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

171–180 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#171

Post by balls187 »

gambiting wrote: post #24
mrkrabo wrote: post #18

I swear to God, from the three videos I've seen, the drowning kid was always black. Was that luck, or was that an actor?

Does it matter in any way? Is it even a fact worth observing?

Black children and the inference of a lack of swimming ability have historically had racial undertones. Similar to inferences about watermelon, and fried chicken.

It's vestiges of jim crow era laws and mentality.

Edit to add: statistics apparently show that black children are more at risk to water fatalities.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#172

Post by agumonkey »

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…

- do not apologize for spreading more information

- this is hacker news I hope people are in it for some sort of rigor, not just for wow effect

I forgot the 66min case, but that brings me to something I heard recently. Some paramedics said they managed to sustain some kid under cardiac arrest for 18 minutes (he had a nice if not full recovery). The average rule is that if heart has not restarted after 6 minutes, brain damage is irreversible. So where does that leave us ? Should we try (say we have many people capable of doing CPM) to pump as long as possible ?

- should we try to lower body temperature as much as possible to slow metabolyc processes ?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#173

Post by genericpseudo »

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.

Yes, when appropriate. Think of it as a Bayesian prior...

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#174

Post by bitcrusher »

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…

*This observation was used to pursue hypothermia in other causes of anoxic injury, which is clinically used today.

With pretty astounding results, honestly. My son was born having been without oxygen for at least 6-9 minutes. He was immediately put on a "cold blanket" with his temperature maintained at 92 (F) for 72 hours to prevent brain damage... He has since made a complete recovery with no physical neurological issues present.

This article might be complete bunk, but the hypothermia treatment protocols definitely are NOT.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#175

Post by tedunangst »

nerdponx wrote: post #154
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

None of the theme park lifeguards I know have ever said anything about the remarkable bone density of the people they save.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#177

Post by proactivesvcs »

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…

As a layman I was struck by the claim of it being a "low-risk medical treatment". This started alarm bells ringing.

Thanks for a second opinion and the links.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#178

Post by pacaro »

paulse wrote: post #142
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'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?

I have no idea about the treatment you describe, but the mammalian dive reflex is very real, and is a useful way to induce bradycardia. For example, splashing cold water on your face can legitimately help with a panic attack

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#179

Post by WhitneyLand »

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…

Words I didn't know, in case it saves others a couple minutes...

Infarction - Tissue death due to inadequate blood supply

Edema - Abnormal build up up fluid within the body

Cortex - Wrinkly, outermost layer of the brain.

Thalamus - Part of the brain relating to sensory and motor signals.

DWI - Form of MRI. Measures Brownian motion of water molecules. Does not necessarily involve driving while intoxicated

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#180

Post by [deleted] »

dumbneurologist wrote: post #159
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…

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN