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

191–200 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#191

Post by mholmes680 »

verbify wrote: post #84
mholmes680 wrote: post #78

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.

I assume you take the preventative measures for SIDS? http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Sudden-infant-death-syndrome/Pa...

DO: as a parent, wake up repeatedly and check your infant for symptoms of SIDS three times a night. Ensure wife does the same 5 times a night.

I'm speaking a little in hyperbole here, but you get the point I'm sure.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#192

Post by volkadav »

komali2 wrote: post #188

Come on, whoever you are. You're seriously going to drop words like infarction, thalami, FLAIR hyper intensity, massive cortical infarction on us? What's the point? Maybe 1% of the people on this public forum will have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. Luckily someone else has posted a dictionary underneath you, but I mean, surely you're used to speaking to laymen? You couldn't have just said "tissue…

you're on a site named "hacker news" and you're complaining about someone using technical jargon?

if only there were a site adept at providing information about search terms: https://www.google.com/

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#193

Post by WhitneyLand »

tptacek wrote: post #183
WhitneyLand wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I think people may confuse logic with believability. I could propose in this comment a cure for cancer based on a perfectly sound a logical argument and my (lack of medical) credibility would have zero affect on the cogency of what I was saying. But it does mean, you should probably not be convinced, or at least not send me all of your money to invest in my cancer research startup. Also for some reason it…

I'm not going to give an inch on this. This isn't an issue of logic versus persuasion. It is logically valid to attack the credibility of an argument that depends in any way, implicitly or overtly, on the credibility or authority of its bearer. The "ad hominem fallacy" is misused on the Internet probably more than it is applied correctly.

I don't think you have to give an inch. I'm agreeing it's legit to judge someone's argument based on credibility.

The reason is imperfect information. If I described here an actual, real, cure for all cancer, people shouldn't believe it because credibility is shit, it hasn't been clinically proven, and it might take 10 years to do so.

If I write in a solid proof for a millennium prize problem, you're probably going to be safe not worrying about my credibility at all because the truth will be known in pretty short order.

Usually the more uncertainty the more credibility has to be weighted.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#194

Post by WhitneyLand »

hornbaker wrote: post #184
WhitneyLand wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cortical, in this context, refers to the cortex of the brain (the wrinkly, outermost layer).

Thank you, updated.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#195

Post by toomuchtodo »

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…

> because there is just no way in hell that oxygen is going to reverse cell death.

Does oxygen have the ability to promote neurogenesis?

https://www.google.com/search?q=oxygen+therapy+neurogenesis

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#196

Post by komali2 »

volkadav wrote: post #192
komali2 wrote: post #188

Come on, whoever you are. You're seriously going to drop words like infarction, thalami, FLAIR hyper intensity, massive cortical infarction on us? What's the point? Maybe 1% of the people on this public forum will have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. Luckily someone else has posted a dictionary underneath you, but I mean, surely you're used to speaking to laymen? You couldn't have just said "tissue…

you're on a site named "hacker news" and you're complaining about someone using technical jargon? if only there were a site adept at providing information about search terms: https://www.google.com/

There's a difference between technical jargon and obfuscation. If 80% of the people reading your post (audience considered) need to google 20% of the words, when equivalent words exist that are more common, it is bad writing.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#197

Post by xenadu02 »

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

You honestly think neurologists enjoy going to parents of toddlers and telling them their child may never lead a normal life again? If this were a legitimate treatment most neurologists would jump on it.

The fact is there is -zero- chance that oxygen therapy months after the accident had any effect. Oxygen doesn't magically make neurons regenerate. Neurons are energy hungry and die within hours under the absolute best of circumstances.

This story is nothing new. The pool was very cold, that's why the kid made a "miraculous" recovery. Cooling the brain massively reduces neuron losses. This has been known for decades now and contrary to your supposition the medical community has adopted it where the evidence proves it is helpful - in some cases of suspected brain damage due to oxygen deprivation they will force the person's body temperature down and slowly re-warm while introducing oxygen. This has to be done carefully because re-introducing oxygen too quickly after a certain amount of time can induce apoptosis and make the damage worse.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#198

Post by lilactown »

otterley wrote: post #182
tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not familiar with that exception in logical thinking. What argument is logically dependent on someone's credibility?

In pure logic, credentials don't matter. However we're discussing something that is not pure logic (i.e. we are relying on the author's expertise and insight, and the publication to accurately represent that), so credibility is certainly relevant.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#199

Post by mcbits »

Sleeep wrote: post #124
blauditore wrote: post #104

First paragraph: > she spent 15 minutes submerged in a swimming pool This seems highly implausible, given she survived. Also, how would they know the moment she dropped in? Further down: > up to 15 minutes Ah ok. From what I know, brain damage starts occurring even after 2-3 minutes without air (for adults), so I suppose it was rather on the lower end. Does anybody know a bit more about this?

Children are known to be able to survive much longer without oxygen than adults. I'm not sure we know the exact reason for it though. Also people are known to be able to survive much longer submerged in cold water than warm water, perhaps due to the mammalian dive reflex - https://youtu.be/00RKh6NRMqc

That's fascinating. I had heard people can survive longer submerged in cold water (like falling through ice), but didn't realize there was such a profound and easily induced effect on heart rate. Can be used therapeutically?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#200

Post by xenadu02 »

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.

This sounds like pseudo-scientific garbage bordering on racism, so citation needed.

For almost any statistic you care to break down by gender or ethnicity there is greater variation within the group than between groups. By way of example, there is a greater variation of intelligence within men as a group than between men and women. That makes any statements about the intelligence of men vs women almost completely useless garbage. It certainly says nothing about individuals.

Post reply on HN