Medical Articles

Apixaban superior to warfarin for reducing brain bleeds in patients with AFib : Study also shows that use of aspirin increases risk of intracranial hemorrhage   <Date:

March 29, 2017


American Society of Hematology


Patients with atrial fibrillation showed a substantially reduced risk of dangerous bleeding in the brain, known as intracranial hemorrhage, when taking the newer anticoagulant apixaban compared to those taking warfarin. The study also showed that taking aspirin increased the risk of intracranial hemorrhage, especially in older patients.


Study has lots more than this, and is an easy read.

<“Intracranial hemorrhage has high morbidity and high mortality and is the most severe and most feared complication among physicians prescribing oral anticoagulants,” >


Close by items

Google <eliquis and brain aneurysm>    eliquis – apixiban

Eliquis Side Effects. Eliquis packaging contains an FDA approved “Black Box Warning” that reveals the product can cause an increased potential risk of stroke in individual suffering with atrial fibrillation, especially when the patient stopped taking the drug.


Novel 5-minute workout improves blood pressure, may boost brain function   Date:

April 8, 2019


University of Colorado at Boulder


Five minutes daily of Inspiratory Muscle Strength Training lowers blood pressure, improves vascular health, boosts fitness and sharpens memory, according to preliminary results.




A God for Atheists

A God for Atheists

copyright bob elschlager, april, 2016.

This post is not political. It is neither for nor against the many sides in these arguments. This post is purely a scientific and “mathematical” development in logic.

I’ve been playing around, exploring, for a long time, religionists versus atheists. Long ago in some internet discussion group for believers in God, I asked some question, and it generated a huge number of responses. A little later I did the same on an atheist discussion group, just interchanging certain words, and it also resulted in a vast number of responses. Today I remember not the names of the discussion groups. Nor the responses. Except for one, which I have been thinking about every since.

An atheist complained: How can you disprove – attack – something – God – if there is no definition of it – God?

Recently, in playing around with various concepts and ideas, a definition popped out.

Consider the whole physical universe and all that goes on in it. This can be defined mathematically. Define this to be God.

This is a God for atheists.

Now there are no end of interesting questions about this. Only two will I have time to touch on here.

An atheist might feel, regarding this definition, what about consciousness? Is this God as defined, even conscious? More vaguely, is this God as defined, a single consciousness?

My response: atheists already believe consciousness comes fully and solely from the physical – the brain. (see why-do-people-think-that-consciousness-is-only-in-the-brain   ).

Does this response fully answer the atheist? No. But it does introduce quite a bit of pause for thought about the atheist’s concerns, pause that is rooted solely in the physical and logical, and atheists accept the physical and logical.

The other interesting question – not really a question but an issue – is this. There is only one difference between this atheist definition of God and the religionist definition. In the atheist definition, God is the whole universe, which for the atheist is the whole physical universe; in the religionist’s God, God is again the whole universe, but for the religionist, the whole universe is divided into the material (physical) and immaterial.

Furthermore, as vast periods of time and accumulation of knowledge go by, will the material and the immaterial converge? (For interesting observations on the immaterial and material, see  , which I am in process of rewriting to make it more accessible in terms of the writing and technical presentation, but important parts of it are currently accessible.)

Please criticize.

Outside the Establishment

Part 1 Dec 1 2015.  Part 2 Jan 21 2016.  ursm Jan 23 2016.

*** Part 1 ***  Dec 1, 2015

Once you step outside an existing area of expertise, you are in a hopeless melange, truly hopeless, of potentially all kinds of information, facts, ideas, writings. Utterly massively disorganized – nay, possibly impossible to-be-organized.

At least this is the case in the modern world.

Continue reading