A Noble Prize for Zhiping Xie's Brain Wave
Research
Zhiping Xie who has extensively studied the brain and its EEG
patterns, has presented a revolutionary paper about the physiologic
basis of the EEG patterns and resulting in a better way to interpret
the EEG (The Origin
and Function of the Cerebral Electric Wave and Clinical Implications).
Its relevance to comatose and brain damaged patients is immediately
obvious even to the casual reader of this paper.
His concept of the cerebral electric wave contributing to the
metabolic rate of the neurons is revolutionary and should lead to
further study. It has made me curious as to whether specific patterns
of electrical stimulation to the brain of a comatose or brain damaged
individual could lead to better outcome than current supportive
treatment.
An interesting offshoot of this is the possible explanation of
dreams. Dreams may be a mechanism for the depolarization of neurons
that may have not been depolarized adequately during the day, thereby
restoring the normal metabolism to the neuron. This also goes along
with previous studies which have shown that continued mental
stimulation during the aging process keeps the brain at a higher level
of functioning.
I have been proud of all our authors’ works and with this work of
Zhiping Xie, the clinical applicability is readily apparent as well as
seeing the type of further study and research that is needed. I hope
that a medical institution with the experimental facilities that
Zhiping Xie does not have, will be able to assist him in his research.
I know that I will be making a few calls to some of my colleagues in
the US in hope of pursuing this line of research further. This is
Nobel Prize caliber work in the fields of Theoretics and Medicine.
JP Siepmann, MD archive@journaloftheoretics.com
I had sent a copy of my comment to Robbie (the
English translation for his name) and received the following reply:
I am very excited that you
give my paper such a high estimate and quite a goal. If I ever do
reach such a great goal, I will firstly thank you for your help and do
my best to return to you for your virtue. I think the internet will
give us more great vital force as it can bring us more and more
efficiency. Thus, your Journal must be able to get a greater success
than any traditional one. I am looking forward to such an excited
future with you that I am quite sure is coming up and will be realized
fairly soon.
I have been endeavoring to a
research of life science for a long time. I had once done
psychological experiments for more than 500 times with my own
body. Such experimentation is very dangerous and I am really
injured in my health now. But I feel it is worth to risk my life doing
such dangerous experiments because my life is nothing relative to the
results I can make for society if I am successful. I believe
that you will see more further achievement of my work, of which I
would be submitting to the Journal of Theoretics.
Here, I thank you for your
big effort in helping me with paper. It must be a hard work to
do it, because I am a foreigner and my English is not good.
Thanks again for looking for ways to assist me in my future
research. I also hope that someone or some institution can work
with me to complete this great work since I cannot complete it alone.
Sincerely,
Zhiping Xie (Robbie)
zpingxie@public.cs.hn.cn
Haifa, Nov 7 1999
Dear Dr. Siepmann,
How can you practice medicine and also do all that you
do? I cannot follow your mathematical reasoning. Are there others
that understand you, and accept your logic? I ask because I'm also a
thinker, and have developed a philosophy that is more than a philosophy
of science. I am also in geo, and also an MD, with research experience.
There is something in your "revolutionary" approach to science
that consonnates with my mind, but I find you too good to be true. I
have submitted a paper to J.Th. that deals with physics, thinking that
it contains valuable ideas.
I don't know if you would care to read the Introduction
to my philosophy. If you find it valuable for your Journal, there might
be useful interaction.
Sincerely yours,
Jacob Ghitis, MD ghitis@isdn.net.il
Response from Siepmann:
Thank you for your kind note. I am actually in the
process of retiring from clinical medicine to devote full-time to
scientific inquiry and theory development. I have found the demand for
the Journal of Theoretics so great that it has become a full-time task
master.
With my theories (and others as well), I demand that it
be possible to explain it, because if it can not be explained, then it
can not be understood. It also must make sense via written, picture, or
mathematical communication. If something can only be understood by using
math, then it is wrong. Math is nothing more than a language used to
communicate ideas. Unfortunately, many people think that math is
something unique unto itself.
As to some of my theories, I sometimes have to develop
new terms but I always try to define them adequately. If something is
not understandable then it is my failure to communicate satisfactorily
of which I will attempt to do better. In terms of a comprehensive paper
such as "The Laws of Space and Observation," it was probably
better suited as a book because it is a whole new theory which not only
unifies but also develops a new method of physical analysis. I am
working on a book, which will hopefully be out early next year.
I also demand that any paper must be scientifically
credible, follow the rules of logic, and use language correctly. Pretty
simple philosophy but you would not believe the slack that I have gotten
from the big-time journals but that is greatly outweighed by the
overwhelming support by the scientists themselves.
Sincerely,
JP Siepmann archive@journaloftheoretics.com
[Editorial note: Dr. Ghitis and I are having a
logical and intelligent email discussion, which I hope to present in the
next issue of the Journal.]
Dear Dr. Siepmann
I see we have very similar thoughts about the effects of
the politics of Anti-Smoking on not just lung cancer, but other diseases
in the public eye...there is one VERY important thing that you seem to
have missed though.
You Wrote:
In terms of early detection, one would hope that it
could make a difference but we lung cancer is unfortunately difficult to
screen for. Even by doing annual chest X-rays on smokers has not shown
much of an improvement. The chemotherapy though is somewhat better and
the survival rate is improving but minimally so. The 5 year death rate
is still about 90%.
I referred to the following (the first resulted from a
series of e-mail exchanges about YOUR article!) in my queries on what
the consequences of large increases in early detection would be on all
the figures. The only figure that WOULDN'T change much is the average
age of death of smokers -- there are just too few lung cancer cases to
be very significant even if reduced a lot...
http://www.forces.org/writers/turci/files/ct.htm (found
broken 2/00)
http://www.junkscience.com/july99.htm
Go down to Inquiring Minds Want to Know...who knew what,
and when, about the new lung cancer diagnostic technique...
I hope to hear (or read) some more from you in the
future on these interesting topics, as it appears it would affect all
the numbers in the next 50 years versus the last 50, even assuming no
improvement in treatment (which would be absolutely pathetic).
Jesse V. Silverman tellnolies@netscape.net
New York City
Response from Siepmann:
Good thoughts. The trouble with collecting any data is
finding any honest information like what other risk factors did the
subjects with lung cancer have as Gian Turci pointed out in the article
you referenced. The information just is not there, mainly because it
would be politically incorrect to do so as it would decrease the
negative statistics about smoking.
Early detection is desirable and would hopefully
decrease the death rate but there have not been any good studies showing
that early detection will decrease the death rate even though common
sense would tell us it should. In the study that you referenced, they
did not look at the 5 year survival rate of these patients. The
antismoking people could say that even though it was caught, it may have
already spread. This is doubtful though because these patients would
have had appropriate treatment (chemo/radiation). It is interesting that
the incidence of lung cancer in smokers was less that 3% in that study.
Unbiased data on smoking is very limited and to make any
statistical sense out of it is tough at best. There needs to be unbiased
epidemiological studies done which take into account the following:
-
other risk factors
-
control groups
-
prospective as well as retrospective studies
-
detection and cure rate data
-
incidence data rather than just annual death rate
data
-
and more...
I could have the best computer in the world but it will
only give me garbage if the data it is given is inaccurate/incomplete in
the first place.
Thank you for your input and thoughts.
Sincerely,
JP Siepmann, MD archive@journaloftheoretics.com
[Editors Note: The
following are comments about the professor who did not want to know
anything new that was a part of Comments Section
Oct/Nov 1999.]
It's rather deplorable is it
not? The molding of fresh young minds in such "capable"
hands? No wonder the state of educational institutions all over the
world.
Science is never complete. It
does not have a stagnation point, we learn new things all the time. One
sorry state of affairs is the belief that some academicians have that
they are God and their word is the final word. A belief practiced by the
church in the medieval period and now symbolized by the attacks on
teaching of Evolution in the state of Kansas.
I experienced a peculiar
phenomena when I tried to publish my article Taxonomy of Selection
elsewhere. That's right. I can only call it a phenomenon. Some reviewers
said that since some of the references that I had provided were basic
textbooks, that the paper was invalid. My question is, what is wrong in
providing basic text books as reference? Does it give any factual
errors? If the textbooks are wrong, why haven't there been efforts
taken to correct them? Does this mean the youngsters at school are
fed wrong information?
Any answers? anyone?
Maurice Devaraj
mauricesdevaraj@usa.net
|