Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Baffled, Intrigued By Girl Who Doesn't Age
phyrebyrd writes "Brooke Greenberg is the size of an infant, with the mental capacity of a toddler. She turned 16 in January. Brooke hasn't aged in the conventional sense. Dr. Richard Walker of the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa, says Brooke's body is not developing as a coordinated unit, but as independent parts that are out of sync. She has never been diagnosed with any known genetic syndrome or chromosomal abnormality that would help explain why. Brooke's hair and her nails are the only two things that grow, Howard said. 'She has pajamas and outfits that are 10 or 12 years old,' he said."
It just struck me reading that... it must really, REALLY suck being the first person to ever have a particular disease.
Wow...that is absolutely amazing...and she is so fortunate to have a family that sees the situation so positively...and who supports related research by the scientific community to see if there is a potential broader benefit here. Frankly, it must be tough for them at times, but I am sure that my wife would *love* it if our little girl never grew up. Thank goodness her sisters are supportive, because they will most likely need to take care of her in the future after her parents advance in age. Great stuff.
The article says that her brain has hardly changed at all - it's still an infant's brain. If you read the article, you'll see that the parents and those around her who claim to see changes or improvements in her ability to communicate are projecting their wishes, same as people do with their pets - except that pets CAN grow and learn. Brooke can't.
Imagine if your brain suddenly never changes. You can never learn a new thing, remember anything from even 5 minutes ago, etc. Before the movie "50 First Dates", there was a sci-fi short story that posited this, with horrifying consequences. It would be the worse than having Alzheimers.
Dude. Lay off the weed.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I got the sense that she's more like the family pet than a toy ... but yes, it's sad.
And for all those who downmodded this sort of discussion, it shows more concern with form over function, a lack of understanding about what really makes us human. and/or a knee-jerk reaction to anything that doesn't conform to your initial perception of "don't harm the cute baby." It's not a "cute baby" - it's a grotesque parody of a human, with no potential, no real personality (the brain has not changed since infanthood - she can't talk, and reacts the same as an infant to outside stimuli).
About the only positive thing to say at this point is that baby diapers are cheaper than Depends.
Her bones are aging at an almost normal rate, so there's no question of her living to be centuries old, and "just developing slower". Maybe they can transplant the genes into "Chicken Little".
Some of her body part , like bone structure, are 10 years old. Thus it sounds doubtful she will reach the multi-centenarian age you cited. They tried to communicate with her , tried to teach her speaking but it failed. Anyway there is a rearrangement of the pharynx/larynx at the venerable age of 1/2 years old which is needed to be able to physically speak. Without it you can't. Maybe a doctor/biologist can chime in.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's an individual, not their fucking chattel. It's a sacred honour to be the guardian of a child.
As a possible fountain of youth.
the parents and those around her who claim to see changes or improvements in her ability to communicate are projecting their wishes,
How are you in a better position to comment on that than the people around her? And what do the people who are saying her brain has hardly changed know? They diagnosed her with brain tumor and a few days later she was declared tumor-free? How much do we know about the brain to comment? I would rather accept what her family and friends are saying based on direct observation rather than statements based on half-knowledge made by ignorant doctors.
Life is about being a Phoenix!
"Before the movie "50 First Dates", there was a sci-fi short story that posited this, with horrifying consequences"
It must suck that your example of this is a crappy rom-com with Adam Sandler rather than a brilliant film like Memento.
Looking through the slideshow, she does appear to be ageing in some ways even if she hasn't changed much physically. If she survived into old age I imagine she still would have wrinkly skin and white hair etc.
From the information available it looks like rather than not ageing, she hasn't grown up.
Why isn't there an "insensitive" mod point?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
"Well, from our point of view, it must suck to be that person. But are people with, say, Alzheimer's aware of what they are missing out on?"
I take it you have no experience with Alzheimer's.
Alzheimer's is not instant. It happens over a long period with slow degradation of your memory. During this period, it is very hard on the person it happens to. They realise that something is not right, and they start to struggle with social situations.
They slowly start loosing grip on their own personality and they see what this is doing to their family and friends, making them even more distressed.
Even far into the condition, they sometimes have moments of clarity which mostly just serve to remind them of what they have lost.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Her intelligence seems affected though. Shouldn't she have normal mental development if it was just HGH insensitivity? She's 16 and still talks like a baby.
The 'child' is a primordial dwarf. Her symptoms fit to the last detail.
This story has done time on Digg and Fark already, probably several other sites as well, and it seems everywhere large numbers of non-doctors can use Google to compare her symptoms to a RARE but known medical condition. The poor kid's doctors either don't know how to research or are otherwise incompetent.
Or maybe, just a wild thought here, maybe they have a slightly better insight into her symptoms, having actually examined her and seen her test results, and they have already ruled that out for reasons which your cursory diagnosis, based on reading an ABCnews article and several minutes of medical training, missed.
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.
If she's not suffering, and her family isn't suffering (it's difficult to tell just from an article) there's absolutely no reason why it should be considered "bad" to learn from a condition like this. Hell, it'd be criminal to not take advantage of such an opportunity to learn more about how we live, age, and die.
If doctors, scientists, etc 150 years from now can still learn from this case - perhaps personally, as opposed to relying upon another person's observations - all the better, for us as a species.
I understand that people in general don't like to be considered a medical experiment, but if something abnormal is going on, that's exactly what one becomes. One simply has to remember that in the process of trying to understand the abnormality, a doctor is also trying to help you.
(Unless they're an asshole. Then they're wondering if they can write a paper on you so they can buy another yacht. In which case, one should remember that just because they're an asshole, doesn't mean that they can't help you.*)
* Admittedly anecdotal evidence shows that this is the case in most professions.
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.