Thirsty People Feel More Pain 273
Bifurcati writes "Being thirsty makes you more sensitive to pain, according to a recent study. By simultaneously doing brain scans, new areas of the brain were activated when both pain and thirst were present, apparently making the pain more "painful" - perhaps a survival method so that pain is prioritized over thirst. They'd like to do more research, but ethical issues make it tough - even these subjects had to spend three hours being poked and prodded!"
Obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing new here (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly ignoring other routes? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was an experiment where they stuck a cat and mouse in a cage. The cat ignored the mouse. Absolutely showed no interest in it. But pain was then inflicted on the cat and the cat attacked the mouse until it was dead.
Did the researchers test to see if it's not only pain that the subject feels? Maybe the subject will feel more agitated, stressed, angered, emotional, or a combination?
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
How the hell is that even remotely analogous?
Re:It's true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dehydration and pain - link known for nearly 30 (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's interesting when somebody smart posits a contrarian view or two, the people who seem to think that essentially everything about prevailing theory is wrong are usually... well... nuts. I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own. Coincidence?
Re:Pain coming from fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not mind over matter, it's just how the mind works. Guess what controls parts of higher order affective pain response? Some abstract construct people call the "mind"? No, hows about parts of the insular cortex.
Re:What are all these ethics about? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would use a different example. Say the test involves some sort of danger or discomfort. What sort of people would
Take a homeless guy. The videos of the homeless people engaging in dangerous stunts and beating each other bloody for a small amount of food have circulated on the internet for awhile. A homeless guy would love to join up for a pain test for a slice of pizza. He could be well-informed and willing. The morality of offering a test that would inflict pain on the vagrant is very questionable. Such desperate folk would probably be offered many opportunities for such dangerous experiments if such prohibition was not levied. They'd probably be the majority of the subjects of these tests.
Another example is prostitution. Let's take a developing country where there is little money to be had. Many teenaged boys and girls offer themselves up for prostitution to avoid starvation. If offered, of course they'd sign up for the tests, well-informed and willing. But many would argue that such tests on them would be exploitation, much like if they were offered prostitution instead of sex.
There's no question that we'd receive great deal of useful research if we allowed such testing. The potential benefit for the world at large may even outweigh the exploitation(this is a loaded word, but I don't want it to be interpreted as such, too lazy to use a thesaurus). It's just that the moral stigma is too great of a short-term obstacle to overcome.
But there are other places in the world where such questions of morality can be ignored. Maybe the research can be accomplished over there. Personally I'd find it deplorable, but there is definitely plenty of room for argument.
Also that statement is pretty provably false (Score:5, Insightful)
Now of course it's always possible that this is wrong, but you'd need some pretty major proof to make that case. My guess is you are right, the guy is a crackpot. Doesn't mean that he doesn't perhaps have a good idea or two, but I'd be wary of what he says in general.
Witch burning in the 21st century (Score:2, Insightful)
There's an ocean of difference between being thought nuts and being nuts. Challenging conventional thinking practically guarantees the former, in our age of deadly conformity. However, I find no evidence for anything other than solid scientific research in his book. Dr. Batmanghelidj is certainly not alone in questioning [virusmyth.net] orthodox theories about AIDS.
I couldn't help but notice that very few of his papers had anything in them that indicated that they were actually published by a journal other than his own.
The fact that his Foundation chooses to make additional research available under their own banner, in addition to the several papers in independent journals, does not prove it is all hokum. It is not as if peer reviewed journals have a clean slate, given the continual trickle of hoax results (recently Korean Hwang Woo-Suk, Bell Labs' Henrik Schon) so I am not sure that your point is as strong as you may think.
Dr Batmanghelidj was certainly well aware of the disinterest of industry in his findings; imagine if the popular conception that chemicals should be the universal first resort were rejected in favour of treating chronic dehydration as a first step! That his views are commercially unpalatable (like those of AIDS iconoclasts) is hardly commentary on the quality of his research.
I stop to defend the man because I am tired of the same perennial kneejerk "if this guy has the answer why haven't we seen it on CNN?" reactions to any idea that slightly tweaks our age's mental enslavement. Let's ask the two questions: Does he have any kind of medical answer (hundreds of his patients are convinced he does)? And if so, we can move on to the next important question: Why are independent thinkers so carefully hidden from view and meticulously discredited in the public media?
Let people assess it for themselves, try his therapies, and perhaps add to the rather impressive roster of testimonials he offers in his book!
Re:Witch burning in the 21st century (Score:2, Insightful)