wildtypexe
New Member
Hey folks!
So my uncle came to me lastnght (he's a bit of a conspiracy junkie) with a video he'd watched on the internet about how the heart is in fact not a pump, and how this is the reason behind why most heart disease cannot be cured etc.
I'm a biomedical researcher, and although my specialty is not in cardiovascular medicine, I was immediately skeptical to the point of dismissal about it - given how fundamental to basic human physiology the putative functions of the heart as a pressure pupulsion system are. Nonetheless, I watched the video to appease him, to be open minded yet critical, and to concieve a fully-formed rebbutal. While there were oversimplifications within the video (for example, how MRI scans work), the speakers audience are assumed to be lay-people so a lack of techincal information can be appreciated. I was able to argue my point effectively as to the composition of the heart (for example, cardiomyocytes (the "beating "muscle cells of the heart) which as pumping muscles could really serve no other function, and as to the speakers theory of the gel-like composition of water within the body (I gave an example of T1 collagen being a compound comprised of around 60% water), but that it changed to a 'fourth form' as speculative at best.
I was, however, unable to convey a convincing defence of the point that the speaker makes about the 'slowing down' of the blood as it enters capilaries from the arterial system, and the pressure which seems to be applied to blood as it reenters capilaries and subsequently the venous system from tissue. I explained that I assumed (although I didn't know) that blood does not in fact STOP, and that it was due to blood being a liquid, and that due to the cohesive nature of water-based liquids, capilary action applies - the same principle by which water can travel up a tree trunk. The other issue I had was with the 'aortic arch' defence. I explained that in a vacuum, sure - the aorta would straighten, but in this situation, the context of the aortic positioning and surrounding tissue keep it confined within a fixed space.
I then went to find the research paper upon which this doctor, Dr. Thomas Cowen, MD, was reffering to by Marinelli et al (1995).
As previously mentioned, my focus is in biomed, so when it comes to physics, I'm a far-cry from an expert, but even upon my reading of the manuscript, it seemed to speculative if not a little ridiculous. While I immediately dismissed a 1995 paper which has not produced any wide-spread ramifications or even conceptual revisals, he saw this as proof that it was 'such an ingrained idea that it would undermine so much of cardiology to revise it' and put me onto a anesthesiologist by the name of Branko Furst who wrote a book about the integrated model of the heart - which presents some genuinely interesting points about the biophysics within our bodies:
eg.
"Conceptually, autonomous movement of the blood is no different than autonomous contraction of the heart, the enterohepatic circulation of bile salts, or the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid. "
Obviously, being open minded, but skeptical, I proceeded to search for expert rebuttals and debunking of this theory - for which I could find pretty much nothing - which has led me to this forum. Can someone with a better understanding of physics and cardiology help me out?
Video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCBEKO3IJc&t=1025s
Research paper 1:
https://www.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/Marinelli/
Review of Branko Furst's hypotheses:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215277/
Branko 2015 review:
https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(15)00124-X/pdf
So my uncle came to me lastnght (he's a bit of a conspiracy junkie) with a video he'd watched on the internet about how the heart is in fact not a pump, and how this is the reason behind why most heart disease cannot be cured etc.
I'm a biomedical researcher, and although my specialty is not in cardiovascular medicine, I was immediately skeptical to the point of dismissal about it - given how fundamental to basic human physiology the putative functions of the heart as a pressure pupulsion system are. Nonetheless, I watched the video to appease him, to be open minded yet critical, and to concieve a fully-formed rebbutal. While there were oversimplifications within the video (for example, how MRI scans work), the speakers audience are assumed to be lay-people so a lack of techincal information can be appreciated. I was able to argue my point effectively as to the composition of the heart (for example, cardiomyocytes (the "beating "muscle cells of the heart) which as pumping muscles could really serve no other function, and as to the speakers theory of the gel-like composition of water within the body (I gave an example of T1 collagen being a compound comprised of around 60% water), but that it changed to a 'fourth form' as speculative at best.
I was, however, unable to convey a convincing defence of the point that the speaker makes about the 'slowing down' of the blood as it enters capilaries from the arterial system, and the pressure which seems to be applied to blood as it reenters capilaries and subsequently the venous system from tissue. I explained that I assumed (although I didn't know) that blood does not in fact STOP, and that it was due to blood being a liquid, and that due to the cohesive nature of water-based liquids, capilary action applies - the same principle by which water can travel up a tree trunk. The other issue I had was with the 'aortic arch' defence. I explained that in a vacuum, sure - the aorta would straighten, but in this situation, the context of the aortic positioning and surrounding tissue keep it confined within a fixed space.
I then went to find the research paper upon which this doctor, Dr. Thomas Cowen, MD, was reffering to by Marinelli et al (1995).
As previously mentioned, my focus is in biomed, so when it comes to physics, I'm a far-cry from an expert, but even upon my reading of the manuscript, it seemed to speculative if not a little ridiculous. While I immediately dismissed a 1995 paper which has not produced any wide-spread ramifications or even conceptual revisals, he saw this as proof that it was 'such an ingrained idea that it would undermine so much of cardiology to revise it' and put me onto a anesthesiologist by the name of Branko Furst who wrote a book about the integrated model of the heart - which presents some genuinely interesting points about the biophysics within our bodies:
eg.
"Conceptually, autonomous movement of the blood is no different than autonomous contraction of the heart, the enterohepatic circulation of bile salts, or the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid. "
Obviously, being open minded, but skeptical, I proceeded to search for expert rebuttals and debunking of this theory - for which I could find pretty much nothing - which has led me to this forum. Can someone with a better understanding of physics and cardiology help me out?
Video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCBEKO3IJc&t=1025s
Research paper 1:
https://www.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/Marinelli/
Review of Branko Furst's hypotheses:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215277/
Branko 2015 review:
https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(15)00124-X/pdf
