I wasn’t tagged for this, but I saw it over at Drizzle and Hurricane Books and thought it looked like a lot of fun.

I’ve mentioned it before, but if you don’t know I want to be an author. I have a handful of WIPs in varying stages. The most I’ve done is about 17k of a WIP I’ve titled “Disheartened”.


  • Thank the person who tagged you but also link back to the original post!
  • Provide a short description of your WIP/story!
  • You can check out this post to find out more about Arcadia!
  • Don’t use just one character for all answers if possible!

Short Description

Morgan is a Disheartened, his heart was taken as an infant and as a result he can’t feel emotion, and he can’t find his soulmate. At 18, he’s decided he is done with his father’s life of piracy and sets out to find his heart and his soulmate in a kingdom where magic is outlawed. He meets Kell, a magic dealer who wants revenge for his father’s death – killed by Morgan’s father, and Thea, the princess who runs away after discovering her own magic.


If there is a couple in your WIP, what are their plans for Valentine’s Day?

And if there is no couple in your WIP, is there someone your main character would like to spend Valentine’s Day with?

I don’t think my main couple would be super into Valentine’s day. Well would probably be ironically into it to embarrass Morgan though.

Who has no shame about going out for dinner on Valentine’s Day alone?

I don’t think any of them would have any shame – though they’d probably make it a group thing. Thea would probably roll her eyes on Morgan and Kell a lot.

One of your characters requests a song on the radio for their crush! Which song and for which character would they pick ?

Not romantic really but

Trouble by Sleeping with Sirens would probably remind Kell of Morgan.

Is there a character who would organise an Anti-Valentine’s Day party?

Morgan after the end of the book would probing not be able to deal with Valentine’s day AT ALL and try to rebel against it. Kell and Thea would humor him but turn it into a Valentine’s party.

What romantic gesture would swoon your main character?

Honestly Morgan would try to kill someone if they tried to be all romantic.

Which character would buy a bunch of red roses and hand them out to strangers on the street, just to make their day?

Thea, 1000%.

What are your main character’s favourite Valentine’s movies?

(Note: Valentine’s movies don’t have to be romantic!)

Morgan would like:

Kell would like:

Thea would like:

Who is ready for the February 15th, just to get all the chocolate on sale?

Kell 1000%.

Is there a character who never spends Valentine’s Day alone aka always has some sort of date?

I guess Prince Klaus would fit this the best. He’s kind of smarmy, and he’s the prince that is betrothed to Thea.


Create a Valentine’s Day aesthetic for one or several of your characters!

So, I guess I’ll make an aesthetic for Morgan since he’s my protagonist.


Casey @ Adopt-a-Book-AUS

B @ Icebreaker694

Raquel @ Rakiodd Books

The Orangutan Librarian

Sophie @ Blame it on Chocolate

Alex @ Lord of the Trekkies

Roses Book Nook


Throwback Thursday: Argumentative Essay Value of Public Opinions

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

In America today, information and opinions can reach millions in minutes, the spread of information has never been easier; though for much of history this was not the case – the spread of information was limited to personal interactions and letters – opinions could not be easily shared.  This changes the access to, and role of, opinions in America – it does not change their worth. Opinions, ideas, thoughts, information all have worth – even if not equal in weight or worth – in a democratic nation like America. In fact, the first amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression, every opinion may not be correct or agreeable but every opinion carries worth by fostering democratic values – every voice given a chance to be heard.

Democracy relies on equal consideration to all, and acquiescence to the majority. But the majority cannot truly be found if not all voices can be heard –  this makes all opinions worthwhile in furthering democracy. This is why the very first amendment made to the constitution ensured free speech. When information and opinions spread, more can be learned. The opinion of the majority can shift – as history shows it does – on the grand scale, to progress. Accessibility of information has always been important, even back in world War One with FDR’s Freedom of Information Act – the keeping of information and opinions aids no one. If an opinion is wrong or infactual, by being voiced and listening to other voices, progress is made as people can learn. When wrong or unfavorable opinions are not allowed to be expressed, there can be a bias – progress can standstill when discussion is curtailed. Those with factually wrong opinions never have a chance to be corrected and wrong information continues to fester and influence. Though often, there is no possible objective truth, the truth in democracy is the will of the majority – which cannot be reached if all opinions are not considered worthwhile, even if to varying degrees, no opinion is worthless.

The first amendment shows a central tenant of democracy – if public opinions are stifled, democracy is stifled. But there are always considerations to be made – some statements are not permitted by the freedom of speech, as established by the supreme court with the “clear and present danger” clause – you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater for example because of a physical safety hazard. With public opinions, there is a greater threat in preventing opinions than in allowing them. Especially in today’s world where opinions are shared on social media – physical safety is not the primary concern. Whether an opinion is personally deemed worthwhile or not, in general, public opinions are worth something because they further the conversation and can influence or add to change the majority – which is how democracy functions. By allowing the spread of ideas, the change of ideals, and the voices of all to determine the majority is how democracy functions.

Public statements of opinion have differing value based upon the value assigned by the person hearing the opinion – but all opinions do have value, have worth – even if not equal worth. They have worth, because every voice must be heard – allowed to speak – for democracy to function – because hearing every voice is how the majority is found and allowing every voice to be heard is one of democracies central tenants.

Throwback Thursday: Color Your World

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.


In kindergarten, there was only one debate bigger than “Crayola v. Rozart” (and really, everyone knows that Crayola is the winner there). That argument is, of course, “what color is this?” Common contenders of this fight are:  red/orange and blue/green, both of which probably have actual names that no one uses. But the argument, actually more like all out war, of my kindergarten class was over a color from the Rozart box, called Orchid.

Orchid is this pink/purple color that was a favorite among the girls of the class. Of course, because no one could read, no one knew it was called Orchid, so we all called it pink or purple depending on the side of the argument you fell on.

I was firmly entrenched in the belief that it was purple. My kindergarten best friend firmly believed it was pink. In order to salvage our friendship from this crushing betrayal, we settled on naming the color “pinkish-purplish”(a perfectly acceptable name considering we were five years old).

Of course, we had to explain to our peers why we were very obviously correct in our naming, and everyone else was wrong. So, we gave the crayon an origin story, and this is that origin story: Once upon a time, a pink crayon and a purple crayon got married and had a baby. That baby was a perfect mix of pink and purple. The crayon parents argued about which one of them the baby should be named after. Finally they came to an agreement, and thus the crayon was named “pinkish-purplish”.

Again, this made perfect sense to a group of five year olds. And although our teacher crushed our little hearts by telling us the crayons real name was Orchid, we never did stop calling it pinkish-purpleish.

Throwback Thursday: Rhetorical Analysis – Scientific Research

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

Science is, in and of its self, a study in uncertainty. Author John M. Barry qualifies this uncertainty, and its acceptance as a quality necessary in a scientist, using the characterization of the ideal scientist to characterize scientific research itself, expounding on qualities necessary for one to reach an answer to their inquiries, focusing on the ultimate goal of the scientist and positing questions to parallel the inquisitive nature needed for success.

Barry begins with definitions of certainty and uncertainty to expand on qualities required in a scientist, namely the requirement to “accept – indeed embrace – uncertainty” (line 10) as a basis for scientific research. With research, a scientist’s certainties and “even beliefs may break apart” (line 15) with new findings. Barry characterizes scientific research by characterizing the scientist that conducts it, emphasizing the ultimate goal of a scientist “to yield an answer” – a certainty (line 67). Barry moves through the passage with a scientist’s capacity for creation and inquisitiveness stating “ a scientist must create…everything…figuring out what tools are needs and then making them” – asking questions of a “would” and “if” nature (lines 39-49), so the tools of a scientist, is his tool to show the inquisitiveness necessary in scientific research. Ultimately ending the passage with the scientist’s possibility of either success or failure, both likely ends to the research and answers to the questions of the scientist, the structure of the passage thus parallels the structure of research its self: defining limits, gathering tools, asking questions, and seeking then yielding answers.

Apart from the structure of the passage being parallel to a research structure, Barry characterizes scientific research in other ways; such as, the personification of a “single step” in research to a scientist’s “single step [which] can take them through the looking glass” (line 31) or “take one off a cliff” (line 35) – scientific research is a gamble – one will find answers or more questions – certainty or uncertainty. A scientist must “move forcefully…even while uncertain” (line 21) and “the less known, the more one has to… force experiments to yield an answer” (line 66-68). In this characterization of the scientist, Barry characterizes scientific research in a way eve a non-scientist could understand.

Scientific research is built on uncertainty, and in yielding an answer and as John M. Barry characterizes a scientist’s journey from uncertainty to result, he characterizes scientific research itself, from the structure to inherent inquisitiveness to the search for certainty.


Throwback Thursday: Rhetorical Analysis – Banneker Letter

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

There are certain arguments that seen impossible to make, because the answer seems so clear it is hard to imagine an argument at all; such is the argument of slavery. While today, slavery is very obviously illegal, in 1791, when Benjamin Banneker – a slave’s son – wrote to Thomas Jefferson on the issue, slavery was a point of political contention, not moral. In his letter, Banneker introduces the modern, moral argument to slavery, asking Jefferson to do his part in ending the extensive suffering and cruelty slaves face. Banneker also draws a parallel between Jefferson’s beliefs enumerated by the Declaration of Independence and the plight of slaves, showing the logical progression in that, if it is the new nation’s right to liberty, then surely it is the slave’s right as well.

Modernly, slavery in inarguably wrong, though such has not always seen to be true. One of slavery’s early opponents was Benjamin Banneker, who in 1791 wrote to Thomas Jefferson, imploring him to “wean [the nation] from those narrow prejudices [of slavery]” (line 46-47). In his comparison of the slaves to Job (line 48-50), Banneker makes the argument against slavery wholly moral by introducing a religious precedent for his position, indicating that the nation should not “counteract [God’s] mercies” (line 36) with “fraud and violence so numerous…groaning captivity and cruel oppression” (37-39). While the moral argument is strong, Banneker needs Jefferson’s political sway to have anything accomplished. By indicting Jefferson himself, claiming he has been “found guilty of that most criminal act [slavery] which you professedly detested” (line 39-41), showing that politics can sway a man to slavery and indicating so can it be used to sway a man from slavery and urging Jefferson to stick with his original morals.

Other than a moral argument, Banneker presents Jefferson with a logical one. If the American people can claim freedom from the “tyranny of the British Crown” (line 2), than surely slaves should claim freedom as well. He used Jefferson’s own words against him, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed…with certain inalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (line 21-25). Jefferson himself enumerated the right of all to freedom, of the “valuation of liberty and the free possession of those blessings to which you were entitled by nature” (line 29-30). Which then begs the questions of why a nation founded on liberty, would withhold “impartial distribution of those rights and privileges” (line 33-34) from all its inhabitants. It stands to reason then, that if Americans had a right to freedom, so did American slaves. Banneker draws the parallel between the plight of the slaves, and that of the American Revolution in such a way that that Jefferson, and by extension American politicians, would have no other conclusion to draw. Banneker even ends his letters, “thus shall {Jefferson] need neither the direction of myself or others, in what manner to proceed herein” (line 51-53), so confident in his argument he is, he doesn’t feel the need to spell out that he wants Jefferson to curb slavery as he works on building the new nation.

Slavery is a moral wrong in the modern day, but for the first century of America’s history, it was a political right. So contentious was the issue, it lead to the civil war, which many believe could have been avoided if the founders had curbed slavery from the start, though they feared the union would not survive such an early display of overt power. As the nation was in its infancy, the son of slaves wrote to Thomas Jefferson, a man who wrote of inalienable rights, and asked the same for his people, because if America was truly to be a land of the free, then how could so many continue to be oppressed?


Throwback Thursday: Rhetorical Analysis – John Downe’s Letter to His Wife

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

In 1830, immigration to America from Europe, and specifically England, was very common. These immigrants came, most notably, for opportunity – which was not often available to them in England. John Downe was one such immigrant, who came to America and found work, as well as relative abundance. In a letter to his wife, convincing her to bring herself and their children to America, he expounds on the qualities of America through comparison to England, in which England is found lacking, expanding on America’s relative abundance of food, and the ease of finding shelter and work, to convince her the journey would be worthwhile, emigration would be worthwhile. He also assuages her fears of the trip itself – assuring her of America’s ability to provide a better life for all of them, and the safety of the journey overseas.

John Downe convinces his wife to emigrate to America primarily by detailing its advantages. Assuring her of his work “[having] the whole management of the factory” that allows him a decent living, as example of the benefit of his coming alone beforehand. He compares prices in America to England, that “I can have 100lbs of beef to 10s English money” – exceedingly cheap when compared to prices and poverty in England. In America “if a man work, he need not want victuals” – he has found work with ease, and can continue to work – something not guaranteed in England, here, he can provide for his family. She need not worry for herself or their children that their hopes of America would be unfounded – he has confirmed it to be everything they could have dreamed.

Downe also assuages any of her fears of the journey overseas itself – the physical toll of emigration. That there is “plenty of room yet” for immigrants to come – opportunity would not disappear from influx. That he regrets leaving her and the children behind – but it is worth it to be able to provide for her and the children, showing his sincerity in asking her to follow him. He assures her that he “will be able to keep her in credit” – she need not worry of the finances of the journey all on her own across the sea, and the journey across the Atlantic will have “a few inconveniences” but “will not be long”. He assures her she will enjoy America, that it is what is best for the children, that they “need not want” for anything again here. He appeals that “America is not like England” that “poverty is unknown here. You see no beggars”, a far cry better than their lives in England with “nothing but poverty before [them]”.

America affords new opportunity for work and an escape from poverty for immigrants. In 1830, this was a common goal of emigration, and abundance of both food and work made it possible for many, as well as the passage overseas becoming easier and safer with each passing year. This is how John Downe convinces his wife to join him in emigrating to America: a better life for her and their children – who would never want again.

The Veracity Challenge!!!

I wasn’t tagged for this, but I saw it over at Bursting With Books and thought it looked really fun!


  1. Write a paragraph without using a single adjective.
  2. Keep the link Veracity challenge in your post (so that the creator of the challenge may receive a pingback).
  3.  Anyone can join the challenge, you don’t have to be nominated!
  4.  Nominate 6 Bloggers for this challenge.

I can talk a lot. I can keep talking about nothing in particular for hours if I need to. I’m a good choice if you ever need to filibuster. But I do not know what t write for this. Seriously, I do not know why I am doing this. Does this have adjectives accidentally? I don’t even know anymore… Let’s just call this a paragraph.

I Nominate:

Louise @ Genie Reads

Sophie @ Blame it on Chocolate

Casey @ Adopt-a-Book-AUS

B @ Icebreaker694

Raquel @ Rakiodd Books

The Orangutan Librarian

Legacy Of Stardust: A Writing Soundtrack

I wrote this forever ago and never posted it, so here it is:

I’ve mentioned the fact that I am writing a novel a handful of times on this blog. I’ve also mentioned that it’s working title is: Legacy of Stardust. It might change, people have informed me that it is kind of generic sounding, but I’m kind of attached by now, so we’ll see.

I don’t want to give too much away about the book until its done, especially since I really want to get it published, but since it is NaNoWriMo, which means its time to write and rant about how hard it is to write, I’ll be sharing my writing playlist for this particular novel. Thats a thing authors do, right?

Some songs fit the characters, some fit themes, some fit scenes, some play cinematically in the background, and some are purely motivational. If you guys want to here about the “why” behind each song or a specific song, let me know in the comments, I’d love to write about!

I’m just not doing it now because the book isn’t quite as fleshed out as I’d like…


The Soundtrack (in no particular order)(I’ll probably add to this as time goes on):

  • Look What You Made Me Do by Emma Blackery
  • Michael In The Bathroom From Be More Chill
  • A Single Man Tear From Supernatural The Musical Episode
  • Small Things To A Giant By Daveed Diggs
  • No Me Diga From In The Heights
  • You’ll Be Back From Hamilton
  • Satisfied From Hamilton
  • Wait For It From Hamilton
  • History Has Its Eyes On You From Hamilton
  • Non-Stop From Hamilton
  • Say No To This From Hamilton
  • Your Fault From Into The Woods
  • My Eyes From Dr. Horrible
  • Going Through The Motions From Buffy
  • I’ll Never Tell From Buffy
  • Rest In Peace From Buffy
  • You’re Such A by Hailee Steinfield
  • She’s So Gone From Lemonade Mouth
  • Scream From HSM 3
  • Different Summers From Camp Rock 2
  • Running From Lions By All Time Low
  • Break Your Little Heart By All Time Low
  • Gasoline By Halsey
  • Castle By Halsey
  • Hold Me Down By Halsey
  • Sail By Awolnation
  • Trouble By American Authors
  • Heart Of Stone by American Authors
  • Demons By Imagine Dragons
  • Working Man By Imagine Dragons
  • Popular From Wicked
  • Natives
  • Burn
  • Song For The Painfully Indue
  • I Don’t Wanna Die
  • Bullet
  • King For A Day
  • Marsh King’s Daughter
  • Folkin’ Around
  • Family Tree
  • Two Princes
  • Anxiety
  • Welcome To The Family
  • Come On Get Higher
  • I Don’t Really Like You
  • Unbelievers
  • Something Bad About To Happen
  • 50 Ways to Say Goodbye
  • Heels Over Head
  • Deja Vu
  • Heroine
  • Gerldine
  • Just Another Girl
  • This Little Girl
  • Miss Murder
  • Miss Atomic Bomb

Throwback Thursday: Bioethics Debate -Insurance Companies Should Not Have The Right To Request Or Receive Genetic Test Results   

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

(Co-authored with my friend Emilie C.)

Genetic tests are a fairly recent development in the medical, and sadly, despite the phenomenal advancements made each year on the science side of things, the legal side is lacking in keeping pace. For one thing, there are relatively few laws that protect genetic information, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only one state of our 50 even considers genetic information to be personal property, this among other things need to be rectified, preferably before a crisis due to the abuse of genetic information.

Insurance companies are some of the most likely to abuse genetic information. Knowledge is power after all, and insurance companies have a vested interest not in patients, but in turning a profit. While the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) passed in 2008 makes it illegal for health insurers and employers to discriminate based on DNA, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute, there is a loophole: the law does not apply to long-term care insurance, disability insurance, or life insurance. In fact, any type of insurance company aside from health care can demand genetic test results before offering coverage. The patients most in need of these insurances are those at risk for genetic diseases such as Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s, yet, these are the people who find it most difficult to get coverage.

Many people avoid getting genetic tests, even when they have a high risk of inheriting a disorder, and when early diagnoses may lead to better care, because they fear what the insurance companies will do. For instance, because of genetic predispositions, or a family history of a genetic disease that may lead to an early death, a life insurance company can deny coverage. A person’s health care insurance may not be (legally) affected by a company receiving test results, but a patient’s health is still adversely affected. In an ethical dilemma such as this one, a patient’s right health, safety, and peace of mind, are far more important than a company’s right to turn a profit.

The other big ethical issue with insurance companies receiving genetic test results is privacy. The fourth amendment protects us from having to share or give away our personal property, and what is more personal than our genetic code? Aside from an infringement of personal rights, it is an infringement on patient rights, such as patient confidentiality, which is one of the pillars of ethics in medicine. One of the most famous violation of patient confidentiality is the case of Henrietta Lacks, whose cells were used for scientific research without her knowledge, who never received compensation despite our cells being some of the most valuable in science today (Rabin Martin, 2013). As are abilities expand, as technology improves, we may face more and more cases like this, some with far worse consequences than that of Henrietta Lacks. It is better to start focusing on how to prevent it as much possible now, than to deal with the fallout later.

By allowing insurance companies to receive genetic results, you violate privacy as well as a long-standing focal point of ethics in medicine. For no reason other than that insurance companies want to us that information to make money. Some companies will claim that they will not use the information against you, but if they aren’t going to use it, then why not eliminate the risk and just deny them access to the information in the first place.

On the topic of using genetic test results against a patient, we are brought to discrimination. Knowledge is power, and those in power always seek to use it, and often, they abuse it. Insurance companies use genetic information to raise rates and deny coverage to individuals who need it. This is a basic definition of discrimination. Even worse, it is discrimination for something as invisible as your DNA. Something you cannot control anymore than you could control your skin color (which is also based in your genes, so I guess genetic discrimination is nothing new). But these days, we don’t allow business to refuse someone based on skin color, that sort of discrimination is illegal. So why is it okay to discriminate based on genes? Something that no one has any control over.

In short, insurance companies shouldn’t have the right to request or receive genetic test results, either from clients or from family members. That way lies violation of privacy and discrimination. We can’t stop the abuse of genetic information unless we control the access of it. We don’t have the proper laws in place to protect us; the legal system cannot keep up with biotechnological advancements. But we can start with this. Chose patient rights over a company’s monetary gain. Make the right choice.

Throwback Thursday: Article Critique – APP and AD

Throwback Thursday, where, essentially I post old writing samples, essays and short stories that I dig up from my pile of hoarded papers and school assignments or from the depths of my computer. So everyone can see how my writing has changed/improved over the years.

Acosta, S. A., Tajiri, N., Sanberg, P. R., Kaneko, Y., & Borlongan, C. V. (2017). Increased Amyloid Precursor Protein and Tau Expression Manifests as Key Secondary Cell Death in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 232(3), 665-677.

            Traumatic Brain Injury (here referred to as TBI) affects 1.7 million people in the United States, resulting in over 50,000 deaths annually; making TBI a significant health problem, especially for athletes and military personal. Aside from initial trauma, TBI has longer lasting effects and neuropathologies (brain diseases and/or disorders) that can arise, especially in the event of repeated injury. These neuropathologies can include a higher risk of development of dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease (AD), both commonly only associated with old age. Other symptoms of TBI patients vary across differing motor and cognitive impairments, arising from biochemical effects of cell death post-trauma, and the subsequent degeneration of both gray and white matter in the brain. It is speculated that chronic TBI can double the risk of AD symptoms later in life; this speculated link was the focus of the experiment.

The experiment was conducted using two-month-old, male rats, using blind procedures, wherein no researchers conducting analysis/collection of data were aware of the variable group – sham (control) or induced TBI – specific rats were exposed to. Rats in the induced TBI group underwent surgery, and the brain was then hit using an impactor rod, with consistent location, velocity, and instruments between rats; meanwhile the control group underwent the same anesthesia, opening of the skull, and suturing, without impact. After six months, the rats were put to rest to examine/analyze the effects of TBI on the brains of the rats. Six sections of brain per rat were used, each section cut uniformly and stained to reveal cell death and other biochemical manifestations of TBI; while other sections were exposed to anti-bodies to test for cell cycle regulation deficits. The volume of Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) and Tau plagues were also screened, both of which pay prominent roles of the development of dementia and AD.

The results of the experiment were, in short, activation of MHCII cells – such as seen in AD, decrease in neural connections and strength, over-expression of APP in both gray and white matter of the brain, and increased tau plagues – which can block and choke of neurons in the frontal cortex and hippocampus, which control aspects such as personality and memory – the results link TBI to symptoms and hallmarks of AD. The cell death mechanisms closely resembled those in various late stage brain disorders, showing chronic head trauma, such as concussions, can have worse, longer acting effects such as increased risk of neurodegenerative disorders or symptoms that do not fully heal even when the initial trauma does –  though symptoms were mostly contained to the areas of injury. TBI can be linked to reduced cognitive performance and earlier-onset of degeneration. Though present data is limited, further analysis over longer time frames is needed to make more generalizable claims.

The article was very interesting, as chronic TBI manifesting as AD symptoms means that treatment for one may treat or mitigate symptoms of the other. The brain itself is a fascinating organ, as knowledge is limited, as is treatment of it. One treatment for both TBI and dementia/AD is easier to fund and research than multiple treatments for each, which can expedite our ability to fix the common problems of each, such as APP and tau, which contribute to cell death of neurons and their connections, and block neurotransmitters when severe enough. The delaying of such symptoms can prolong life, or at least senility in patients, but more research is needed. To both show a stronger, more consistent connection between AD and TBI, and to find the degree to which symptoms may differ or confer, in order to better development treatments for both the injury and the disease. The experiment shown here is only a first step.