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."

Comments

Correlation != Causation

[Eudial]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[2.7182]

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....

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Flying Scotsman]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Correlation != Causation

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[vux984]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[gstoddart]

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

Re:Correlation != Causation

[geekoid]

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.