Science, please!

Have you ever heard of nomofobia, a fear of not being able to check your phone regularly? Are you going crazy when forget your charger home? Have you ever freaked out because you reached an area without reception? Would you return and go home immediately because you left your phone home? You know what we are talking about. But is there an evidence for tools that we use regularly "grow" on us, furthermore, become the part of our body schema?The way we perceive our body is crucial for knowing our place in the world. Literally speaking, the information from our joints and muscles provide the baseline to coordinate our movements and actions. The so called proprioceptive set of stimuli arriving to the central nervous system is often not conscious, but always stored in comparison with other modalities such as visual information (looking in the mirror for eg.). This purely perceptive, on-line, plastic representation of our body is often referred to as 'body scheme' in neurology. The body schema is actually a worki

Sit back and listen to our podcast !!!! Will baby blood hit the anti-aging market? Is the young blood transfusion the new omega 3 / golgi berries for the prevention of cognitive decline? Stanford and Harvard scientists claim so. A new wave of interest was drawn from an old, yet neglected medieval medical technique, where two circulatory systems, one old and one young, were connected in order to refresh the old brain and facilitate its healing and rejuvenating mechanisms. The method, now fancily called heterochronic parabiosis, has recently been brought back to scientific focus for one simple reason: it looks like its working. source: http://tinyurl.com/qcr9bwy The neurological decline and associated cognitive deterioration experienced during healthy ageing as well as neurodegeneration is one of the biggest mysteries in neuroscience. It seems like we cannot point out a single, culpable black sheep from the several factors that accounts for the progressive decline in the end of life. Rather,

Is there really anything we can do to prevent cancer; are we better packing it up and conceding that at some point we will all succumb to the emperor or all maladies? A well reported paper by the media last week in the journal, Science, does appear to have suggested this, and is surely a rude surprise to cancer researchers globally (including myself)!The paper in question found that 2/3 of the lifetime risk of developing cancer could be explained by only the random errors that accumulate overtime when cells replicate. This is indeed a shocking finding, but lets unpack it a little and see whether it is really saying all it has been reported as in the media - hint, it is not!Recent article reports cancer is due to mostly stochastic errors in cell divisions.Lung cancer, however,  falls out of this category, hence it cannot be explained solely by the luck factor.source :http://tinyurl.com/okdtt3wFirstly, the study accounts for 31 cell-types in its analysis and measured the association with the corresponding