Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#31

Post by lupusreal »

bdcravens wrote: post #3
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #2

If you end up taking a drug because someone bangs you on your head everyday, it's good that it's there, but you might also want to put a stop to that.

Perhaps, but many sports (such as football and American football) are far too popular to end anytime soon. Additionally, it may be given as a precaution after a first concussion (car wreck, for example), even if that person is unlikely to be "banged on the head everyday"

You don't have to end the sport, just opt not to play it yourself. The GP's suggestion is valid; if you're getting hit in the head a lit you should stop doing that.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#32

Post by lupusreal »

ntlve wrote: post #23
stavros wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swimming?

Possibly not: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869851/

> The traditional view that swimmers naturally gravitate toward swimming because of preexisting respiratory disorders has been challenged

Lolwut. Anybody who could believe that has never been a swimmer. Of course aspirating drops of pool water, and the chlorinated air lingering above pools, is going to be a lung problem. Why in the world would anybody with preexisting respiratory issues gravitate towards swimming? That's ludicrous.

> The traditional explanation for this higher prevalence rate is one of selection bias. The suggestion that swimming is a more suitable activity compared to both cycling and running in asthmatics5 is not surprising. For example, the hydrostatic compression effect of water can reduce the effort required to generate expiratory flow,

Dumbest thing I've ever read.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#33

Post by [deleted] »

niemandhier wrote: post #19
therein wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take it further, in my opinion, it is essentially unjustifiable in a deeply karmic way. I genuinely think that I would be able to work on a weapons guidance system and even know that it has been used to target a military vehicle without feeling much guilt but performing the kind of work you have quoted on animals would make me stop and think. And just stop. It is not worth the progress. Not worth the credits, the…

The people conducting this kind of research pay an emotional price for it. Here is a very thoughtful account of how it can affect you: https://www.cnet.com/science/i-killed-563-mice-for-science/ I did this myself for many years, and honestly, I believe the world would be a better place if the people designing weapons were exposed to the suffering they cause to the same degree we are.

[deleted]

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#34

Post by xescure »

doublerabbit wrote: post #29
refurb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These animals are anesthetized. ”The mice were anesthetized for 5 min using 4% isoflurane in a 70:30 mixture of air:oxygen” The regulations around animal testing are strict. You need to reduce all suffering to the maximum extebt possible. You can apply for research where suffering occurs, if justified by the research (say anesthetic or analgesics interfere) but good luck getting it approved. You’ll be told “come back…

And that makes it all okay? Still insanely cruel. Would you volunteer to be anaesthetised and then have your head bashed in multiple times? No? Why should animals.

No, but if I were a TBI sufferer, I’d take quality of life improvements even with these costs.

If you want to ‘have it all,’ we’ll need to invest heavily in creating more advanced biomedical research models. This requires strong societal and political willpower.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#35

Post by maipen »

doublerabbit wrote: post #29
refurb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These animals are anesthetized. ”The mice were anesthetized for 5 min using 4% isoflurane in a 70:30 mixture of air:oxygen” The regulations around animal testing are strict. You need to reduce all suffering to the maximum extebt possible. You can apply for research where suffering occurs, if justified by the research (say anesthetic or analgesics interfere) but good luck getting it approved. You’ll be told “come back…

And that makes it all okay? Still insanely cruel. Would you volunteer to be anaesthetised and then have your head bashed in multiple times? No? Why should animals.

Because we humans are more important than them.

I don’t understand the issue.

We should try to minimize the pain and suffering of these test subjects, in a few decades I am sure we will have better alternatives…

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#36

Post by lotsofpulp »

xlii wrote: post #12
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #2

If you end up taking a drug because someone bangs you on your head everyday, it's good that it's there, but you might also want to put a stop to that.

As far as I know there aren’t any sports which are completely safe and without side effects. Sport can ruin your joints (eg. running), spine (eg. weightlifting) and cause plethora of other health issues (anecdotally I know many people who got serious injuries from while leisurely playing team games). Usually there’s net gain from those activities, and what sport one practices vastly depends on preference and I’d rath…

I prefer joint damage from running or back pain rather than expose those around me to the effects of brain damage.

Also, there are ways to run and weight lift (mostly just doing overdo it) that result in zero or near zero damage, whereas there are no ways to have your brain impact your skull with zero damage.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#37

Post by rowanG077 »

doublerabbit wrote: post #29
refurb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These animals are anesthetized. ”The mice were anesthetized for 5 min using 4% isoflurane in a 70:30 mixture of air:oxygen” The regulations around animal testing are strict. You need to reduce all suffering to the maximum extebt possible. You can apply for research where suffering occurs, if justified by the research (say anesthetic or analgesics interfere) but good luck getting it approved. You’ll be told “come back…

And that makes it all okay? Still insanely cruel. Would you volunteer to be anaesthetised and then have your head bashed in multiple times? No? Why should animals.

And the alternative is even more cruel: "Yeah we could have a nice drug for you that can cure your mushed brain. But sorry. We couldn't run tests on mice. Good luck with never beeing able to hold down a job again."

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#38

Post by tokai »

therein wrote: post #15
Codesleuth wrote: post #11

> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the Kimwipe. Mice underwent seven repetitive less-than-mild injuries (rlmTBI, 24-inch height; W/5 mm flat) OR repetitive mild injuries (rmTBI, 36-inch height; W/5 mm flat) in 9 days. This seems very cruel, even in the face of progress. The price that animals pay fo…

I'd take it further, in my opinion, it is essentially unjustifiable in a deeply karmic way. I genuinely think that I would be able to work on a weapons guidance system and even know that it has been used to target a military vehicle without feeling much guilt but performing the kind of work you have quoted on animals would make me stop and think. And just stop. It is not worth the progress. Not worth the credits, the…

>that I would be able to work on a weapons guidance system and even know that it has been used to target a military vehicle without feeling much guilt

That is pretty sad and disgusting.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#39

Post by krisoft »

anonzzzies wrote: post #25
krisoft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people should pay for playing I’m sorry, what? There are two ways I can interpret what you wrote. “Should pay” as in the people who play sports should buy their own concussion medicine. Which is okay I guess? But nobody talked about financing. Which makes me think you mean “should pay” as in people who choose to partake in sports should suffer harm (as in pay the metaphorical “price”). Is that how you mean it? Beca…

No that's not how I mean it, sorry. I mean if you put yourself in danger, society shouldn't necessarily pay. Sports is healthy if it's not a sport that endangers your body and that should be rewarded; sports that are proven to give you multiple injuries (concussions etc) are not very different from bad addictions. It's your choice/responsibility, not 'ours'. But no I definitely didn't mean the tail end. Sorry if you…

Thank you for the clarification, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding it.

In that case I agree with you.

Re: Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions

#40

Post by whaleofatw2022 »

gnicholas wrote: post #6
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #2

If you end up taking a drug because someone bangs you on your head everyday, it's good that it's there, but you might also want to put a stop to that.

Could be useful for soldiers, who may be subject to concussions on an unfortunately regular basis.

Breachers.

In fact a former colleague's husband fell into that bucket. He was a breacher for the local PD, and too much of that (the compression wave bounces your brain around inside the skull) caused him to have all sorts of issues that took years to stabilize.

Post reply on HN