Good deal:
http://za.rs-online.com/web/p/processor-microcontroller-development-kits/8968660/?cm_mmc=ZA-PPC-_-google-_-2_UK_EN_LS_Raspberry_Pi_Exact-_-Raspberry_Pi_3&mkwid=sGyhjQRtw_dc|pcrid|175961466127|pkw|raspberry%20pi%203|pmt|e|prd|&gclid=CMf7rK_gl9QCFaYy0wodWRwEFg&intcmp=ZA-WEB-_-HP-SB1-_-Jun-17-_-june-hp
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Nicholas Robertson-Muir <nicmuir@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Figured actually.
On 20 Jul 2017 22:49, "Ilitirit Sama" <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So apparently that news story of that kid drowning then being brought
back to life does not pass the BS test:
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 quackery behind
it[1][2]
- oxygen is a standard part of medical care and can just as easily be
harmful as helpful
- because there is just no way in hell that oxygen is going to reverse
cell death.
- this is in newsweek, and not a peer-reviewed journal.
And if there was no cell death, then the recovery is almost inevitable.
Some posters are skeptical because 15 minutes is impossible.
On the contrary: the key point is the temperature. The article says the
water was 4 degrees C. That is cold enough that you *can* recover
fully. In fact, the most amazing recovery is also one of the
best-documented: with a 66-minute submersion in Utah that was followed by
complete recovery[3] (this is a far more interesting article than the
original post - it was in 1988, and utilized extracorporeal rewarming).
This observation was used to pursue hypothermia in other causes of anoxic
injury, which is clinically used today. I'm sure the 66-minute case also
got oxygen during the recovery, but to say that it was due to oxygen (which
is standard of care) rather than the temperature is silly.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but this article is just clickbait junk.
1. https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364687.h...
<https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm364687.htm>
2. https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/HBOT/hm01...
<https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/HBOT/hm01.html>
3. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doctor-s-world...
<http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doctor-s-world-ingenuity-and-a-miraculous-revival.html?pagewanted=all>
