The Global Intelligencer - Exploring individual, social and global transformation
Visit our user forums The Arts Science Technology Society Environment Business
Life & Health Fringe Editorial Subscribe to The Global Intelligencer Advertise with The Global Intelligencer Archives About The Global Intelligencer

Dogs predict owner's epileptic seizures

Connie Standley has epilepsy, and fits can strike at any moment. Although she used to be trapped in her home, a prisoner of her unpredictable illness, she now lives a normal life, thanks to a unique warning system. The Floridian has two enormous Bouvier des Flandres dogs, who've learned about their owner's affliction. A half-hour before a seizure is about to strike, the dogs pull on her clothes and drag her by the hand to get her to a place of safety before the seizure begins. Connie reckons that her dogs predict more than 75 percent of her seizures.

Although we like to think of ourselves as the most well developed of all species on the planet, animals have abilities that far surpass us in almost every regard.

Most of us are aware of the special talents of different animals - that they can remember better than us (in the case of squirrels and nuts), navigate better than us (in the case of birds) or hear or smell better than us (in the case of dogs). But most remarkable of all is the ability of animals to predict events.

Although doctors tend to pour cold water on the possibility of animals predicting illness, cases abound of dogs predicting epileptic seizures in their owners. Many are trained to be seizure-response dogs to help their owners get to a safe place before a seizure has begun. These dogs have been taught to lie down on top of their owner or fetch his medicine, once a seizure has begun.

Such trained behavior is well within the reach of any dog. But many owners report that their dogs have moved from responding to seizures to predicting them. This has arisen spontaneously; most trainers believe it is impossible to train a dog to anticipate a fit, as humans themselves have no reliable early-warning system. Yet, some 10 per cent of people with seizure-response dogs claim their dogs have become seizure-alert dogs (Grandin T, Johnson C. Animals in Translation. New York: Scribner's, 2005). Indeed, Florida is considering giving epileptic-alert dogs the same status as seeing-eye dogs.

According to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, the first study of dog epilepsy prediction was by British vet Andrew Edney, who studied dogs of all breeds who'd become seizure-alert. Of the 21 owners who responded to Edney's survey, all claimed that their dogs developed this talent without training. In all cases, the dogs would show: 1) concern, apprehension or fear; 2) attention-getting behaviour, usually barking or whining; 3) making frantic contact with the owner either by jumping up, or licking his hands or face; 4) standing by their owner, encouraging him/her to lie down or shepherding him/her to safety.

During the seizure, the dogs either stayed with their owners, often licking them, or rushed to get help. According to Edney's study, the dogs had a remarkable track record. One pet even could distinguish a 'fake' seizure from a real one. (Sheldrake R. Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home. Hutchinson, 1999).

Medical scientist and dog-lover Val Strong founded Support Dogs in 1992 to train dogs to help physically disabled owners. Several years later, when a physically disabled epileptic contacted them about having a companion dog, Val hit upon the idea of attempting to train the dog to predict the woman's seizures. They chose a rescue dog (most of the trained dogs are from a shelter) and, within three months, the dog was giving the woman a half-hour warning as well as arriving with a blanket and the telephone once she'd had her seizure. Because the woman often finds it difficult to talk immediately after seizure, the dog has been trained to bark down the phone to her friends.

Trainers like Val Strong, who has now founded Seizure Alert Dogs®, emphasize that they don't train dogs to recognize an epileptic fit per se. Instead, they simply observe the dog's reactions prior to a fit and train it to accentuate its behavior. So, if a dog reacts by staring at the owner, Val will teach it to lick the owner's face, jump up or tug on his hand. Some Seizure Alert Dogs® even jump on top of their owner and shake, imitating the seizures they've observed. In Val's experience, most - if not all - dogs that are closely bonded with their owner will be able to predict fits.

Val's Support Dogs is now investigating other avenues: seizure-response dogs for children; hypoglycaemia-alert dogs for diabetics; and even canine help for people with emotional conditions. Although traditional medics believe it mostly has to do with smell, a heightened sense of smell doesn't account for the times animals have made these predictions long-distance. As Sheldrake says, the answer may lie closer to the same information source that helps pets read their owners' thoughts and intentions - a non-local clue from The Field.


Lynne McTaggart is a journalist and the award-winning author of the bestselling book The Field. Her latest book is The Intention Experiment. She also publishes several alternative health and spirituality newsletters. For more information: livingthefield.com & theintentionexperiment.com

 

  
user warning: Access denied for user: 'dbo235082792@%' to database 'db235082792' query: INSERT INTO vbdrupal_cache (cid, data, created, expire, headers) VALUES ('locale:en-us', 'a:826:{s:10:\"Navigation\";b:1;s:13:\"input formats\";b:1;s:4:\"list\";b:1;s:16:\"add input format\";b:1;s:19:\"delete input format\";b:1;s:12:\"compose tips\";b:1;s:7:\"content\";b:1;s:6:\"search\";b:1;s:5:\"posts\";b:1;s:13:\"content types\";b:1;s:14:\"create content\";b:1;s:8:\"rss feed\";b:1;s:13:\"file download\";b:1;s:10:\"administer\";b:1;s:6:\"themes\";b:1;s:9:\"configure\";b:1;s:15:\"global settings\";b:1;s:8:\"settings\";b:1;s:6:\"paging\";b:1;s:5:\"print\";b:1;s:7:\"modules\";b:1;s:12:\"user account\";b:1;s:17:\"user autocomplete\";b:1;s:6:\"log in\";b:1;s:8:\"r in /homepages/29/d234610493/htdocs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 121.

Wiki washers and grave diggers

by Larry Ketchersid

In using almost any Internet site, a typical user confronts the issues of identity, anonymity (or perceived anonymity) and authority at almost every turn. The recent publicity and announcement of wikiscanner brings these issues to the forefront by exposing them even further and showing both sides of the issue: from one perspective, media manipulators could no longer hide behind anonymity; the other side jeered because privacy and anonymity took another blow. Charles Carrington, CEO of Livebolt Identity, describes the perception of online anonymity this way: "The availability of anonymity is assumed by many computer users. In fact, it’s a rarity. It's usually possible to track information back to a source computer, and the user of that computer is implicit (since most "personal" computers are used by a single person.) Our Federal government is diligent in tracking information over the internet, and the source and destination are key attributes. Within companies, it’s even more likely that you have no anonymity. "Out of sight, Out of mind" doesn't apply to computer networks."

Wikiscanner, through the usage of computation and knowledge about who (which corporations or ISPs) own what blocks of IP addresses, takes away some of the perceived anonymity that can be associated with changing a Wikipedia post. Kudos to wikiscanner creator Virgil Griffith for his creativity; because of his invention he can no longer remain anonymous, as media rags show how his creation reveals corps like Diebold editing Wiki articles on e-voting machines.

To see how this works, go to www.wikipedia.org and click on "recent changes" in the left hand column under "interaction". I did this recently and followed a couple entries to (interestingly enough) the page on Schizophrenia (you can see what I saw by going here). There are several entries here by named users (user ID is after the timestamp), but the entries with only IP addresses are anonymous users (or new users who did not realize that they could create an identity and login).

IP addresses are reserved in blocks by corporations, ISP’s and other organizations, so that the devices (i.e., desktop computers, servers, routers, etc.) can have an address to get to the Internet. There are many ways to search for the owner of a block of addresses; one is to go to www.ARIN.net (American Registry of Internet Users) where you can find access to tools such as "whois" to determine who owns these address blocks. Wikiscanner takes these manual steps (looking up changes on wiki, finding anonymous changes by IP address) and programmatically searching for owners of these addresses. According to Mr. Griffith’s website (http://virgil.gr):

    In the WikiScanner database, there are 34,417,493 anonymous edits dating from February 7th, 2002 to August 4th, 2007. The WikiScanner database was made by extracting all anonymous edits from the publicly available Wikipedia database dump (which is released about once a month).

    There are 2,668,095 different organizations in the ip2location database which I am using to connect IP#'s to organization names.

    Within the ip2location database, there are 187,529 different organizations with at least one anonymous Wikipedia edit

Identity and the concept of "authoritative" are interesting topics to consider in terms of Wiki, and also in terms of other community sites such as Digg, eBay, Amazon, MySpace, dating sites and others. With the wide open Internet, one characteristic we all love is that we can all voice our opinion, read it and either agree with it or disagree with it. But the concepts of "is this person really who they say they are" (identity) and "do they really know anything about what they are talking about" (authority) are difficult to determine on most sites.

Mr. Griffith’s Wikiscanner adds some identity to the anonymous posts. But if an anonymous Wiki editor representing a mischievous corporation hides at his house and uses AOL or some other ISP that has a monster block of addresses, identity is still in question.

Identity is hard to determine at any rate. Most people use email addresses as credentials on community web sites, but email address are easy to get, easy to use, easy to call yourself whatever you want. For example, email addresses are all you need to "Digg" a story at digg.com, but users who "Bury" stories are kept anonymous. My friend, Dr. Paul Levinson, Professor and Chairman of Communications and Media Studies at Fordham University, talked a few days back about the "unofficial bury brigades" at Digg, who use their anonymity and votes to bury certain stories and raise others. "Like the exclusionists on Wikipedia, the unoffical "bury brigades" on Digg think the system works best with less rather than more information, and therefore see it as a worthy quest to delete (on Wikipedia) or bury (on Digg) unworthy entries," Levinson says. "But does this approach court the greater damage of eliminating worthwhile entries?  In the end, unless a story is outrightly false and misleading, what harm is done by its inclusion?  This problem is further aggravated on Digg where, unlike on Wikipedia, those who bury stories do so in anonymity."

As many sites do, Digg.com uses an algorithm to determine how to place which stories. According to the Digg.com site FAQs : The promotion and burying of stories is managed by an algorithm developed by Digg. There is no hard number of Diggs/buries to promote or remove a story. It's based on a sliding scale that takes several factors into consideration, such as number of Diggs, reports, time of day, topic submitted to, Digging/burying diversity, etc. (Virgil Griffith, is de-anonymizing Digg your next post-grad project? Could have merit!). But without some type of official credential (and, no, I am not pushing for usage of some universal ID), anonymity will still be the rule on the Internet.

Without delving into biometrics or certificates (which most Internet users will not encounter with everyday consumer and social networking sites), a way to rank the validity of an identity is (from least identifiable to most): 1)anonymous users (identifiable only by IP address, as in the wikiscanner example); 2) email addresses (generic, as in gmail, msn, hotmail, other "free" services); 3) email addresses (corporate, which are spoofable but slightly more authoritative); 4) email addresses supported by a web of trust.

Web of trust is an important concept that can be utilized just by a quick tracing of links and usage. Web of trusts means that the identity in question is linked to either a site or other identity that you know and trust, or is linked to multiple sites using a similar identity. As a very esoteric example, I was curious if the MySpace of drummer Neil Peart of Rush was a true account or was a fan or fake account. The developer of this MySpace page knew this question of authority would come up, so a notice was placed on the page:

The Official
N e i l   P e a r t
MySpace Music Page
How do you know?
Rush.com leads to Neilpeart.net
Neilpeart.net leads to here.
Enjoy!

So if you trust that the website www.rush.com is the official website of the band Rush, and it points to www.neilpeart.net as the official website of Neil Peart, then you should be able to trust that this MySpace page is legit. Unfortunately, since the person that writes the page is still anonymous (there are no identity requirements), you cannot be certain that it is Neil Peart writing on the page.

Even with all of this, how do you determine if a source is authoritative or not? John Scalzi, science fiction author of Old Man’s War and other novels, tried to post on Wikipedia a notice of SciFi author Fred Saberhagen’s death. But the Wiki-"police" debated and decided he was not authoritative. Identity (I would assume) was not the question: with his Whatever and several other blogs, John’s identity is anything but anonymous. But how do you determine if a source is authoritative? Some sites (eBay) have ratings on certain identities so that you can determine if they are credible (again, the web of trusts concept, where although the eBay user may be anonymous to you, you can look at the eBay history to determine if the user is authoritative and even credible), but many sites do not.

Like identity, authoritativeness is determined on a community by community basis, usually on a point system or voting (as in Digg’s Digg/Bury system, eBays feedback or Amazon’s Reviewer rating system). Many communities count what they consider "loyalty votes" (votes that show up again and again from the same user) differently than other voters (Digg states in their FAQ’s that their algorithm looks for a "diversity" of users Digging the stories to promote the story, implying but not explicitly calling out "loyalty voting"; Amazon’s Reviewer ratings take into account more than ‘was this helpful’ yes/no votes, as you can see in this helpful Amazon "So You’d Like To:" guide.)

Those that comment the most, or vote the most, or buy the most with the best rating, even if their identity is anonymous or questionable, will continue to be considered authoritative and/or credible within their own community.


Larry Ketchersid is an entrepreneurial technologist and currently the CEO of Media Sourcery, Inc., a security software company. He is a martial artist, rugby player, writer, and family man. His first novel is Dusk Before the Dawn.

printer friendly version

  








   
 
 
Rap Calls for 'Revolution Within the Revolution' - Hip hop speaks to the heart of Cuba’s problems PLUS Carl Schroeder reviews 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama; music reviews
 
 
Wiki washers and grave diggers - Confronting issues of identity, anonymity and authority on the Web PLUS Lynne McTaggart reports on training dogs to predicts epileptic seizures
 
 
Waldorf Schools educate the whole child an educational model overview PLUS columnist Ron Miller talks about how education can bring out the best in your child
 
 
You can change the world - by not identifying with negative states PLUS Deepak Chopra talks about Synchodestiny; how we lust for gods; how to de-power stress
 
 
Letting Sleeping Amazon Oil Lie Ecuador offers to refrain from exploiting its largest oil reserve PLUS Breakthrough on Mystery of Vanishing Bees Colony collapse disorder discoveries
 
 
Complementary Currencies for Social Change: Part II of an in-depth interview with international currency expert Bernard Lietaer PLUS The Liberty Dollar popularity grows fast despite controversy
 
 
It’s the architecture! Buildings hold key to mitigating climate change PLUS Burners without borders; easy steps to a better world; making a bread garden
 
 
The life death reveals - Near death experiences have life-altering impact on individuals PLUS Two NDEs from Beyond the Light reported by PMH Atwater
 
 
Changing the storyfield of the world - We walk into the stories we believe about ourselves, and it’s time to change the story PLUS The growing consciousness of humanity


Forums | The Arts | Living | Education | Science & Technology | Society & Health
Business | Environment | Fringe | Editorial | Subscribe | Advertise | Archives | About TGI

All content on this website, and the websites of our affiliate publications, is copyrighted and may not be used or duplicated in any fashion without express written and contractual consent of Global Intelligence Press. © 2006 Global Intelligence Press

Website design by MetaDesign and Shelly Lucus. Code by newdaydesign.com