Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Identify New Organ In Humans (livescience.com)

Scientists have classified a new organ called the mesentery, which connects a person's small and large intestines to the abdominal wall and anchors them in place, according to the Mayo Clinic. Until recently, it was thought of a number of distinct membranes by most scientists. It was none other than Leonardo da Vinci who identified the membranes as a single structure, according to a recent review. Live Science reports: In the review, lead author Dr. Calvin Coffey, a professor of surgery at the University of Limerick's Graduate Entry Medical School in Ireland, and colleagues looked at past studies and literature on the mesentery. Coffey noted that throughout the 20th century, anatomy books have described the mesentery as a series of fragmented membranes; in other words, different mesenteries were associated with different parts of the intestines. More recent studies looking at the mesentery in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and in cadavers led Coffey's team to conclude that the membrane is its own, continuous organ, according to the review, which was published in November in the journal The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The reclassification of the mesentery as an organ "is relevant universally as it affects all of us," Coffey said in a statement. By recognizing the anatomy and the structure of the mesentery, scientists can now focus on learning more about how the organ functions, Coffey said. In addition, they can also learn about diseases associated with the mesentery, he added.

112 comments

  1. Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each!

    1. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

      We'll all need new organ donor cards, with the Mesentery added to the list . . .

      Please add me to the list!

      Me, too!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Bedlam DL3 survivor!

    3. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there I am drilling her stink hole like BP drills for oil ... and she fucking shits all over me.

      Drilling a shit hole like BP drills an oil well, you got shit.

    4. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your tool likely wasn't the only one drilling that hole. Enjoy your super-AIDS or whatever while you still can.

    5. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each!

      Yet only $195.27 on amazon ;^)

      Of course the infamous Gray's Anatomy is published by the "respected" Elsevier company...

      All editors quit top linguistics journal to protest Elsevier pricing
      Elsevier going after authors sharing their own papers
      More fake journals from Elsevier

    6. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each!

      Unfortunately i am Greek, so i can't afford it - but fortunately... i am Greek!

      "mesentery": compound word from Greek "meso" ("middle") and Greek "entero" ("bowel")

    7. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Nobody uses Gray's anymore. Netter is the thing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netter is an Atlas, not a textbook.

    9. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by ProzacPatient · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course the infamous Gray's Anatomy is published by the "respected" Elsevier company...

      But the real question is it any better than the TV show? In regard to adaptions, people usually say the book is better.

    10. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Tucker Max?

    11. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poli kala!

    12. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumerwhore gonna bend over.

    13. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by nachtelfjeiu · · Score: 1

      In reality it's either a combined anatomy/physiology book like Marieb or Sobotta for anatomy. Both Gray and Netter aren't used much by medical students afaik.

    14. Re: Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Don't know who that is. Honest to gods truth though. Most crazy shit (literally) I have ever done! Besides plowing bored married women. But that's pretty mundane.

    15. Re:Time for new textbooks that will be $250 each! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Somebody did a TV show of Gray's Anatomy? What censorship grading did that get?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think firing Dr Calvin Coffey ought to be good enough, he's the "lead author" of this worthless paper.

  3. Well, not "new" by ihaveamo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it's more "Scientists identify overlooked organ". Pity..... "New" would have been cool, in an X-MEN sort of way.

    1. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how it's been overlooked by everyone but da Vinci until now. Doesn't that call for naming the organ "the vinci" or something?

    2. Re:Well, not "new" by Desler · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been overlooked. The difference is classifying it as one structure.

    3. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Dr. Calvin Coffey. You're going to be fired soon enough.

    4. Re:Well, not "new" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kind of like referring to the skin as an organ. It's technically correct (the very best kind of correct!), but you're not really in possession of any significant new knowledge.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Yeah, it's kind of like referring to the skin as an organ. It's technically correct (the very best kind of correct!), but you're not really in possession of any significant new knowledge."

      Actually, maybe not significant new knowledge, but new understanding...
      I remember the whole "Is the Skin an Organ?" debate in Freshman Physiology many decades back. Back then, the word "Organ" had a different generally accepted meaning, that of a unique part of the body that had at least one defined and continuing functional organic characteristic. Bone Marrow were Organs, Bones were not. Tonsils were Organs, Uvula were not. Skin... well it was protective, but as long as that was all that it was, it was just like Bones, and Cartilage, and Earlobes. But skin also Sweat, which aided in temperature regulation, elimination of waste, and maintaining Electrolyte balances. So Skin is an Organ. But it is actually the Sweat Glands in Skin that perspire; Skin just carries them around. So Skin is not an Organ.
      The problem with the Mesentery is that it just holds bits of gut in place, on first glance. It produces no Hormones or Enzymes, or Blood cells. It does not ward off disease. It does not engage in the Metabolism of the Gut. It does not have Sexual characteristics... or if it does, we prefer not to think about it. But it's a bit more complicated than that. It contains other defined tissue that _does_ do some of these things. Lymphatic tissue for instance. Unlike the Liver, if the Mesentery is removed, the patient doesn't die. They may be uncomfortable, but that's it. Be careful bending over. But the same may be said for Tonsils, which most definitely are Organs.
      So the problem isn't whether the Mesentery is an Organ or not, it's that we've gotten very confused about what an Organ actually is. Oh, easy for Leonardo...
      If everything, including some Bones which in themselves are essentially Dead, but because they contain Marrow, are classified as Organs, then the word has lost any real meaning.
      So maybe it's time that we just got rid of the damn word completely. We do quite well without Melancholies and Humours, Homunculi, and Phlogiston, and Mal-Aire, old once well-accepted Medical terms. There will be those who object; look at how that whole light-hearted affair about Pluto turned out. We may be accused of Dis-Organized Crime...

    6. Re:Well, not "new" by msauve · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      Humans have had this for a long, long time. It's not a "new" organ.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Well, not "new" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure phlogiston was ever a medical term. It was a physics term for a substance believed to be what flames are made out off - the explanation for fire. If I'm wrong and it had a medical usage I would love to learn.
      Phlogiston also put up quite a fight before finally going the way of the dodo. When we finally figured out how to weigh things that burned and discovered, to our shock, that they got HEAVIER not lighter - for a while most scientists were convinced that this proved phlogiston had negative mass (and that helped explain why every attempt to isolate it had failed - if it's mass is negative then obviously we've been trying all the wrong ways to look for it).

      It took quite a bit of time for the idea that atoms bond into molecules, some of those processes are exothermic and produce heat and "flames" are just glowing, hot gasses from the result to finally replace the old belief. That's the trouble with a theory that explains every observation so far, when data starts emerging that contradicts it, it can be very tempting to try and massage the theory into fitting the new data (even if this means such ridiculous changes as a substance with negative mass) rather than considering that it may be time to write a new theory. Science often takes the long route to better consensus - but it does get there in the end.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Phlogiston was first being bandied around, it was considered an innate part of anything that burned, and breathing was thought to be how Phlogiston was eliminated from the body. (Becher/Stahl) In a way, a brilliant theory, and more importantly, one that means were just being developed to test, unlike the Atomic Theory popularized by Democritus, which took quite a while longer. Now one thing characterizes the two theories, a very important thing- They weren't _wrong_. They were just incomplete. Homunculi were wrong, as was the "Bad Air", "Malaria", Theory. Babies weren't conceived fully formed as a higher Power ordained, and "Germs" caused Dis-Ease, not Air that had turned bad. (Actually, "Bad Air" got a bad rap in the 14th Century; people traveled far and wide to to escape it and the "Black Death"... bringing their infected fleas with them.)
      Phlogiston was actually Combustion Chemistry, usually the formation of something unknowable at the time- Carbon Dioxide, and breathing indeed eliminates it from the body. This part is right.

      "... it can be very tempting to try and massage the theory into fitting the new data... rather than considering that it may be time to write a new theory."
      "Theories", Scientific Theories, are bandied about here quite often, and new ones are thought of here all the time... and most are rubbish. One thing that I learned in a particularly difficult and expensive field is that proving Theories _right_ is just part of the Process; a beginning. (In this case, Transactinide Physics _and_ Chemistry.) More important is proving them _Wrong_, or better yet, _Incomplete_. Newton's Theories, at least in Physics, are for the most part still Right... but Incomplete. I think that his work in "Opticks" is actually more important, because it mixed Theory with Experimental means of testing it. This is Modern Science... and probably pisses off String Theorists no end.

      Coffey's "Theory" that the Mesentery is a discrete Organ bothers me, because I feel that we have very different concepts of what an Organ is... and mine are old and probably quite wrong... or very incomplete. BTW, he has been claiming this for years. But now others have to go to work, first on what characterizes it as an Organ, and then testing to check if it meets certain agreed upon criteria, and then testing to see if it doesn't meet them. Is this Theory Falsifiable?
      And pretty much the only justification that I have for this attitude... is that we are both Irish...

    9. Re:Well, not "new" by careysub · · Score: 1

      Phlogiston also put up quite a fight before finally going the way of the dodo.

      It was tasty?

      Mmmm... dodo, and phlogiston...

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should try not to whoosh when you write a post with 'whoosh'. The parent post acknowledges that it's not a "new" organ:

      The difference is classifying it as one structure [as opposed to multiple structures]

      So the parent is saying "It hasn't been overlooked. It was previously identified as multiple structures. The difference is classifying it as one structure."

    11. Re:Well, not "new" by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Even as we speak, dedicated fans are camping out at McDonald's all around the country waiting for the return of the McDodo, cooked in the finest hydrogenated phlogiston.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    12. Re:Well, not "new" by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It does, in fact, participate quite heavily in warding off disease. The mesentery is full of lymph nodes. And if you take it out, you've just removed the blood supply to your gut. Good luck living with your dead bowel.

      You might have a better argument with omentum - it's something you can do without if you have to. Even there, though, it serves a purpose, just as the spleen, appendix, and gallbladder all do.

    13. Re:Well, not "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually mentioned Lymphatic tissue as something contained in the Mesentery... but not unique to it. Damn stuff is all over the body. Whereas the Liver is unique.
      As for Mesenterectomies, they aren't common, but they are performed, and guess who co-authored a Paper on the subject?
      https://gastro.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/16/gastro.gou046.full.pdf

      "In so doing, we provide an anatomical basis for safe and effective complete mesocolic excision (CME) in the management of colon cancer."

      Again, it gets back to definitions. If any old tissue can be an Organ, then all tissues are Organs, and the word loses its historic meaning. I'm actually OK with that, as long as everybody else is. It's a minor issue with me; I'm much more irritated with how CS people have utterly trivialized the meaning of the wonderful word "Deprecate".

    14. Re:Well, not "new" by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure, you can take the entire colonic mesentery, because you can live (though unpleasantly) without a colon. Taking the mesentery of small bowel, except in small quantities, might not work so well for you.

  4. New Organ by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

    So, did the value of my Grey's Anatomy book go up or down? Fingers crossed.

    1. Re:New Organ by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      lol.
      no effect.

    2. Re:New Organ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, did the value of my Grey's Anatomy book go up or down? Fingers crossed.

      The resale value went down. Way down.
      But the purchase price went up.

  5. Marvel of Engineering by Neuronwelder · · Score: 2

    Indeed! We really don't have just one brain. We already know that the spine itself reacts like a brain and near your solar plexus is a junction of nerves that processes more information. The eyes pre-process and sort information before it ever gets near the brain. Unfortunately I haven't researched it for years and retroactive amnesia has set into my brain.

    1. Re:Marvel of Engineering by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Funny

      > retroactive amnesia has set into my brain

      All of them?

    2. Re:Marvel of Engineering by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I already knew at least some humans have more than one brain. My girlfriend says I have one in my pants as well as my head.

      Sadly, I have found that only one works at a time. And the lower one usually isn't all that bright.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  6. Um... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the pericardium also be classified as a separate organ rather than part of the heart then? It's certainly more complicated in its function.

    1. Re: Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nonesense, it's technically a dwarf organ. Not worthy of full organ classification.
      Me and 4 other people decided this after everyone else went home.

  7. That ain't nuthin' by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I lost about 35 pounds and discovered an organ I hadn't seen in so long I thought it was a myth.

    Also, that I have two feet attached to my toes.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:That ain't nuthin' by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Also, that I have two feet attached to my toes.

      You saying you have twenty feet?

      I'd have thought you'd have been aware of that no matter how much weight you were carrying.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    2. Re:That ain't nuthin' by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      ROFL!

      Well played, sir. Well played, indeed!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. You are now breathing manually. by TroII · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have died of mesentery.

  9. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is dodgy as hell. First they claim it is an organ, and then they claim they don't know what makes it an organ... but it's still an organ. I claim that the Mesentery is a harpsichord. I don't know why it's a harpsichord, it certainly doesn't sound like a harpsichord, but it is a harpsichord nonetheless. It is... stringy.
     

  10. At least it's a way better headline than this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists identify new human in organs!

    Of course, now you're thinking, WOW they used to use dental records...

    1. Re:At least it's a way better headline than this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In communist Russia, organs have you?

  11. Sounds just like Pluto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the inevitable debate on whether the classification is warranted. And btw Pluto IS a planet.

    1. Re:Sounds just like Pluto by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Yes, by law in Illinois it is.

      That's what they passed to protect the only non North American discovered planet.

      less than 500 people that voted disagree...

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re: Sounds just like Pluto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Earth does not qualify as a planet. Earth is the sorriest excuse for a planet I've ever seen.
      It's well known as the joke of the solar system, I'm ashamed to live on this chunk of space debris.

  12. I for one welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our new intestinal innerlords.

  13. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Feel free to not use modern medicine. Or anything scientists have done since da Vinci, since apparently that's the standard we're going with here.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  14. Labels by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    This is like saying that scientists discovered 1 billion new living dinosaurs when they reclassified avians as saurian dinosaurs (instead of ancestors of dinosaurs).

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Labels by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Saurischians are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are saurischians. Birds are saurischians. Birds are dinosaurs.
      Since the publication of The Origin of Species, and the flurry of evolutionary classification that took off after it, birds have been recognized as some kind of Archosaur or another. Birds have always been known to have been dinosaurs.

    2. Re:Labels by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      I'd love to comment on this. But given recent political events I don't want to invoke the Scope trial.

    3. Re: Labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And leopards and tigers are just different races of "panther".

      Seriously. They freely interbreed in captivity when allowed, and their genetic distance is less than the difference between a Swede and an Eskimo. Yet for some crazy reason, they're still classified as different species.

    4. Re: Labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh. I meant, leopards and JAGUARS.

    5. Re: Labels by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Apparently you CAN breed different species. Lions and tigers are clearly different species, but you can breed them and get ligers.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Labels by careysub · · Score: 1

      Saurischians are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are saurischians. Birds are saurischians. Birds are dinosaurs. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, and the flurry of evolutionary classification that took off after it, birds have been recognized as some kind of Archosaur or another. Birds have always been known to have been dinosaurs.

      You are certainly correct that the identification of birds with dinosaurs was proposed quite early, but it is going a bit too far to say that was generally "known" to be the case. The "Are Bird's Dinosaurs?" debate, was absolutely a topic of argument for a century and a half, but is really two overlapping debates. The first is the actual descent of birds from fossilized (proposed) ancestors, and the second is a fundamental one for evolutionary classification, how should you group species (i.e. what is a taxon)?

      Linnaean taxonomy was based on grouping species by common characteristics, but this created lots of paraphyletic and polyphyletic taxons. A paraphyletic taxon includes an ancestor, but only some of its descendants as member; a polyphyletic taxon excludes the common ancestor of the members and usually some of the other descendants as well (convergent evolution is a common reason for this).

      Cladistics, the use of statistical grouping methods (aided by computers), clarified things considerably starting in the 1960s, and then genetic analysis put it into hyperdrive, proving the fundamental correctness of the cladistic approach, and giving it an unambiguous standard of validity. Modern groupings invariably strive to be monophyletic.

      Cladisitics actually helped clarify the interpretation of the fossil record for birds so in the 1980s biology came to recognize that a consistent method of classification, combined with a better interpretation of fossil evidence required birds to be classified as a type of dinosaur.

      It really is more than a matter of changing labels. This did create a change in understanding about how to think about dinosaurs based on the surviving branch of the taxon, and about the origin and nature of birds.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    7. Re:Labels by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      The "Are Bird's Dinosaurs?" debate, was absolutely a topic of argument for a century and a half,

      Citation? I think that "debate" is an urban myth. Probably from too many of us having read Jurassic Park.

      Sure, there were debates about where exactly they fit (theropods? crocodilians?) but Archaeopteryx isn't a new discovery, and was immediately recognized as some kind of link between dinosaurs and birds. I think it's fair to say that birds have *always* been considered some kind of evolutionary branch of Archosaur, with the extant groups being birds and lizards, at least for as long as we've had Darwinian evolution as a theory.

    8. Re: Labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but male ligers & tigons tend to be sterile (not all, but most). In contrast, leguars & jaguleps will keep breeding like feral cats until eventually, a once-isolated population of both simply become a population of moggie panthers with varying degrees of resemblance to one or the other. You'll occasionally get one who looks more leopard-like or jaguar-like (the same way two mixed-race Americans could have a child who's unambiguously "white" or "black"... or even one of each as fraternal twins), but most of them will simply be somewhere in between (like Dominicans or Brazilians).

      The point is, classifications of both 'race' and 'species' are more arbitrary than most people realize. Objectively, leopards & jaguars are just historically-distinct races of 'panther', the same way a Norwegian forest cat and an American shorthair are different races/breeds of 'housecat'.

      Getting back to birds-vs-sauropod dinosaurs, nearly everyone now agrees that they ARE... but nobody really wants to refactor our entire naming and classification system to bring it into absolute logical consistency, because it would sidetrack the scientific community for literally *years* as people who might otherwise have done real science got sidetracked & spent their time arguing over new names.

    9. Re:Labels by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      evolutionary branch of Archosaur, with the extant groups being birds and lizards,

      Don't forget the turtles and crocodilians - still not extinct.

      Citation? I think that "debate" is an urban myth.

      Well, Alan Feduccia fought a good fight over it through most of the 1980s and 1990s. He seems to have quieted down over the last couple of decades. There was pseudo-controversy from creationist idiots too, but they're not even worth remembering names for (they all plagiarise each other in any case). See my signature for my opinion on the matter, which I've only rarely edited since about the time Feduccia ran out of constructive arguments.

      That's likely the debate you're remembering.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. 15 things you did not know by fermion · · Score: 0
    About the mesentery. Number 9 will surprise you!

    Also, 12 ways contemplating your mesentery will help you lose weight.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  16. The bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of you are several years overdue for your mesenteroscopy, a crucial test for early detection of several forms of cancer.

    Can you call the hospital and book an appointment for your procedure?

  17. What's the ordinary joe's word? by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we name it the semicolon?

    1. Re:What's the ordinary joe's word? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can we name it the semicolon?

      So that's what's causing the pain in my asterisk.

      At first I thought it was the high-percent caret diet, which resulted in punctuated dashes at the restroom, clogging the pipes and interrupting my period, which is a plus, by the way. You can quote me on that.

      But it almost put me in a comma. However, this research without question underscores and pounds home the real cause!

    2. Re:What's the ordinary joe's word? by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      No, ma'm, a pain in the asterisk is usually related to a bit too much TeXmEx.

    3. Re: What's the ordinary joe's word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop making a hash of things!

    4. Re:What's the ordinary joe's word? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! Well played.

    5. Re:What's the ordinary joe's word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is without equal

    6. Re:What's the ordinary joe's word? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      In two ways. Nice!

  18. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by DeathElk · · Score: 1

    OK, well perhaps your peer reviewed paper will provide the detail and insight into these findings that TFA is lacking.

  19. Nah we should call it the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    messentery... because when it is torn or perforated you tend to make a mess all over whatever is in front of you.

    Ahh the joys of mesentery failure: a pile of bowels all over the ground in front of you!

  20. Sounds Ominous by Aereus · · Score: 1

    I died of mesentery while playing the Oregon Trail card game the other night...

    1. Re:Sounds Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that "Organ Trail: Complete Edition The Men Who Wear Many Hats" needs an update now...

  21. I'm still waiting for them to recognize ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, science. Don't be shy. We all know the Taint is an organ too.

  22. Da Vinci was here? by skovnymfe · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight. If I pick up a Da Vinci textbook, or whatever, and then claim the same thing he did, I will have discovered it? No wonder cancer hasn't been cured yet.

  23. Misleading title on the Slashdot by shanen · · Score: 1

    Why no comment (that I can find) about the fundamentally misleading title. They did NOT find or even "identify" a new organ. They just decided that the description of a certain part of the human body could be made a bit more clear. Kind of like a promotion up to "organ" status rather like the demotion of Pluto down from planet status.

    I'm skeptical it will be helpful in any medical sense, but maybe it will help clarify some medical conditions. Might need to rename them, too.

    Not sure I should go here... Probably not. However to me the significant part of improving medical diagnoses is that the more detailed and accurate diagnoses of our diseases reduce the uncertainty about when we'll die and why. So is your last will and testament boots-on or boots-off?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  24. Damn, the one thing I was going to get to keep by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 2

    ...when they harvest all the rest of my organs by default.

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  25. Re:"Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by slashrio · · Score: 1

    It's called 'scientific medical community' and you're supposed to highly respect them for all their 'knowledge'.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  26. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Not only can they be wrong, they also can be plain stupid.
    Like with their response to the findings of Ignaz Semmelweis who designed antiseptic procedures that could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women yet was laughed and ridiculed straight into a straight-jacket and off to the mental hospital where he committed suicide.
    Or the disbelieve that fell part to Barry Marshall who suggested bacteria as the cause of many gastric ulcers, although already one hundred year before that (I think it was) Pavlov noted down in a book that something in the stomach of a dog 'looked like bacteria'. But no, nothing beats a dogma like "bacteria can't survive in an acidic environment".
    I'm sure there's more like this, 'silver' (in fact 50% mercury) fillings come to mind...
    Soon there will be HPV vaccines, cholesterol lowering medications etc. etc.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  27. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only that I but distinctly remember studying the mesentery and its functions in medical school when I was there over 20 years ago... although it may not have been specifically granted the name "organ", that's not really how medical students classify things anyway. Organ simply means a collection of tissues performing a specific function or functions. You're far more likely to get a question asking about those functions, or where the blood supply comes from, or what embryological layers went into forming this structure on any test at medical school than "is this an organ?". We've known for a long time that the mesentery has quite a few functions from immune system functions (the thing is FULL of lymph nodes as anyone who has ever had adenitis mesenterica will testify) to being able to move through chemotaxis towards and plug any leaks in the bowel.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  28. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yes, they can be wrong while still being far more correct than conspiracy theorists and religious nuts. Wrong is not an absolute. There are different shades of wrong. There is "oops I made a typo" wrong, and "delete your account" wrong, and the FBI is about to break down your door and put a bullet in your head wrong. See?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  29. It's not a new organ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a surgeon we've only been acutely aware of the mesentery, its existence and its organic functionality.

    Struggling to see why this is news....

    1. Re:It's not a new organ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a surgeon we've only been acutely aware of the mesentery, its existence and its organic functionality.

      Struggling to see why this is news....

      It's about money. They are using this "discovery" to show results for what they've already been paid, and to justify getting paid more. Which is why they are claiming that this will now allow them to begin to study the function of this new organ.

  30. Alien propaganda! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just claiming that these alien parasites are a "new" organ that has been there all along so that the takeover isn't reported by doctors until it is too late.

  31. No new Organs by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    There are no new organs in my colon thank you very much.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:No new Organs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not anymore, I just pulled out.

    2. Re:No new Organs by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Not anymore, I just pulled out.

      There's nothing fresh or new about your organ AC.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  32. I too have identified a new organ by bsdasym · · Score: 2

    It's called the "gut." Previously this organ was believed to be a series of smaller independent organs and tissues, but I've decided otherwise. Where's my Nobel Prize.

  33. New organ nothing. by Khyber · · Score: 2

    They merely discovered that it was fully connected instead of segmented.

    Anyone that's read the older First Responder coursebooks from 20+ years ago knows this thing exists in humans. WONDERFUL pictures of shattered bowels and mesentery all throughout the book.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  34. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There really isn't more like that. Your examples are before evidenced based science was used in medicine. Nice try. Is there evidence for fillings being harmful? Let's see it. And please don't point to anecdote. That's pretty dumb.

  35. Pluto Debate of the Anatomy World? by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    Sounds like the Pluto debate of anatomy - is it an organ or a mere set of membranes?

  36. Egyptians discovered it .. by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Not scientists, nor Leonadro DaVinci, it was the Egyptians.

    Hold on, I am not joking. Egyptians have known that the mesentery is a single connected membrane. Why? Because they use that fat laden membrane from sheep to create minced meat kabob like grilled meatballs. It is called mandil ("handkerchief" or "hand towel").

    Here is a video showing it as a full contiguous membrane, and the rest of the recipe if someone is interested.

  37. It connects a person's small and large intestines by sconeu · · Score: 1

    So, to put it in Unix terms... It's a PIPE ORGAN?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  38. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "By recognizing the anatomy and the structure of the mesentery, scientists can now focus on learning more about how the organ functions"

    So, it has to be recognized as an organ BEFORE you study how it functions?

  39. misleading title by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    "scientists have discovered an old organ that was already discovered by a guy living in a time where they weren't exactly sure about wizards yet."

  40. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "By recognizing the anatomy and the structure of the mesentery, scientists can now focus on learning more about how the organ functions"

    So, it has to be recognized as an organ BEFORE you study how it functions?

    What they mean is that if they can "sell" their idea widely enough, it will result in a bunch of unattached Grant money, which they themselves will be able to use to "study".

  41. Trump's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new organ? Wow! The wonders of the Trump Era are only just beginning!

  42. Re: "Leonardo da Vinci who identified" by slashrio · · Score: 1

    The dumb stories about 'silver' mercury fillings is that mercury doesn't leak out of them "because it's bound in the matrix". What a crap. There is laboratory video evidence showing under convenient lighting conditions a continuous stream of mercury vapour coming out of the amalgam Chewing with it will only increase the emission of mercury vapour. I thought it is pretty clear that mercury is a dangerous neuro-toxin. Ergo, you don't need a 'evidence-based' research project to know that any device leaking mercury has no place in the human body and is inherently damaging. So how in heaven's name is it possible that the 'scientific medical community' hasn't picked this up and scrutinised the tradition-based use of mercury in dental fillings? And regarding your suggestion that evidence based medicine is now 'used in medicine': that's right, there is some evidence-based medicine being 'used'. However, your well chosen use of the term 'now used in medicine' in no way assures that medicine is indeed 100% based on scientific evidence. On the contrary, much of the reported results of scienctific, including of course medical, research is plain false [plos.org] and mostly untrue [thelancet.com]. And your last remark is totally baseless as enough 'anecdotes' represent a case.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  43. Knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a gut feeling about this...

  44. New?!??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was none other than Leonardo da Vinci who identified the membranes as a single structure

    He just discovered this? Wow. He must be, like, really old by now. Didn't know he was even still practicing medicine.

    Say, do you think he's still painting, too? I'd really like to have him do a fresco in my house.