3 ms·

"He said at least one patient had had the procedure but did not elaborate on whether that patient or any others had survived." I think this is a pretty importan

"He said at least one patient had had the procedure but did not elaborate on whether that patient or any others had survived." I think this is a pretty important detail to leave out.

jandrese 7y ago
This is probably one of those times where if it had been successful we would have had a news story on it with an interview from the patient.
- chmod775 7y ago
  Suppose you only have one case of it being used and the patient had mortal injuries with a 5% chance to survive to begin with and is now in a coma, with maybe days or weeks from waking up if he makes it. It would be a bit early to give some overeager journalist something to "report" (let's be real, more like: "exaggerate beyond recognition"). When patients only have a 5% chance of making it without the procedure, you need a lot more than a few trials to get a good idea of whether this procedure helps. Also if I was a patient who just survived some traumatic injury from which a full recovery is unlikely, the last thing I would want is a bunch of journalists of all people bearing down on me immediately after. I rarely talk to journalists on my best days.
  - amelius 7y ago
    Yet the most exciting phrase in science is "that's odd". And not "odd" in the sense of doing a statistically sound experiment, because that comes later.
dghughes 7y ago
But survive the procedure or survive due to their injuries. There are two situations going on either of which could cause death. It would be interesting to see how a healthy person reacts if they go through the emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) procedure.
sp332 7y ago
According to an interview, they're trying to get the survival rate of this level of trauma up from 5-10% to maybe 20%. https://www.popsci.com/reanimators/ https://www.popsci.com/reanimators/ So there's not much to tell from one person surviving or not.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  There is something to tell from just one person surviving. That would be a world first, and implies this 'could' actually work.
nradov 7y ago
"The operation was a complete success. Unfortunately the patient did not survive." -Anonymous Surgeon
- mxvzr 7y ago
  Still better than "Amputated the leg in under 2 1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright. That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston
  - DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
    “ Amputated the leg in 2 1⁄2 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient's testicles as well.” Sounds made up, but I’d it’s not, that’s fucked up. You can’t do that by mistake.
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      Big knife, big slices, lots of force behind it... I can see it. A 2 minute amputation means they were going pretty fast.
codingdave 7y ago
Perhaps. We're talking about people with a 5% change of surviving their injuries. If this doubles their chances, 90% of the patients still die. So the result of a single case might not be as relevant as it would seem.
hanniabu 7y ago
I think it's irrelevant if you're in the US because when if you survive, the medical bills from this will kill you.

"He said at least one patient had had the procedure but did not elaborate on whether that patient or any others had survived." I think this is a pretty important detail to leave out.

jandrese 7y ago

This is probably one of those times where if it had been successful we would have had a news story on it with an interview from the patient.

chmod775 7y ago
Suppose you only have one case of it being used and the patient had mortal injuries with a 5% chance to survive to begin with and is now in a coma, with maybe days or weeks from waking up if he makes it. It would be a bit early to give some overeager journalist something to "report" (let's be real, more like: "exaggerate beyond recognition"). When patients only have a 5% chance of making it without the procedure, you need a lot more than a few trials to get a good idea of whether this procedure helps. Also if I was a patient who just survived some traumatic injury from which a full recovery is unlikely, the last thing I would want is a bunch of journalists of all people bearing down on me immediately after. I rarely talk to journalists on my best days.
- amelius 7y ago
  Yet the most exciting phrase in science is "that's odd". And not "odd" in the sense of doing a statistically sound experiment, because that comes later.

dghughes 7y ago

But survive the procedure or survive due to their injuries. There are two situations going on either of which could cause death. It would be interesting to see how a healthy person reacts if they go through the emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) procedure.

sp332 7y ago

According to an interview, they're trying to get the survival rate of this level of trauma up from 5-10% to maybe 20%. https://www.popsci.com/reanimators/ https://www.popsci.com/reanimators/ So there's not much to tell from one person surviving or not.

ramblerman 7y ago
There is something to tell from just one person surviving. That would be a world first, and implies this 'could' actually work.

nradov 7y ago

"The operation was a complete success. Unfortunately the patient did not survive." -Anonymous Surgeon

mxvzr 7y ago
Still better than "Amputated the leg in under 2 1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright. That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston
- DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
  “ Amputated the leg in 2 1⁄2 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient's testicles as well.” Sounds made up, but I’d it’s not, that’s fucked up. You can’t do that by mistake.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Big knife, big slices, lots of force behind it... I can see it. A 2 minute amputation means they were going pretty fast.

codingdave 7y ago

Perhaps. We're talking about people with a 5% change of surviving their injuries. If this doubles their chances, 90% of the patients still die. So the result of a single case might not be as relevant as it would seem.

hanniabu 7y ago

I think it's irrelevant if you're in the US because when if you survive, the medical bills from this will kill you.