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

151–160 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#151

Post by tptacek »

Sleeep wrote: post #139
rayiner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, he didn't say "this link says there's no such thing as dry drowning". He said he was told to take his daughter to the doctor over suspected dry drowning, actually did so, and the doctor got upset because there's no such thing as dry drowning.

His doctor contradicted you, and the advice you gave at the end of your comment. Are you also a doctor?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#152

Post by enraged_camel »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #138
enraged_camel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>Clue in on what exactly?

On the fact that it does sound too good to be true.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#153

Post by caycep »

ransom1538 wrote: post #145
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…

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…

If you want to nitpick about it - his publication record is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harch+pg%5Bau%5D

As far as I can tell, he only really has editorials and reviews for the most part (which you can pump out to low quality journals any day). He was involved in a small scale rat experiment, a few case reports, and 40-patient non-controlled case series. Basically, at the level of a junior medical resident or fellow.

Furthermore, any references to his publications on his site are buried. The best I can find is here:

http://www.hbot.com/blog/edward-lucarini/hbot-tbi-references

Which are mostly book chapters (grunt work often farmed out to suffering medical students) and case reports (considered "interesting" but scientifically worthless). When judged by academic accomplishments, i.e. peer reviewed papers in high-impact journals, he is essentially not on the map.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#154

Post by nerdponx »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #141
zimpenfish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any research backing this up?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#155

Post by sushisource »

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…

All I really needed to know this article was shit was this sentence:

"She was immobile and constantly squirmed and shook her head."

Uhhh... That's a pretty fast and loose use of "immobile".

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#156

Post by infogulch »

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…

Thank you, dumbneurologist for the reality check, and thank you HN commenters for being the most down-to-earth no-bullshit community I've ever found. The breadth of expertise of commenters checking bait articles at the door makes HN an extremely refreshing and clear-headed place to consume news.

Everyone has their faults and I'm not saying that HN never gets caught up in hype sometimes, but this is the best place to be for a level-headed thoughtful takes on things, and you usually do it while retaining a general optimistic attitude.

So thank you.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#157

Post by engi_nerd »

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…

>before the advent of the internet.

The internet was around well before 1994.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#158

Post by nerdponx »

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.

I mentioned Star Trek precisely because it stretched the limits of believability. Usually I'm pretty skeptical but, yknow what? Sometimes I want to be amazed. I feel a little silly that I took this article for granted, but I sure wish I lived in a world where I could take most articles for granted.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#159

Post by dumbneurologist »

ransom1538 wrote: post #145
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…

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…

> Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique

That the medical community wants evidence to substantiate an extreme claim is not a valid criticism of the medical community: it's literally the scientific process.

There are just too many extreme claims based on "unconventional" medical ideas to possibly draw conclusions that any one of them deserves closer attention.

It's great that some doctors at LSU think these ones are deserving - I really want them to succeed, because it means my patients benefit. But the mechanistic reasoning behind /why/ we think it /should/ help is so dubious that there are a thousand better places for me to spend my own time.

Bottom line: 99% of doctors want to see new, revolutionary ideas succeed. If they don't think things are work, it's because they haven't personally seen it being revolutionary. And the harder it is to see a revolutionary effect... the less revolutionary it is, by definition

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#160

Post by toomuchtodo »

danso wrote: post #81
toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can reverse brain damage. Wow I'm going to tell you that I have never been more glad to read Hacker News first thing in the morning. I am sleeping in my mother's ICU room @ UIUC after she's suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage causing substantial brain damage. This is coming with me to the ICU team huddle this morning. Side note: if you're in neurological field or specialize in neurogenesis, please get in touch wi…

Best wishes to you and your mother.

Thank you. This is the hardest, most painful week of my life.
Post reply on HN