There is no need to ask here whether anyone really landed on the Moon. The math works. Maybe they did go there and maybe not, but no mathematical barrier to going exists. And no other barrier is known that could not be overcome. There is no need, not in this article anyway, to ask whether the Twin Tower tragedy was real. The math there is staggering. And there is no need here to speculate who might have wanted to end John F. Kennedy's presidency early. Of all the "urban legends" vying for the microphone on the stage of debate this question was chosen mainly because heart transplants, however likely possible, retain points dubious enough to make the exercise in debate interesting. The point here is how you know whether heart transplants are possible, and whether you can be persuaded to entertain a doubt, at least to the end of the article.
The previously presumed insurmountable obstacle to transplanting a heart, not a factor in earlier organ transplants, is that nerves are cut. At that time, the quality of human nerves was believed to be such that cutting and splicing them was not possible. Of course these days there are a plethera of devices that can receive electrical signals from nerve chains that are not complete and send signals as well. It should be understood though that such is possible only through amplification. The tiny currents and voltages produced by nerves must be amplified for practical use by electromechanical devices. And in order to send a signal to nerve receptors deep in tissue the electrical levels must be much higher than would be necessary in normal proximity.
While actually splicing nerves would be one solution to the problem of electrical levels — and through advanced microsurgery is a purported reality today — it was not in the early years of heart transplanting. How were those early transplants possible then? The only answer presenting itself is the sinoatrial node. The sinoatrial node is a bundle of nerves in a cavity or "sinus" of the heart's right atrium. The belief is that it generates the heart's beat in a way that can be independent of the rest of the autonomic nervous system even though it works with that system normally. It is believed to be the "source" of the base rate of the heart.
A curious thing about this answer is that so few people have apparently bothered to consider it. Of course it is a complicated detail of a matter that doesn't impact many people's daily lifes, so perhaps no great number should be expected to be aware of it. It does go to the point though how you know heart transplants are posssible. Is there a blind faith in what appears on televion or what "scientists" say?
Many very busy people would finish reading here and go on to video games or matters more pressing their own daily lives, but the exercise in healthy skepticism isn't over yet, not here. Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that the sinoatrial node is in fact the source of the base heart rate. Would other questions remain? The question most pressing many might well be whether the donor is actually dead. If the donor is "dead" why isn't the sinoatrial node as damaged beyond repair as the rest of the donor's nervous system would be in mere minutes after death? If it is not damaged then what other nerves are not damaged?
Conclusive proof is a most difficult thing. Some will accept that the rudimentary nature of the sinoatrial node makes it more resilient somehow to permanent damage than other nerves. A few will obstinately insist that heart transplants must be fake. Honest, intelligent people will suspend judgement and wait patiently for more proof. One proof would be to witness first hand a successful heart transplant. Despite continual requests The Town Voice has received no offers. We have had the opportunity to see some of the equipment used in microsurgery and to actually look through the stereo eyepieces while the equipment was not in use, but not an actual nerve repaired yet.
While the internet is replete with discussions of several of the requisite features of heart transplants, there appears no photographic evidence much convincing. Perhaps The Town Voice can fill that void.
On the other hand let us assume, just for the purposes of discussion of course, that by some conspiracy intricate beyond pedestrian imagination all heart transplants so far are fake. Would microsurgical nerve splicing also be fake? And what would the purpose of that be? And what would have been the purpose or point of the original faking? Are many doctors deprived of financial stability? Of high esteem? It would seem unlikely. So why fake anything?
A favorite theory when considering this question is that it was perhaps the plan of Dr. Christiaan Barnard to inundate the world with a healthy skepticism that scientists thought they had already, but did not; to illuminate human nature as inherently faithful. Perhaps it was building the defibrillator of the human mind that drove the doctor.
Ethically or unethically, wittingly or unwittingly, a belief in heart transplantation took hold of the wide world. It has had some seemingly advantageous effects. When debating "scientists" ask them whether they believe in heart transplants and whether they are as faithful as the fundamentalists they disparage. Their blank look of deep thought in apparently unexplored territory can be amusing.
But it is not the purpose here to tell you what to believe, only to give your healthy skepticism a workout worth your time. And please at least briefly consider this article before deciding on a U.S. presidential candidate based on how much that candidate intends to spend taxes for medicine.
Epictetus