Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

newsweek.com

141–150 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does. Lifeguards will tell you it's part of their training. It may be non-PC, but the statistics say that when you're watching the water, African-American children are more likely to drown. I don't know if it's specifically African American children, or black children (of any origin) in general. I've heard it's socioeconomic - potentially less likely to be able to swim, but I'm not sure honestly. If you're wa…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11172054 Theorises that segregation meant many POC never learnt to swim and then their fear of drowning (along with socioeconomic factors, of course) has lead them to keeping their children away from swimming lessons.

The greater bone density of blacks makes it harder to float because they don't displace enough water for their mass. It isn't just social issues that discourage swimming.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#142

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…

I've read a little about the "Dobkin Technique" where a cold compress is held over the eyes and face of a patient in cardiac arrest to simulate the 'mammalian diving reflex' and delay brain death like shown in these cases. Is there any truth to this or is it pseudoscience? Why wouldn't this be a more known treatment if it works?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#143

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, when I saw the 4˚ bit, all of my surprise vanished. There's nothing new here, except the degree of coverage the story is getting.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#145

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…

OR:

Dr. Harch is published and well respected. He also has many documented cases of saving divers lives - including working with the US Navy. Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique? In March 2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine [1]. He has a legit cv: http://www.hbot.com/about. Some of this publications:

1. Harch PG, et al. SPECT brain imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of type II decompression sickness. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1992;19(Suppl):42.

2. Harch PG, et al. The effect of HBOT tailing treatment on neurological residual and SPECT brain images in type II (cerebral) DCI/CAGE. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):22-23.

3. Harch PG, et al. HMPAO SPECT brain imaging and low pressure HBOT in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic traumatic, ischemic, hypoxic and anoxic encephalopathies. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):30.

From the article [1] you mentioned: "In March 2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine as a subspecialty of both emergency medicine and preventive medicine."

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#146

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…

I am a neurosurgeon, and am also skeptical. Here are some thoughts after looking at the actual paper in Med Gas Research.

First, after looking at the MRI, I see more evidence of cerebral edema than of infarction. The MRI sequence that would show the actual infarction, DWI is presented, but as a 3d volume(which I have never seen done before with DWI) and does not show the thalami where most of the FLAIR hyperintensity is.

Second, Unlike what the article would have you think, there is not massive cortical infarction. In fact the cortex looks not too bad. The main lesions appear to be bilateral thalamic edema. Note that thalamic dysfunction can present with severe neurological deficits often mimicking massive cortical dysfunction.

Third, measuring volumes in an MRI that is not taken at 1mm slices can be problematic. Thus where the authors talk about volume differences may just be slice variations between scans.

Fourth, I would have expected something this groundbreaking to be in NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Lancet, Stroke, or Neurology. Medical Gas Research is a very obscure journal.

Fifth, Paul Harch is way outside the medical mainstream. During the Terry Schiavo case in Florida he was one of the people arguing that she was not in a permanent persistent vegetative state. It seems like he pushes hyperbaric oxygen to treat a host of brain disorders such as cerebral palsy, autism, stroke, traumatic brain injury. There is very little actual scientific studies backing up these assertions.

So overall, I am very skeptical about this article. In addition, usually when groundbreaking science is presented by the press, you often have an expert in the field who was not involved with the study, talk about methodology, background, and implications. This article did not do so, making it all the more suspect. I think, ultimately this is another Newsweek poorly researched click bait article.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#147
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't they have infant and toddler level swimming classes?

Yes, and it's possibly the best time to start! "Mommy and Me" swim class when I was 18 months old meant that I learned to swim before conscious memory - I don't remember not knowing how to swim.

My mom was a great parent and wonderful overall, but that was a particularly excellent decision of hers. She was still careful with my little brother and me around water - we were enrolled in Red Cross swim classes during the summers in elementary school, and always had lifejackets on at the lake. Despite being terrible at pretty much all sports (unlike my athletically-gifted brother), I was always a decent swimmer.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#148
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is. That probably is the reason we do not have that stereotype here :-) good point

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#149

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…

OR: Dr. Harch is published and well respected. He also has many documented cases of saving divers lives - including working with the US Navy. Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique? In March 2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine [1]. He has a legit cv: http://www.hbot.com/about . Some of this publications: 1. Harch PG, et al…

Now that they mention it, it's pretty obvious that cell death didn't occur. If it did, how did oxygen counteract it?

That seems like the most persuasive argument to address, and I'm not sure those references do.

Post reply on HN