Exercising Neuroplasticity
The technology is much the same for both PD and non impaired (normal brain) users. The Exercising Neuroplasticity (EN) treatment is more intense as PD has an initial physical impairment component that must be accommodated.
Where the two procedures diverge is that exercising neuroplasticity has a very different motivation; the desire for a healthy brain to fend off potential cognitive degradation. What emerged from the PD treatment was the remarkable return to a more robust cognitive condition than what was in play prior to PD. This discovery was the moment of realization that resetting the brain resulted in both recovery from cognitive impairment while also increasing cognitive ability, essentially the effect of exercising neuroplasticity.
The main reason for the shift between PD and EN came when exploring the possibility of funding from the San Fransisco tech seed incubator Y Combinator. It was firmly suggested that having a partner would see an increased possibility of acceptance. Y Combinator sent information about a number of likely candidates. In conversations with these potential partners it quickly became apparent that they were not interested in PD, but were very interested in the advancement of EN technology. In the end giving up an effective treatment for PD was not an option I was easily allowed to consider. In talking to people about a PD treatment and EN most have a story about someone they know suffering from or dying with PD and this was almost always voiced in heart felt support for continuing with an effective treatment for PD while EN often brought a mild passing interest. That being said not only are EN and PD entangled they also augmented each other in remarkable ways.
The Exercising Neuroplasticity Protocol
Exercising Neuroplasticity Technology and Treatment (ENTaTe)
Neuroplasticity is easier to test for cognitive function loss and improvement. The initial PD Gen 2 patient cognitive returns occurred in the first week with most cognitive losses returned in the next 6 weeks. The DNA snap wasn’t fully realized until well after the final treatment. In the latest PD Gen 5 patient the returns began in the first week with an encountered barrier after the first 2 1/2 weeks. The DNA Snap hit at 3 weeks and the returns accelerated. The patient was also being treated elsewhere for declining mobility. 18 months into this declining mobility treatment improvements were very limited. Three weeks into the PD treatment and following the DNA Snap the movement treatments improved substantially, accompanied by the first uncontrollable emotive expression. This dropped the PD mask and released the patient to quickly move into long since forgotten trauma. Getting past this trauma took a week.
I had not tested the complete treatment protocol on a healthy brain and decided it was time to do so. This ran concurrently with the latest PD patient. The treatment had the same protocol but was of higher experimental intensity. The results were much the same, although faster and the descriptions of the cognitive shifts were more expansive. The internal shift was noted as coming out from under a cognitive fog. Observations of the world were more pensive while internal thoughts became more expansive and less defensive and dismissive. The DNA Snap lag was a few days, not weeks or months. As thought clarified the visceral baggage was brought to the surface. The initial DNA Snap memories were from much further back; coming up from childhood.
During the middle phase of the treatment in both PD and EN physical limitations to activities long since believed lost began to dissolve. It was as if the internal belief system was eroding and therefore releasing the body from psychologically imposed limitations.
It is important to note here that the initial cognitive improvements were quick, while there was an ever increasing ebb and flow to the physical returns. The brain recovers quickly whereas the body takes its own sweet time.
There is a very real sense that when using the technology this is less about improving cognitive and physical ability as much as removing impedance from cognitive and physical disability at least during the initial 4-month treatment.
The cognitive returns and recovery remain firmly intact across all users of the technology whereas the physical returns seem to require a shift or removal of physical and social (dis)enabling. You have to enter back into the physical activities that were thought no longer possible while also removing the internal and external beliefs that you are too old or too feeble. While the inner world is shifting you must also alter the outer world. The effort and reward in this is too big to ignore and there is the added danger of experiencing PD recovery or revitalized cognitive health only to feel it slip back into a previous, familiar decline. The technology doesn’t make the change for you it makes the change with you.
The long term benefits of robust cognition are massive, but the difficulty of having to revisit disabling traumatic memories stored in DNA shouldn’t be ignored.
Testing of the efficacy of this technology is more likely to have better success when targeting EN vs PD. Scientific methodology is tailored for productivity outcomes. When comparing cohorts an increase of a few percentage points is a massive improvement. The improvement of cognitive processing of a military unit over an unimproved unit is very likely decisive when the desired outcome is explicitly known. While a little harder to assess in creative endeavors, the removal of cognitive impedance creates the opportunity for unforeseen outcomes to be realized.
Exercising Neuroplasticity across all cognitive processes regardless of endeavor (repairing cognitive or emotional damage, fending off future damage, engaging in creative and artistic pursuits, etc.) now has a powerful and evolving technical tool. The future is beginning to look good.
Exercising Neuroplasticity
Who is it good for? Absolutely everyone!
Say it again!
Good God You Al!
Cardiovascular exercise health benefits have been firmly established. Exercising the heart leads to very desirable outcomes; “Faster, Higher, Stronger”. Exercising the brain is in its infancy. Learning new languages, playing an instrument, doing crossword puzzles, etc. is correlated to arresting cognitive decline, but this is not exercising the brain directly. While walking and running a marathon are related the physiological outcomes are very different. The brain must be exercised in a way that releases its ability to alter the course of disease, increase its potential to fend off decrepitude and open up its potential. Clearing out the cognitive fog and removing iterative impedance is a very good start. The EN treatment and technology creates the opportunity for this to happen. This technology is for anyone that wants to begin safeguarding against cognitive decline, protecting cognitive health and venturing into enhanced cognitive function. The four-month treatment protocol, followed by continuing with an occasional post treatment maintenance session is enough. The introduction of AI in Gen 6 increases the speed in which the returns are realized, increases the time between post treatment maintenance sessions, and decreases the duration of each session. Healthy cognition is a good place for most to stop and maintain.
Continuing to increase the intensity while maintaining the same number of sessions as the initial EN/PD treatment has a much deeper and more expansive effect. This further exploration is not for the faint-hearted. It appears as if the brain has a propensity for a form of self-transformation. If you remove the effects of cognitive decline and remove the physical and psychological impediments that contribute to future cognitive decline it-is-as-if the brain has an emergent potential. I call this “Post Human Emergent Transformation”. This is beyond the scope of this Exercising Neuroplasticity blog and has been moved to the Post Human Emergent Transformation blog.
For those that have requested possibly using the technology, especially for those with PD and other cognitive-movement disorders, they would like to know how the technology works, see it in action and talk to previous users. The technology patent application is still pending so this has limited revealing specifics about the technology. Those that have used the technology, and those that are presently using the technology, are under NDA’s and thankfully have been careful not to reveal any of the technical information. I have allowed communication between the users, their practitioners and in some cases those interested in using it. As mentioned in the PD blog there is still work to do to scale for non supervised use of the technology. It is sitting and waiting for scale, but it needs support, especially for those that insist on “more data”. Generating evidence based empirical test results for EN users is much easier than for PD users, yet financial support for this EN technology is also necessary. Any support for continuing the advancement of this technology is greatly appreciated.
