|
Attack of the Zombie Dogs
|
|
Topic Started: Jun 28 2005, 12:45 AM (539 Views)
|
|
24thcenstfan
|
Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
Post #31
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:57 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 09:52 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 05:17 PM
I don't see how these scientists will even get permission to perform experiments on human beings.
In general, I think this experimentation is a bit far fetched. I.E, I don't put much stock in the results these scientists are proclaiming to have achieved with the canine experimentation.
And what makes you think it's far fetched, because somerled says so? Well, you are wrong. This research may seem like science fiction, but it is rooted in science and contrary to what somerled thinks (as if he ever really does), this research is peer reviewed ... - Quote:
-
Peter Safar and Resuscitative Hypothermia: Recent Investigation
Peter Safar also carried out a considerable body of work in the last 20 years to support the use of hypothermia on three additional fronts that are relevant to readership of TraumaCare. First, he worked closely with trauma surgeon and critical care physician Samuel Tisherman on the use of mild hypothermia to prolong the “golden hour” of shock. That work is in a highly controversial area because retrospective clinical studies associate exposure/secondary hypothermia with increased mortality rate. However, the studies of Safar and Tisherman in this area represent a substantial series of experiments in rodent and pig models of hemorrhagic shock, demonstrating that mild or moderate hypothermia can delay the time to exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest in this condition.20-25 Second, he developed, after discussions with Colonel Ronald Bellamy of the United States Army, a novel approach to the resuscitation of victims of exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest. He proposed inducing a brief (several-hour) state of suspended animation using an aortic flush of a cold preservative solution that could buy time for transport and surgical repair, which could be followed by delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass.26-29 We at the Safar Center have been fortunate to participate in this landmark project, which, to date, has been able to successfully achieve good outcome in dogs after an exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest of 2 hours’ duration using profound hypothermia (10°C).30 It will be interesting to see over the years that follow if clinical trials are carried out in either of these two extremely novel areas of research.
Not to mention, aspects of this research has already been put to use in trauma centers.
So, because I am of the opinion that the outcome of the experiments is far fetched, I must be going by what Somerled had to say on the subject? Not even close. I read the main article and formed my own opinion on the subject before even reading what Somerled had to say.
The subsequent links you have provided since the main post have not succeeded in changing my opinion on the subject. My main bone of contention lies with the claim that the canines were resuscitated after “several hours” of being clinically dead. More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
For right now, that is and will continue to be my opinion until such time as more visual (video) and detailed proof on the specific (recent) experimentation has been released to the public.
And yes, beyond reading the section you quoted, I skimmed the TraumaCare Publication from Spring 2004 that you linked.
Well, you sound like someone who after reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
No, I sound like someone who needs actual proof of the claims made by these scientists. Only generalities have been provided. Am I supposed to believe that the resuscitation happened just because claims of successful experimentation have been made? (Rhetorical question)
No, I am not. There are some things that I demand more proof of before I am willing to accept that it happened. This is such an example.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Jun 29 2005, 10:14 PM
Post #32
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:57 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 09:52 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 05:17 PM
I don't see how these scientists will even get permission to perform experiments on human beings.
In general, I think this experimentation is a bit far fetched. I.E, I don't put much stock in the results these scientists are proclaiming to have achieved with the canine experimentation.
And what makes you think it's far fetched, because somerled says so? Well, you are wrong. This research may seem like science fiction, but it is rooted in science and contrary to what somerled thinks (as if he ever really does), this research is peer reviewed ... - Quote:
-
Peter Safar and Resuscitative Hypothermia: Recent Investigation
Peter Safar also carried out a considerable body of work in the last 20 years to support the use of hypothermia on three additional fronts that are relevant to readership of TraumaCare. First, he worked closely with trauma surgeon and critical care physician Samuel Tisherman on the use of mild hypothermia to prolong the “golden hour” of shock. That work is in a highly controversial area because retrospective clinical studies associate exposure/secondary hypothermia with increased mortality rate. However, the studies of Safar and Tisherman in this area represent a substantial series of experiments in rodent and pig models of hemorrhagic shock, demonstrating that mild or moderate hypothermia can delay the time to exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest in this condition.20-25 Second, he developed, after discussions with Colonel Ronald Bellamy of the United States Army, a novel approach to the resuscitation of victims of exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest. He proposed inducing a brief (several-hour) state of suspended animation using an aortic flush of a cold preservative solution that could buy time for transport and surgical repair, which could be followed by delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass.26-29 We at the Safar Center have been fortunate to participate in this landmark project, which, to date, has been able to successfully achieve good outcome in dogs after an exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest of 2 hours’ duration using profound hypothermia (10°C).30 It will be interesting to see over the years that follow if clinical trials are carried out in either of these two extremely novel areas of research.
Not to mention, aspects of this research has already been put to use in trauma centers.
So, because I am of the opinion that the outcome of the experiments is far fetched, I must be going by what Somerled had to say on the subject? Not even close. I read the main article and formed my own opinion on the subject before even reading what Somerled had to say.
The subsequent links you have provided since the main post have not succeeded in changing my opinion on the subject. My main bone of contention lies with the claim that the canines were resuscitated after “several hours” of being clinically dead. More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
For right now, that is and will continue to be my opinion until such time as more visual (video) and detailed proof on the specific (recent) experimentation has been released to the public.
And yes, beyond reading the section you quoted, I skimmed the TraumaCare Publication from Spring 2004 that you linked.
Well, you sound like someone who after reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
No, I sound like someone who needs actual proof of the claims made by these scientists. Only generalities have been provided. Am I supposed to believe that the resuscitation happened just because claims of successful experimentation have been made? (Rhetorical question)
No, I am not. There are some things that I demand more proof of before I am willing to accept that it happened. This is such an example.
And why would a respected doctor at a respected university wish to lie about his research? Why doesn't this man's years of research and publication in a peer reviewed journal constitute proof for you?
As I said, you sound like someone who after first reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
You make no sense whatsoever. Here's a perfect case in point...
- Quote:
-
More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
If the tissues were "perfectly preserved", why's it so hard to believe that those tissues would not be damaged?
Do you not understand what is meant by "perfectly preserved"?
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Jun 29 2005, 10:20 PM
Post #33
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 11:14 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:57 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 09:52 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 05:17 PM
I don't see how these scientists will even get permission to perform experiments on human beings.
In general, I think this experimentation is a bit far fetched. I.E, I don't put much stock in the results these scientists are proclaiming to have achieved with the canine experimentation.
And what makes you think it's far fetched, because somerled says so? Well, you are wrong. This research may seem like science fiction, but it is rooted in science and contrary to what somerled thinks (as if he ever really does), this research is peer reviewed ... - Quote:
-
Peter Safar and Resuscitative Hypothermia: Recent Investigation
Peter Safar also carried out a considerable body of work in the last 20 years to support the use of hypothermia on three additional fronts that are relevant to readership of TraumaCare. First, he worked closely with trauma surgeon and critical care physician Samuel Tisherman on the use of mild hypothermia to prolong the “golden hour” of shock. That work is in a highly controversial area because retrospective clinical studies associate exposure/secondary hypothermia with increased mortality rate. However, the studies of Safar and Tisherman in this area represent a substantial series of experiments in rodent and pig models of hemorrhagic shock, demonstrating that mild or moderate hypothermia can delay the time to exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest in this condition.20-25 Second, he developed, after discussions with Colonel Ronald Bellamy of the United States Army, a novel approach to the resuscitation of victims of exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest. He proposed inducing a brief (several-hour) state of suspended animation using an aortic flush of a cold preservative solution that could buy time for transport and surgical repair, which could be followed by delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass.26-29 We at the Safar Center have been fortunate to participate in this landmark project, which, to date, has been able to successfully achieve good outcome in dogs after an exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest of 2 hours’ duration using profound hypothermia (10°C).30 It will be interesting to see over the years that follow if clinical trials are carried out in either of these two extremely novel areas of research.
Not to mention, aspects of this research has already been put to use in trauma centers.
So, because I am of the opinion that the outcome of the experiments is far fetched, I must be going by what Somerled had to say on the subject? Not even close. I read the main article and formed my own opinion on the subject before even reading what Somerled had to say.
The subsequent links you have provided since the main post have not succeeded in changing my opinion on the subject. My main bone of contention lies with the claim that the canines were resuscitated after “several hours” of being clinically dead. More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
For right now, that is and will continue to be my opinion until such time as more visual (video) and detailed proof on the specific (recent) experimentation has been released to the public.
And yes, beyond reading the section you quoted, I skimmed the TraumaCare Publication from Spring 2004 that you linked.
Well, you sound like someone who after reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
No, I sound like someone who needs actual proof of the claims made by these scientists. Only generalities have been provided. Am I supposed to believe that the resuscitation happened just because claims of successful experimentation have been made? (Rhetorical question)
No, I am not. There are some things that I demand more proof of before I am willing to accept that it happened. This is such an example.
And why would a respected doctor at a respected university wish to lie about his research?
As I said, you sound like someone who after first reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
You make no sense whatsoever. Here's a perfect case in point...
- Quote:
-
More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
If the tissues were "perfectly preserved", why's it so hard to believe that those tissues would not be damaged?
Do you not understand what is meant by "perfectly preserved"?
Why does anyone lie? Also, what part of the word proof do you not understand?
Like I said, until such time as the scientists can pony up the proof of said successful experiment, I am going to continue treating their claims as suspect.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Jun 29 2005, 10:45 PM
Post #34
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:20 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 11:14 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:57 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 09:52 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 29 2005, 10:06 PM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 05:17 PM
I don't see how these scientists will even get permission to perform experiments on human beings.
In general, I think this experimentation is a bit far fetched. I.E, I don't put much stock in the results these scientists are proclaiming to have achieved with the canine experimentation.
And what makes you think it's far fetched, because somerled says so? Well, you are wrong. This research may seem like science fiction, but it is rooted in science and contrary to what somerled thinks (as if he ever really does), this research is peer reviewed ... - Quote:
-
Peter Safar and Resuscitative Hypothermia: Recent Investigation
Peter Safar also carried out a considerable body of work in the last 20 years to support the use of hypothermia on three additional fronts that are relevant to readership of TraumaCare. First, he worked closely with trauma surgeon and critical care physician Samuel Tisherman on the use of mild hypothermia to prolong the “golden hour” of shock. That work is in a highly controversial area because retrospective clinical studies associate exposure/secondary hypothermia with increased mortality rate. However, the studies of Safar and Tisherman in this area represent a substantial series of experiments in rodent and pig models of hemorrhagic shock, demonstrating that mild or moderate hypothermia can delay the time to exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest in this condition.20-25 Second, he developed, after discussions with Colonel Ronald Bellamy of the United States Army, a novel approach to the resuscitation of victims of exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest. He proposed inducing a brief (several-hour) state of suspended animation using an aortic flush of a cold preservative solution that could buy time for transport and surgical repair, which could be followed by delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass.26-29 We at the Safar Center have been fortunate to participate in this landmark project, which, to date, has been able to successfully achieve good outcome in dogs after an exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest of 2 hours’ duration using profound hypothermia (10°C).30 It will be interesting to see over the years that follow if clinical trials are carried out in either of these two extremely novel areas of research.
Not to mention, aspects of this research has already been put to use in trauma centers.
So, because I am of the opinion that the outcome of the experiments is far fetched, I must be going by what Somerled had to say on the subject? Not even close. I read the main article and formed my own opinion on the subject before even reading what Somerled had to say.
The subsequent links you have provided since the main post have not succeeded in changing my opinion on the subject. My main bone of contention lies with the claim that the canines were resuscitated after “several hours” of being clinically dead. More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
For right now, that is and will continue to be my opinion until such time as more visual (video) and detailed proof on the specific (recent) experimentation has been released to the public.
And yes, beyond reading the section you quoted, I skimmed the TraumaCare Publication from Spring 2004 that you linked.
Well, you sound like someone who after reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
No, I sound like someone who needs actual proof of the claims made by these scientists. Only generalities have been provided. Am I supposed to believe that the resuscitation happened just because claims of successful experimentation have been made? (Rhetorical question)
No, I am not. There are some things that I demand more proof of before I am willing to accept that it happened. This is such an example.
And why would a respected doctor at a respected university wish to lie about his research?
As I said, you sound like someone who after first reading of studies of penicillin doubt its actual effectiveness.
You make no sense whatsoever. Here's a perfect case in point...
- Quote:
-
More difficult to believe is that after they had been clinically dead for “several hours” there was no sign of abnormalities or brain damage (despite their tissues and organs being perfectly preserved).
If the tissues were "perfectly preserved", why's it so hard to believe that those tissues would not be damaged?
Do you not understand what is meant by "perfectly preserved"?
Why does anyone lie? Also, what part of the word proof do you not understand?
Like I said, until such time as the scientists can pony up the proof of said successful experiment, I am going to continue treating their claims as suspect.
You are essentially saying this is a lie, because the ARTICLES I cited clearly state what has been accomplished, so if you don't believe the words of serious researchers in serious medical journals constitutes proof, then you'll never be convinced.
But if you will take the word of a peer reviewed medical journa,l just what do you make of this comment...
- Quote:
-
We at the Safar Center have been fortunate to participate in this landmark project, which, to date, has been able to successfully achieve good outcome in dogs after an exsanguination cardiopulmonary arrest of 2 hours’ duration using profound hypothermia (10°C). 30
Are you saying that Peter Safar know the difference between a bad, marginal or good outcome?
If you're going to continue on in this manner, don't even respond, because in this instance your opinion is worthless.
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Jun 29 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #35
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dwayne
-
If you're going to continue on in this manner, don't even respond, because in this instance your opinion is worthless.
Dwayne, you are a rude individual. Don’t reply to anymore of my comments anywhere on this board again and expect any kind of reply. I just may not give you the courtesy.
This discussion is over with.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Jun 29 2005, 11:17 PM
Post #36
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:59 PM
Dwayne, you a rude individual. Don’t reply to anymore of my comments anywhere on this board again and expect any kind of reply. I just may not give you the courtesy.
This discussion is over with.
And you seem ... I stress seem ... tediously ignorant. I've gone above and beyond what is necessary to prove this is legitimate research and the peoples involved have a long history in this field of research. And what do you provide to support your opinion? Nothing.
I'm not your mommy or daddy and I don't care about your feelings, so don't expect me to help you feel good about yourself.
Both you and somerled have made almost identical statements and in both cases, neither of you have anything to support your opinion, but your opinions. So, in the context of this thread, it's a totally legitimate endeavor for me to bring more sources into the thread that supports the original article, but you've already given your opinion and for you to sit there an repeat the same diatribe to each source I provide is totally ridiculous and tedious.
We know what you think, so why do you keep coming back? I'd rather talk about the implications of this research rather than waste time trying to convince you or somerled that the research is well founded and sound.
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Jun 29 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #37
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dwayne
- Jun 30 2005, 12:17 AM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:59 PM
Dwayne, you a rude individual. Don’t reply to anymore of my comments anywhere on this board again and expect any kind of reply. I just may not give you the courtesy.
This discussion is over with.
And you seem ... I stress seem ... tediously ignorant. I've gone above and beyond what is necessary to prove this is legitimate research and the peoples involved have a long history in this field of research. And what do you provide to support your opinion? Nothing.
I'm not your mommy or daddy and I don't care about your feelings, so don't expect me to help you feel good about yourself.
Both you and somerled have made almost identical statements and in both cases, neither of you have anything to support your opinion, but your opinions. So, in the context of this thread, it's a totally legitimate endeavor for me to bring more sources into the thread that supports the original article, but you've already given your opinion and for you to sit there an repeat the same diatribe to each source I provide is totally ridiculous and tedious.
We know what you think, so why do you keep coming back? I'd rather talk about the implications of this research rather than waste time trying to convince you or somerled that the research is well founded and sound.
Wow, you really do like the sound of your own voice. You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
I have clearly stated why I hold the opinion that I do. You have provided no proof to substantiate the claims these scientists are making about the recent experimentation.
If you continue to act belligerent towards me, Somerled or anyone else on this thread I am going to report your behavior to the forum moderator or an Administrator.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Jun 29 2005, 11:38 PM
Post #38
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 11:27 PM
- Dwayne
- Jun 30 2005, 12:17 AM
- 24thcenstfan
- Jun 29 2005, 10:59 PM
Dwayne, you a rude individual. Don’t reply to anymore of my comments anywhere on this board again and expect any kind of reply. I just may not give you the courtesy.
This discussion is over with.
And you seem ... I stress seem ... tediously ignorant. I've gone above and beyond what is necessary to prove this is legitimate research and the peoples involved have a long history in this field of research. And what do you provide to support your opinion? Nothing.
I'm not your mommy or daddy and I don't care about your feelings, so don't expect me to help you feel good about yourself.
Both you and somerled have made almost identical statements and in both cases, neither of you have anything to support your opinion, but your opinions. So, in the context of this thread, it's a totally legitimate endeavor for me to bring more sources into the thread that supports the original article, but you've already given your opinion and for you to sit there an repeat the same diatribe to each source I provide is totally ridiculous and tedious.
We know what you think, so why do you keep coming back? I'd rather talk about the implications of this research rather than waste time trying to convince you or somerled that the research is well founded and sound.
Wow, you really do like the sound of your own voice. You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
I have clearly stated why I hold the opinion that I do. You have provided no proof to substantiate the claims these scientists are making about the recent experimentation.
If you continue to act belligerent towards me, Somerled or anyone else on this thread I am going to report your behavior to the forum moderator or an Administrator.
In other words, the only thing you'll accept as proof is the dog in your lap.
If you have nothing to add to this thread that doesn't pretain to how this research would benefit mankind, then get out of the thread.
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Jun 29 2005, 11:44 PM
Post #39
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
Moderator Comment
And that is it. Your abusive behavior will not be tolerated on this board. I am closing this thread.
The forum moderator or the Administrator can review the thread tomorrow and reopen it if they deem it salvageable.
MODERATOR COMMENT
Maybe this thread can be restarted, but I think this one is "beyond revival."
END OF MODERATOR COMMENT
|
|
|
| |