--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: <snip> > They submitted, and probably easily, had a paper and > presentation allowed for a scientific conference. If > you've ever been to one of these affairs, they have a > lot of topics: some good, some so-so, and some just > "filler". If you were a Cardiologist you could get > credits, CME's, just for sitting in. All those who > participate, even those who merely post "posters" are > listed on the list of particpants for the conference.
More backpedaling. Here's what Vaj said originally: "...not only was never published (let alone peer reviewed) that I can find, it isn't even listed in on the AHA website for the conference it was supposedly presented at." One more time: Yes, it *is* listed on the AHA Web site for the conference; it's in the final program, #1177, page 129, scheduled for 4:15 on Monday, November 16: "Effects of Stress Reduction on Clinical Events in African Americans with Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial." > The good stuff you HEAR about and the course fills fast. > People talk, it gets noticed, it get's it's own page on > the website (in this case of the American College of > Cardiology). The PDF is ubiquitous and printed copies > are floating around. Etc. Vaj's initial claim was that there was no PDF on the AHA conference Web site--which is true, but irrelevant, because there are *no* PDFs of the presentations on the AHA conference Web site. They may put them up at some point, but they weren't up when Vaj made his post. > In this case: no serious mention on the website Now it's "no *serious* mention on the website." To start with--see above--he said there was *no* mention on the Web site. He was trying to make us believe that the TMO was lying about the paper even having been *presented*. > still unpublished Again, irrelevant, since it was only just completed. It takes *months* to get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. >, only mentioned as a talk in the typical addendum If Vaj had even a shred of honesty, he'd say, "I was wrong, it *is* mentioned on the Web site." And the listing in the conference program isn't an "addendum."
