Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

newsweek.com

121–130 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#121

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 really are in the dark ages still No, we'd be in the dark ages if we were in still the dark ages. Our current level of progress would seem like science fiction or even magic as little as a century ago. I think I understand your point, that we have so much more to learn we're not even able to quantify what we don't know. But this is not some kind of endless quest. We're dealing with a machine in the end with finit…

> I think I understand your point, that we have so much more to learn we're not even able to quantify what we don't know. But this is not some kind of endless quest. We're dealing with a machine in the end with finite complexity and eventually it will be understood fundamentally.

I see this as agreeing with the person you're replying to. We can make certain limited interventions which are amazing, but the kind of complete understanding that you're referring to is a long, long way away. Even when we do have a treatment, we often do not fully understand how they work.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#122
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…

> These are landmark achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994, before the advent of the internet.

Umm. I was reading about TNG on the web in 1994. The internet had been around for a long time before the web was useful to ordinary people. Email has been around since the 70s. Search engines were certainly limited, but were already available in the early 90s.

All these predictions succeeded because they were "predicting" incremental improvement on something already known to exist.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#123
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…

I get the sentimentality. But about the only part of the show that I feel resonates in the truly somewhat predictive mode, is how many tablet style interfaces they had. And even then, that is a bit of a stretch.

I'd wager most of the things that you are quoting were less pioneered by Star Trek, and moreso popularized to an audience. In particular, using a computer to find information, talking to a computer, and sending messages electronically have long been staples in science fiction. Before science fiction, the only thing that was different was the "electronically" part. And really, I don't know as even Star Trek was treating "electronically" any different than earlier stories used "magically."

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#124

First paragraph: > she spent 15 minutes submerged in a swimming pool This seems highly implausible, given she survived. Also, how would they know the moment she dropped in? Further down: > up to 15 minutes Ah ok. From what I know, brain damage starts occurring even after 2-3 minutes without air (for adults), so I suppose it was rather on the lower end. Does anybody know a bit more about this?

Children are known to be able to survive much longer without oxygen than adults. I'm not sure we know the exact reason for it though. Also people are known to be able to survive much longer submerged in cold water than warm water, perhaps due to the mammalian dive reflex - https://youtu.be/00RKh6NRMqc

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#125
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a stereotype that "black people can't swim". May be local to the US.

I have never heard that here in Belgium. I also see black people in the pool quite frequently.

In the Netherlands swimming instruction is compulsory for children. Is that also the case in Belgium? It's most certainly not the case in the US.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#127
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also be aware of "dry drowning," it's incredibly rare but worth knowing it exists and it's symptoms if you or anyone you are caring for has a near drowning episode. http://www.parents.com/kids/safety/outdoor/dry-drowning/ " Any child pulled from the pool needs medical attention ," says Dr. Berchelmann. "At the very least, call the pediatrician."

since i first heard of dry drowning earlier this summer, i haven't been able to enjoy a pool with my 1 and 2 year olds. It's taken the place of SIDS for me.

Best to stick em in the basement till they're 40!

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#128
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…

Call it sentimentality, but I don't feel like watching TNG is that difficult nowadays. It's old and missing some of the tech we have today, but if you can suspend your disbelief on that, it stands pretty well.

(To those who haven't watched TNG, the whole series is on Netflix, mostly (entirely?) in the remastered edition, so no TV-like quality. A piece of caution: this is not your typical sci-fi; it's much more positive about the future, science and technology than what we get served on TV these days.)

RE the yardstick thing - there's still lots of things that in Star Trek are shown as easy, and that they feel like they should be easy with sufficiently advanced tech, and that are still hard for us today. So it's maybe less of an yardstick and more of a goal / reminder that there's lots to be done yet.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#129

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 really are in the dark ages still No, we'd be in the dark ages if we were in still the dark ages. Our current level of progress would seem like science fiction or even magic as little as a century ago. I think I understand your point, that we have so much more to learn we're not even able to quantify what we don't know. But this is not some kind of endless quest. We're dealing with a machine in the end with finit…

I think we have already done a bangup job eliminating "common diseases" over the past 70 years.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#130

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…

Yeah, generally speaking, when it comes to scientific reporting, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The fact that the top commenter (as of this writing) sees this as "Star Trek levels of medicine" should clue everyone in.
Post reply on HN