Zombie dogs created

dudara

Zombie dogs created

This is amazing. The potential for saving human lifes is amazing

the_syco

Dude, that is totally bizzare!

cormie

Crazy! I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing.

TerrorFirmer

Its extremely errie....but also potentially one of the most fantastic things to hit the news.

Imagine all the people that would have otherwise died that could be saved....

Scruff

i wonder if the same happen as in the film Flatliners???

Raises interesting questions abou spirituality and all that. Forsee a moral and ethical outcry.

dudara

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any huge moral/ethical problems here. To me, it's just a method to give a patient a few extra hours to allow treatment to take place.

I can understand why some people might have issues though.

Son_of_Belial

Jehovah's Witnesses for one. They're gonna go nuts! Haha. Great idea, though the procedure in itself seems kind of risky... "Oh look, I'm bleeding to death, how about you drain out the rest of my blood and replace it with freezing saline, yeah, I'll see you guys in a couple of hours..."

cormie

It would be a good way to catch murderers anyway!

victim:"yeah that's him!"
suspect: "what the, I killed you"
victim: "yup, definitely him"

TerrorFirmer

Scruff wrote:

i wonder if the same happen as in the film Flatliners???

Raises interesting questions abou spirituality and all that. Forsee a moral and ethical outcry.

Scary. Eventually, will we be able to say "Yep, theres something after death - i was almost there"?

OR

"There was nothing. Just blackness, like sleep." Despressing really tbh.

Coming back from the dead...

Although, we could argue that you still wouldn't know, beause you were never truly dead in the religious sense - God knew you would be revived.

StonedParadoX

would it not also **** up the human mind?

say for example people who believe in god..? or others on the verge of insanity
ok i explained that all craply but who cares u get my point

Capt'n Midnight

Christian Barnard (SP) the guy who did the first heart transplant claimed to have put a second head on a dog back in the 60's and that they both lapped up milk.

Daelus

I wouldn't want to be brought back from the dead. Haven't we learned anything from Buffy?

Seriously, though, maybe scientists should just learn to accept that people die. Although I guess maybe it would be okay if it were just for a minute to operate on them or something.

Or the aforementioned murder-solving.

It is pretty amazing, though.

the_syco

StonedParadoX wrote:

say for example people who believe in god..? or others on the verge of insanity

Whats the difference?

dudara

It's not really a death, more like a suspended animation, or so I believe.

What about the people who are placed on heart-bypass machines when having open-heart surgery? Their hearts are stopped for short periods of time, so that surgeons can operate.

Question: how do the scientists overcome the problems of the brain getting no oxygen for that famous 4 minutes? Or did the article mention it, and I missed it,

Scruff

MobileInfantry wrote:

Although, we could argue that you still wouldn't know, beause you were never truly dead in the religious sense - God knew you would be revived.

aahh!

dudara wrote:

Question: how do the scientists overcome the problems of the brain getting no oxygen for that famous 4 minutes? Or did the article mention it, and I missed it,

maybe they havent and the article is being descriptive in its title.

Stark

From an animal rights point of view, draining a dogs blood, replacing it with saline solution, then replacing it with blood again sounds a little umm, cruel...

Also I don't think you can really save lives, as you can only reanimate people who have been "prepared" using this procedure?

As for the remembering what happened during "death" part, it would depend on how much people can consciously remember. It's like the way some people remember every dream they have quite vividly, others only remember dreams for a little while, whereas others don't recall every dreaming at all.

Gurgle

Stark wrote:

Also I don't think you can really save lives, as you can only reanimate people who have been "prepared" using this procedure?

Option 1: Bleed to death
Option 2: Get filled up with cold saline while someone nips down to the bloodbank for a few litres of your blood type.

No brainer.
They should train ambulance crews up on the procedure immedietly.

Whats the worst that could happen, when the alternative is certain death ?

StonedParadoX

the_syco wrote:

Whats the difference?

lol ^

Stark

Gurgle wrote:

Whats the worst that could happen, when the alternative is certain death ?

It hurts so bad you wish you were dead?

Sounds pretty barbaric but I suppose unless it was really painful, it would probably be less uncomfortable than bleeding to death. I just hope I'm never in the situation where I need it.

DrIndy

Its possible and well documented cases have been reported previously. However, this is the first ever controlled procedure. We will never know the effects on humans as it may cause subtle damage to the brain which cannot be discovered by evaluating dogs.

There are many, many stories of people caught under icy rivers and trapped under ice for hours on end. This cools the brain, reduces the demand for oxygen and results in longer survival. I believe the record stands at close to a day - but the person suffered some brain damage after revival.

Russian surgeons regularily pack ice around their patients to do open heart surgery without a bypass machine. It is not commonplace here in the western world as we have excellent technology in the form of a heart bypass machine and thus do not need to.

Certainly for suspending animation from a small A&E to stabilise them to transport to a large trauma centre will be a godsend. Currently doctors just fight the clock...

nadir

woah thats cool, how do they stop braindamage, dont u get brain damage almost immediately oxygen stops getting to it?

Gurgle

nadir wrote:

woah thats cool, how do they stop braindamage, dont u get brain damage almost immediately oxygen stops getting to it?

Apparently brain damage can be avoided if you cool down quick enough.
But cellular damage happens if you cool down too quick.

Theres been quite a lot of experimenting going on for the last 2-3 decades trying to find ways to control the cooling process.

The big advantage with this method is that the whole circulatory system can be cooled rapidly without damage.

*none of the above to be mis-interpreted as a scientific explanation.

nadir

i wonder, is there oxygen in the solution? or do the actually drain all the blood in a matter of seconds. Also bacterial issues must be tough to deal with.

DrIndy

your body metabolism drops significantly with cooling, but it must be controlled. Normally your brain is very reliant on aerobic metabolism (oxygen fueled) with high demand for ATP(the fuel transfer molecule from glucose breakdown).

This demand slows to a mere crawl at very low temperatures. However, the cooling must be precise to be functional and although there are amazing survival stories of people trapped under ice, sadly most who do don't survive.

If someone comes to A&E and are hypothermic with no detectable heart rate and appear "dead", are not declared so until they are warmed up and resuscitation attempted due to the protective effect on the brain.

cormie

Stark wrote:

From an animal rights point of view, draining a dogs blood, replacing it with saline solution, then replacing it with blood again sounds a little umm, cruel...

First thing I thought about too, more animal testing :mad: but then I was thinking, were the dogs not dead already? I wonder did they intentionally kill them to try this, I hope not!

seamus

cormie wrote:

First thing I thought about too, more animal testing :mad: but then I was thinking, were the dogs not dead already? I wonder did they intentionally kill them to try this, I hope not!

They probably sedated them, and/or replaced their blood with saline solution. As the article said, the cold saline would bring on hypothermia, then death, so I assume it was a relatively quick filtering process - by the time hypothermia set in the dogs would either be unconcious or dead from lack of oxygen. I can't see how that would be cruel.

I don't have a massive problem with testing on animals for the purposes of medical science, so long as the animals don't suffer.

Also, afaik, the brain won't start degrading from lack of oxygen, so long as it is sufficiently cold. It all sounds quite feasible to me. Could be very good for say victims of gunshot, car crash victims etc. If they're going to die anyway, you "freeze" them, repair all of the damage (it has to be easier to open up someone and repair their internal organs when they're dead! ), and then attempt to revive them.

DrIndy

seamus wrote:

They probably sedated them, and/or replaced their blood with saline solution. As the article said, the cold saline would bring on hypothermia, then death, so I assume it was a relatively quick filtering process - by the time hypothermia set in the dogs would either be unconcious or dead from lack of oxygen. I can't see how that would be cruel.

I don't have a massive problem with testing on animals for the purposes of medical science, so long as the animals don't suffer.

Also, afaik, the brain won't start degrading from lack of oxygen, so long as it is sufficiently cold. It all sounds quite feasible to me. Could be very good for say victims of gunshot, car crash victims etc. If they're going to die anyway, you "freeze" them, repair all of the damage (it has to be easier to open up someone and repair their internal organs when they're dead! ), and then attempt to revive them.

hopefully that can be done, but in general a successful treatment for humans lags 10 years in the future of successful animal research........

wait and see, it certainly is very exciting for any trauma surgeon though to hear about

Shabadu

Did they really need to chose this as a photo for the article though?

EVIL ZOMBIE DOG WILL KILL US ALL

cormie

seamus wrote:

I don't have a massive problem with testing on animals for the purposes of medical science, so long as the animals don't suffer.

I do, I don't think it's fair animals are used for our gain like that. It's different now if you eat an animal for survival but Medical research it's just not fair. It's not really natural.

seamus

cormie wrote:

I do, I don't think it's fair animals are used for our gain like that. It's different now if you eat an animal for survival but Medical research it's just not fair. It's not really natural.

No, but I do think it's necessary. Certain things, such as this, could really open up a whole new world for us all. I'd be just as happy to allow these kinds of experiments to take place on willing human subjects, but since there would be all sorts of laws to prevent it, the animals will redeem us. As I say, as long as the animal doesn't suffer, I'm happy that it's a necessary evil to further our understanding of life.

dudara

cormie wrote:

I do, I don't think it's fair animals are used for our gain like that. It's different now if you eat an animal for survival but Medical research it's just not fair. It's not really natural.

I would have to disagree. Like Seamus says, as long as the animal is humanely treated, I have no problem with it.

It is a little unpleasant, but I see it as a necessary evil.

Anyway, I posted this thread to talk about the opportunities this new technique affords us, and the technicalities of how it is done. (Thanks to DrIndy for his input). I really don't want it straying into the ethics of animal testing.

DrIndy

No best not - but now animals are treated as humanely as possible and without animal research we would not have a fraction of the medicine we have now. In any field of medicine where research occurs - there are ethical questions raised and let me assure you this went through an extensive ethical committee before being approved.

cormie

I know it's good for medicine and all that but at the end of the day, the world as a whole would be sooo much better without humans. Every horse, every cow, every sheep every pig in this country is "owned" by a human. I just don't think it's fair. I mean, just imagine the world without humans. It would be so much better. I'm not disagreeing about the benefits, I just don't like to hear about that kind of testing.

Anyway, back to the topic, sorry for going off in tangents

So how long can you actually be "dead" for to stand a chance? Just a few hours? What is the clock in the body? What is the deciding factor that says once such and such a time is passed, there is no going back?

seamus

cormie wrote:

So how long can you actually be "dead" for to stand a chance? Just a few hours? What is the clock in the body? What is the deciding factor that says once such and such a time is passed, there is no going back?

Afaik, you can actually only be clinically dead for but a few minutes before your brain cells suffer serious suffocation damage. Any revival afterwards usually results in the patient being brain damaged.

This method would seem to depend on actually killing the patient, as opposed to waiting for him to die - thus ensuring through the freezing* that the cells do not degrade.

*I'm guessing that they don't actually freeze the patient, as reducing the temperature below 4C will affect the water within the cells, possibly resulting in even worse damage.

cormie

So it's really only stab victims/gun shot victims (rapid mass blood loss death) that can be cured? I think one of the best things to come from this would be getting murderers.

I wonder if say, Mr. Bush was assasinated tomorrow, mass loss of blood etc etc, would they try this on him since he is somebody "important".

seamus

cormie wrote:

So it's really only stab victims/gun shot victims (rapid mass blood loss death) that can be cured? I think one of the best things to come from this would be getting murderers.

I wonder if say, Mr. Bush was assasinated tomorrow, mass loss of blood etc etc, would they try this on him since he is somebody "important".

You never know, they could perfect this method so that one day it becomes the standard for serious operations such as heart/lung transplants. After all, any operation has to be easier to carry out if an anaethesist doesn't need to monitor you constantly, the heart isn't pumping, and there's only saline solution about.
What about brain or head transplants? One of the main issues with these operations is the amount of time you have to remove the organ, and put it back in. This freezing method may allow scientists to look at head/brain transplantation as a viable operation.

Capt'n Midnight

cormie wrote:

I do, I don't think it's fair animals are used for our gain like that. It's different now if you eat an animal for survival but Medical research it's just not fair. It's not really natural.

[must do up a macro for the rat poison rant.]
Rat poison kills rats by internal bleeding, death can take days. But the animal is so dehydrated that it usually leaves to find water. The idea is that it isn't under your floor boards when it dies. But it's a long slow drawn out death. Compare this to animal research where you can loose licenses. ( though a lot of animal research in the UK is moving off shore to less restrictive regimes, you could consider that an own goal by animal rights extremests. )

Some types of tests have to be done on animals. Not as many as there used to be. I'd be in favor of tests that determine the maximum dosage that causes no observable side effects as a way of determining toxicity.

DrIndy

brain and head transplant are a long time off, largely because the spinal cord needs to be taken as well to ensure normal function.

Total hand transplants are done though and was successful a wee while back in france. they are now looking at face transplants for burns victims, although the psychological effects of literally having someones face are not to be taken lightly.

BlitzKrieg

is there any blood related diseases that can be cured involving this procedure?

Pet

I guess you could look at it as a short term treatment for haemophilia and the like, but you'd have to go back every few weeks, so I doubt it would be viable until it became an everyday procedure. And that would be more of a "complete transfusion" than anything else.

Capt'n Midnight

Freezing - yeah real space age technology, would cut down the cost of a mission to mars a lot, if it could be done for longer than a few hours.

Remember seeing a doc on the Russians freezing people for the open heart surgery , there was some other advantage apart from not needing as much blood to do the operation, was it skin colour ? Did any of them have any memory loss ?

Related technologies:
Fluid breathing - http://www.allp.com/LiquiVent/lv_fact.htm add to this artificial blood, ( http://www.med.unipi.it/patchir/bloodl/bmr/artif.htm ) and it gets really interesting. In a fluid environment you could probably tolerage much higher g forces which would mean military funding for fighter pilots. Real flight of fancy stuff would be getting to orbit in a "super gun" but it would have to be very long.

Since they appear to have the rescuitation system provisionally working there might be another application. But at present it's not possible to freeze bodies without damage to some cells.

cormie

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Some types of tests have to be done on animals

That's what my problem is though. It's not fair that we choose who to test things on. As I said, the world without humans would be a far better place That rat poison method is a disgrace!

What would be the point of a brain transplant? That and a head and face transplant are just crazy from a psychological point of view. If that kind of thing happens in my life time I think I'll just move to the moon and leave this crazy world.

Whatever happened to picnics in a field with a stream flowing through it, the nice simple life. Alas.

seamus

BlitzKrieg wrote:

is there any blood related diseases that can be cured involving this procedure?

Possibly. It may also be feasible to "filter" HIV positive blood with this method, who knows what the future would bring.

What would be the point of a brain transplant? That and a head and face transplant are just crazy from a psychological point of view. If that kind of thing happens in my life time I think I'll just move to the moon and leave this crazy world.

Well, how about someone who's body is about to crap out on them. Ravaged with cancer, or otherwise slowly dieing. A young man dies in a motorbike accident, his body is mostly ok, so they give this other guy a new body, a new life. As DrIndy says, the psychological implications of such a thing would be enormous though. Imagine going in a for an operation, and waking up with a new body, in every way.

Whatever happened to picnics in a field with a stream flowing through it, the nice simple life. Alas

It's a fallacy. Life is not puppies, brooks and flowers. Life is more often death, suffering and chaos.

Dave

I can't see the above situation happening really. What about the family of the dead biker. If he lived in the same city, would they see their son, daughter, husband, wife, mother, father walking around with someone elses personality, memories etc.

seamus

Dave wrote:

I can't see the above situation happening really. What about the family of the dead biker. If he lived in the same city, would they see their son, daughter, husband, wife, mother, father walking around with someone elses personality, memories etc.

Aye. That's another issue it raises. It's a long way off though, as DrIndy says.

astrofool

Looks interesting.

Cormie sounds like that person in the lottery ad that wanted to build windmills.

Scruff

cormie wrote:

That's what my problem is though. It's not fair that we choose who to test things on. As I said, the world without humans would be a far better place

Dont you go watching 12 Monkeys and get funny ideas.

cormie

A cure for HIV? Now that would be great! I wonder would it be an expensive procedure that could be funded and used to help the likes of Africa in their epedemic. Although it's what, 10 years down the line? Who knows what the HIV/AIDS crisis will be like in that time, it's not looking good.

That biker situation is just going a tad overboard I think.

Seamus: It's a fallacy. Life is not puppies, brooks and flowers. Life is more often death, suffering and chaos

Yes, but without humans it would be:D

And the lottery? hehe.. I've always thought who the hell wouldn't want her to win? Anyway, that add is contradictory, they say play to decrease her chances but the reality is if all viewers play it really just increases the amount she gets if she does win unless someone happens to split it with her. :rolleyes:

the_syco

Stark wrote:

As for the remembering what happened during "death" part, it would depend on how much people can consciously remember. It's like the way some people remember every dream they have quite vividly, others only remember dreams for a little while, whereas others don't recall every dreaming at all.

You remember what you want. If you open your eyes, for a brief second, and you see the lamp, when you wake up, you'll say it was god/satan/the bright light/a f*cking train/etc.

Stark wrote:

Sounds pretty barbaric but I suppose unless it was really painful, it would probably be less uncomfortable than bleeding to death. I just hope I'm never in the situation where I need it.

A theory floated around last year that said a anasthic only erases your memory of the pain, so you feel all the pain, but just don't remember it.

seamus wrote:

I'd be just as happy to allow these kinds of experiments to take place on willing human subjects, but since there would be all sorts of laws to prevent it, the animals will redeem us.

For anyone that disagree's with this, you must consider all the Jews that took part in Nazi experiments proberly had less rights than the dogs did.

Someone once said: Untill animals can talk, we'll continue to experiment on them.

That said, I don't like what they're doing, but it is nessacary, so that they can find ways to cure. Any surgery done now is done when they're alive. Imagine, if someone found a way to eradicate cancer by replacing the entire lung from the person, and using a cloned lung to replace it. You can't really do that now, as there'd be blood everywhere, and there'd be a high chance the person would die, due to lack of blood. But if they were dead, it may make such an operation possible.

cormie wrote:

Every horse, every cow, every sheep every pig in this country is "owned" by a human. I just don't think it's fair. I mean, just imagine the world without humans. It would be so much better. I'm not disagreeing about the benefits, I just don't like to hear about that kind of testing.

Aye, instead of the sheep been owned by a human, it'd be 0wned by a pack of wolves:cool:

DrIndy wrote:

they are now looking at face transplants for burns victims, although the psychological effects of literally having someones face are not to be taken lightly.

A bit more advanced than that. They graft skin at the moment, and the "psychological effects" are mainly those of having the face reject the graft due to them being foreign tissue, and having to go back to multiple surgery operations. So, if they can "kill" the subjects for a few days, they could do the operation at a better pace, as at them moment, its continous operation, sometimes lasting hours at a time. The added time would allow them to graft skin with less pressure, so they may be able to do a better job at it.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

is there any blood related diseases that can be cured involving this procedure?

Suppose it could be able to get rid of blood diseases, but the thing is, I doubt all blood would be removed, and when you reintroduce the new blood into the system, there's a chance that the old blood cells may infect the new ones, making the procedure irrelevent.

[black humour]Morning pill for the males. "It ain't mine, check my blood"[/black humour]

cormie wrote:

That's what my problem is though. It's not fair that we choose who to test things on. As I said, the world without humans would be a far better place That rat poison method is a disgrace!

You'd prefer if they were let run free, ruin crops, and spread disease?

cormie wrote:

What would be the point of a brain transplant? That and a head and face transplant are just crazy from a psychological point of view. If that kind of thing happens in my life time I think I'll just move to the moon and leave this crazy world.

Clone the full body, and transplant the head. Why should the 25yo male die because some yank went postal and shot him 25 times?

cormie wrote:

Whatever happened to picnics in a field with a stream flowing through it, the nice simple life. Alas.

What drugs are you taking, by the way?

seamus wrote:

Imagine going in a for an operation, and waking up with a new body, in every way.

Yeah, I want it thick, and 7 inches long...:rolleyes:

simu

Hey people - attack the post, not the poster!

simu

(science cat mod)

cormie

You'd prefer if they were let run free, ruin crops, and spread disease?

Yup, sure without humans there would be less disease to spread and crops wouldn't be ruined for anyone, they would be there for the taking for whatever creatures want them:D


Yeah, surely they can't drain every last infected partical of blood from the body, it only takes a prick of an infected needle to catch HIV so it'd probably be the same.

I wonder what I would think if I was brought back to life. Would I like it or be pissed off that they brought me back to life after accepting I was going to die and then have to do it again in a few years. Of course, if I had children and the likes, I would definitely want to come back for their sake.