify and eliminate waste. Conditions more commonly treated with herbal medicine include skin disorders, hormonal problems, digestive imbalance, infections, penis girth, as well as nervous system issues such as anxiety, stress, and depression.

According to the Kinsey Institute’s data published back in the late 1940s, the average penis length is 5.5 - 6 inches and the average penis width (circumference) is 4 - 5 inches.

Many women and men will tell that it is not only the length of the penis, but the penis size that matters in the long run. In many ways, this is true. The majority of the nerves that are stimulated during penetration (both the vaginal and anal varieties) are located close to the entrance of the vagina and anus. This makes length less important and width that much greater a factor since it is the stretching of the vaginal or anal walls that stimulates the nerves.

One might be asked how to increase penis size using herbs. There is an invigorating herbal formula that helps men to attain larger and thicker penis sizes called MXMAN. This natural penis enlargement formula not only increases the penis length but also increases the girth for enormous sexual pleasure.

Continue ►

Some Problems to Evaluate Deja Experience

The research evaluating the deja vu experience has been plagued with a number of problems. First, there is often a failure to report some of the basic details of the research, such as the actual survey question used (Buck, 1970; Buck & Geers, 1967; M. A. Harper, 1969; Myers & Grant, 1972) or the incidence rate found through this query (J. C. Dixon, 1963; Osborn, 1884).

For example, for one of the more thorough deja vu questionnaires, Sno et al. (1994) provided considerable detail on the test–retest and interitem reliability, as well as on face and construct validity, but failed to publish the actual questionnaire or any descriptive statistics from four groups of individuals (people with schizophrenia, people with depression, those prone to complex seizures, and controls).

Unrepresentative samples are frequently used in deja vu research. In many instances, a sample of convenience is used. Leeds (1944) queried individuals in a shop where he worked, Zuger (1966) surveyed patients undergoing therapy from him, and Kohr (1980) polled members of the Association for Research and Enlightenment, which studies paranormal experiences and of which he was also a member.

Osborn (1884) distributed his survey “at Princeton and elsewhere” (p. 478) without further clarification, and several studies used hospital patients as representative controls to compare with psychiatric subgroups (Chapman & Mensh, 1951; Richardson & Winokur, 1967). M. A. Harper (1969) sampled workers in a public health department, but to his credit he stated that “no attempt was made to make this a representative sample of

the normal population” (p. 69).

Finally, Gaynard (1992) surveyed students attending a university where he taught a popular course called “Aspects of the Paranormal,” with many students aware of his positive bias toward this subject.

Protection from Education

A person must not only be educated, but she or he must be protected from education itself. The truth-seeking endeavor is what saves people from the iron-clad defect of our own education and, as such, philosophy serves as a conscience to education.

Today, we celebrated our human right day, amid the many pressing problems that we are facing in our contemporary life, be they political, social, or economics.

This is a good time to contemplate and to think seriously about education in general to restore our hope and maintain our sanity. It is very telling to observe that despite our many thousand years experience, our hands are still chained to the wall, and our minds are clouded by a sense of helplessness.

Techniques to Evaluate Deja Vu Experience

Much of the research on deja vu has been conducted with retrospective evaluations of two varieties: short surveys designed to assess its incidence and longer questionnaires aimed at evaluating different aspects of the deja vu state.

Although short surveys involve one or two questions (e.g., Have you ever had a déjà vu experience?; How often do you have a deja vu experience?), retrospective questionnaires are aimed at clarifying more complex physical and psychological circumstances surrounding the deja vu experience.

Neppe (1983) developed both a quantitative (frequency, duration) and a qualitative (emotional intensity, clarity of experience) questionnaire to be administered in an interview format, and Sno, Schalken, de Jonghe, and Koeter (1994) later refined and extended Neppe’s (1983) questionnaires.

Both instruments focus on defining the content (setting, the respondent’s actions, words spoken), frequency (how often, first experience), personal circumstances (where, when, doing what), physical state (fatigued, angry, intoxicated), and psychological reactions (emotions, time sense, body awareness) related to the deja vu experience, as well as auxiliary psychological dimensions (dream memory) and personal habits (travel frequency).

The research evaluating the deja vu experience has been plagued with a number of problems. First, there is often a failure to report some of the basic details of the research, such as the actual survey question used (Buck, 1970; Buck & Geers, 1967; M. A. Harper 1969; Myers & Grant, 1972) or the incidence rate found through this query (J. C. Dixon, 1963; Osborn, 1884).

For example, for one of the more thorough deja vu questionnaires, Sno et al. (1994) provided considerable detail on the test–retest and interitem reliability, as well as on face and construct validity, but failed to publish the actual questionnaire or any descriptive statistics from four groups of individuals (people with schizophrenia, people with depression, those prone to complex seizures, and controls).

Scientific Approach to Deja

This article constitutes a summary of the empirical findings and scientific speculation concerning the dejavu experience. The review is divided into four sections: (a) techniques used to study the dejavu experience, (b) summary of empirical findings, (c) possible scientific explanations from cognitive and neuropsychological perspectives, and (d) directions for future research.

Although the dejavu phenomenon is widely experienced by the general public and is oft-cited in the popular literature (Sno, Linszen, & de Jonghe, 1992), the dejavu experience has been relatively neglected by memory researchers.

The dejavu experience lacks any clearly identifiable eliciting stimulus or verifiable behavioral response, and these lacunae have presented impediments to systematic research efforts. Much of the published literature on dejavu is from the psychodynamic or parapsychological perspectives, and although psychodynamic interpretations may have some explanatory value, these remain generally complex and cumbersome in light of possibly simpler scientific explanations.

Recently, a number of cognitive researchers have begun to relate empirical work to the dejavu phenomenon in an effort to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the experience (Hoffman, 1997; Jacoby, 1988; Jacoby, Allan, Collins, & Larwill, 1988; Jacoby & Whitehouse, 1989; Roediger, 1996; Schacter, 1996; Seamon, Brody, & Kauff, 1983).

A goal of the present review is to provide sufficient information on the phenomenon to stimulate constructive ideas from researchers in the clinical, neuropsychological, and cognitive areas and to bring clarity and focus to an extensive but fragmented literature.

Although much of the prior research on the dejavu experience has been published in journals and books that do not connect with mainstream scientific research, there is sufficient data and speculation available to formulate a nascent picture of the dejavu experience.

Defining the Deja Experience

It took nearly a century to settle on a common term for the deja vu experience. From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s, researchers used a variety of words and phrases in different languages to describe the phenomenon.

Berrios (1995) and Findler (1998) suggested that the term deja vu was first used in a statement by Arnaud (1896), whereas Cutting and Silzer (1990) pointed to the first use by Hughlings-Jackson (1888). Sno (1994), Neppe (1983) and Funkhouser (1983) claimed that Boirac (1876) first used the term de ´ja `vu (“la sensation du de ´ja ` vu”) in a letter to the editor.

Although the term deja vu was clearly introduced in the late 1800s, it did not come into common usage until many decades later. Sno and Linszen (1990) provided a list of 17 different terms (from three languages) that have previously been used to describe the deja vu phenomenon (from paramnesia to illusion of the already seen to sentiment of pre-existence), and Neppe (1983e) gave a chronology of the use of these terms.

Table 1 presents passages from textbooks published by prominent psychologists (Angell, 1908; James, 1890;Titchener, 1928; Woodworth, 1940) that illustrate the diversity of early references to the experience, even into the mid-twentieth century.

These descriptions show that earlier experimental psychologists evaluated the deja vu experience as relatively common and tended to classify it as a disorder, illusion, or hallucination of memory.

The following definition proposed by Neppe (1983e) has recently become the standard in research on deja vu: “any subjectively inappropriate impression of familiarity of a present experience with an undefined past”.

llusion of Recognition

For more than a century, the deja vu experience has been examined through retrospective surveys, prospective surveys, and case studies. About 60% of the population has experienced de ´ja ` vu, and its frequency decreases with age.

Deja vu appears to be associated with stress and fatigue, and it shows a positive relationship with socioeconomic level and education.

Scientific explanations of deja vu fall into 4 categories: dual processing (2 cognitive processes momentarily out of synchrony), neurological (seizure, disruption in neuronal transmission), memory (implicit familiarity of unrecognized stimuli), and attentional (unattended perception followed by attended perception).

Systematic research is needed on the prevalence and etiology of this culturally familiar cognitive experience, and several laboratory models may help clarify this illusion of recognition.