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

161–170 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#161

Post by piker »

throwaway7890 wrote: post #146
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…

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…

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great.

One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#162

Post by dvt »

piker wrote: post #161
throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

Contrary to popular belief (and internet logical fallacy experts), attacking the credibility of the speaker is a perfectly fine thing to do. The quality of the speaker is often times a pretty good indicator of the quality of the message.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#164

Post by otterley »

dvt wrote: post #162
piker wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

Contrary to popular belief (and internet logical fallacy experts), attacking the credibility of the speaker is a perfectly fine thing to do. The quality of the speaker is often times a pretty good indicator of the quality of the message.

Indeed. Just because a conclusion is based on logically fallacious arguments doesn't mean it's untrue, or that the arguments should have no persuasive power whatsoever. (Taken to its logical extreme, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#165

Post by [deleted] »

dvt wrote: post #162
piker wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

Contrary to popular belief (and internet logical fallacy experts), attacking the credibility of the speaker is a perfectly fine thing to do. The quality of the speaker is often times a pretty good indicator of the quality of the message.

[deleted]

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#166

Post by CydeWeys »

piker wrote: post #161
throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

Pointing out that someone is a quack is a really effective refutation of their arguments. If you were arguing about WWII history with someone, might it not affect your trust in their credibility if you found out they were a Holocaust denier? Or if you're arguing geography with someone and it's pointed out that they're a flat Earther?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#167

Post by nashashmi »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #149
ransom1538 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could be a cell sleeping state that shutdown when there was a lack of oxygen and woke up when oxygen was plenty fold.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#168

Post by laythea »

infogulch wrote: post #156
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…

I second that. HN is good for that reason and also the lack of half page ads on another popular website SD.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#169

Post by tptacek »

piker wrote: post #161
throwaway7890 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you both for taking the time to create accounts and respond. Both of these responses are amazing, and it's lurkers/posters like you that make this site great. One question: some of your responses attack only the credibility of the speaker (OP's 1st, 4th and your 4th, 5th points). Is this typical in scientific discourse? They seem to detract from your analysis to me.

It's an Internet myth that the credibility of an argument's source is out of bounds in a debate. If and only if the arguer's credibility has no logical connection to their argument, then attacking the arguer is fallacious. Otherwise, as is very much the case here, it is not.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#170

Post by tptacek »

otterley wrote: post #164
dvt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief (and internet logical fallacy experts), attacking the credibility of the speaker is a perfectly fine thing to do. The quality of the speaker is often times a pretty good indicator of the quality of the message.

Indeed. Just because a conclusion is based on logically fallacious arguments doesn't mean it's untrue, or that the arguments should have no persuasive power whatsoever. (Taken to its logical extreme, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Attacking the arguer's credibility isn't fallacious if their argument depends in any way on their credibility, as it clearly does in this Newsweek story.
Post reply on HN