Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

newsweek.com

241–250 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#241
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813211 and marked it off-topic.

What does it mean when you say you marked it as off topic? I don't see any such notes even in incognito, I'm not sure what it means.

"Marked as off-topic" means tagged as off-topic in HN's software, which causes it to fall in rank on the page.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#242

These two comments prove you're an asshole. Therefore you are wrong.

Please don't create accounts just to violate the guidelines with—we ban them, and then the main account if it continues. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14814687 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#244

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…

I obviously don't know anything regarding your mom's condition, but SAH (a form of hemorrhagic stroke) by itself can have very complete recovery. The real question is how much ischemic stroke there was with it. If the answer is "none", then, if she survives (scary caveat, obviously), then her recovery could be very very good. Having said that, ischemic injury is common (as is herniation, which is similarly permanent…

Thank you for the reply. I can't tell you how much it means to me, regardless of the outcome.

I'm prepared for her to pass; she's in a coma and she's suffered brain damage, but I'm doing my best to advocate for her.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#245

It is also completely irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of the argument, which is often what gets missed. Authority is a heuristic, nothing more. The evaluation of P -> Q happens independently of the speaker. If you're trying to refute P -> Q by mentioning an attribute of the speaker, you're necessarily answering some other question entirely, while making an excuse to ignore the original question. You ca…

You're confused. The original argument is not a deductive one, it's abductive. Material implication, e.g., P -> Q, is a deductive move.

In non-deductive arguments, like we have here, any claim (be it conditional or otherwise) certainly does not happen independently of the speaker or of what logicians call the knowledge base (KB).

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, SD? The acronym is not clicking, would like to make sure I'm not missing a site with benefits similar to HN, even if it requires viewing a few half page ads. Thanks,

Slashdot.com - haven't checked it in years but was a similar tech focused site with above average comments, its heyday was late 90s-early 2000s iirc

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#247

> was in the 5 degree Celsius water for up to 15 minutes before being discovered. as my professor used to say: If you're going to drown, drown in almost-freezing freshwater.

I get the freezing, why the freshwater? Saltwater can be a bit colder before ice, so wouldn't it be better?

I think the salt is an issue with regard to inhaling the water, not about the temperature.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#248
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I implicitly trust most of what I hear from a doctor, even when it defies intuition. But I have much less trust for what I hear secondhand, i.e. when someone says "my doctor said". There's simply too great a likelihood for signal corruption along the way. Patients can fail to communicate context to their doctors, miss subtleties in the communication back, and fail to relay context once again when they relate their stories to other lay folk. And no, I am not a doctor :)

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, SD? The acronym is not clicking, would like to make sure I'm not missing a site with benefits similar to HN, even if it requires viewing a few half page ads. Thanks,

Maybe it is Slashdot?

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." So fucking what? I suffered a moderate (GCS 8) TBI 6 years ago and it has been the most impactful thing to ever happen in my life, more so than even the births of my children. This article is a small glimmer of hope in an otherw…

We have to separate the points here. "Hope" is a real, tangible thing, crucial in our lives, and provably effective. The question is do we need to accept quackery to have it? Is that sometimes the only way? I suspect the answer is, rarely. There is so much legit and exciting work being done w.r.t. TBIs that it seems we should not have to rely on it in this area. But that's a guess. Until you've walked in someone's sh…

Well, this is the basis for religion.

I am an atheist, scientist (physics) and I used to actively discourage people from religion (which is pure quackery).

This until I realized that religion helps people who do not want to otherwise think about the world around them. One of the people I managed to move away from religion and change his beliefs ended up deeply depressive. Another one was deeply unhappy with the change. I lost these two friends.

So, while I profoundly belive that people who do science must be atheists (otherwise they have some mental disorders, trying to combine fire and ice), I do not think anymore that everyone is a good candidate for enlightenment. The hope you get from religion vs. the hope you do not have in science (in the religious sense) must be carefully weighted.

Post reply on HN