Final Affirmative Proof Starling's Law Wrong and G Tube Hydrodynamic is the Correct Replacement: New Results and Critical Analytical Criticisms of Impactful Landmark Articles

Objectives: To report the final definitive affirmative proof that Starling?s law wrong and G tube hydrodynamic is the correct replacement. Methods: Intellectual reanalysis of G tube experimental results based on the original data reproduced here. Critical analytical review of the reported landmark and impactful articles on transferring Starling? hypothesis into law. Reporting summary of the newly discovered Tree Branching Law (TBL) on green and red (aorta) trees. Results: Analytical results of G tube hydrodynamic are the correct replacement for Staring?s law that demonstrates that the capillary works as G tube not Poiseuille?s tube. The capillary-interstitial fluid transfer is demonstrated in G tube by a magnetic field-like rapid autonomous circulation where suction occurs at the proximal end filtration at the distal end. Plasma proteins play no role here. There are 21 reasons affirming Starling law is wrong on both of its forces and equation. The main study based on which Starling?s hypothesis was transferred into a law has a serious experimental error that invalidates its conclusion. The Tree Branching Law corrects 2 widely received misconceptions on capillary physiology: ?The capillary cross-section area is greater than the aorta? and ?the speed of blood flow in lumen is very slow? Conclusion: The new discoveries of G tube? phenomenon and TBL should replace Starling? law and revise of the current concepts on capillary physiology and dictate the new scientific basis on rules for fluid therapy in shock. This should prevent VOS and ARDS.