Does an organ transplant change your personality?

From the Telegraph.co.uk New kidney 'changed my whole personality' Last Updated: 2:38am GMT 16/03/2008 A woman claims to have undergone a complete "personality transplant" after receiving a new kidney. Cheryl Johnson, 37, says she has changed completely since receiving the organ in May. She believes that she must have picked up her new characteristics from the donor, a 59-year-old man who died from an aneurysm. Now, not only has her personality changed, the single mother also claims that her tastes in literature have taken a dramatic turn. Whereas she only used to read low-brow novels, Dostoevsky has become her author of choice since the transplant. Miss Johnson, from Penwortham, in Preston, Lancs, said: "You pick up your characteristics from your donor. My son said when I first had the transplant, I went stroppy and snappy - that wasn't me. "I have always loved books but I've started to read classics like Jane Austen and Dostoevsky. I found myself reading Persuasion." The former Preston North End football steward's life has been turned round since her successful operation. After developing kidney problems in 1998, she had previously undergone every available form of dialysis as well as a failed transplant in 2001. Miss Johnson added: "It's given my 16-year-old boy his mum back. "I totally respect the family who gave me this kidney. They have given me the best thing they can - a chance for a normal life. I am forever grateful to them."' Academics in America have developed a theory called cellular memory phenomenon to explain the personality changes that are allegedly experienced by some transplant recipients. Examples include a Massachusetts woman with vertigo who became a climber; a Milwaukee lawyer who began eating Snickers, having always hated chocolate; and a seven-year-old girl who had nightmares about being killed after being given the heart of a murdered child. However, the only case recognised by the scientific community is that of a 15-year-old Australian girl whose blood type changed following a liver transplant. UK Transplant also remains sceptical about the phenomenon. A spokesman said: "While not discarding it entirely, we have no reason to believe that it happens. We would be interested to see any definitive evidence that supports it." ********************************************************************************** I think this is a lot of nonsense. If a person has a soul (a subject not addressed by science with anything other than a sniff), the soul isn't a physical part of the cells within one's body. The soul is the life force, and when the life force leaves the body, the body dies. End of story. Where the soul goes and what happens to it - that is what religion addresses. There are lots of stories about so-called personality take-overs after people have had organ translants. Well then, why doesn't this happen when one has a blood transfusion? Blood is the biggest organ of the human body. And yet, we don't here stories about personality changes after a blood transfusion, do we? How many blood transfusions have there been - millions? A billion? Hundreds of thousands of organ transplants have been made since they became techologically feasible (not to mention blood transfusions, which first became common practice during WWII). But, very few have resulted in this so-called "personality change," which is just another description for soul migration! So what does that mean for all the hundreds of thousands of transplant recipients that have not resulted in a "soul transplant?" One other thing that always bothers me about these accounts - what happened to the former soul whose body has been taken over by the "transplanted personality"? Did the former personality just roll-over and let the other "soul" take over the body's life? Would YOU be that wimpy? Would you give up fighting for your life because some bit of someone else's soul that didn't know it had croaked was taking over your body? Would you not mind being a zombie?

Zombies in Ancient Egypt! Eek!

Darlings, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, but someone sure did have a good time writing this article for - of all publications - the venerable Archaeology (online edition). And it's not even from Halloween! Enjoy! Zombie Attack at Hierakonpolis November 6, 2007 by Renée Friedman Weighing the evidence for and dating of Solanum virus outbreaks in early Egypt Hierakonpolis is a site famous for its many "firsts," so many, in fact, it is not easy to keep track of them all. So we are grateful(?) to Max Brooks for bringing to our attention that the site can also claim the title to the earliest recorded zombie attack in history. In his magisterial tome, The Zombie Survival Guide (2003), he informs us that in 1892, a British dig at Hierakonpolis unearthed a nondescript tomb containing a partially decomposed body, whose brain had been infected with the virus (Solanum) that turns people into zombies. In addition, thousands of scratch marks adorned every surface of the tomb, as if the corpse had tried to claw its way out! [Editor's note: click here for an interview with Max Brooks and a timeline of archaeologically documented zombie outbreaks.] With the records available to us (Mr. Brooks obviously has access to others), the British dig can be identified as that conducted by Mssr. Somers Clarke and J.J. Tylor, during which they cleared the decorated tombs of Ny-ankh-pepy (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom) and Horemkhawef (Second Intermediate Period) on Old Kingdom hill. The notes of Tylor are lost to us, but Clarke's are preserved in the Griffith Institute, Oxford. Unusually cryptic in his discussion, he makes no mention of such a momentous discovery. Thus we can only infer that the tomb in question is one of those in the adjoining courtyard, and just a short distance from the underground chamber we examined in 2006 (see Hierakonpolis 2006: Adventures Underground). The tomb in question may indeed be the one we use a cozy and sheltered spot to take our lunch while working on the Fort, as its plastered, but unpainted walls are indeed covered with innumerable scratch marks that defy photography. If is the case, we might quibble--purely for the sake of scientific accuracy--that the 3000 B.C. date ascribed for the attack should be revised downward to the Old Kingdom, but its premier historical position remains unaffected. [Editor's note: this proposed re-dating, if accepted, necessitates a revision of Brooks's zombie-attack timeline.] On the other hand, in support of the earlier date, some have claimed that the famous Palette of Narmer (ca. 3000 B.C.), also from Hierakonpolis, far from recording a victory in the war of unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, is instead a celebration of the successful repulse of a zombie attack. Although we tend to focus on the verso where the king is shown smiting a kneeling enemy, it is the other side that is actually the front. It is the side with the depression for mixing the cosmetics for adorning the cult statue, and so it would seem that the scene of the king marching in procession to view a pile of decapitated bodies is the really important message. Nevertheless, while this scene may be evidence for zombie activity, reliance solely on pictorial records for such claims is scientifically questionable at best. There may be more to this in that Narmer's name means catfish-chisel, which sounds strange, and a catfish and chisel appear on the palette. But this could make sense if the palette refers to a victory over zombie forces. Perhaps Narmer wielded a large Nile catfish, Clarias?, grasping the tail and using it as a sort of black jack to stun the zombies, then removed their heads with a chisel. While it is an attractive idea, no serious archaeologist would hang their fedora on it without further evidence. Rest of article.