Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#111

Post by sillysaurus3 »

taeric wrote: post #105
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's memory. They can scan for problems using a handheld device. They can cure blindness with a visor. We are nowhere near any of that. I know this doesn't really matter much, but if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate. I think people a…

I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear just in the comment. To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing useful in it. Pr…

I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick?

I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays -- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations.

We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet. The technology predictions have generally been on-point, and it seems like a useful metric for how far humanity can progress.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#112

Post by dna_polymerase »

gumby wrote: post #98
dna_polymerase wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “The startling regrowth of tissue in this case occurred because we were able to intervene early in a growing child, before long-term tissue degeneration. Although it’s impossible to conclude from this single case if the sequential application of normobaric oxygen then HBOT would be more effective than HBOT alone, in the absence of HBOT therapy, short duration, repetitive normobaric oxygen therapy may be an option u…

> we have no idea what really did the magic here, we can just assume ...which is true of most of medicine. Most indications (e.g. diseases) are named after their symptoms rather than causes, and a lot of treatment is just creating / improving the environment in which the body can do its job. None of which should be taken as denigration of amazing achievements in the medical field!

Exactly. I recognise all those achievements, yet we still have to learn so much more.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#114

Post by arcanus »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111
taeric wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear just in the comment. To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing useful in it. Pr…

I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays -- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations. We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These a…

It may have more to teach: it was clearly a Post-scarcity society with some form of UBI,etc.

Simultaneously it postulated that the humans of the future would not be cyborgs, which appears unlikely. Furthermore, few tasks were automated in a manner we might see in our lifetime, let alone the time of the show.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#115

Post by nkoren »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #94
nerdponx wrote: post #2

This is approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. Congratulations to the team who discovered and pull this off, and of course my heart goes out to the family and their child. Drowning is very serious and very scary. Edit: somewhat unrelated since this girl fell into an unattended pool, but it's important to know the signs of drowning, which are not what you see in movies: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-spot-signs…

We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's memory. They can scan for problems using a handheld device. They can cure blindness with a visor. We are nowhere near any of that. I know this doesn't really matter much, but if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate. I think people a…

> In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy

> They can erase and alter people's memory

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572521, plus lots of pharmacological stuff in spook-land which is well-attested but rarely peer-reviewed.

> They can scan for problems using a handheld device.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/health/ai-system-detects-s...

> We are nowhere near any of that.

In the case of your specific examples, we are. It's early days and unevenly distributed, but actually we are getting there.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#116

Post by seszett »

brianwawok wrote: post #42
matt4077 wrote: post #16

> was in the 5 degree Celsius water for up to 15 minutes before being discovered. as my professor used to say: If you're going to drown, drown in almost-freezing freshwater.

I get the freezing, why the freshwater? Saltwater can be a bit colder before ice, so wouldn't it be better?

> Saltwater can be a bit colder before ice, so wouldn't it be better?

I imagine it could actually be worse, as liquid saltwater below 0 would damage tissues very fast by freezing them. While fresh water is guaranteed to be above zero and therefore cannot damage tissues through freezing.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#117

Post by dumbneurologist »

Disclaimer: I am a neurologist

The enthusiastic replies on this thread are understandable, but disappointing to see: we all need to be less credulous regarding the lay science press, and especially the lay medical press.

I would love nothing more than to have this kind of therapy be a reality for my patients. However, I am deeply skeptical of this report.

Why? Because

- hyperbaric oxygen therapy has a big industry of quackery behind it[1][2]

- oxygen is a standard part of medical care and can just as easily be harmful as helpful

- because there is just no way in hell that oxygen is going to reverse cell death.

- this is in newsweek, and not a peer-reviewed journal.

And if there was no cell death, then the recovery is almost inevitable.

Some posters are skeptical because 15 minutes is impossible.

On the contrary: the key point is the temperature. The article says the water was 4 degrees C. That is cold enough that you can recover fully. In fact, the most amazing recovery is also one of the best-documented: with a 66-minute submersion in Utah that was followed by complete recovery[3] (this is a far more interesting article than the original post - it was in 1988, and utilized extracorporeal rewarming). This observation was used to pursue hypothermia in other causes of anoxic injury, which is clinically used today. I'm sure the 66-minute case also got oxygen during the recovery, but to say that it was due to oxygen (which is standard of care) rather than the temperature is silly.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but this article is just clickbait junk.

1. https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364687.h...

2. https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/HBOT/hm01...

3. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doctor-s-world...

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#118

Post by gnaritas »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111
taeric wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear just in the comment. To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing useful in it. Pr…

I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays -- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations. We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These a…

Star Trek doesn't so much predict as it does inspire. We keep getting Trekky things in the real world because people want to make Trekky things; there's much work going on right now on tricorders, more directly inspired Trek tech.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#119

Post by syphilis2 »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #94
nerdponx wrote: post #2

This is approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. Congratulations to the team who discovered and pull this off, and of course my heart goes out to the family and their child. Drowning is very serious and very scary. Edit: somewhat unrelated since this girl fell into an unattended pool, but it's important to know the signs of drowning, which are not what you see in movies: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-spot-signs…

We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's memory. They can scan for problems using a handheld device. They can cure blindness with a visor. We are nowhere near any of that. I know this doesn't really matter much, but if we're going to throw in hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate. I think people a…

Maybe your comment is correct in whole, but your examples immediately brought to mind science headlines from the past few years. Specifically the use of Near InfraRed (NIR) light to treat Multiple Sclerosis, the use of blue light to heal wounds and disinfect, reading the states of neurons in hydra and also in mice, implanting false memories into mice, and a plethora of transportable medical scanners. The implementation is not what a viewer would imagine, but they all meet the descriptions as written. Even if we are not near, we are undoubtedly approaching "Star Trek" technology by so narrowly attempting to replicate it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022102227.h...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142334.h...

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Miracle+Diagnosis+Handheld+Medi...

https://www.cnet.com/news/esight-video-glasses-restores-sigh...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/03/vision-chip-...

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#120

Post by Cshelton »

kaybe wrote: post #99
PetitPrince wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to dampen your enthusiasm too much, but please note that infants are exceptionally good at producing new neurons compared to adults; their brain aren't fully developed after all.

Infants are also good at working around losing half a brain. If one loses it early enough the rest can develop to become a fully functional adult of normal intelligence, which is pretty amazing.

Yeah, we have a family friend whose child had half her brain removed at the age of 5. She if normal today. You would never know she only has half a brain.

The surgery was performed by Dr. Ben Carson. I'll admit, not the best in politics, but one hell of a doctor.

Post reply on HN