
Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler? - Deinos
http://www.newsweek.com/eden-carlson-brain-damage-reversed-drowning-638628
======
dumbneurologist
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)

~~~
ransom1538
OR:

Dr. Harch is published and well respected. He also has many documented cases
of saving divers lives - including working with the US Navy. Could this be
just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique? In March
2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and
hyperbaric medicine [1]. He has a legit cv:
[http://www.hbot.com/about](http://www.hbot.com/about). Some of this
publications:

1\. Harch PG, et al. SPECT brain imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of
type II decompression sickness. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine,
1992;19(Suppl):42.

2\. Harch PG, et al. The effect of HBOT tailing treatment on neurological
residual and SPECT brain images in type II (cerebral) DCI/CAGE. Undersea and
Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):22-23.

3\. Harch PG, et al. HMPAO SPECT brain imaging and low pressure HBOT in the
diagnosis and treatment of chronic traumatic, ischemic, hypoxic and anoxic
encephalopathies. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):30.

From the article [1] you mentioned: "In March 2000, the American Board of
Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine as a
subspecialty of both emergency medicine and preventive medicine."

~~~
dumbneurologist
> Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new
> technique

That the medical community wants evidence to substantiate an extreme claim is
not a valid criticism of the medical community: it's literally the scientific
process.

There are just too many extreme claims based on "unconventional" medical ideas
to possibly draw conclusions that any one of them deserves closer attention.

It's great that some doctors at LSU think these ones are deserving - I really
want them to succeed, because it means my patients benefit. But the
mechanistic reasoning behind /why/ we think it /should/ help is so dubious
that there are a thousand better places for me to spend my own time.

Bottom line: 99% of doctors want to see new, revolutionary ideas succeed. If
they don't think things are work, it's because they haven't personally seen it
being revolutionary. And the harder it is to see a revolutionary effect... the
less revolutionary it is, by definition

~~~
dmix
Paul Harch wrote a book claiming HBOT can help treat:

• Stroke

• Autism and other learning disabilities

• Cerebral palsy and other birth injuries

• Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and other degenerative
neurological diseases

[https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-
Groundbr...](https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-
Groundbreaking-Disabilities/dp/1578262372/)

Wikipedia is saying there is zero scientific evidence to back up any of this.
I'd say Dr Harch crossed the line into quackery by making these grand claims,
despite his otherwise reputable background.

Which is sad because his books all have plenty of 5/5 star ratings by people
who are desperate for answers and are being oversold an unproven science.

I highly doubt there has been a conspiracy in the "medical community" to not
take oxygen therapy seriously. It's not exactly a new treatment, as the OP's
comment points out, it's been tested since at least 2000 (17 years ago) by
mainstream medical groups.

------
nerdponx
This is approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. Congratulations to the team
who discovered and pull this off, and of course my heart goes out to the
family and their child. Drowning is very serious and very scary.

Edit: somewhat unrelated since this girl fell into an unattended pool, but
it's important to know the signs of drowning, which are not what you see in
movies: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-spot-signs-of-a-child-
dro...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-spot-signs-of-a-child-drowning/)

Edit 2: I get that people have a right to downvote whatever they want, but
seriously, did I say something wrong here?

~~~
sillysaurus3
We are not approaching Star Trek levels of medicine. In Star Trek, they can
heal wounds by shining a light on them. They can erase and alter people's
memory. They can scan for problems using a handheld device. They can cure
blindness with a visor. We are nowhere near any of that.

I know this doesn't really matter much, but if we're going to throw in
hyperbole, it should at least be somewhat accurate. I think people are boo'ing
anyone who brings up this point because it's such an incredible achievement.
That's true, it is, and it's amazing that brain damage was reversed. But Star
Trek is a useful, iconic yardstick for measuring our progress. Saying we're
close to it discounts how much work we have left to do.

~~~
taeric
I think you have to keep charity in mind on that compliment. It was meant as
high praise for the medical achievement of curing someone. Not as reductionism
to shining a light and magically curing something. More, that was pretty clear
just in the comment.

To that end, I'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick? My
assertion would be that it is not. It is a common one. But there is nothing
useful in it. Precisely because you have to cherry pick what parts you use and
how you interpret them. For example, you interpreted it to refer to the method
of curing. The comment was taking it for the level of the sickness that was
cured. Both are valid places to look.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_I 'm curious how Star Trek is a useful iconic yardstick?_

I suppose it's sentimentality. If you watch TNG (which is difficult nowadays
-- it's so far out of time), the writers made some interesting observations.

We now have the capability to ask the computer for information (Google), the
ability to send each other messages (email), and we can verbally ask the
computer questions (Siri). Touch interface (iPhone). These are landmark
achievements, and they were all predicted by a show which ended in 1994,
before the advent of the internet. The technology predictions have generally
been on-point, and it seems like a useful metric for how far humanity can
progress.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Call it sentimentality, but I don't feel like watching TNG is _that_ difficult
nowadays. It's old and missing some of the tech we have today, but if you can
suspend your disbelief on that, it stands pretty well.

(To those who haven't watched TNG, the whole series is on Netflix, mostly
(entirely?) in the remastered edition, so no TV-like quality. A piece of
caution: this is _not_ your typical sci-fi; it's much more positive about the
future, science and technology than what we get served on TV these days.)

RE the yardstick thing - there's still lots of things that in Star Trek are
shown as easy, and that they _feel_ like they should be easy with sufficiently
advanced tech, and that are still hard for us today. So it's maybe less of an
yardstick and more of a goal / reminder that there's lots to be done yet.

------
madilonts
Well, this event happens enough that it might be worth studying the benefit of
oxygen therapy, but I'd be very careful about the conclusions you draw from
this.

Maybe the oxygen had a substantial positive effect, or maybe the child
would've recovered on her own. We really don't know, since there are other
reports of children who have good neurological outcome despite terrible
prognosis [1] [2].

I'm suspicious because of the unusual and/or stereotyped responses in the
Medical Gas article and the linked YouTube videos: "doctors said she had 48
hours to live" (doctors don't say things like that) and "this demonstrates
that we're inducing 8101 genes!" (ummm, OK...), etc.

Also, be suspicious when something like this hits all the pseudo-news sites
simultaneously. It reminds me of the articles that go something like "16 year-
old cures cancer...DOCTORS HATE HIM!".

Finally, I'm very happy this little girl has been given a second chance and
hope for her continued recovery. However, don't forget that a toddler was left
unsupervised and submerged in a pool for 15 minutes. Some people call that an
accident; some people call it neglect.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3379747](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3379747)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10665559](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10665559)

~~~
astalwick
> However, don't forget that when a baby is left unsupervised and is submerged
> in a pool for 15 minutes, it's called neglect.

Whoa there, slow down.

Kids are quick. One moment, your three kids are happily watching Finding Dory
on the tv, while you're making dinner. The next, only two are: the third has
quietly wandered off.

Unless you know the particulars, be very careful about tossing around words
like 'neglect'.

~~~
madilonts
Yeah, I realized that would be a controversial statement, and modified it to
be a little less so.

However, I have a 2 and a 3 year-old. And I would consider it my fault if they
wandered into a freezing pool.

~~~
dpark
"Your fault" and "neglect" are very different things. Accidents happen and
accusing someone of neglect every time there's an accident is ridiculous.

------
davidiach
>Concluding, the researchers say that to their knowledge, this is the first
reported case of gray matter loss and white matter atrophy (types of brain
damage) reversal with any therapy and that treatment with oxygen should be
considered in similar cases. “Such low-risk medical treatment may have a
profound effect on recovery of function in similar patients who are
neurologically devastated by drowning."

I always believed that brain damage cannot be reversed. If version 1 means
reversing it in toddlers, maybe version 10 will do miracles for many other
people. Truly amazing and congratulations to the medical team!

~~~
PetitPrince
Not to dampen your enthusiasm too much, but please note that infants are
exceptionally good at producing new neurons compared to adults; their brain
aren't fully developed after all.

~~~
kaybe
Infants are also good at working around losing half a brain. If one loses it
early enough the rest can develop to become a fully functional adult of normal
intelligence, which is pretty amazing.

~~~
Cshelton
Yeah, we have a family friend whose child had half her brain removed at the
age of 5. She if normal today. You would never know she only has half a brain.

The surgery was performed by Dr. Ben Carson. I'll admit, not the best in
politics, but one hell of a doctor.

------
matt4077
> 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.

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

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

~~~
matt4077
Yes, you and zimpenfish are correct: getting salt in your lungs will almost
certainly kill you, because it keeps drawing water from the blood through
osmosis, and you'll continue to drown even after leaving the water.

------
amykhar
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.

~~~
mabbo
This is what's nice with a single payer health system. The same cost center
has to either pay for disability related costs, or pay for treatments that
would potentially end the disability related costs. It's a sane investment by
the government here in Canada to make such choices.

On the other hand, if your health insurance is through one system and your
disability insurance through another, you have everyone optimizing for their
personal local minimums rather than the global minimum.

~~~
refurb
Does Canada pay for hyperbaric oxygen therapy?

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

~~~
johnnyb9
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.

------
slr555
Drowning is from a medical standpoint more complex than the simple notion I
grew up with which was in essence "water fills your lungs so you can't breathe
air".

In fact drowning does not require filling the lungs completely. Even a volume
of a few milliliters/Kilogram of body weight is enough to cause drowning.
Additionally, drowning can cause serious damage to the lungs themselves even
if the patient survives initial attempts at resuscitation. The alveoli
(functional unit of the lungs) are lined with a surfactant that is critical to
the exchange of air to the blood stream. Water can severely disrupt the
surfactant and impair function not just while the water is present but until
the body is able to restore the surfactant layer. Damage to the patient's
lungs in this case seems to have been mild enough that the oxygen therapy
could do it's job.

Also notable is the 5 degree celsius water temperature (41 degrees
Fahrenheit). This water temperature compared with the temperature of an
olympic practice pool (~76 degrees Farenheit) is cool enough (though not as
cold as many other reports) to trigger the so called "diving reflex" where
stimulation of thermo-receptors in the skin triggers a vagal response that
shunts blood away from the periphery and to vital organs.

Minimal surfactant damage and the diving reflex (as well as the patient's age)
seem likely to some degree to have facilitated successful treatment of the
patient.

~~~
quotha
Have you heard of dry drowning? It can happen _after_ exposure to water:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drowning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drowning)

~~~
slr555
My primary reference is Auerbach's Wilderness Medicine 7th Edition. It states
that a consensus definition of "dry drowning" has been somewhat elusive. While
laryngospasm may play a role in some drownings, opinion seems to lean now
towards at least some aspiration of water on a consistent basis. The
phenomenon is still the subject of debate.

------
mechnesium
This is really awesome. I am curious if this therapy would have been augmented
by cognitive enhancers or nootropic substances such as piracetam. Piracetam in
particular exhibits neuroprotective effects and improves cerebral vascular
function. Several studies have found it to improve recovery following
acute/transient ischemic stroke. It has actually been prescribed in several
countries for this purpose.

References:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972044](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972044)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10338105](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10338105)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9412612](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9412612)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9316679](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9316679)

------
zeveb
Egad the JavaScript on that page is terrible! Every time I scroll to read the
first paragraph, it hides the video or something, causing it to scroll away.

------
samfisher83
It seems like they fed the body a lot of oxygen and the body healed itself. I
think the body is pretty amazing at regeneration when we are young.

------
sehugg
Can anyone knowledgeable about medicine explain this article further? For
example, I'm wondering why they waited 55 days to give normobaric oxygen
therapy. Wouldn't it be given immediately for a patient with brain injury?

~~~
dmix
Most likely the 55 day wait happened because the parents sought out
alternative treatments afterwards. As it is very unlikely the original doctors
suggested this treatment... there is no supporting evidence that HBOT helps
with traumatic brain injury. Also as other's have pointed out in this thread,
HBOT is an industry full of quackery with grand claims of curing cancer,
treating brain injury, and cerebral palsy with little evidence.

So most likely the parents approached a university research group, or a
research group was referred to them, and they did the study with the child at
a later date following the initial treatment of the injury.

------
mabbo
I was worried this would be a case of neural plasticity, where the brain just
rewires itself around the damage (which is a thing, and it's super cool). But
then I read this part:

> An MRI scan a month after the 40th HBOT session showed almost complete
> reversal of the brain damage initially recorded. Researchers believe the
> oxygen therapy, coupled with Eden having the developing brain of a child,
> had activated genes that promote cell survival and reduce
> inflammation—allowing the brain to recover.

We can reverse brain damage. Wow.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> 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 with me

~~~
dumbneurologist
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 and very very dangerous). I hope she
comes through it ok.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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.

~~~
mechnesium
Have you looked into pharmaceuticals to possibly mitigate damage? I'm not sure
of their efficacy, but there are a few racetams that might aid recovery.
Phenylpiracetam is perhaps the most potent.

From Wikipedia:

"A few small clinical studies have shown possible links between prescription
of phenylpiracetam and improvement in a number of encephalopathic conditions,
including lesions of cerebral blood pathways, traumatic brain injury and
certain types of glioma."

Study in rats:

"In Wistar rats with gravitational cerebral ischemia, Phenylpiracetam reduced
the extent of neuralgic deficiency manifestations, retained the locomotor,
research, and memory functions, increased the survival rate, and lead to the
favoring of local cerebral flow restoration upon the occlusion of carotid
arteries to a greater extent than did piracetam."

~~~
toomuchtodo
The extent of her brain damage was too severe. She passed away Monday night
after being taken off life support. Thank you for mentioning this, it might
help someone in the future.

------
timcamber
This is amazing. Does anyone think the cold temperature of the water (5C) had
anything to do with the feasibility of recovery? I don't necessarily have a
reason to think it would be beneficial or not, just a thought that crossed my
mind. I don't think it was mentioned in the article.

~~~
ryandvm
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but it's well documented that the survival
rates for drowning, while dismally low, are much better in ice-cold water.

 _Cold water lengthens the survival time by two mechanisms. It triggers the
mammalian diving reflex, which halts breathing and conserves oxygen by slowing
the heart rate and moving blood to vital parts of the body. This response is
stronger in children than adults.(14) An opposing “cold shock response” may
predominate, which leads to a faster heart rate with potential fatal rhythm
disturbances(15). This response also causes immediate aspiration and
swallowing of water, which quickly cools the heart and carotid arteries
leading to “selective brain cooling”.(4) A reduction of brain temperature by
10° C decreases energy consumption by 50% and doubles the duration of time the
brain can survive without oxygen.(16) This “therapeutic” hypothermia is
accelerated by surface cooling in children and small adults with higher
surface-area to body mass ratios and less subcutaneous fat. Panic by the
victim (breath holding and vigorous attempts at escape) and protective gear
worn in cold water work against these principles and may prevent therapeutic
hypothermia._

[http://www.sitezed.com/an-analytical-look-at-survivable-
subm...](http://www.sitezed.com/an-analytical-look-at-survivable-submersion-
times/)

------
wvh
[...] and two hours where her heart did not beat on its own.

Impressive. I wonder if there are ways to force this level of regenesis in
adult brains with less generative power and neuroplasticity.

I don't think there's anything sweeter to a human being than "here's your
child back".

------
sunwooz
Is there data out there about infants in a similar situation who didn't
receive oxygen therapy? Is it possible that the developing child brain is what
almost solely caused the improvements?

------
blauditore
First paragraph:

> she spent 15 minutes submerged in a swimming pool

This seems highly implausible, given she survived. Also, how would they know
the moment she dropped in?

Further down:

> up to 15 minutes

Ah ok. From what I know, brain damage starts occurring even after 2-3 minutes
without air (for adults), so I suppose it was rather on the lower end. Does
anybody know a bit more about this?

~~~
Sleeep
Children are known to be able to survive much longer without oxygen than
adults. I'm not sure we know the exact reason for it though. Also people are
known to be able to survive much longer submerged in cold water than warm
water, perhaps due to the mammalian dive reflex -
[https://youtu.be/00RKh6NRMqc](https://youtu.be/00RKh6NRMqc)

~~~
mcbits
That's fascinating. I had heard people can survive longer submerged in cold
water (like falling through ice), but didn't realize there was such a profound
and easily induced effect on heart rate. Can be used therapeutically?

------
rhinoceraptor
It would interesting to know if better results could be obtained using even
more oxygen, in combination a ketogenic diet/exogenous ketones (which would
negate the risk oxygen seizures).

------
msie
This is cool but will other people try it or will it be another forgotten
technique?

------
TurboHaskal
How is nationality relevant?

~~~
Djvacto
I think it's just because the article title tries to convey that this happened
in the U.S.

It seems like a word flow thing.

------
flamedoge
Drowned U.S. Toddler. U.S. is unnecessary here.

------
wcr3
?

------
ilitirit
Does drowning not imply death? Is there different definition for drowning (or
death) in medicine?

EDIT: I'm referring to the fact that the title says the girl drowned, not that
she was at some point "drowning".

~~~
whorleater
> The World Health Organization in 2005 defined drowning as "the process of
> experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid".

from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning)

~~~
ilitirit
That is the act of drowning though, or isn't it? eg. You can be drowning, but
still be rescued.

It's no big deal, but I've also thought that if someone drowned it implies
they died.

~~~
smichel17
Define "died". It's not as easy as you might think, because as medical
technology improves, the point of no return slips farther away. Per the
article, this child's heart stopped beating for 2 hours.

~~~
ilitirit
I know, hence my original question. Although it says the child's heart stopped
beating "on its own", which implies that it was still beating through
"artificial" means.

------
Karunamon
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 can say that someone making such an argument is _more likely_ to be
incorrect based on their beliefs, but that's still an untested hypothesis
(more bluntly, a rationalization) until you actually sit down, stop making
excuses, and verify it yourself.

Excuses aren't logic. You can say you don't have time, and that's valid, you
can say you don't want to, and that's valid, but don't say you're doing logic.
You're coming up with reasons to avoid doing logic.

~~~
dang
> _You 're coming up with reasons to avoid doing logic._

This crosses into incivility. Please don't do that here.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14814687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14814687)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
Karunamon
?! That was in no way incivil or a personal attack. There is a hard line in
the sand between making a logical argument and making another kind of an
argument, and I just explained where that line is in a very objective way, and
in a hypothetical no less.

 _If_ you are making arguments to authority, _you are not doing a logical
argument_ , period. _You are making excuses to avoid doing logic_. Is also not
a personal attack, it is a statement of objective truth when you ignore
correctness in favor of anything else.

That was a general statement and was not directed at tpatacek, and now this
thread makes no sense.

------
wfunction
> Disclaimer: I am a neurologist

> {informed comments}

A little off-topic but I see this so often I feel like I should mention this
at some point:

I think you mean "disclosure" and not "disclaimer" (and most likely it's best
if both are omitted and you just mention you're a neurologist).

"Disclaimer" means refusing to accept responsibility, which doesn't make sense
when it's a preface to what looks like a comment based on expertise. If, on
the other hand, you're really trying to say that you're refusing any
responsibility for what you say, then the disclaimer should probably be
something more along the lines of "I'm NOT {a qualified
lawyer/neurosurgeon/whatever}", and not "I AM {a qualified whatever}".

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813211)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
wfunction
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.

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

~~~
wfunction
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.

~~~
dang
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14792835)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14793511](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.

~~~
wfunction
...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.

~~~
dang
I'm sorry there's some sort of weird misunderstanding between us. That's
definitely not what we're aiming for, and I would be happy to correct it if I
knew how.

~~~
wfunction
Please see my edit, I missed a crucial part of your reply. (And I think it
answers your question as to how: i.e. don't respond harshly when you don't
have to, whether to me or anyone else. There were lots of gentler options
available in both our cases here.)

------
mrkrabo
I swear to God, from the three videos I've seen, the drowning kid was always
black. Was that luck, or was that an actor?

~~~
gambiting
Does it matter in any way? Is it even a fact worth observing?

~~~
SmellTheGlove
Yes, it does. Lifeguards will tell you it's part of their training. It may be
non-PC, but the statistics say that when you're watching the water, African-
American children are more likely to drown. I don't know if it's specifically
African American children, or black children (of any origin) in general. I've
heard it's socioeconomic - potentially less likely to be able to swim, but I'm
not sure honestly. If you're watching the water, though, it's very relevant.

~~~
mnw21cam
One of the things I was taught _mumble_ years ago was that black people tend
to have more dense fast twitch muscle, while white people tend to have less
dense slow twitch muscle. Hence, white people float more easily, and black
people dominate the 100m sprint. We did an experiment where we would
cannonball the swimming pool and see who floated. Admittedly, the amount of
air you have in your lungs affects your buoyancy more, but there was a
difference.

~~~
simias
As I replied in a sibling comment regardless of whether those biological
traits have a real impact or not I don't think it's particularly relevant in
this context.

Maybe nature will prevent a black person from reaching Michael Phelps-levels
of swimming proficiency but I don't think it would prevent anybody from
learning natation 101.

I don't think I'll ever win the 100m sprint at the olympics but I can
definitely run 100m and probably faster than the average black person too.

------
melling
No, not really. You're making a hyperbolic statement. I've been watching Star
Trek for 40 years. We're definitely still in the Dark Ages:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMaGnpVaSGQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMaGnpVaSGQ)

~~~
toxican
Just to be pedantic, isn't referring to where we're at now as "the dark ages"
equally hyperoblic?

~~~
sp332
If you've ever been in a dialysis clinic, you might see how someone from a
culture that doesn't have them would view us as being in the dark ages.

~~~
TallGuyShort
For those who have no idea why a dialysis clinic makes us look like the Dark
Ages - could you elaborate?

~~~
sp332
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/-god-
he...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/-god-help-you-
youre-on-dialysis/308308/) They're not well-regulated.

First they install a permanent port into your bloodstream. Your kidneys aren't
working, so after 2-4 days you're feeling bloated and your blood is full of
various toxic metabolic by-products. You bum a ride to the dialysis clinic
where they cycle your blood out of your body, run it through a filter, and
push it back in, for hours. They try to be careful of your red blood cells,
but some of them get smashed up in the machinery. They try to regulate the
temperature of your blood as it gets returned to your body, but it's often too
cold or too hot. You get very dried out during this process because you want
it to last another 2-4 days, so you overdo it a little. You and the dialysis
clinic want to get this over with as quickly as possible (they have other
customers to schedule) so you have 2-4 days' worth of filtering to do in a few
hours, which puts a lot of stress on your internal organs.

The #1 cause of death of people on dialysis is people deciding to quit because
they'd rather die in the next few weeks than continue the treatment.

