The famous heart surgeon, Dr. DeBakey himself died from this disease after pioneering the treatment for it. Still, it strikes people down. It is not as prevalent as regular atherosclerosis which strikes people down, but if an aortic dissection hits you, you are good as dead.
We had fabulous results with both reduction of the worthless LDL number as well as unexpected reduction in this crazy aortic dissection. It is a terrible breaking open of your main plumbing, reducing your water pressure (blood pressure) to dangerously low. Most of the time in humans, this kills you even after surgery.
My experience was that mainstream publications' reviewers had really stupid comments to make such as why I omitted the antibody I used, and various irrelevant remarks. The reviewers never remarked on what should have been the most important pharmacological aspects of the paper such as massive reductions in LDL and aneurysm lipids.
Nutrient supplementation modulates angiotensin II-mediated atherosclerosis in ApoE KO mice
Politics is the realm of elitists. Science should be the gift to humanity, a noble art, which sometimes it can be when financial/political greed or negative psychological interests have not contaminated it.
Showing posts with label DeBakey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DeBakey. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Comedy of Academic Journals:
I have been published in various places already, but here is my recent experience in the field of cardiovascular medicine:
There is no cure for Aortic Aneurysm. No surgical intervention works very long, in fact this is what the famous Dr. DeBakey (DeBaghi) died of.
My first reviewer had some valid requests, but we can't do it because we have other things to do and other people have already proven what they ask for. They also ask to prove a parameter through a litmus test, when the evidence for it is right in front of them in another form.
The second reviewer obviously didn't even read the paper. They claim that I claim that the plaques resolve themselves, which is never stated anywhere within the paper. They are either asleep at the wheel or yet another pawn of scientific disinformation. The other absurd thing they request is "citations" for a novel find.
Oh well. Dr. DeBakey is turning in his grave. If I had to, I would just put the paper online and claim, "All of it is true, but there are no peer reviewers."
Here it is, and I am the first to state it ever in the world: In Mice, Aortic Dissections heal themselves often, but they do not in humans. Whoever claims it again basically owes me credit for the assertion of the whole chain of discovery. ha!
As history has shown, the ancient pillars of science are not infallible, and no human is infallible in their assertions. The gloss or prestige of a journal is only so important as to have power, but there are plenty of retractions and corrections in high profile science.
There is no cure for Aortic Aneurysm. No surgical intervention works very long, in fact this is what the famous Dr. DeBakey (DeBaghi) died of.
My first reviewer had some valid requests, but we can't do it because we have other things to do and other people have already proven what they ask for. They also ask to prove a parameter through a litmus test, when the evidence for it is right in front of them in another form.
The second reviewer obviously didn't even read the paper. They claim that I claim that the plaques resolve themselves, which is never stated anywhere within the paper. They are either asleep at the wheel or yet another pawn of scientific disinformation. The other absurd thing they request is "citations" for a novel find.
Oh well. Dr. DeBakey is turning in his grave. If I had to, I would just put the paper online and claim, "All of it is true, but there are no peer reviewers."
Here it is, and I am the first to state it ever in the world: In Mice, Aortic Dissections heal themselves often, but they do not in humans. Whoever claims it again basically owes me credit for the assertion of the whole chain of discovery. ha!
As history has shown, the ancient pillars of science are not infallible, and no human is infallible in their assertions. The gloss or prestige of a journal is only so important as to have power, but there are plenty of retractions and corrections in high profile science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)