Brain clues to attention disorder

John H. johnh at faraway.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Tue Dec 30 07:59:09 EST 2003


Oh yeah, scientific journals are the wellspring of new ideas ...


One big reason: He is on the trail of a drug that absorbs his culprits - the
excess copper and zinc - and dissolves the protein clumps in the brains of
experimental animals. Bush has found a potential Alzheimer's treatment in a
70-year-old dysentery drug with a history of toxic side effects. What's
more, he and his colleagues this month published their first human clinical
trial showing the drug's promise. "It's like Drano," he says. "It blows them
away."

The small trial's results are "significant" and "innovative," says Roger
Rosenberg, a neurologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center and editor of the Archives of Neurology, which published the
research.

Bush's odyssey shows how rejects in the world of science can sometimes
re-emerge as important figures. The history of science in the last 50 years
could be written with papers rejected by prestigious journals, observed Paul
Lauterbur of the University of Illinois after he won the 2003 Nobel Prize
for medicine. His original paper on his prizewinning achievement, magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), was initially rejected in 1973 by Nature, which
later ran it.

Oh yeah, let's get to the p <.05, that settles everything ... .

My god, if were that easy to get a new idea published. Please read some
history of science.


John H.
<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0312261033.626e33ab at posting.google.com...
> "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3ATGb.10009$IM3.6218 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > It would be nice with some references to scientific
> > > studies (if any).
> >
> > I have a monograph, "On the Automation of Knowing
> > within Central Nervous Systems: A Brief Introduction
> > to Neuroscientific Duality Theory",
>
>  ................
> > It sufficiently substantiates the position that I've been
> > addressing - in terms of the proven Neuroscience
> > experimental results.
>
> So what you are saying is that you have done a double-blind controlled
> study, with a sufficient number of individuals to draw reliable
> statistical conclusions from, and you did not get it published in a
> scientific paper?
> Most common reason these paper don´t  publish a contribution, is when
> the article don´t pass the qualitycontrol of the reviewboard. But you
> have another explanation :
>
> > Finally, I realized that it was just too far ahead of the field.
> >
> > So I came online to 'fill in the gap', which is what I'm doing
> > here in b.n.
> >
> > Your reaction is pretty much the sort of reaction that I
> > routinely got when I was submitting my work for Publication.
>
> I take this as a compliment.
>
> orkeltatte





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list