0:03
SI Digital Innovations in Learning is pleased to present
0:13
The Jorge Lazarus Lecture Series on the origin and development of ideas in the clinical neurosciences. This course series consists of seven one-hour lectures with discussion
0:33
The speaker will be Jorge Lazarev, Emeritus Professor of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA Thank
0:51
you.
0:58
This is Dr. Lazarus introductory comments to his lecture series, and we quote, The most significant number of patients with diseases of the central nervous system live in low and middle income
1:13
countries for no other reason than the majority of people are living in low and middle income countries.
1:25
Let's start over.
1:29
This is Dr. Lazarus' introductory comments to his lecture series, and we quote,
1:37
The most significant number of patients with diseases of the central nervous system live in low and middle-income countries for no other reason than the majority of people are living in low and
1:53
middle-income countries Nonetheless, neurosurgeons and neurologists from high-income countries offer most research papers on clinical neurosciences.
2:06
This disparity is prejudicial to the neurosciences as a whole.
2:12
We designed the course as an introduction to some of the tools that promote the genesis and development of research ideas
2:25
This series of lectures are provided free to bring the advances in clinical and basic neuroscience to physicians and patients everywhere.
2:36
One out of every five people in the world suffer from a neurologically related disease.
2:44
Lecture number three, history of the development of some contemporary clinical ideas
2:52
But this is the fantastic thing of technology. I am in an hotel room in San Diego. I came here for a conference on Chiari and Cidigo Mahelia, which will be subject for the sample. The next three
3:09
lectures or four, if we move to four, will be focused on practical things. This is the last theoretical lecture that we can have, you know, that I will torture you with.
3:23
The last theoretical and then the other three will be on clinical cases, analysis of clinical cases, but analysis of clinical cases, how those cases can teach us to be researchers. What can we
3:41
find from those issues of the research, you know?
3:49
If anything, raise your hand or you know better than I do, I'm sure how to handle this technology. Finally, working on the
4:01
videos, a minor editing on the videos, we will have, by the end of the course, as I said, we will have written text at Lisa, written text next to each one of the images of the PDF, so you can
4:17
add it to the PDF you have. And of course, as promised, you will have, the access to the video at the surgical neurology in the national. The recorded videos now we haven't uploaded them yet,
4:37
though those will go to surgical neurology international. And as soon as I have it, everybody will will actually have it, will have access. And some of the videos as we are recording particularly
4:55
this is the third lecture will be as the first lecture is
5:04
that sometimes I interrupted to admit the new the new arrivals and that's on how loses the continuity, you know, and the the what we want to do is something of the best quality, or rather an
5:23
outstanding quality of all this thing. Your effort, I feel
5:30
nice to your effort, humbled by your effort. So, it's on me to give to you the best possible material, because we want you to become clinical researchers We want you to have a large number of
5:53
papers. We want you to be recognized as who you are in
6:02
the world of the clinical neurosciences or any branch of research that you want to go to. We thought about
6:15
neurosciences, because, well, Dr. Ross, I am a neurosurgeon and all those things, but we. you can find easy the analogy, you know. So part of the effort, and I say this is today the last
6:30
theoretical presentation, and then we will have for other presentations based more on clinical examples or practical examples, although we will see practical examples today. And theoretical, what
6:47
means theoretical? Theoretical means also that people thought about this issue about the problem of knowledge, and whose words are relevant to medicine, no? And they, because what you do with the
7:05
clinical research is you increase or increment the volume of knowledge. When I studied medicine, and I graduated in 1977,
7:22
The textbook of internal medicine was one volume, the hardest one. Now it's two volumes. The internationally accepted textbook. That means that it's a constant increase, and in 10 or 20 years
7:36
from now will be three volumes. It is a constant increase of knowledge. And the problem of knowledge was thought by the philosophers,
7:48
how we study, how we know,
7:52
and of the four philosophers I mentioned here, the last two work decision can kill him and a
8:04
little bit fled. We will address to the work
8:10
later on, on the next, let me see here So,
8:18
one is the participation of paparazzi. And I think that's the most important one that has to
8:27
encourage you and make you understand, has made me understand the meaning of the research or the meaning of what we call the scientific work. And that is applicable to any activity, being a coach
8:45
in a soccer team or doing research in molecular biology. What Popper says is all true theory accepts falsification.
8:60
The demonstration that it is true until and when someone proves it false. So if you are honest, as you are, I mean the honest clinician or honest researcher says, I believe that the cause of the
9:19
fever is this and this and this. And I believe that the best treatment is this and this, but we are ready to accept somebody that proves us wrong. That is the right attitude. And they prove us
9:34
wrong, doesn't mean that you have to stand like an idiot. I mean, you were wrong. No, prove us that there are greats and things can be improving and improving. I am in this conference on in San
9:52
Diego. That's why for the new arrivals, I'm telling, I am in this hotel room. And I am in this conference in San Diego, and I find that I'm talking to at the college. The body of knowledge
10:07
increases, not something that the past, we were wrong. And we are sort of, should be forbidden for medicine. No, what you found, There is a new degree, a new degree, and this is precisely
10:24
what purpose is in the sense all through scientific theory accepts falsification. The
10:38
demonstration is true until and when someone proves it false. And I will demonstrate it with a story.
10:43
The best way to demonstrate anything is with a story
10:47
Sometime around the beginning of the last century, around 1920, in here, most likely here between Cameroon and Congo and
11:02
Uganda in that area, in the forest of that area, somebody, some hunter must have been willing, been hungry, he chased a monkey, is skin the manti, who eat the meat. to barbecue the meat in the
11:20
process, he cut his finger.
11:24
We imagine that, no? Cut his finger somehow, a virus that was present in the mountain was transferred to this person.
11:36
The location that he said is about in the beginning of the Congo River. Then he must have come to town to King Hasha, or Leopold Wiel. And
11:55
transmission, this is either through sexual intercourse, or God knows how, to other people. And slowly in King Hasha, in the capital, or in the main city of the Belgium Congo, in that time was
12:14
called Leopold Wiel, then came changing the name to the name. in Russia with independence, somehow that disease was brewing there. There was this disease that nobody was too much, nobody was
12:30
paying attention to that too much.
12:36
Eventually, the Congo Republic gained independence, gained independence, and by the Belgium, the
12:48
Beldai decided to take everything out of the country. No structure, no infrastructure, no organization. So the authorities
13:01
in the Congo had a big problem ahead of them. They were smart intellectuals and strong people who believed in them in independence, but they needed workers who spoke French
13:20
were African-looking in order to facilitate the conversation
13:26
and were fairly well educated. No, the education in the country, the bell ride didn't pay too much attention. So they found that population in the middle sixties in Haiti, in the central American
13:42
country, here you can see Haiti on the other side. In Haiti, they found this population, so they hired a large number of people from Haiti to run the administration of the country, to run the
13:57
post office, to organize, to think to actually help
14:02
build a country, something that you also know the problems and the troubles that that thing represents
14:13
And some of the Haitians who were there for whatever reason contracted that disease. disease that was lurking, being there, and not really
14:27
being paid
14:29
too much attention.
14:32
And
14:34
eventually, they came back to Haiti. The situation on the Congo was in Prospero Sea there, so they came back
14:43
to their country. And some of them carried the disease to their country Haiti became really impoverished, not as bad as it is now, but really the
14:57
economy of the country sunk. It was a huge level of poverty. One way of compensating for early money
15:11
was to sell in the blood. No, people sold the blood for the blood transfusion. They sold the blood to people who could pay it and were nearby, which were the Americans. They sold the blood to the
15:26
Americans.
15:28
Then also, somehow, there was also a increase of
15:34
the
15:39
illegal sexual trade for Americans mostly going to Haiti
15:49
And the years went by.
15:52
And in 1983. In
15:57
one of the hospitals of my university, one of the hospitals of the University of California Los Angeles. The university is composed by four hospitals, two nearby and two more or less 10 kilometers
16:12
apart,
16:14
but in the hospital nearby in the hospital for the veterans. of the soldiers,
16:22
a doctor notices that he sees one patient, male, homosexual, with this infectious disease, the
16:38
immunocystis carini, what is that,
16:42
goes by, goes to the in the men months after, goes to the cafeteria, and I'm not making it up, goes to the cafeteria, and starts chatting with another doctor, and they say, I've seen this,
17:01
and this another to see why you've seen me too. So in the next five months between October and February, five different doctors saw five patients, some of them were two seeing the same patient,
17:14
but you know, Five daughters saw that the first base.
17:19
So they say this is something strange in here. But instead of reporting what are we seeing as nemocystis carini in a man, and that's it,
17:31
they say, is there a common factor in this? Okay, all our male homosetra. Okay, male homosetra, maybe. So they publish the paper which I will show you next week because I mean, next time it
17:47
was when we start working on how to
17:51
continue, how to publish, how to present your, your defined this day, they found out the paper and they put an explanation which is the stress of this lecture today. I see, be careful or be
18:06
aware that there is a funky thing going in male homosetras. All right, now you medical students know that we are talking about AIDS
18:17
And they published that at the - in a bulletin, not in the New England Journal of Medicine, of established this into
18:29
a, in a bulletin, a bulletin read by many people, the bulletin from the CDC, but a bulletin. And then immediately, the doctors from
18:46
Miami said, no, we have seen 200 of those. The doctors from New York say we have been thousands. And the doctors from San Francisco, north of Los Angeles say we have seen 10, 000. Doesn't
18:59
matter. Those five guys
19:03
are in the textbook of the history of medicine. And they only saw five patients. They didn't see a catastrophic thing. But they were curious. They were curious And the other, shall I say, like
19:17
you, like me. or like me, for sure, ordinary people. They are not geniuses of working ordinary people. They saw a problem and they say, Hey, what is in this in here? What is in common of
19:34
these things? Then, of
19:37
course, historically people started going back and they found, yes, there was a Belgian nun, a nun who had the symptoms of the disease died in Belgium
19:53
and they most likely contracted the disease by transfusion. Then they found a doctor from Denmark who also had the disease and most likely, perhaps contracted by cutting the finger So the disease
20:12
was present there.
20:15
the political and socio-economical situation spread the disease, but the acumen and what
20:27
show the guys that listen, this is something to be considered. But
20:37
I bring bad popper now here when it says a true theory is ready to be falsified So what happened is that people believed, and well, many of you were not born, but I already was a medical daughter,
20:53
people believed there was this thing was there, a disease of gay people, of homosexual, of most homosexual. But later they found also that the disease affected
21:10
abuses of heroin, people who injected themselves on the veins.
21:16
later they found also that the disease affected hemophilics because hemophilics needed blood transfusion. And then of course the hadience. So when I start reading all the disease in 1983 in 1984 in
21:32
the New England Journal of Medicine,
21:35
they were saying the four H diseases was a disease of the four H's. And this knowledge was acquired slowly when Gottlieb and his collets said be careful with male or bisexual that somebody said be
21:41
careful with hemophilics, be careful with hadience, be careful, be be careful with hadience is a
22:02
stupid argument. But in fact it ceased there in 1993 in the population not even in some but your daughter, no, no, in the New England Journal of Medicine, and I will tell you more about that now.
22:17
So, the
22:22
situation were increasing. Nobody was saying to God, hey, you're a silly man, you didn't realize that doesn't matter. He forward at a theory. Honestly, he was ready to be
22:39
contrasted, and changing, and changing, and how the changes happened through abduction, as the peers they already showed. You have a rule. Everybody who has a homocystic careenie or has a immune
22:58
disease problem with caposi or similar diseases has is affected by this virus and has the for age disease. Then they go. or has a disease of emophilic. They go to the result, agree, but they see
23:17
to the patient, and they see that the patient is not emophilic. He's not homosexual, and maybe it's an error in abuser. So you see, they are adding the situation by the patient. And this is what
23:32
proper says every scientific theories in the number slide two or three of your PDF proper says, every scientific theory is ready to be contrasted, to be, to actually show, okay, there are changes
23:49
for that.
23:51
So it's a progressive accumulation of information is an accepted part of the scientific work, progressive, doesn't mean that you have to be saying, again, I need to repeat in a colloquial world,
24:04
doesn't mean that you have to be stupid, or ignorant what, are you doing, what are you thinking, no, progressive. accumulation of information. That's what has to describe this image as a
24:18
scientist. And that's from Popper. Popper uses this idea. This
24:27
is a photo I downloaded from the internet, no? This idea is how a curious mind will address this phenomenon.
24:41
There are black swans, white sons, or more than black sons,
24:49
more common than black swans in the photo. But you don't know how big is the picture. You don't know how many swans are there. You don't know those things. So the best thing that you can say is
25:04
not all swans are white that is the first step. that you can use when you go to the ward to see your patients, you know?
25:16
The textbook tells you that if you don't operate this patient in three days from a sapphire arnold hemorrhage, the patient will suffer blah, blah, blah, blah. And then you go and see to this
25:31
patient and think, not all swans are white. Come on, this is the patient is already five days after surgery And did not present any of the symptoms that people are saying, why yes, no, or they
25:46
were wrong. You see that the patient is one day after the bleeding for some reason, and the patient really turned back, no? So not all swans are white.
26:01
And I know that your really smart minds are understanding very well what I want to say on how you will have. to apply this to your clinical practice. And remember that all swans are white, comes
26:16
from a philosopher, from Karl Popper, and he's applicable to
26:24
the teaching and education in clinical medicine, but of clinical research, of clinical ideas. How ideas come, ideas come if you have proteins, not all swans are white.
26:40
Maybe, but has to be something that attracts your attention.
26:45
The blood swan of the 4-H.
26:49
Later in the 1980s
26:53
in
26:56
Belgium in Antwerp, can you see here my small town
27:04
in, I mentioned before that Congo was a colony from the Bela.
27:10
as a very colony, the very wealthy Congolese, when they had to seek medical attention, they felt comfortable going back to Belgium,
27:22
not only for a language, they could have gone to France, but the affinity, the understanding, God knows what. They went there and there was an intern
27:36
and his name is Peter Piot, P-I-O-T, who today is the most famous infatologist in the world. It's the head of the London School of Infectious Diseases. And Peter Piot never had a lab, never had
27:55
an electronic microscope,
28:00
He had these two eyes, and he knew, I believe he knew. I don't know if you're a red popper, but he believed that not all swans are white. What is happening to Peter Piot? Peter Piot was an
28:14
intern, as some of you are now, or some of you will be next year And the role of the intern is the last is
28:24
at the bottom of the working force in a hospital.
28:30
And he has to write the admission, right? Patient comes, name, what you have, name, what you have, and write a clinical story, right? And Peter Piot was noticing that they were coming people
28:45
from Congo with that disease with hemocysticarini either, with
28:53
caposisarcoma, with a low T cell count. But those were women.
29:02
women that were not, of course, male or researcher, they were women.
29:08
Those were nowhere in
29:12
Abuser's. They were now in the village. They didn't receive transfusion, blood transfusion. And of course, and they were not Haitians. They were gongolese. So he writes
29:23
a paper describing his findings that says, careful, this disease also appears in women.
29:35
And full of pride as an intern who believes he has found something interesting sends the paper to the New England Journal of Medicine. The
29:48
book or the journal of reference for clinical medical discoveries, clinical medicine. And then New England rejects the paper. I'm talking about the year 19, I mean, 40 years ago. I'm not talking
30:03
about last century. I'm not talking about same advice. I'm talking about 40 years ago. I was around already. I was at a daughter. My son was born already. And then
30:19
New England rejects it because it says it is known that a 4H diseases does not affect women in the age unless you are transfused, you
30:35
don't have it. Finally, Piote mete forseche. And a year after only the Lancet, the British medical journal de equivalent for the New England publishes this paper and the world says, why?
30:52
There is his affect women The deceased's offense women who. are not in any of the categories that are sent. What is this? So you see from Gottlieb, a few years prior
31:09
to a period - I mean, in a period of two years or three years, a clinical idea was being added with a different variations based on observations.
31:23
Your observation - I mean, you have patients If I want to make a clinical observation today, today, July 28, I can't. I am in a hotel in a country. I mean, yes, in the city. But I
31:43
cannot go to the hospital, to any hospital, and start looking at patients. But you can. You can
31:52
You in this moment can do something as clinical researchers that I. as a professor or teacher, whatever, can do, cannot do. You can do. You can be exactly as Peter Piot. You are sitting there
32:13
and you are finding your
32:18
conversation through the patients. And you understand that what I say is this, the blood swan of the four Hs and not all swans are white. That is the essence of any research or any clinical
32:19
research, right? So the development of the idea has four stages. One defining the object of interest when a.
32:57
look at these women who were coming with a disease, if it would have been a sociology or social sciences oriented, perhaps it would have started looking at the level of income of the patients or the
33:12
level of education of the patients, right? Patients who are half a third university degree are more likely to come to Belgium to seek ill. I don't know. But he was, he defined the object of
33:26
interest because he read about that disease. He was curious about that. He defined. Then he collected data. One, two, three, five. I think he was 17 women that he saw. One, seven, 17. He
33:40
collected data.
33:43
Then you analyze the data. And then you say, okay, yeah, 17, they're women. They are coming from Congo They are having different forms of this.
33:57
immune disease, this rare disease people didn't know, and then explaining. And the only explanation he has or he had in that time is was, yeah, the disease, whatever, because people didn't know
34:15
people suspected was transmissible, right? The transmissible disease we didn't know about the virus or the identity of the virus. There is something there transmitted like a similar device. So he
34:26
explained it. And the way he can explain it, he says, listen, careful, men and women are affected. So maybe it's a transmission that is through the intercourse between men and women. That's all.
34:40
He didn't have this plan. Now today, the explanation today in 2023 is, no, there is a virus and the virus and this is the characteristic of the virus. And for the definition of the virus,
34:53
Montaneur from France got the Nobel Prize of medicine. fine. Good. Montaneur is not a anti-clinician, but Tiot, who was a clinician, and Gottlieb, who were clinicians, those were the guys, oh,
35:07
this is something here.
35:10
Something that Montaneur never could have done if Gottlieb and the other hundreds of wonderful clinicians did not pay attention
35:23
to this problem. So, this is what you have. You have a phenomenon, I call it phenomenon,
35:32
which is a patient or a group of patients. Then you define what is what, but what is what in what? Again, as I say,
35:46
you try to define what are you interested on. Are you interested? Maybe those patients had the patients that got lip sore, maybe they had pain. but he wasn't interested in pain,
35:60
he wasn't interested in that area, maybe those patients had other psychological problems, he wasn't interested in that, he wasn't interested because he was an immunologist, he was interested in
36:10
the immune system of these individuals, god bless and immunologist, okay, he was interested in the immune system.
36:18
As you
36:21
as a neurosurgeon, so neuroscientists will be interested in the nervous system or whatever clinical
36:29
career you choose, you'll be interested in that area. And then forward, the best reasonable explanation.
36:41
And that was brought to you on the other side, they forward an explanation. The problem with a great majority of papers to Today, I even published papers that don't explain something.
36:57
They say, oh, I saw five patients that were limping with a left foot after they had
37:06
a flu. I'm making it up, okay? And while those papers are published, now they, anybody can publish in the web and they disappear, nobody reads them.
37:20
But somebody explains something Those patients are flu because of the alteration of the blood flow related to the cell, to the leg or to the muscle or to the sarcomer, okay? You are explaining
37:35
something. You don't have to be perfectly accurate. You have to be reasonable. And the way that you present this explanation, you see in a form of a question that can be answered with yes or no
37:51
godlyp and the other daughters, they said,
37:56
in a message. He is now considered then as somebody else or in my field, somebody else or and they in my field, why they in my field would have this virus, an emophilic who could be a nun. Why
38:12
was affected by this virus to maybe was a transfusion. Okay. Why the heroin abuser against the infection, maybe was the cause of the needle. And
38:21
then
38:26
why the Haitians, the four H's, well, maybe because they all come from H. Yeah, but that's a very stupid explanation. No, it's stupid. Even even, I mean, even I, I can imagine who was the
38:39
guy who came with this idea of calling adding the H to the Haitian because men, what's this explanation for that, that they came for Haiti. And so what was it do for it? But anyway, so
38:55
how to proceed towards the best explanation. And I, for the new cameras, I repeat, this is the last one theoretical presentation. They will go after more in this style of talking about diseases
39:10
and how the diseases were conceived and discovered. So we have a thesis, we have an antithesis and we have a synthesis. The thesis is the hypothesis The antithesis is the new hypothesis and the
39:25
synthesis is the combination of both things, because there are no absolute themes or absolute ideas.
39:36
The tools from logic that are fundamental for constructing your ideas are two. And now we are going and warning you like the pilot that tells you we are going to go through Turbulence area fasten
39:51
your seatbelt the last three or four slides can be very boring, but that's it.
39:58
We have to capture the idea of most opponents and most historians that is very easy to understand. Sounds boring, but it's easy and it's immensely useful, immensely useful for doing, developing
40:06
the ideas in clinical research I am in this hotel, we have this at a conference, we are more
40:23
or less 120 people here who are interested in the theory, and all of them in their presentation use modus opponents on modus tolerance. Some of them, they don't know they are using like that, but
40:38
all of them are doing. So modus opponents sound stupid, but you will see their samples. If A, then B, A, therefore B So, affirming the antecedent.
40:54
If it's raining, that the ground, the asphalt will be wet. A, it rain, therefore the asphalt is wet. That's it, no, it rain, that's why it's wet, Wendy. So
41:12
we are emitting Mustafa, Taiwan, Mustafa, welcome. So A and B, and just I will say this for
41:23
Mustafa benefit to just came. So we are talking about the model components as one of the tools for developing ideas in clinical research. If A, then B, A, therefore B. If it rains, the ground
41:39
will be wet, the rain, the ground is wet. And you are thinking, yes, what is Lassar is talking about? It's easy to understand Weight is your simple tool towards B as a successful clinical
41:52
researcher.
41:54
A and B are premises,
41:58
so they are linked through phrases like therefore in consequence and know another.
42:05
I will ask some of you or any of you
42:10
who can
42:13
translate into a rabbit, into a rabbit character, therefore an inconsequence and send it to me and we will include it in a PDF that we will
42:25
transmit to everybody because just to make clear this concept and understanding, therefore an inconsequence. If it rains, therefore or inconsequence, the ground will be wet
42:42
and the premises need to be to each other adequate and relevant. No, rain, water, the ground, wet
42:50
A is the antecedent, B is the consequence. Linking together, we reach a conclusion.
42:59
Good. So far, for the moment, you are saying, why I am not having dinner and listening to this guy from San Diego talking me something that we all know. A, B, of course, the rain wets.
43:14
I repeat, modus ponems, affirms the antecedent. If A, then B, A, therefore B
43:25
If the patient has A, a stroke that affects the motor cortex, he or she will be emiplegiate, P.
43:34
The patient had a stroke that affected the motor cortex. Therefore, the patient is emiplegiate.
43:45
If A, then B, A, thus B, inconsequence, or
43:52
therefore.
43:56
Now, it is a fallacy,
44:00
and that fallacy, if you are aware of the fallacy, I am certain,
44:08
or fairly certain, just to be scientific, that you will see it almost every day in the
44:19
clinical practice in your hospital, and that is the major impediment for clinical research, for successful clinical research. The fallacy, that the fallacy is not thinking well the modus bonus.
44:34
If A, then B, B, therefore A. So instead of a firm and the antecedent, the A, they are firm in the concept.
44:47
If the patient has a stroke, a stroke that affects the motor core, that C or C will be any pliege it. Okay, that is it. but then you don't affirm A, you affirm B, the patient is in a collegiate.
45:03
Therefore, the patient has a stroke, not necessarily.
45:08
The patient may have a
45:11
hemisphere, a stroke on the hemisphere that affected partially or not completely or he has a supplemental area. And what the patient really has is a mini-geoma on
45:25
that hemisphere is not a stroke, but you are affirming the consequence. So you are saying, if the patient has this, then that is what people are, people were actually saying, the people of the
45:40
New England,
45:43
they when they were saying,
45:46
if the patient is not one of the four ages, he does not have the disease, you know.
45:57
the new England, the editors of the New England committed this fallacy when they rejected the paper from Piot. Piot was thinking rightly, I see a patient with immunocompromised disorder,
46:13
particularly rare no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
46:15
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
46:15
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
46:15
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no If it's not being
46:17
as such, therefore, it's not the disease. They thought
46:23
in the
46:27
inverse, in order of time, just think about it.
46:56
and we will be repeating that in the last next three sessions with more rich and vast clinical examples.
47:06
So the modus point is fallacy, if you start option,
47:12
you start from B to conclude A, the patient is in a pliege, therefore at the stroke, the above may be statistically correct by the name of B or other causes A very good clinician avoids affirming
47:26
the consequence.
47:29
Certainly I in my practice committed this fallacy. Your most prestigious professor, the most distinguished, the most honored and holy of the professors, I'm sure he or she will commit this fallacy.
47:48
It's inherent to us humans to do it and a clinical researcher uses this fallacy his investigation,
47:58
everything I'm giving you on dissipation for the next week.
48:05
Example one, if I - example of the defalacy of a firm and the consequent. So if I operate the patient, the patient will improve. The patient improved because I operate it. That's wrong If the
48:13
patient may be improved for other reasons, not because they're the surgery. And looking for the reason is that the issue of clinical research. I know that you understand me, but I also know that
48:44
three weeks from now, you will understand me more. So in future lecture, we'll expand on 4K every type 1 And I'll give you plenty of examples of the disease that we are at. discussing now here,
48:58
where the most opponents fallacy has been presented in the past.
49:06
Example two, if I operate the clinical picture will not change, the clinical picture did not change, thus the indication of the pathological physiological basis of the procedural node value. Wrong
49:22
We will have the ECIC bypass, you know, et cetera, circulatory interest, et cetera, cetera, cetera, cetera, cetera, cetera, cetera, cetera bypass. As an example. So,
49:41
I will recommend just, you have this in on the PDF, look about, what we will be creating the
49:51
dough for the bread in the nuts for the breath in the nets. lectures to actually because this is the crucial theme of the development of the idea. This uh uh seed set of lectures is origin and
50:06
development of ideas. The origin is the patient. The development of the ideas
50:15
is done through the logical process.
50:20
Now as I said it's a great diagnostic tool but it's not enough for generating research. Does the role of models, tolerance, an essential component of the led to logic? Why am I in here?
50:35
Summarizing poppers metaphor, not all swans are white.
50:41
Already about the identity of popper, we are already coming to the end of the of the hour and I want to tell you one more story. So the models, tolerance, denying the consequence, and you just
50:55
have with the PDF, you don't need to actually be worried that you don't understand the practical issue of
51:05
the modus tolerance now, this hours, you are tired, you are, it's a Friday night, come on, I understand that. But the modus tolerance is A, then B, no B, there are four, no A.
51:18
Keep it there, we will address the issue like that. So we spoke before thesis and antithesis as necessary steps for the synthesis. So that thesis is the modus ponens, the antithesis is the modus
51:35
tolerance, and then of course that the synthesis is your genius in bringing these two things together. And bringing these two things together is a matter of explanation only. And with that, I will
51:49
tell you the story of PMG
51:54
BMG is
51:57
now senior, older than I am, but America Rato,
52:05
just in case I don't use the name. But I'm sure that your parents, he was a TV artist. I'm at a TV series extremely popular all over the world
52:20
Mr. BMG, a wonderful person, his wife contracted AIDS
52:31
because of a transfusion.
52:37
They did the knowledge of the disease, didn't know that you were sick, nothing a lot because the disease manifested later and shortly after the transfusion of the blood, whatever on the back there.
52:54
the wife becomes pregnant.
52:59
The baby is born, the wife does sick, the baby is sick, and mother and child died of AIDS.
53:13
In that time, this was a disease that was politically considered
53:24
not to be They had too many issues around the disease, there was not too much research, very few people went forward and I say,
53:34
maybe some of you know this American novelist Isaac Asimov, the science feature on intellectual right well he died of a blood transfusion But until last 10 years, the last 10 years, his family
53:50
never won, he died of eight so for blood transfusion his family didn't want to mention that he had days no no no.
53:58
and acquired from a blood transfusion. The same supposedly a famous Argentinian writer who your cortisol that people doesn't want to mention that he died of AIDS. He obtained because his wife had a
54:11
transfusion, contaminated his wife died and he collected. Anyway, going back to PMG. So PMG decides in that time with tremendous courage to put a fund and start collecting money to do research in
54:26
this goddamn disease that has taken the life of his wife and his child.
54:35
And put the money in my university at UCLA. And because he was a child, he creates a pediatric fund
54:44
and he's a foundation that has his name.
54:47
And the man was extremely humble. He, in that time, I'm talking about '83 before the transfence of money was through a change. not like now that we can transfer money from here to there.
55:03
And so every two or three months. He parked in lot nine.
55:09
Enter through the school of public health. Walk alone.
55:17
Corridor three. Then to the right in corridor two Pass the office of the dean took an elevator, went up to the offices of pediatric and. Deliver that the chair of the sum that. Different people in
55:35
the community were donating for the research.
55:40
Every two or three months. Or shall I say. Six times a year
55:50
And from where he parked the car. In that time, the hospital was. was the old hospital now is a new hospital, a different thing, was the old hospital where the parts of the car, walk along
56:05
corridor three, then corridor two, and I was like walking into a hospital. When you walk into a hospital, although in the periphery, you don't work through the wards, but all those corridors
56:20
that take to the cafeteria, to the laboratory, you see, The wars were upstairs, but everything downstairs in those two corridors were filled with orders, filled. Surgeons and monologists,
56:34
pediatricians, going to the OR there, coming, going to the library there, going to the cafeteria there, taking the elevator to go up to the wards, the elevator to go down to the OR.
56:50
It goes to the offices of
56:53
Pediatrics, yes, the administrator is there, by the head of pediatric is there, the pediatricians are coming to us for extra time or extra money, man. And the guy was known, was an actor. It's
57:06
not me walking through the corridor, people don't know, don't know about all of my history. People knew who was the guy. Oh, it's Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul, oh, Mr. Paul, can I have an autograph?
57:21
Mr. Paul, what brings you here? Well, no, and the
57:24
foundation had his name, his name and the name of his wife. He's there. So he was Paul. He was Mr. Paul working in front of daughters that knew that he was doing this because of his wife and of
57:39
his child.
57:42
So hundreds of very smart American daughters were by him and nobody had a most foreign moment with him
57:53
And that, who wondered, was most likely Dr. Steem, this thing. He was the chair of pediatric immunology in
58:03
that time.
58:05
And I sat on with this team. I will not, I never got the name, an event wrote the story confirmed, because Steem is a very humble man. So imagine his Dr. H is walking that way and Mr. Paul is
58:21
walking this way. So Dr. H is walking this way and Dr. Paul is walking this way. A cross path. Dr. H says, Hi Mr. Paul, how you doing? Very well, Dr. thank you very much going to the
58:38
leader there at the check. Okay, goodbye. See you, thank you very much for what you're doing for. And then they cross path and literally Dr. H it stops on his drugs.
58:53
Then surround
58:55
calls, Mr. Paul, Mr. Paul.
58:59
And asked him a blunt question that never occurred to me when I heard this story. And I'm sure never occurred to many of you,
59:14
but maybe some of you did and good for that. And don't feel bad if you didn't think of the question a daughter is asked, because a daughter is. So Mr. Paul 40 times, no, I never occurred to him.
59:31
Until the 41 times, he's a former saying, he said, wow, and what he asked? He asked, why are you are not dead?
59:42
You had a sexual relation unprotected because you had a child with a woman who was filled with his violence. because she had the virus to a blood transfusion.
59:58
And there you are, you are not dead.
1:00:04
And Mr. Paul said, Yeah, I'm here. I'm not that okay. They rushed him up to the laboratory's upstairs. They draw blood. The
1:00:13
T cell count was perfect. There was no evidence on the guy who having had the disease.
1:00:22
Then, okay, it's already time to stop. But then slowly, and we will go back to that in the different cases So, the evolution people were confirming. So, the last straw to the four Hs diseases,
1:00:38
remember that the disease was a mortal disease 100 people die
1:00:45
But
1:00:47
when how we found that it's not necessarily motor that there is a number minority of the
1:00:55
society
1:00:57
that is not that does not suffer from the disease.
1:01:03
Not in a laboratory, not with an electron microscopy, microscope, not with
1:01:13
a20 million grant from some foundation,
1:01:18
the two eyes of a guy who was curious. That's all.
1:01:24
And what I say, the phenomenon
1:01:28
was that, the phenomenon is not a very well-known actor walking on the streets of Los of UCLA, or a well-known actor giving money and being generous. And as I said, it's immensely generous.
1:01:45
But why didn't die?
1:01:49
And then they forward an explanation as an hypothesis. Well, there are individuals who, there are more than one individual who does have protection against this virus.
1:02:03
The antithesis, no. He is the only one, no? This is antithesis, yes or no? And then a branch of research expanded and ended in a surprising, interesting way that I will tell you next week. I'm
1:02:23
playing the game of Sharesada here. I'm keeping you waiting for next week to see what has happened. And
1:02:36
with that,
1:02:38
thank you, thank you very much. Professor, can you hear my voice? Yes, yes. Adelander Rania, yes. Well, as I said earlier, honored to be here and learn from you. I really appreciate your
1:02:53
magnificent efforts, especially how you used storytelling in order to enrich our perspectives So regarding my question. Can you elaborate more about how can we enhance our analytic skills in order
1:03:09
to differentiate between nearly solid facts and the fact that could be subjected to falsifications?
1:03:21
Yeah, except with
1:03:26
some
1:03:28
more religious and beliefs that have to do
1:03:34
with love, with love of the family, almost everything can be subjected to falsification. That your parents love you, there's no question about it, there's no falsification in that. That you are
1:03:47
in love with whom loves you or that thing, there's no falsification. That's a fact, that's a truth, what he said at the true love. The same applies with religious belief We. may have different
1:03:60
religious belief, But that is, uh. you know, there is one, one, one structure over there. Then the only way, and I'm answering the question of Rania, is this, you start from the principle
1:04:15
that everything can be sort of falsified, so let's say. Not necessarily means
1:04:26
that everything will be falsifiable now, and I will give you an example from, from, or metaphysics, is that,
1:04:33
and then you have to find a phenomenon, you, as an individual, as the guys who did the work with AIDS, or as the guys who, as the Dr. Etz, which I call Dr. Etz, which I believe was Dr. Steen,
1:04:48
who asked Paul Blaser, Paul Michael Blaser, that's the name of the author, why he didn't die, why he wasn't dead And so you have to find the phenomenon on your own and then And then you actually
1:05:04
do the abduction and say, okay, do I find at the patient that it escapes the rule? And yes, you will find a patient that escapes the rule. Here we have in this conference here, a presenting
1:05:17
about Keari and everybody is saying, everybody's saying that the tips would say, yes, a Keari surgery has a success rate of 90, huge success rate. Yeah, but what happened to the 10? Why the
1:05:31
same thing doesn't work in this group of people? Yeah, AIDS, everybody dies of AIDS. Yeah, but this guy didn't. No, I won't. That's the process of falsification. Briefly, on the all-day
1:05:48
sciences, the Newtonian physics tells you that
1:05:56
all the
1:05:58
units can be, can be added, no? can be others, you know. So this telephone, this phone weights 10 grams and I put a one gram pen. I am holding 11 grams in my hand, right? And that is the
1:06:17
physics that applies to the building we are starting. But Einstein was the first one who asked his question in many physicists watch trains going. And I think, I don't know if I mentioned that
1:06:30
before, but they have a train, as I mentioned on the point, you have a train, the light, the speed of light is fizzed. So he said, well, maybe not all the units can be added, but to build
1:06:47
this building where I am in the floor number 15, and I'm not falling, is because the engineer who calculated the resistance of the material use Newtonian physics.
1:07:03
but we are talking and seeing each other because the individuals who develop the internet and this formal communication are not using Newtonian physics. There's no need for Newtonian physics.
1:07:17
There's no adding, no, I'm not adding anything. There's no addition. You and I are seeing each other. And the same happens in the medicine and going back. You find a phenomenon that interests
1:07:32
you and then you know it's falsifiable.
1:07:36
And that doesn't mean that the professor who thought that is wrong and is a guy that should be sent to the museum and forget about him. No, it only means that you are adding another layer to the
1:07:52
volume of knowledge, no?
1:07:56
Yeah, it's all clear, Professor. I really appreciate your answer. Thank you. I appreciate you, all of you.
1:08:05
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you, my friends, and, and go. Thank you. You see, it's already closed on midnight, my God. As I said, I feel
1:08:16
obliged and I have a compromise with you. You are doing a tremendous effort. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you thank you,. Thank you, thank you. I will.
1:08:28
We hope you enjoyed this presentation
1:08:33
The material provided in this program is for informational purposes and is not intended for use as diagnosis or treatment of a health problem or as a substitute for consulting a licensed medical
1:08:49
professional.
1:08:54
Please fill out your evaluation of this video to help us improve our programming and for our application for CME Credit. This recorded session is available free on snidigitalorg.
1:09:12
Send your questions, comments, suggestions, and applications for CME Credit 2, osmondsnidigitalorg
1:09:25
This series of lectures is supported by the James I. and Carolyn, our Osmond Educational Foundation, owner of SNI and SNI Digital, and the Waymaster Corporation Producers of the Leading Gen, a
1:09:41
television series, silent majority speaks, role models, and the medical News Network
1:10:00
Thank you
View Transcript
Listen to Podcast
