Hacker News Reader

Comment by snapcaster | Hacker News Reader

This seems like such a bad take i'm assuming it's trolling? A person couldn't walk, and now they can. How is that a "distraction"?

View on HN

If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results. I understand it's a bad look to shit on what should be a positive story: technology fixes disabled man, news at 11. But these types of treatments have been around for at least 25 years and always end up the same - a big hype cycle, some funding grants for the researchers, a few grads get their Phd's, then everyone realizes it doesn't actually work, the effects were mostly placebo or attributed to other factors (such as the surgical installation of the implant alleviating undiagnosed pressure on the nerves), then it goes quiet for a couple years until people forget and the cycle repeats.

People who don't actually live with or understand spinal cord injury often fall into the trap of thinking that "if we can just make their legs move, then they're fixed!" Completely ignoring that somatosensation (sensory feedback) is probably 2/3 or more of the signal and implants can't communicate that at all. It's difficult for many able-bodied people to understand that spinal cord injuries are not the same as needing glasses (to address another comment). Not the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

One must ask the question of what the goal of the research is? Is the goal to restore spinal cord function or is the goal to advance BMI technology? When your funding source and research institution are committed to a particular path, the "goal" starts to take whatever shape is necessary to align with the former two.

I suppose it's only fair for me to consider that perhaps the goal is better BMI's instead of restoring spinal cord function. To which I would have to applaud the effort. However, I have it on good authority that given the option, those suffering from spinal cord injuries would rather see more research going toward solving the problem and not the symptom.

You are angry that science isn't progressing how you feel it should (i.e. solely into regenerative solutions and nothing else, ignoring the fact that the article is about a solution that restores function). You are basing that on the fact that you feel that if one avenue is explored, other avenues will not be. This fact is not substantiated (and as far as I've understood in the past, it can't be - the data isn't available. But you're welcome to prove me wrong).

The only leftover arguments are then "people prefer more complete solutions", but is a little unbelievable that these same people would not prefer any solution at all over no solution. And "I have decades of experience" is supposed to somehow stifle the fact that some people do not agree with you. An argument from background is just not very compelling, you do not have one based on logic and in terms of feelings you are so antagonistic the primary response is to not engage with your argument positively.

If you truly want to change someone's mind, I'd really start with toning down the antagonism. Or if you must be, at least provide a more compelling logical argument based on some actual data.

You do have a point and I'll acknowledge that "coming in hot" was far from the best approach and certainly not as persuasive as a calmly reasoned argument without the emotion would have been. But I need to stress that I do not see the whole endeavour of solving spinal cord injury as pointless - I just see the biological approach as having far more promise albeit much less attention for a number of reasons, including the implant approach being less burdened with regulation and having more spin-off potential. I'll reiterate my previous statement that I do want to see real progress made, but I honestly (and I believe correctly) see this approach as a dead-end. There have just been so many similar "successful" studies that failed to translate into useful / effective treatments. I am highly skeptical of the stated results given that there have been so many studies like this that went nowhere (what happened to the last 10, 20, etc previous attempts?). Maybe it's different this time? I invite you to follow-up on this individual's progress in a year or two.

Many of the previous studies also claimed similar results - or at least pop-media sensationalised already generously interpreted results to make it seem so. But if they were all so successful, why are they not routinely used? Given how important mobility is to quality of life and how costly its impairment is, why is it that of the dozens, even hundreds of "successful" studies, most people affected by SCI see no benefit? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that these particular treatments are not as successful or as effective as the studies claim at providing net quality of life improvement. And I think this also addresses your argument that any solution is better than no solution, which presupposes that what we're looking at is in fact a solution and not just another "successful" study that gets shelved because of its inability to translate into a treatment that provides a net quality of life improvement.

Just a handful of previous studies for reference:

1. Epidural Stimulation (dates back to 2002): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374568/

2. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (dates back to 1997): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589923/

3. Functional electrical stimulation (dates back prior to 2004): https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Functional_electrical_stimula...

4. Spinal Cord Neuromodulation (dates back prior to 2007): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17387353/

5. Magnetic Spinal Cord Stimulation (dates back to at least 2018): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30232-z

This is very interesting, thank you for the in-depth response

I understand your take now, but it still seems like the two approaches are complementary. Specifically because afaik the only known way to restore spinal cord function is to get signals traveling through whatever means, so that the body will regrow the pathways. (I am not at all an expert, but my understanding is that) stem cells aren't going to do any good if they're just wedged in randomly. If they or something else carries a signal, they will organize to strengthen that signal and can then permanently repair function (at least partially). If they don't carry a signal, they will wither and die. So it seems to me that when you don't have intact nerves carrying signals from point A to point B, then anything that carries those signals will delay degeneration and possibly facilitate repair. If you need wires or nanotubes or little strips of squid skin to carry those signals initially, then that's what you'll want to do.

> If it seems like an absurd take, please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results

But if that's the case why are you talking like you're talking in your comment above?

> Any research that does not involve repairing the physical damage to the spinal cord itself is a distraction.

People think you're trolling because this is how trolling sounds.

> please at least consider that perhaps I'm not the one who's missing something, that perhaps I have decades of experience following the research and its results

The woe-is-me passive-aggression isn't helping your cause, dude. Share what you know, nicely, even if you're disagreeing with something, and people won't jump on you.

> The woe-is-me passive-aggression isn't helping your cause, dude. Share what you know, nicely, even if you're disagreeing with something, and people won't jump on you

Has he been not-nice?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com