@edelamadrid Nombre, pelen a este genio ¿Que decía que hiciéramos? ¿adoptar un mexicano o cómo? 🤔
O que siga la corrupcion, la colusion con el Narco y el contrabando de combustible es un negociazoo para su partido..!
@IldefonsoIr En definitiva sabía que estaba pasando, pero la jugada era primero reformar el poder judicial, sino de nada iba a servir todo el desmadre que se venía en contra de todo mundo… en política las coincidencias no existen
I had a paper rejected last month.
That used to bother me more than it does now.
Because publishing is not just about writing a good paper. It's about surviving the cycle:
rejection -> revision -> resubmission (sometimes over and over again)
Recently I came across one of the most extraordinary examples of this:
Dr. Tom Fogarty, one of medicine's pioneers in the minimally invasive era, wrote a paper as a medical student about a device he built from a urethral catheter and a surgical glove, which became the balloon embolectomy catheter.
When he submitted the paper:
Annals of Surgery said no.
Surgery said no.
Archives of Surgery said no.
JAMA said no.
Who knows why. Too unconventional? Too far outside accepted practice?
The paper ended up in the 1963 issue of Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics.
The device went on to save millions of lives and limbs.
Fogarty said it best: "An idea by itself has no importance whatsoever. It's the implementation of that idea and the acceptance by others that bring true benefit to our patients."
Dr. Tom Fogarty passed away in December 2025 at 91. His life is filled with many lessons (more coming soon). But those four rejections are a clear reminder that some of medicine's greatest contributions started with rejection.
What's the best idea you've seen get rejected before it was finally accepted?