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

131–140 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#131

Post by astrodust »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #88
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 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…

A little over a century ago and there was still debate about germ theory.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#132

Post by astrodust »

cubano wrote: post #129
WhitneyLand wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Now we just have to eliminate stupidity so all those hard-won gains don't get undone because of a handful of anti-vax types.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#133

Post by wvh »

[...] and two hours where her heart did not beat on its own.

Impressive. I wonder if there are ways to force this level of regenesis in adult brains with less generative power and neuroplasticity.

I don't think there's anything sweeter to a human being than "here's your child back".

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#134

Post by TeMPOraL »

gumby wrote: post #103
WhitneyLand wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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'm guessing you don't work in the medical field (I have). First their's the emergent complexity of scale (after all the universe consists of a finite number of a small number of fundamental particles). Second, the human body (and all the pathogens etc) are ob…

The point is, even if the complexity is large, it's not infinite. And over the last few centuries we got pretty good at developing both mental and technological tools to tackle the complexity. While a human can't be expected to keep track of e.g. all the methabolic pathways described in medical textbooks and research papers, it's not a huge deal for a computer. Now of course that is only one of the points in a web of complexity that recursively expands in breadth and depth - but that only invites us to build more and better tools.

> People still die, just of a wider variety of less common reasons. In the limiting case, each person will die of a unique cause.

Right now, human lives are still capped at ~120 years, and usually much less than 100. In the (mathematical) limit, each person will die of a unique cause at age infinite. While we won't ever reach that limit, it's worth to continue getting closer to it.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#135

Post by TeMPOraL »

astrodust wrote: post #132
cubano wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now we just have to eliminate stupidity so all those hard-won gains don't get undone because of a handful of anti-vax types.

And coordination problems, so that if we succeed with anti-vaxxers we won't get killed by farmers abusing antibiotics on farm animals.

Nice side effect of solving coordination problems include: solving poverty, solving peace on Earth. :).

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#136

Post by joncampbelldev »

astrodust wrote: post #131
WhitneyLand wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

A little over a century ago and there was still debate about germ theory.

Unfortunately there are still some people who don't believe it today :(

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#137

Post by robotresearcher »

sp332 wrote: post #44
toxican wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be pedantic, isn't referring to where we're at now as "the dark ages" equally hyperoblic?

If you've ever been in a dialysis clinic, you might see how someone from a culture that doesn't have them would view us as being in the dark ages.

You don' think they'd be impressed by how the people with busted kidneys don't simply die in days?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#138

Post by TeMPOraL »

enraged_camel wrote: post #130
dumbneurologist wrote: post #117

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.

> The fact that the top commenter (as of this writing) sees this as "Star Trek levels of medicine" should clue everyone in.

Clue in on what exactly? That the current top commenter, and others - including myself - got baited? Hard to blame them, IMO. That's the effect when popular press is literally lying to people. :/.

(Also that's why I usually read HN comments even before the original article - in case there's an expert who debunks the story, which happens pretty often.)

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#139

Post by Sleeep »

rayiner wrote: post #75
Sleeep wrote: 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."

https://dockatevaccineblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/dry-drow... . Our daughter was coughing after swimming in a river a few weeks ago, and my mother in law found the dry drowning stuff on the internet. I was like "dry drowning doesn't exist," but we called a nursing hotline which told us to go to the ER. The doctor checked out the kid, then asked us for the number of the nursing hotline so she could yell at them for…

That page does not say dry drowning doesn't exist and does not contradict a single thing that was said in the link I posted.

No shit swallowing water is not the same as aspirating [breathing] it and nobody said it was!

"And I’m pretty sure everyone understands that a child who is down in the water, gets pulled out, and requires resuscitation needs immediate medical attention, even if they seem to recover." - No, they might not!!! And that's the point!!!

The takeaway is:

If someone has a serious near-drowning episode they should seek medical attention even if they appear fine.

If someone exhibits symptoms listed after aspirating water, they should seek medical attention.

Post reply on HN