Technology has the fastest change capacity. And that fits me well. I am a quick thinker and very curious in nature. And there is a certain logic in technology that I understand. That is nature not nurture. I have also learned as “different thinking person” to delve into “the others”. My curiosity also comes in handy. In doing so, I never lose sight of my individuality. The “thinking differently person” has given me a lot of knowledge and tools to do good analyzes.
In the 90s I was fascinated by new emerging diseases Alzheimer and later on ALS. This immeasurable interest in degenerative disorders that have a large socially innovative component, turned into my first book in 2014/2015 (The direct link between Alzheimer & ALS (degenerative disorders) and IQ and HSP). It was like all the years of research and interest in myself and in others coincided: the working of our brain, the developments in our society (politics, economics, education), technological and social innovation.
Self-assured with my analyses, I went out with my book under my arm looking for my wrong. From contemptuous professors (who do I think I am!) to “innovative” board members who stole ideas. But from experience I also know that the things I see, discover, are seen by the others at least a year later. Minimal.
I am also blessed with a great perseverance and sense of justice. I will continue as long as my beying right is not proven. That’s how I came to Dick Swaab. He was actually the first known scientist to give me a fair chance. He read my book during a trip and returned with feedback. He did so by asking me questions and by sending me research results. “Do you mean this?” “Didn’t we ever researched this before?” “No, no and no.” I received a very positive feedback and my book was confirmed.
From 2015 I kept a close eye on research results and found that parts of my book were examined with the result that I had already given. I note that one always examines subcomponents, but is not able to relate them to each other. Not everything is arranged side-by-side in numbered boxes in order to bring them together. Others do not see this and that frustrates sometimes, but I also know why. I wrote about this my second book Linear and circular thinking.
There is a need to change. (Care costs and increased numbers of patients are apparently not sufficient.) I know that and I wait for that. I also give different insights and awareness through my books and thus contribute to the need for change.
I am hopeful that after Pfizer’s report this week, they will stop research on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s because there are no positive results. “Scientists learn, but there is no positive result in finding active medicines against these diseases (at least 300 jobs are lost by this decision).
Also very encouraging to read the quote from the professor that I spoke first and left my book behind just when it got out (2015).
He has become an adapter of my book: “According to the Nijmegen alzheimer’s expert Olde Rikkert, it is time to put the dominant theory – that Alzheimer’s is almost entirely caused by protein accumulation in the brain – with the old dirt. An aging disease that causes accelerated (brain) damage through different routes.”
Pfizer thanks! I applaud your decision! I encourage it! I regard this as a signal to science. We are almost at a disruptive innovation!
Wrong research directions to the symptoms of these diseases and not to the real cause (I describe in my book).
In the business world you have long been cleansed without result. Being able to play freely with a substantial income is fun, especially for students, but we are not a playground. The number of working people who focus on the wrong studies on, for example, Alzheimer’s is enormous. How many jobs and egos will change if one is willing to accept that they have looked and explored wrong all the time.
Degenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, ALS, Parkinson’s, MS, etc.) are deathcause number 1. The number of people suffering from these diseases grows larger and younger (why? read my book).
“Food for thought”, said one of the tv and hip magazines known neurologist. Where in “looking in the soul” ( an interview program on Dutch tv) he wisely criticized the importance of visibility of the scientist to get money for research, that a scientist is dependent on his money lender with own interest. Beying selective directed in his research. He must now take the necessary step himself. OUT of the BOX.
I wonder what the effort to read a book (38 pages) from a smart “different thinking person” for € 9, – or to invite me to a conversation. I will bring the book along with me.
Is it the fear of the ego? The jobs, the industry? People have to get up first.
Disruptive innovation is painful. Nobody stated it was easy.