Slashdot Mirror


Patient "Roused From Coma" By a Magnetic Therapy

missb writes "Could the gentle currents from a fluctuating magnetic field be used to reverse the effects of traumatic brain injury? New Scientist reports on a patient in the US who was in a coma-like state, but can now speak very simple words after being given transcranial magnetic stimulation. This is the first time TMS has been used as a therapy to try and rouse a patient out of a coma."

123 comments

  1. Correlation != Causation by Eudial · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who ever wrote TFS (possibly also TFA) should be made to write "Correlation does not imply causation" 100 times on the blackboard.

    1. Patient was treated with "magnetic therapy."
    2. Patient woke up from coma.

    This does not mean that the magnetic therapy woke the patient from the coma. It merits examining the possibility correlation, but it does not by any means a proof this therapy had any hand in waking the patient from the coma.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Correlation != Causation by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about applying your logic to this:

      1. We compressed some plutonium with conventional explosives at a test site in the desert.

      2. Coincidentally, a really large explosion occured, including large release of radiation.

      Could it be that they are related ? I dunno....

    2. Re:Correlation != Causation by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Summary doesn't say one caused the other, just one could have caused the other. Its the headline that is misleading, as usual.

    3. Re:Correlation != Causation by Flying+Scotsman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that we do have a working scientific model on how compressing the plutonium results in the blast, so causation is resonable. However, there is (as far as I know, feel free to educate me) no working scientific model on how fluctuating magnetic fields can treat brain injuries, so causation isn't quite reasonable.

    4. Re:Correlation != Causation by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, perhaps if you listened to GP, you would try step 1 more than ONCE and realize what is really going on?

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    5. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correlation implies either a causal relationship or a causal relationship with a third factor. In many cases the latter is MORE interesting than the former.

      What TFA should have to write is that an anecdote does not equal data, never mind correlation.

      If you give TMS to a hundred patients, three of whom would be expected to wake up naturally, and 90 of them actually wake up, you've got something worth investigating further. If you give it to one patient who wakes up you've got nothing but an interesting story.

    6. Re:Correlation != Causation by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Transcranial magnetic stimulation absolutely has a working scientific model behind it. Remember, your neurons are sensitive to electric potentials. Since electricity and magnetism are essentially the same thing, fluctuating magnetic fields can change those potentials causing the neurons to fire. This isn't late night QVC magnetic therapy bracelets we're talking about here, it's cutting edge neuroscience.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second half of TFA explains this exactly, if you'd bothered to read it.

    8. Re:Correlation != Causation by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you seriously suggesting that the transcranial magnetic stimulation was caused by the patient waking up from the coma? Or that they were both caused by some unknown 3rd effect?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Correlation != Causation by smolloy · · Score: 1

      I think he's suggesting that it's possible that there was no causal link (in either direction) between the two, and that it was mere coincidence.

      Until more data is produced (and I didn't read TFA, so maybe there *is* more data), it's impossible to discredit the possibility that it was coincidence.

    10. Re:Correlation != Causation by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      The second half of TFA explains this exactly, if you'd bothered to read it.

      What are you, some sort of literate participant? We can't have that kind of thing going on here!

    11. Re:Correlation != Causation by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is always a big reflex of people crying 'psuedo-science' around here whenever they hear about magenetism, especially in relationship to health.

      Yeah, magnetic and weak-current electrical stimulation of the brain is definitely cutting-neuroscience and these effects on the brain have been studied for years.

      The lesson here: don't judge a book by its cover.

    12. Re:Correlation != Causation by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you give TMS to a hundred patients, three of whom would be expected to wake up naturally, and 90 of them actually wake up, you've got something worth investigating further. If you give it to one patient who wakes up you've got nothing but an interesting story.

      If three of them are expected to wake up and you get five you've got something worth investigating further. 90 is an unqualified success.

    13. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, that wouldn't do any good. If correlation does not imply causation, it should follow that a lot of correlation does not imply causation, either. You need to do things like form hypotheses and change single variables.

      For the bomb test, several tests would give you consistent correlation between compressing plutonium and big 'splosions, but you'd also have a consistent correlation between the countdown timer and big 'splosions. Strictly speaking, on evidence of correlation alone, you have no more reason to think plutonium is the cause of the 'splosion than the countdown timer.

    14. Re:Correlation != Causation by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This isn't late night QVC magnetic therapy bracelets we're talking about here, it's cutting edge neuroscience.

      Today's magnetic therapy magnets are next year's cutting edge neuroscience.

      As I recall, 25 years ago modern science scoffed at acupuncture and said it was voo doo. Now, respectable medical institutions endorse the application of acupuncture as a valid medical procedure.

      Sometimes, it's just a matter of actually looking into it. And, then looking into it more than you initially did.

      (Note, I'm in no way saying that magnetic bracelets actually have any therapeutic effect. Merely that we've been wrong before.)

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Correlation != Causation by PenguinX · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Isn't correlation related to causation by first-order inductive logic. If you rob a theory of supporting evidence by reducing it to a single inference (as you have done above) then you merely weaken the argument, you do not however, invalidate it altogether.

      It is important to allow inference from a specific case to a general case because to do so negates induction, causality, uniformity of nature, and science.

      Then again, you may agree with Hume, or skeptical realism, and in either case I would love to debate.

    16. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you just love watching fools wield their own ignorance like it was worth something?

    17. Re:Correlation != Causation by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. More favored pro football teams lost matches this week than last. I'm drinking more diet pepsi this week than last. The two are correlated. What's the causal relationship, or the causal relationship with a 3rd factor?

      Correlated items *may* have a causal relationship, or a common cause. Or they may not. Sometimes they're just coincidences.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    18. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of TMS as a therapy is more like the modern version of blood-letting. I doubt there is a sound theory how this could help the patient, but physicians often randomly try anything which could possibly have some effect. And yes, I work in a neuro science institute. And no, I didn't read the summary. A pretty cool application of TMS are virtual lesions: You can, for example, knock out the speach center of a healthy person for some limited time.

       

    19. Re:Correlation != Causation by brent_linux · · Score: 1

      "As I recall, 25 years ago modern science scoffed at acupuncture and said it was voo doo. Now, respectable medical institutions endorse the application of acupuncture as a valid medical procedure."

      Could you please cite these such institutions? I want to make sure I do not go there.

    20. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it, today's acupuncture is tomorrow's snake oil.

      As I recall, 125 years ago modern people embraced snake oil and said it was a cure-all. Now, respectable middle class people use the term as a synonym for the more vulgar 'load of crap that does nothing other than lighten your wallet'.

      Sometimes, it's just a matter of trusting medicine. And, then doing what your doctor tells you to do.

      (I'm in no way saying that acupuncture doesn't have a therapeutic effect. Merely that we've been duped before.)

      Skol

    21. Re:Correlation != Causation by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      The working model is called 'Hydrinos'

    22. Re:Correlation != Causation by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      No, you then have a premise for trying it out on more than a few people. What you correlation people don't understand is that these case studies lay the groundwork for larger experiments.

    23. Re:Correlation != Causation by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      As I recall, 25 years ago modern science scoffed at acupuncture and said it was voo doo. Now, respectable medical institutions endorse the application of acupuncture as a valid medical procedure.

      Sometimes, it's just a matter of actually looking into it. And, then looking into it more than you initially did.

      From all that I've read, that's what they did with acupuncture (as in looking and more looking).

      Which is why it would be extremely interesting to find a respectable medical institution actually endorsing it. As with any (mostly) harmless "alternative" therapy, most of them just let it happen in order not to alienate their patients.

      (a "respectable institution" that once promoted operating with the patient holding the "little red book" and -supposedly- no anaesthesia as a proof that politics solve everything isn't going to fly)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    24. Re:Correlation != Causation by composer777 · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that if they hadn't figured out a working scientific model for mass to energy conversion before testing nuclear devices, you would be repeating the fact that correlation != causation after the experimental testing of the atomic bomb?

      Wow, just..., wow..

    25. Re:Correlation != Causation by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your right, given the explanation only we wouldn't know they're was a cause.
      Now lets look at little bit more accurately at is, shall we? mm'kay.

      Lets look at the atomic experiment:
      1) There was a known a testable scientific mechanism for the explosion.
      2) There were many tests bring plutonium to near critical mass prior to the first detonation.
      3) Giant atomic explosion seldom happen in the desert on there own..meaning never.

      Now lets look at thie situation in the article:
      1) There is no know mechanism*
      2) the experiment has never been successful
      3) It is NOT repeatable
      4) People do wake up from these coma months later. It's not uncommon even.

      So which is more likely, Some unknown untestable magic treatment worked? or something that has happened before to other people happened here?
      Bear in mind that he was 'treated' regularly in a manner that assured the treatment got the full benefit if there was a wake up, but none of the blame if there wasn't. this is a red flag.

      *A mechanism is not necessary is some conditions.
      For example. I can mix vinegar and baking soda and know it will fizz up. I can repeat the test so many times I can even measure different quantities of ingredients and measure those effect.
      In this case there was not mechanism AND no repeatable or falsifiable test.

      You can use correlation to for a hypothesis, but that is only good if you can test the hypothesis.

      "(I.e. if the guy woke up during or right after the procedure if different then if he woke a week later.)"
      Why would you think that?

      Please take a moment to learn the scientific principles and how to do good studies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Correlation != Causation by geekoid · · Score: 1

      irrelevent to the point.

      1 time really means nothing. Also,they don't show a mechanism how this would allow someone to wake from a coma.

      He is correct: Correlation != Causation

      Now Pub med (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/) sites some studies, but I couldn't find a blinded study. There where many hits, so I could ahve easily missed a blinded study.

      "Since electricity and magnetism are essentially the same thing,"

      BWahahaha.. no, you go on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Correlation != Causation by bencoder · · Score: 1

      Does that not depend on the error of your expectation of 3 waking up?
      If the average(expected) is 3 but the SD of that value is 2 then 5 people waking up really is not statistically significant.

      Remember, know your Zs!

    28. Re:Correlation != Causation by geekoid · · Score: 1

      First, most magnet cures are psuedo science.
      Second they really should ahve cited pubmed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:Correlation != Causation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Correlation implies either a causal relationship or a causal relationship with a third factor. In many cases the latter is MORE interesting than the former.

      Yes, but a single point of data does not imply correlation.

      If they had done a controlled study with several dozen coma patients, and actually showed a statistically significant correlation, then it would be natural to conclude that there is some relationship. In this case? No, not at all.

      "Correlation does not imply causation" gets overused around here, probably not even correctly in this case. Nevertheless, I'm not buying it yet.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    30. Re:Correlation != Causation by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they got the idea from here?

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    31. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More favored pro football teams lost matches this week than last. I'm drinking more diet pepsi this week than last. The two are correlated.

      No they aren't. A single point is not a correlation.

    32. Re:Correlation != Causation by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hello? There are 2 points: this week and last week.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    33. Re:Correlation != Causation by syousef · · Score: 1

      If you give it to one patient who wakes up you've got nothing but an interesting story.

      Unfortunately there's money to be made from an interesting story.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    34. Re:Correlation != Causation by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Does that not depend on the error of your expectation of 3 waking up?
      If the average(expected) is 3 but the SD of that value is 2 then 5 people waking up really is not statistically significant.

      It -may- not be statistically significant. Its enough to make it worth repeating the experiment to ensure its not consistently one SD up.

      After all, my if my batting average during a game is x +/- y, and something makes it x+y +/- y' I've just moved from the beer league to the major league. ;)

    35. Re:Correlation != Causation by philspear · · Score: 1

      However, there is (as far as I know, feel free to educate me) no working scientific model on how fluctuating magnetic fields can treat brain injuries, so causation isn't quite reasonable.

      I would start out assuming that employed researchers have a model for whatever they are testing when they test discrete things like this. This researcher probably did not throw a dart at a wall to decide what she was going to do to try to wake up coma patients.

      Keep in mind that the article referenced is not the peer-reviewed journal article that will be forthcoming if this is real and not a scam. "New scientist" may have omitted the model that suggested this treatment because it required a deeper knowledge of neurophysiology than their average reader had, and didn't bother. That should be the assumption, not that the researcher was wildly trying to waste research grants by doing stuff completely at random to the patients, one woke up, and she jumped up and down saying she had proven it will work always and forever.

      I predict some people are going to knock peer-review (it's so fun and easy to criticise, especially when there's no viable alternative), so I'll pre-empt that by saying I wasn't saying that wouldn't make it true, just that the technical article will give the model, wait for that before you accuse people of scientific misconduct.

    36. Re:Correlation != Causation by khallow · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that if there's a 3% chance that someone would wake up normally, then the odds of 5 out of 100 people waking up is 10%. Further, I calculate that there's a 8% chance of more people waking up than that. Those odds are way too bad to justify the claim that there's something to follow up on. To get the odds down to 1% or lower likelihood, you would need at least 8 people to wake up.

    37. Re:Correlation != Causation by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If there is reason to suspect a low success rate, conducting an experiment with a high margin of error is a bad idea, the success will otherwise always be lost in the error noise.

      What you REALLY need to do, is repeat the test multiple times, ideally with more people, so you can reduce the margin of error significantly and differentiate between error and small effects.

      After all a low success rate isn't a bad thing... If you could wake up only 1% of a certain class of coma patients, even that would be a significant breakthrough.

    38. Re:Correlation != Causation by khallow · · Score: 1

      Given the high cost of maintaining coma patients, saving 1% of them with a relatively low cost treatment would probably work out even if you don't know which 1% will respond to treatment. But you might be in a situation where you simply cannot come up with enough patients to determine whether a low success rate treatment will work.

    39. Re:Correlation != Causation by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Incorrect. Acupuncture IS Woo.
      There ahve been many blind studies to show no change with acupuncture.

      Medical intitutions are now profit centers. Since people ahve to keep returning to get 'fixed' and there is NO LIABILITY with it so of course money driven management puts it in. They also put in soda machines, and those aren't any good for you either.

      Yes, Medical science has been wrong, but acupuncture is a waste of money. There is NO EVIDENCE of it working.

      Chiropractic treatments don't work either, and yet I can get those from medical institutions.
      Again, this has been tested repeatably.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Correlation != Causation by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Many, sadly they all know it doesn't work. It is provided as a profit center, no more no less. Since insurance has started paying for non evidence based treatments, natural they have started sghowing up in hospitals and medical office.

      It's pretty much liability free money from someone who keeps coming back to never be cured by it.

      Man, If I could 'repair' your car only to get you to come back every week for the same repair becasue you cars 'spirit is not aligned' I'd make a bundle.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:Correlation != Causation by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Considering that household pets have been shown to respond to acupuncture, I'd say that there is something to it, unless you're somehow claiming that animals are receptive to the "placebo effect"

    42. Re:Correlation != Causation by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Its COMAS we're talking about here, not male pattern baldness or runny noses. Most of the time, if someone doesn't wake up after a few days, their chances for waking up go way down. The majority of people in a coma for more than a few days have obvious and serious neurological damage. A small majority of them have no major damage.

      If you can wake someone up that would normally be in a coma for an undetermined period of time, using a cheap and relatively safe method like this, you do it. Even health insurance could get behind this, as caring for a comatose patient is very expensive. Rather than toss it aside as an interesting story, it should be (and is) investigated further.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    43. Re:Correlation != Causation by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Yes, something isn't scientifically 'true' until it's been studied in that fashion, but don't dismiss the value of anecdotal evidence to guide scientific discovery. In this case, I'd say you have slightly more than an interesting story. You have at the very least cause to investigate further.

      I have a neurological illness that I am currently recovering from. The treatment that is working for me (after trying many that didn't) is something that I'm using off-label - it has not been studied with even the basic level of scientific rigor you have laid out in treating this particular illness. However, since I am getting better, in an objectively measurable fashion, I consider it true that the treatment is effective.

    44. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since electricity and magnetism are essentially the same thing,"

      BWahahaha.. no, you go on.

      Please refer to Maxwell's equations for directions on how to remove your foot from your mouth.

    45. Re:Correlation != Causation by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      That's not a good lesson.

      by all means adopt a reasonable starting position regarding a book based on the prior history of presentations resembling it's cover, since Occam's Razor favours this. it's a perfectly valid sceptical starting point, provided you are open to further verifiable evidence that can corroborate the cover's insinuations and promote them to a more rigourously established position.

      a better lesson is that "don't judge a book by it's cover" is a logical fallacy of the "special pleading" type and is contradictory to Occam's Razor.

      presumably you have some sources you can cite for your claims, in which case i am happy to read them and reassess the validity of the claim made in the slashdot story. At the moment all you've done is waved your hands, so from my perspective, occam's razor still applies.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    46. Re:Correlation != Causation by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      of course, what i should have said was "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rather than "occam's razor", since they are totally different things, and i've completely fucked up the thrust of my argument.

      feel free to substitute in what i was supposed to say if you are at all interested in what i was trying to say, and i don't blame you if you arent :)

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    47. Re:Correlation != Causation by NickW1234 · · Score: 1

      The obvious difference being that in the experimental bomb analogy, there's no chance of coincidence. Something happened without an obvious explanation, so you could reasonably theorize that jamming a chunk of plutonium together was the cause of the effect observed. Typically you don't get massive radioactive explosions spontaneously. In the case of magnetic fields waking a guy from a coma, a simple alternative explanation is that he just happened to wake up at that time. It certainly could have been due to the magnetic fields, but with no supporting evidence and a single sample, there's no way to know.

    48. Re:Correlation != Causation by NickW1234 · · Score: 1

      Except that timers could be easily omitted as a cause by the fact that there's lots of countdown timers on stuff, and they don't all blow up when they hit zero. While a lot of correlation does not prove causation, it indicates a likely possibility. If you blew up several chunks of plutonium this way, you might assume the plutonium being compressed is the cause. If you want to prove it, you could repeat the test with a different chunk of metal in its place. So you can nitpick the details, but if I saw the magno-gadget zap 10 patients, waking up 5 of them within an hour, while a control sample of 10 patients had 1 wake up in the same hour, I'd think it likely to be the cause, and would do some further tests to verify that it wasn't an amazing coincidence. After testing 100 people, and having 50 wake up within the first couple hours you should be able to compare either to statistical data, or a control group and clearly see that it's not just chance.

    49. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accupuncture is essentially "woo" because its practitioners don't know what produces the limited effects it does have. Accupuncture triggers the release of endorphins, which are useful as painkillers. But practitioners claim it has all to do with voodoo like Qi and channels and similar superstitious horsesh**.

    50. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE Chiropractic treatments don't work either, and yet I can get those from medical institutions.
      Again, this has been tested repeatably.

      Not completely true. If you buy what they say about restoring your spine to normal then you would be correct. The adjustments they do relieve pain but last a couple of weeks to a month at best.

    51. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Depends on the variance, which I didn't give.

      On Slashdot your example has to be a baseball bat that you use to beat people over the head, otherwise someone who thinks they know about stats will pipe up with something like "10 isn't a sufficient sample size!"

    52. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, things that are genuinely correlated ARE related, either directly or through a third factor.

      Your example, if there is not a real relationship, would turn out to be a very weak correlation. You've only given two data points (this week and last week). If your Pepsi drinking and football team fortunes continue track each other until the correlation is significant, then the chances of coincidence are very small.

    53. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Did you even read my comment?

      Let me quote the salient portion for you:

      "you've got something worth investigating further."

      That would be "tryint it out on more than a few people" and a "larger experiment."

      "Correlation people?" Geez.

    54. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Er, thus the second paragraph of my comment. Followed by the third.

    55. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You betcha. The multibillion dollar multinational business of alternative medicine depends on it.

    56. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The topic under discussion is whether the treatment proposed ACTUALLY wakes people up, or if it's a red herring.

      Yes, it's important to know. If you get a witch doctor to dance in a bunch of coma patients' rooms you'll eventually have one wake up. By your reasoning, we should then pay witch doctors to go dance in every coma patient's room. Hey, it's cheap! And it's a COMA!

      Unfortunately, that approach won't help us understand coma, improve treatment, or invent new treatments. Plus we'll be wasting money on it that could better be spent on things that actually work.

    57. Re:Correlation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, you have an interesting story. Yes, interesting stories are absolutely worth following up, but they remain interesting stories until someone does so. I'm working on following up an interesting story regarding brain tumors right now (okay, that's what I'm supposed to be doing. Right now I'm posting on Slashdot).

      While it's great that you're getting better, your conclusion that it's because of the treatment is premature, and it's dangerous if it's applied on a large scale. If the treatment works then it has nothing to fear from a controlled trial. But, every treatment has side effects. If the side effects are serious and the treatment doesn't work (or doesn't work well enough to offset the risk from the side effects) then it's actively harmful to the average patient. If the side effects are minor and the treatment has no effect (or only a placebo effect) then the treatment is still harmful because the money spent on it will be diverted from treatments that do work and the belief that the non-working treatment has some effect can confound future research.

    58. Re:Correlation != Causation by Freebirth+Toad · · Score: 1

      All this reminds me of a story my old supervisor told me about his grad school days. Some of those wild physics grad students would stick their heads into an extremely powerful magnetic field being generated for an experiment, and shake their heads around. The rapidly changing magnetic flux through some circuit involving the optic nerve would cause them to see pretty lights. I imagine it was doing other things to their brains as well.

    59. Re:Correlation != Causation by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      I personally know someone who tried repeatedly to quit smoking using various methods. Acupuncture did the trick - permanently. I also know more than one person who benefited from a chiropractor. My sample size is tiny, and even if it's just placebo that's good enough for me.

    60. Re:Correlation != Causation by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      You fail logic. Please crack open a basic book in logic and statistics. Things that are correlated *may* be related, but most frequently they aren't. Correlation does not mean causation, either directly or through a common cause.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    61. Re:Correlation != Causation by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      No, exactly what you wrote is "If you give it to one patient who wakes up you've got nothing but an interesting story.", which I disagreed with when I wrote "No, you then have a premise for trying it out on more than a few people. ".

    62. Re:Correlation != Causation by l00sr · · Score: 1

      Actually, the evidence seems to suggest that acupuncture-like treatments are probably beneficial in some limited scenarios. A German study last year, in particular, found that acupuncture was twice as effective as standard treatments for lower back pain. That's not to say it cures all ills, but to say that there is no evidence of it working is just plain wrong.

    63. Re:Correlation != Causation by VShael · · Score: 1

      Go into any pharmacy/chemist in the UK and you can buy your bodyweight in homeopathic remedies.

      It should be obvious to anyone with a background in science that homeopathy is quack science of the most blatant kind, yet it's available through the UK's National Health Service.

    64. Re:Correlation != Causation by famebait · · Score: 1

      Correlation implies either a causal relationship or a causal relationship with a third factor.

      Only if the correlation is consistent and repeatable, and none of the two events occur with similar frequency without the other. Even then it's just a finite probability of causal relationships being involved.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    65. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a janitor there.

    66. Re:Correlation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, cause we all know the world is flat. Since we know everything, we are always right.

    67. Re:Correlation != Causation by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try reading the aforementioned Wikipedia article and some of the references at the end of it? Note that the references include Pubmed links.

    68. Re:Correlation != Causation by atamido · · Score: 1

      Chiropractic treatments don't work either, and yet I can get those from medical institutions. Again, this has been tested repeatably.

      I'll take a stab at this. I have a mate who's father is a doctor specializing in back injuries. He will at times refer patients to a chiropractor that is not part of the same medical facility and for whom he gets no benefits for referrals. If they didn't work, he wouldn't be referring them.

      That said, there are a lot of wacky chiropractors out there. Some are just wacky, and others just do wacky things because people expect it out of them. Others examine xrays, probe muscles, etc to determine the source of the problem, and then suggest appropriate action to the patient. It isn't exactly mystical.

    69. Re:Correlation != Causation by atamido · · Score: 1

      The adjustments [chiropractors] do relieve pain but last a couple of weeks to a month at best.

      That certainly depends on the situation. When I was in middle school I one day started getting these shooting pains in my back that caused me to double over. My father took me out of school and over to see a chiropractor. They determined that carrying my overloaded backpack on one shoulder was causing my spine to shift slightly, pinching the nerve, causing it to inflame, and become more pinched. They did some things to reduce the swelling, which stopped the pain. Then they told me to not wear the backpack for a while so the spine could realign, and to always use both shoulders while wearing a backpack. Problem was solved, and I've never had it again.

    70. Re:Correlation != Causation by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I personally know someone who tried repeatedly to quit smoking using various methods. Acupuncture did the trick - permanently.

      Yeah, I'd imagine "every time you light a smoke, I'll shove this spear pretending to be a needle somewhere sensitive" would be quite effective ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    71. Re:Correlation != Causation by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Your level of scientific rigor is admirable and to be expected, but I hope we agree that an interesting story that doesn't provide cause to investigate further is something quite different from an interesting story that does.

      As for my conclusion, I'd think you'd need to know a little bit more about the particulars of this to say that "It's premature to reach that conclusion". There is no simpler explanation for why I'm getting better other than because of this treatment. If it were the placebo effect then the dozens of other treatments I've used would have worked. Brain scans and neurological testing have measured changes between before and after I began this treatment and provided objective evidence that I am getting better while on it. The change began in exactly the period you would expect the change to begin, knowing of how this treatment works when treating other diseases. And I would - even without the studies done to - encourage doctors to try this treatment, as they are, because of all the success stories I've heard from people who are, like me, recovering while on it, and the scarcity of studied treatments to try on this particular illness. These stories are still at the level of anecdotal evidence, but they are slightly more than interesting stories.

      There is a gulf between what is reasonably suspected to be true and what is known to be true scientifically. But that doesn't mean that what we reasonably suspect to be true can't be very useful to us. Eventually with enough anecdotal evidence studies will be prompted and once and for all. But in the meantime why let people suffer from a disease that has ruined people's lives when there is a treatment (that is clinically safe) that has worked for many people, but may not have been investigated enough for the scientific community to reach concensus on it?

    72. Re:Correlation != Causation by Alsee · · Score: 1

      even if it's just placebo that's good enough for me.

      I have some magic sand you might like to buy.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Oh Great... by VE3OGG · · Score: 1

    Oh great... Who wants to bet the Q-Ray braclet is going to see a resurgence in popularity...

  3. If we're going by Pike rules... by anotherone · · Score: 3, Funny

    "When you talk to him he will move his mouth to show he is listening," McAndrews says. "If I ask him, 'Do you love me?' he'll do two slow eye blinks, yes.

    She better hope he wasn't a Star Trek fan.

    --
    Username taken, please choose another one.
    1. Re:If we're going by Pike rules... by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Do you love me?
      *two blinks*
      Yes and yes...wonderful.

    2. Re:If we're going by Pike rules... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Love games?
      Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
      I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
      Oh come on now
      Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
      I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
      Oh come on now
      Moving too fast, this isn't a race ooh
      Baby back off and lower the pace now
      Slow it down, and give me some space, mmmh
      Moving too fast, this isn't a race. ah ah
      *funky music insert*
      Do you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
      I just wanna know what to do 'cause I need your love a lot
      Oh come on now
      Moving too fast this isn't a race ooooh
      Will you back off and lower the pace now?
      Slow it down, and give me some place.
      Moving too fast this isn't a race.
      I'm Old Gregg
      I know I think you said
      Come on don't make me beg now
      'cause I'm not your regular guy
      don't be shy
      do you love me.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. But did he WANT to be roused from his coma? by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

    I hear those coma fantasies can be pretty kick ass.

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    1. Re:But did he WANT to be roused from his coma? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I kinda agree. At least for magnetic fields doing the trick. I saw some stuff in "Naughty Nurses 37" about rousing from a coma that would be much more agreeable.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:But did he WANT to be roused from his coma? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that mild forms of violence would always be pretty?

    3. Re:But did he WANT to be roused from his coma? by SomeJoel · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that mild forms of violence would always be pretty?

      Only if they result in a coma.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    4. Re:But did he WANT to be roused from his coma? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there was this huge bridge, really huge, with buildings on it, but my phone and tv were on the fritz most of the time.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  6. hey! by nimbius · · Score: 1

    i own a Q-Ray bracelet you insensitive clod! it helps me tune my tinfoil hat to deflect the optimum amount of cosmic mind control rays. plus, it works in tandem using its special magnet powers to amplify the readings taken by my e-meter and channels them into a special beacon to xenu.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:hey! by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      When are people going to realize that the mind control people moved underground because they found that from underneath, tinfoil hats make nice parabolic reflectors?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. "kerb"? lol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    read the first sentence of TFA

  8. Magnets Do Make You Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    >> magnetic field be used to reverse the effects of traumatic brain injury?

    I threw a magnet at my brother-in-law, after he drank all my beer. He's a lot smarter as a result. Now he sneaks out after the beer is gone.

  9. Re:Very very simple words by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    You've never actually raised any children, have you? :)

  10. Good Luck Buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Other News
    CmdrTaco is the first to sign up with the hopes of curing his erectile dysfunction.

    In Other Other News
    CowboyNeal crosses his fingers.

  11. Re:Very very simple words by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it's great that drunk drivers are being used for medical experimentation. Far better than tormenting innocent monkeys.

    Not only drunk drivers, but all comatose people(then extend that idea to different medical trials on other ailments as well). Better to help advance medical science than to lay there and cost tremendous amounts of money doing nothing like Terry Schiavo did. Not that it was her fault, but you get the idea.

  12. Re:Very very simple words by Smivs · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person to find this somewhat distressing, that this guy's only words are "Help me". It sounds like there might be a conciousness present that realises things aren't right. Imagine how disturbing (terrifying?) that could be.

  13. Oh, that's just great. by Linux_ho · · Score: 1

    Now my crazy mother-in-law will use this as justification for the magic anti-cancer magnet bracelets she wears, and she will start pushing the rest of us to wear them again.

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  14. Nasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad he can only repeat the words "Please. Kill. Me."

    1. Re:Nasty by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If you think "help" = "please kill me", you need help. Just saying...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  15. TMS is incredibly neat stuff, worth looking up. by ThinkTwicePostOnce · · Score: 1

    The article makes it seem like tinfoil hat stuff, but it's very, very interesting. When the frequency that the magnetic field fluctuates at is over 1000 hertz (I think that's the number) it increases the activity of the specific brain area it is aimed at. Below the cutoff it reduces the activity. Think just a moment, isn't it an incredibly ability to be able to activate or deactivate specific brain areas? I read somewhere that you can induce a feeling of "awe" or "being in the presence of God" with a magnetic field that covers one whole side of the brain. Does any of this sound like Nicola Tesla's lab that the government sealed immediately after his death? What if there were a home version? Just how difficult would it be to make one? What would couples do with it? What if church had one that would affect the whole congregation? What if the congregation didn't know about it? What if an interrogator had one?

    If you want to know just how far this real science has come along so far, the topic to look up is TMS -- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

    --
    Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
  16. Re:"kerb"? lol... by svnt · · Score: 1

    Yeah wow lol.

    Read a book. People use different words and spellings in different areas of the world.

    Was "windscreen" equally funny to you?

  17. Re:Very very simple words by Andreaskem · · Score: 2

    I imagine "Kill me" would be a lot worse.

  18. Re:Very very simple words by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    Oh great ... you just *know* this is coming up in the debate tonight

  19. Re:Very very simple words by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

    Trite pre-approved questions, pontification, teleprompters, empty promises, sound-bites, bullshit.

    All Americans with half a brain are so very tired of modern televised debates which showcase a sort of half-scripted reality TV monkey house bullshit.

    I'll stick to reading from a variety of sources to decide for myself, thankyouverymuch :)

  20. Re:Very very simple words by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    Damn, beaten :)

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  21. Someone tell Morrisey! by boristdog · · Score: 1

    This is big news for someone with a girlfriend in a coma!

    1. Re:Someone tell Morrisey! by Knara · · Score: 1

      Nathan Explosion?

    2. Re:Someone tell Morrisey! by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      Nah, she doesn't need it. After all, its not serious.

  22. One Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want to be treated at Johns Hopkins then. They have an acupuncture clinic and do some research around it.

  23. Re:Very very simple words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple greetings and curses (from "Hi!" to "Fuck you!") can be considered reflex speech. That's usually seen at the early stages of recovery, post left hemisphere stroke, for example.

    "Help me", although phonetically and grammatically simple, doesn't, as far as I know fall in this automatic speech patterns (I'm in neurology and neuroscience, but I don't work on rehabilitation, so I could be wrong).

    Even if it's reflex speech, that subject had been completely unresponsive and uncomunicative for eight month. He had recovered a sleep-wake cycle, which qualifies him for permanent vegetative state (PVS), one step ahead of coma, but not very far on the way to getting better.

    He's now in a minimally conscious state (MCS, basically: conscious some of the time but severely retarded). This is a significant step, since patients in MCS have a better recovery chance than people in PVS.

    Whether or not the progress is related to rTMS is to be seen, but since the procedure is very straighforward, it shouldn't last long before conclusions are drawn from larger studies.

  24. Re:Very very simple words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think it's great that drunk drivers are being used for medical experimentation. Far better than tormenting innocent monkeys."

    Since fatigued drivers cause more road deaths a year than drunk drivers we should experiment on them too. And since distracted drivers are the number one cause of road deaths we should experiment on all of them.

    People make bad decisions all the time and doing something bad to them doesn't make a right

  25. Re:Very very simple words by Sqweegee · · Score: 1
  26. Victim of bailout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article fails to mention that the patient went into a coma after hearing the news about the $800 billion bailout to screw the American public.

  27. they what? by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

    So they degaussed his head?

    Crap, does that mean I am going to have to pay more for a degausser now?

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    1. Re:they what? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Crap, does that mean I am going to have to pay more for a degausser now?

      It means we'll start getting spam for "cheap DegaUss3r pharmacy!"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:they what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A closer (windows) computer analogy would be that he was stuck in Standby and unresponsive to user input, so they spun a magnet near his motherboard and managed to trigger his Wake On LAN via induction, but can't get him to boot into anything but safe mode (command prompt). In addition, his command.com appears to have been corrupted, but it seems he can still use echo, cls, and help.

  28. Dale Gribble sez.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...your tin foil hats aren't going to stop their mind control electromagnets from turning ya'll into their bitches, suckers!

    You'll need my double-naught Jethro Bodine style IRON SPY HAT to block those magnetic waves... ...and I just happen to have an ample supply of these for sale at a fair price!

  29. Re:Very very simple words by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what source you use. Both major-party candidates are the type of people who want votes from the half-brained TV watchers. The candidates would rather be elected and reelected by those people than to see the state of discourse improved. So long as that's the case, the candidates are part of the problem.

  30. Dense Headedness by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

    "gentle currents from a fluctuating magnetic field"

    TMS is not gentle. Even the latest, most focused but least powerful, ones cause such a mechanical strain on the mechanism when they fire, that they sound like a firecracker.

    There is still a maximum amount allowed because too much causes headaches, then convulsions. TMS is a gentle ball peen hammer.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  31. The best they could do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I am in an unresponsive coma, and the best you can do is to wake me up enough to grunt and say 'help me' for the rest of my life, DONT WAKE ME UP, ASSHOLE.

  32. WARNING by geekoid · · Score: 1

    While this seems to be cutting edge nearosurgery(look it up on pubmed.com) It is not the same thing as wearing magnets, standing around some magnets. This seem to be a very specific situation.

    People hawking magic crap will site this as the same thing, it is not.

    I only looked at three studies, but none of them were blinded.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. Give me those dead harddisks please by akentanaka · · Score: 1

    and i'll build my own TMS using NIBs (Neodymium magnet) that can be found in hard disk. I'd better find Magneto now...

  34. News Flash by starry+starry+knight · · Score: 1

    The White House has requested a set for "further study". I guess they want to wake George up so he can go home.

  35. Re:Very very simple words by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Um, cite? All the stats I've seen have attributed US alcohol related driving deaths at around 50%.

  36. Read the article and will become clear... by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

    I predicted when I saw this that the therapy was being carried out over a long period of time, and that it could therefore easily have been a coincidence that he was doing the therapy at the time. low and behold, I read the article and what do I find? He started to wake up after the 15TH SESSION. So, I tested my theory and it passes occums razer (all it assumes is that some people wake up from commas on their own). I have now applied more scientific reasoning than whoever wrote this article. CORELLATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!!!!!!!! also, read this snippet "After the 30 planned sessions the TMS was stopped. Without it, Villa became very tired and his condition declined a little, but he was still much better than before. Six weeks later he was given another 10 sessions, but there were no further improvements and he was sent home, where he remains today." again, the first part is pretty plausible coincidence (if it is even true) and the second show a non-effect of the therapy. Why would it cease to help when it was before they stopped treatment? even better, WHY WOULD IT WORK AT ALL? Now, if they did a clinical trial, then we might start to get some real evidence.

  37. Repetition != Cognition by famebait · · Score: 1

    "Correlation does not imply causation"

    GAAAAAAAAH! Can you knee-jerk idiots just shut the hell up?
    Learning to parrot a phrase does not make you smart.

    1) A report of correlation is not a claim of proven causation

    2) Observed correlation is the primary means of discovering causation.

    People like you should be forced to write those two nuggets a thousand times across your fucking foreheads.

    The saying you're regurgitating is meant to protect against overconfidence and rash conclusions. Using it to dismiss any and all observed correlations as irrelevant would lay science to waste. Correlation does imply that there might be something worth investigating unlesss there are strong arguments it can't be so. Unproven but fairly consistent correlations constitutes a lot of our understanding of the world, even within science. Of course you don't take it as gospel, science is all about never doing that. But you do have to be able to work with an build on information with less than 100% certainty in order to get anywhere. You just have to keep track of the uncertainty.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  38. Re:Very very simple words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's for that exact reason that I've left strict instructions with my family that I am not to be kept on life-support if I sustain brain injury. Being in a state like this scares me far more than death, even though I'm an atheist and don't believe in any form of after-life.