- Just like the immense anti-platelet value of aspirin was rejected when first presented to NEJM (Desforges, NEJM 329, 14, 1038-1039, 1993), the window of the difference between survival and death in the ICU following magnesium supplementation was opened in the pursuit of the basic pathophysiology of migraine.
- I presented no data of my own, just an irrefutable and impregnable exercise in medical logic that could not be upturned or refuted even by Randomized Controlled Trials supported by giant Corporations at that time.
- Rejections by the American Heart Journal (July 6, 1995) and The Lancet (January 8, 1996) did not deter me as I was over-confident without any confidante that I had the truth in my grasp. I struggled in the loneliness of my doomed pursuit.
- I would like to place on record that the world and all ICU Intensivists and other Consultants owe a debt of eternal gratitude to Lionel H. Opie, Editor, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy (November 16, 1995) for placing my Letter-to-the-Editor on a pedestal higher than the ongoing randomized controlled trials at that time on magnesium supplementation in acute myocardial infarction (see files).
- Contrary opinions were placed by a large body of established cardiology researchers in the same issue in a massive review as well as a contrary letter (please see issue).
- Truth, however, prevails.
The rest is history. Changes in perceptions of magnesium supplementations across specializations (including migraine therapeutics) has been, predictably, tardy.
I would like to encourage all those who dare to or will dare to swim against the current and offer them a mantra.
To swim against the current, over-prepare.--VK Gupta
Become your own yardstick.-- VK Gupta
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress
More Vinod Kumar Gupta's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions