At first glance, I figured this to be a work of fiction. But an Australian website claims that scientists at Pittsburgh’s Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research are capable of re-animating dogs that have been clinically dead for up to 3 hours. I have not been able to find any news about it on the AP or Reuters. This is a link to what I found [Here](Pittsburgh’s Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research)
It’s staggering how many people look at this news with disbelief. Experiments such as these have been carried out with varying degrees of success for half a century now, including, if I remember correctly, a reanimated baboon after 1 hour after “death” a pretty long time ago.
If you go to news.google.com and search for “reanimated” or “zombie dog” you will find a whole bunch of news outlets carrying this story.
A recent issue of Scientific American claimed that one scientist managed to keep a number of dogs “dead” for 12 hours then revive them without noticeable effect, and yet another did the same with pigs. I cant find the magazine, could someone else site?
A recent issue of Scientific American claimed that one scientist managed to keep a number of dogs “dead” for 12 hours then revive them without noticeable effect, and yet another did the same with pigs. I cant find the magazine, could someone else site? They were essentially claiming that rapid depletion of oxygen directly from the cells using carbon monoxide rich plasma triggers a kind of hybernation on the cellular level.
Do we have a Dr. Herbert West around here?
Here’s a recently dead thread on “Zombie” Dogs (Resuscitation Research).
Note that these weren’t just any dead dogs found on the road. They were perfectly healthy animals to start with; then their blood was replaced with an ice-cold saline solution. So it seems like there’s a chance of resuscitation as long as the cells haven’t started to break down.
Haven’t there also been some successful experiments with putting rodents into a state of artificial hibernation using hydrogen sulfide?
What are the chances of successfully performing this on humans?
People have been revived from clinical death (example).
Its crazy what they can do. As baldwin pointed out, I would imagine it would be hard to find roadkill, fix it up, and give it a bit of a shock and bring it back. Maybe if a person died at the hospital, I think it wouldn’t be out of the relm of possibilities.
They did open heart surgery on dogs before they did it on people
So, are there any benefits to experimenting on these perfectly healthy animals, besides trying to set a world record?
Might add, I’ve seen this kind of thing on tv. My understanding of the subject is that dead ones cannot be dead long becase of the increasing damage done to cells during the freezing period. And you need to freeze them to store them.
The whole point of the research is to develop improved medical treatments for humans.
Of course. And I ask again, what’s the purpose in this case?
The non-freezing method is meaningless. As a reference, consider that during heart surgery it’s not uncommon to remove the heart completely while keeping the pasient on life support. That method is a lot safer than “killing” and reviving the pasient. Further, this method cannot be used on site on victims of, say, car accidents, because you need to replace the blood while lowering the temp, ie. you need a controlled environment.
The freezing option is a impossible because cells are damaged while frozen. In any case, if scientists wants to prove otherwise the meaningful approach is to work on tissue samples in a lab.
AFAIK, the only possible benefit of this research could be surgery on tumors in the lower parts of the brain, cases where a pasient must be put in a state of clinically dead to have a chance make it through the operation. But this is an extremely dangerous approach, where other methods/research show a lot more promise.
At present. How do you know that the results of this method won’t produce a safer method?
Once again, you have no idea what the ultimate results of this line of research may be. You are speculating that it will have no positive benefit, when you really don’t know anything much about it.
The famous prove-me-the-future scenario. I see you’re familiar with the concept that something can never be proven to be true, it can only be proven to be false.
If nothing else, what we do know is probability.
If I leave a piece of flesh out in the garden it will rot. If I freeze water it will expand. I might add chemicals or something to alter the end-result somewhat, but in the end you cannot beat the limitations set by the cornerstones of nature.
I have provided arguments why this method will not improve medical treatments, and I can easily dig up the cites later. You have brought nothing so far.
The arguments you’ve brought up so far have been irrelevant.