Item #: SCP-XXXX

Object Class: Safe

Special Containment Procedures: An instance of SCP-XXXX is to be held within a secure database. This instance may only be accessed with the explicit permission of the current research coordinator, and under the supervision of the botanist currently appointed to this procedure.

Confirmed or suspected Class-I infohazardous content must not be replicated, paraphrased or analogously reiterated in any way.

Clinical trials will be established to assess the suitability of potential treatments for the benefit of affected individuals.

As a precautionary measure, the brains of affected individuals may not be buried in the ground. These items should instead be incinerated cremated or safely stored for further study.

Description: SCP-XXXX is an untitled 10-line sonnet written in imperfect iambic pentameter. The anonymous poet recalls a [DATA REDACTED] blue flower, describing its physical appearance and scent in detail. Exposure to this work has been demonstrated to result in an anomalous mnestic effect in adults, incrementally altering the content of any memories involving a favourite outdoor space from childhood.

During, or immediately following, exposure to SCP-XXXX, individuals tend to recall a single instance of the described flower featuring in an outdoor space from their own childhood. Over time this effect develops to the extent that sufferers recall the space as having been densely populated with toxic, blue flowered weeds which suppressed any native plant growth and rendered the area inaccessible.

This memetically invasive plant species establishes in fond memories of lawns and loamy soils in full sun or partial shade, requires little shelter, and, once established, exhibits strong pest and drought resistance.

Addendum: Preliminary Clinical Trial XXXX.1

Method: An adult subject previously exposed to SCP-XXXX, and presenting with the associated symptoms, is to be posed the set diagnostic question, and their immediate response is to be recorded. The subject is to receive the experimental treatment, with the diagnostic question and response process being repeated after a 7-day and a 30-day period following treatment. Results are to be analysed in order to determine the feasibility of the set treatment for full trials.

Treatment: A recital of an untitled epic poem in heroic couplets celebrating the impact of the systemic herbicidal product ‘glyphosate’ on the agriculture industry.

Diagnostic question: Could you tell me a little about the garden of the house where you grew up?

Response (42 days post-exposure, pre-treatment): It was no garden. Not really. Just a little patch of overgrown scrubland. My father forbade me from playing out there, on account of the poisonous weeds. I think I heard that he won prizes for growing roses, back when I was young. Hard to imagine. Maybe that was my grandad, come to think of it.

Response (7 days post-treatment): Wow, yeah, that takes me back. It was a modest little patch, but a real sun trap, and always kept immaculate — well, except when I’d been out there building dens on the flowerbeds. Right little bugger I was; I don’t know how dad put up with me. I try to draw on that patience of his when I’m dealing with my own kids. Sorry, I’m rambling. The garden — there was a compost heap, a shed where dad kept his glyphosate. What else? a bench on the lawn, a little barbecue fire pit thing. The usual kind of stuff. [Subject closes eyes and sighs audibly].

Response (30 days post-treatment): Haha, well, I used to have some fun out there. It wasn’t really much of a garden though. My old man would spend hours pottering about, but he was hopeless, couldn’t grow a thing. In retrospect it probably wasn’t his fault, the ground could have been bad somehow. Contaminated. I bet that’s what it was. Wait, was it — I think I once heard a neighbour say that the previous tenant tainted the soil with a drum of herbicide right before he moved out, after a dispute with the landlord, and… No, that might have been from an episode of Columbo? Damn it.

Conclusion: Results show the potency of the trialled application to have been excessive in this instance, gradually spreading throughout the subject’s dendritic arbor to suppress native plant memories in addition to the invasive infobotanical target. Recommend that full trials investigate the suitability of reduced dosage applications such as herbicidally-themed haikus or limericks.