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

261–270 of 310 posts

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#261

Post by rayiner »

Natsu wrote: post #212
tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If and only if the arguer's credibility has no logical connection to their argument, then attacking the arguer is fallacious. The arguer's credibility does not affect the truth value of any statements, so it's always more useful to argue over why someone is wrong. You cannot guarantee that any segment of the population agrees with your credibility assessments. And these assessments should be established via appeals…

The arguer's credibility has no bearing on the truth value of purely logical arguments that can be fully evaluated within the four corners of the argument. Very few scientific assertions fit that rubric. In the ordinary case where a conclusion is at some pointed predicated on an unknown fact, then the credibility of the speaker absolutely matters.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#262

Post by dang »

wfunction wrote: post #258
dang wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh I see, cool, thanks! Edit: I couldn't even post this because I've been supposedly "posting too fast" when I've only had ~5 comments in the last day. Are you causing/influencing/related to this in some way? I had never seen this happen before but ever since our last conversation I have seen it happen twice, both when you have been around the thread.

Moderators sometimes rate limit accounts that post too many unsubstantive or off-topic comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars. You've posted a ton of comments that match that description lately. That includes this subthread—the site guidelines specifically ask you not to post this kind of thing. Others include https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14792835 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14793511.

Rate limiting is a crude tool, but it's one of the few mechanisms we have to try to prevent discussion quality from degrading. If you limit yourself for a while to comments that are substantive, not flamewars, and not generically off-topic, email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we'll be happy to remove the rate limit.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#264

Post by composer »

agumonkey wrote: post #172
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, brai…

I'm reluctant to say this...

But future generations will probably laugh at us. Our rule of thumb about deprivation of oxygen and brain damage is based on the idea that brain damage occurs on the "down" side when the brain is deprived. Actually, the damage occurs on the "up" side when a patient is revived under non-ideal circumstances for brain operation. It turns out the brain if you wake it "up" properly can stay "down" as long as other organs. Think kidneys frozen for 24 hours before being successly transplanted. And a proper wake up involves slow extracorporeal rewarming as mentioned in one of the top comments.

If we can accept this down/up inversion as true, then it means that rushing to revive a patient is what does the damage. It means applying CPR in the field as soon as possible does the damage.

If true, it means 20 minutes, or even 2 hours, of not breathing is nothing as long as the cold body is rewarmed slowly.

If true, it means it is better to keep the brain "down", body "frozen", everything cold as possible (but above the temp of ice crystals riping apart blood cells causing permanent limb loss) until --and this is the key part-- a proper wake "up" can be performed.

If true it means the current limits observed with oxygen deprivation exist only because we are still concerned with reviving as soon as possible. Leave that child passed out! (But keep 'em cold.)

If all this is true, it means that saving a loved one is best done buy applying ice over applying CPR.

Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief, at how many people we have needlessly injured and killed with the barbaric practice of rushing to revive. I look forward to the improvement in how we save/restore lives. I look forward to the improvement from the slow but steady diffusion through our collective awareness of of the idea:

Down-and-cold-is-okay/ Prematurely-revived-is-bad.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#265

Post by amykhar »

bonniemuffin wrote: post #83
amykhar wrote: post #38

What frustrates me is that in the United States, most insurance companies won't pay for hyperbaric oxygen treatment for traumatic brain injuries. My son, 26, was injured in a car accident last November. I would love to be able to get Oxygen therapy for him, but cannot.

You really shouldn't extrapolate from this particular story that HBOT would necessarily have any impact on an adult brain. Developing children's brains have the capacity for regeneration in a way that adult brains don't.

I'm not. I've read many other studies, particularly with veterans with TBIs.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#266

Post by amykhar »

dumbneurologist wrote: post #237
amykhar wrote: post #38

What frustrates me is that in the United States, most insurance companies won't pay for hyperbaric oxygen treatment for traumatic brain injuries. My son, 26, was injured in a car accident last November. I would love to be able to get Oxygen therapy for him, but cannot.

Does his neurologist recommend it?

His neurologist is pretty old school.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#267

Post by johnnyb9 »

mabbo wrote: post #102
refurb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Canada pay for hyperbaric oxygen therapy?

I have no idea. But if it's proven, available, and makes sense then generally it will be available with prescription for it.

That's generally the case with US insurance companies as well, which leads me to believe this is more "experimental" and thus not a good example of the merits of a single payer system.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#268

Post by wfunction »

dang wrote: post #262
wfunction wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I see, cool, thanks! Edit: I couldn't even post this because I've been supposedly "posting too fast" when I've only had ~5 comments in the last day. Are you causing/influencing/related to this in some way? I had never seen this happen before but ever since our last conversation I have seen it happen twice, both when you have been around the thread.

Moderators sometimes rate limit accounts that post too many unsubstantive or off-topic comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars. You've posted a ton of comments that match that description lately. That includes this subthread—the site guidelines specifically ask you not to post this kind of thing. Others include https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14792835 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=147935…

...Wow. Both of those comments were direct responses to the topic and your second example in fact had 8 upvotes and others who supported it as well.

I suppose in addition you'd naturally hope for me to assume this was a totally unbiased decision not at all associated with the fact that I had recently criticized your treatment of another user immediately beforehand publicly, right? I was so happy I'd found a moderator who really seemed to want to treat people well and equally, and instead what I'm seeing now is a moderator who instead turns around and actively follows his critics to stab them in the back silently. Never mind the normal process of giving them a warning or some other signal that you think there might be anything wrong with their behavior at all.

And I'm sure you're going to claim this was a totally independent decision and not anything revenge-like on your part, which I'm supposed to again believe despite so much direct evidence to the contrary, and I'm sure you cannot comprehend how someone with good intentions could possibly think otherwise. Like you've said yourself before -- it's not like the dynamics aren't well-known. Shame on me and my naiveté for thinking HN mods would be able to take some criticism and treat a critic like a normal user instead of looking for a way to stealthily get e-revenge at the guy who gave it.

Edit:

Regarding "this subthread" also being off topic, which I just noticed -- I didn't recall that rule, so my bad on that. Now that I've already written this, though: like I said before regarding your moderation of the previous user: I would've expected a warning or some other kind of moderation that's like a normal treatment. Not a silent stab like this, especially given the surrounding context. It's extremely hard to view things generously when you moderate things you disagree with so harshly and unusually.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#269

Post by toomuchtodo »

dumbneurologist wrote: post #239
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…

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…

The current problem we're facing is vasospasms; her doctors aren't able to put her into hypertension because they're unable to determine if the hemmorage they were unable to find with a cerebral angiogram will bleed again (causing more brain damage), while also needing to protect her heart (which isn't ejecting blood in the volumes they'd consider healthy).

I'm advocating for a continuous drip of heparin to protect against secondary brain damage from ischemic strokes post-SAH; whether this is safer then putting her into hypertension, I don't know yet.

I'm off to do more research.

Re: Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

#270

Post by taneq »

composer wrote: post #264
agumonkey wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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, brai…

I'm reluctant to say this... But future generations will probably laugh at us. Our rule of thumb about deprivation of oxygen and brain damage is based on the idea that brain damage occurs on the "down" side when the brain is deprived. Actually, the damage occurs on the "up" side when a patient is revived under non-ideal circumstances for brain operation. It turns out the brain if you wake it "up" properly can stay "d…

I'm no medical professional, but this matches the last thing I read on the topic. A sudden inrush of oxygen to an oxygen-starved brain triggers apoptosis, and that there'd been a bunch of recent (albeit cautious) success stories from gradual resuscitation rather than rapidly warming the victim while flooding their lungs with oxygen.
Post reply on HN