Novel drug could protect brains from damage after repeat concussions • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by Zambyte » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 12:35 PM UTC

maipen wrote: post #35

doublerabbit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because we humans are more important than them.

This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?

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

#42

Post by vdaea » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 12:45 PM UTC

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…

A human life is worth an infinite amount of animal lives.

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

#43

Post by amenhotep » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:00 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #41

maipen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because we humans are more important than them. This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?

Can you explain why it's not? Are you seriously proposing that if you were in a trolley problem choosing between saving the life of a random human you know nothing about and a random mouse you know nothing about, you would have difficulty making the decision?

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

#44

Post by neogodless » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:08 PM UTC

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.

Presumably you only mean sports. I'm tall. My first big concussion was so stupid. I had a box of stuff in the floor near the wall under a heavy wall-mounted shelf. Stood up after picking something out of the box and smashed my head.

Since then I've had several minor ones, but as stated elsewhere, you become more easily susceptible to the effects of a concussion from even relatively small impacts after a big one. The others include helping someone move something in their garage and hitting my head on a ceiling mounted HVAC unit, stepping out of the shower (I've got terrible eyesight) and hitting the top of the door frame, those sorts of things.

You could have those happen and be fine but it seems because they happened after the bigger concussion, I'll have symptoms again, especially sensitivity to low refresh rate screens or PWM.

I try to avoid it, but I'm not going to avoid living my life. And I'm not going to stop being tall.

So if medicine can help protect my brain, I'm interested in it.

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

#45

Post by doublerabbit » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:08 PM UTC

amenhotep wrote: post #43

Zambyte wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because we humans are more important than them. This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?

Can you explain why it's not? Are you seriously proposing that if you were in a trolley problem choosing between saving the life of a random human you know nothing about and a random mouse you know nothing about, you would have difficulty making the decision?

Why not? Because without animals you wouldn't be here today.

We're only here today because animals have given us the resources to survive. From cavemen hunting for meat to bees, insects pollinating plants.

The only resource we can provide is limited breast milk, sperm and meat. But human meat is deemed socially unacceptable, sperm only exists within biological males and the biological women has a limited timespan in their life where only if the conditions are right they lactate. So no, we have no importance.

Without any feasible resources that the homo sapien race can provide, of which could provide cultivation, that in return makes humans unimportant. QED

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

#46

Post by Swenrekcah » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:12 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #41

maipen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because we humans are more important than them. This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?

There is actually no completely objective way in which it’s possible to determine the relative importance or sacredness of an individual’s life between one species and another.

There is no particularly good objective reason for me to value my neighbours life more than a fish.

However I choose to be an unabashed specieist and value any individual human life above any individual other life.

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

#47

Post by Zambyte » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:22 PM UTC

amenhotep wrote: post #43

Zambyte wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because we humans are more important than them. This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?

Can you explain why it's not? Are you seriously proposing that if you were in a trolley problem choosing between saving the life of a random human you know nothing about and a random mouse you know nothing about, you would have difficulty making the decision?

Asking for an explanation is not a contradiction.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:24 PM UTC

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #13

toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nfl.com/news/op-ed-flag-football-can-t-be-ignore... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39081597

Sorry, no one is gonna prefer to watch flag football over full contact tackling. This is an absurd article. And the fact that the Olympics are holding a flag football event is a joke.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by mandmandam » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:24 PM UTC

vdaea wrote: post #42

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…

A human life is worth an infinite amount of animal lives.

Said the human, apparently blithely unaware and certainly dismissive of any possible bias.

The infinite animals, on the other end, made no such genocidal claims. In fact, on the whole, they were about 100% less fond of ethnic cleansing than the hairless apes.

Not satisfied with continuing their perverse murder of the biosphere, the apes regularly turned on their own also, inventing ever-more horrifying methods of doing so. This didn't seem to register on the human who proclaimed such inherent value in human life in the slightest.

In fact, at that current moment multiple genocides were happening, some of them with the full-throated support of that human's voted-for government. Some 40% of citizens and 90+% of politicians and media figures were not only ignoring said mass murder, but in fact paying for it.

You might find this hard to belive, Xanthrax, but these humans are so thoroughly convinced of their superiority by an effect they themselves have identified and named: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Snark snark baby, Xethrop out.

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

#50

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #45

amenhotep wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why it's not? Are you seriously proposing that if you were in a trolley problem choosing between saving the life of a random human you know nothing about and a random mouse you know nothing about, you would have difficulty making the decision?

Why not? Because without animals you wouldn't be here today. We're only here today because animals have given us the resources to survive. From cavemen hunting for meat to bees, insects pollinating plants. The only resource we can provide is limited breast milk, sperm and meat. But human meat is deemed socially unacceptable, sperm only exists within biological males and the biological women has a limited timespan in…

> Humans are not important, we are a fault to this world.

No other plant or animal is important either. Nature doesn't give a shit about any of us. The ability to actually care about abstract concepts like the suffering of others is a rare trait in the animal kingdom. Humans have it. Maybe some primates and cetaceans have it. Otherwise animals are quite content to rip each other apart in the most cruel ways possible for food. I assure you, a lion does not lose any sleep over the suffering of the gazelle.

This alone makes humans a little special, no?