User talk:Smartwords

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Doctormatt 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You appear to have reverted to the older version. It is littered with historical and scientific inaccuracies. You should have checked out what I contributed. I was not trying to advocate anybody, I was trying to get the article right. What you have here is a disgracefully bad science and history. My first job was with one of the leading encyclopedias. But you seem to have more influence. Good for you. Bad for the truth. smar  ==Magnetic resonance imaging== Hello. You've made a few drastic, unexplained edits to Magnetic_resonance_imaging. Could you please discuss this on the talk page before doing it again? That would be great. Thanks, Doctormatt 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Smartwords 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)smar== August 2007 == You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Magnetic resonance imaging. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Abecedare 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing.

I found the article filled with inaccuracies, beginning with the first statement. Damadian was not at Harvard when he made his tissue discoveries. He was at Downstate Medical Center.

The article does not mention that the tissue signals from NMR that Damadian discovered are what make the contrast possible in a modern MRI scan, due to the varying pixel brightness that the different signals produce. The image is improved by the gradient Lauterbur applied to Damadian's signal discoveries, but he did not invent the gradient. It was used on NMR machines to smooth out the signal for decades.

The fact is, Raymond Damadian was recognized as the inventor of the MRI for nearly thirty years and he still widely is. But he made his discovery in a field where he was an outsider and his contributions have been downplayed.

The truth of science is the only worthy standard, and I have tried to further it. If it holds sway, the scientific community, once informed of the truth of MRI history, ought to be outraged that this great and determined soul, to whom we owe the success of the struggle to apply magnetism to medicine, has been slighted. He's now in his 70s, and Nobel politics, as well as ongoing slights from the NMR community, ought to be addressed and remedied.

Before you insist on a revision of what I have very carefully recorded, I suggest you look very deeply into how a modern MRI image is produced. If I'm wrong, why is it that GE and the other enormous corporate defendants in the patent fight with little Fonar could not, after scouring the world, come up with any prior art. Why is it they lost even when Paul Lauterbur testified for them? Because the courts realized there is no prior art - and that the T1 and T2 signals Damadian discovered are used by every MRI in the world as the core of the technology. Thanks for takiing the time to read this. smar


 * I appreciate your enthusiasm to correct what you perceive as the wrongs committed towards Raymond Damadian, but wikipedia is not the appropriate place for such a purpose. Please see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Abecedare 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I spoke with Raymond Damadian about what happened today. We suspect two people of having played a role in this inaccurate portrait, which contains all the usual distortions, as well as outright factual errors. It amazes us that the neither GE, Philips, Siemans or any other corporate giant could come up with any prior art to defeat Damadian's patent, and that the Supreme Court upheld it, not only as his original discovery, but as the method that is behind every modern MRI scan. Yet you chose to delete all the information. I am very busy but I will have the appropriate archivists prepare referenced material and will insert it as best I can. I assume you have a different agenda and will revert it again. No problem. The NMR community has always been ashamed that an outsider, an MD at that, made the greatest discovery in their field. So they propped up Lauterbur, who helped with his own conniving, and dug up Mansfield, whose contribution is monumentally small. I assume you'll delete my work again but suggest you take my basic advice and inform yourself at www.fonar.com. Many of the photos and documents are there. Maybe you can write the revision before I give it another vain attempt. Doesn't matter much, though. At last the truth is being told, as part of the presentation of Damadian's latest innovation, the Upright Multi-Position MRI, recently named the invention of the year for 2007. All communication about it contains a basic Fonar heritage and it's appearing in all the major relevant medical magazines. At last, this devoted scientist is having his story told the way it should have always been told and many people with impeccable creditials are delighted for him. Put the truth of science first and you'll beat me to the revision. Or is that too much to hope for?== Raymond Damadian ==

Smartwords, I don't meant to discourage you from editing this or any other wikipedia article. As long as you cite reliable sources for your edits and word them neutrally, you should be fine. Cheers. Abecedare 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)