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."

Comments

I don't have anything really smart to say

[cml4524]

It just struck me reading that... it must really, REALLY suck being the first person to ever have a particular disease.

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[Fallingcow]

Meh, she'd still accumulate cellular damage and die of cancer eventually. Heart disease would also still be a possibility.

She'd probably die at 85 of pancreatic cancer or something, but look good doing it.

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[brian0918]

Right, because the body has no means of correcting cellular damage...

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[marcello_dl]

Old age is a feature, not a bug. With less turn-over it would be difficult to life as a whole to adapt to changing environment. It has drawbacks as knowledge lost by the dead individual. Advanced life forms overcome that with culture.

Earlier simpler life forms probably lacked the aging feature, and were superseded by others who had it.

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[mdm-adph]

Meh, she'd still accumulate cellular damage and die of cancer eventually. Heart disease would also still be a possibility.

She'd probably die at 85 of pancreatic cancer or something, but look good doing it.

I'd take that deal.

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Many of those "earlier simpler life forms" are still around and doing fine. Bacteria, most notably.

Re:I don't have anything really smart to say

[wrf3]

I'll take age and treachery against youth and strength any day.

Wow...great stuff

[scuba_steve_1]

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.

Re:She seems to grow

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:Brooke is a deviation

[MyLongNickName]

Dude. Lay off the weed.

Re:She looks retarded ...

[tomhudson]

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".

No, she is aging too

[aepervius]

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.

Re:She seems to grow

[GauteL]

"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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why won't this story die?

[Effexor]

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.