[HN Gopher] A Hormone May Boost Cognition in Down Syndrome
___________________________________________________________________
A Hormone May Boost Cognition in Down Syndrome
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 59 points
Date : 2022-09-02 17:12 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.scientificamerican.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.scientificamerican.com)
| mkarliner wrote:
| I'd like to think someone has asked a Down's Syndrome person what
| they think of this.
| zzleeper wrote:
| Sadly, you'll probably need to give them the hormone before
| they answer, so people will take seriously
| mkarliner wrote:
| 'Normal' people have not exactly covered themselves in glory in
| how they have been running the world lately. It's just possible
| that Down's Syndrome people have got it right and we are the
| abnormal ones.
| ralusek wrote:
| You would've been really cool when I was 14.
| type0 wrote:
| > and we are the abnormal ones.
|
| Speak for yourself, Down Syndrome isn't just a cognitive or
| genetic condition, they have a lot of physiological problems
| where the organs malfunction, hence the usual premature deaths
| and suffering.
| DanBC wrote:
| LeDeR tells us that premature death is overwhelmingly from
| poor access to healthcare and substandard healthcare when it
| is accessed, and it not an intrinsic feature of Down's.
| vnchr wrote:
| If you truly believed that, you'd choose to have Down's
| Syndrome given the opportunity. Somehow, I doubt your
| commitment to that platitude.
| cercatrova wrote:
| I remember reading a story the other year about Iceland having
| eliminated almost completely Down's Syndrome from their populace
| by aborting those fetuses which have the syndrome. Much as some
| parents are happy with their children who do have it, I would not
| wish anyone in this world to have such a syndrome. Somehow, this
| attitude seems controversial, and I do not understand it.
| SmileyJames wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
|
| Aside: I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you try to discuss
| your stance with a person with one more chromosome than you
| grog454 wrote:
| Well it sounds one step closer to eugenics, which you can
| easily find discussion and controversy on.
| trhway wrote:
| i wonder whether it makes sense to do a diff across all hormonal
| production in normal and Down person and try to correct that diff
| by regular injections, etc.
| mjfl wrote:
| One shouldn't generally expect the application of a single
| chemical hormone to improve cognitive performance. The brain is a
| computer, and doing this is roughly the equivalent of hooking up
| either side of a microprocessor with jumper cables and expecting
| it to "compute better". However, there could be an exception if
| the reduction of GnRH is one of the _only_ significant effects of
| the duplication of chromosome 21, which is probably not true -
| but maybe.
| gavinray wrote:
| Noopept and some of the racetams measurably improved my
| cognitive performance.
|
| I've tried most everything under the sun and used my body as a
| walking science lab. Most things don't have a noticeable
| effect, but there are a handful of things that do.
|
| (Also, YMMV, personal chemistry)
| derefr wrote:
| I mean, if your problem is specifically that you're not able to
| make that chemical / not as receptive to that chemical / clean
| that chemical up too quickly compared to the average person,
| then "add more of it" would be the obvious solution.
|
| If your microprocessor is having floating-read problems because
| the voltage on the 5V/12V power lines is more like 2V/4V, then
| "more power" is exactly what it needs.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Are you arguing against their quantified observed data that's
| gone through animal and human trials based on your metaphor of
| a microprocessor? That's sort of remarkably brazen.
| devin wrote:
| Given what we know about hormones, it wouldn't surprise me at
| all. Hormones seem to largely supersede genetics. There are
| numerous examples of this.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > The brain is a computer
|
| The brain is a bunch of chemicals floating around in salt
| water.
| tremon wrote:
| A processor is a bunch of chemicals floating around in frozen
| sand, but what's the point of such a statement?
| epgui wrote:
| And it is also a computer.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _The brain is a computer_
|
| As an aside, there are tomes of literature, research and
| arguments for and against the computational theory of mind. I
| don't think it's as clear cut to say that the brain is a
| computer, as physiologically it certainly doesn't work like a
| computer at all.
| bawolff wrote:
| When people say the brain is a computer, they dont mean it
| has CPU architecture or is programmed like a c program.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I'm aware, that's what the computational theory of mind
| touches upon, it is not a literal interpretation of the
| mind as having some Von Neumann architecture.
|
| On the other hand, I've met plenty of people who believe
| the brain has "processing power" that's equivalent to
| literal CPUs.
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| I think the sentiment of the analogy was "the brain is a
| tightly integrated complex system" which would support the
| 'multiple changes should be required to accomplish an
| increase in throughput'
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's important not to apply simple tricks and hope for
| magic results but it's not absurd to consider that some
| brain subsystems are so vital and foundational that an
| improvement their cascades on other higher level cognitive
| centers.
| dqpb wrote:
| Does it not compute?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| That's at the crux of the computational theory of mind, for
| which there are plenty of proponents and critics.
| gizajob wrote:
| No, it thinks. Computing is a subset of thought.
| cercatrova wrote:
| It takes inputs from sensors and produces output, as well
| as cogitating on internal states and data. How is that
| not computation?
| Stupulous wrote:
| Can you give an example of a thought or type of thought
| that is not contained within the set of all computations?
| astrange wrote:
| Can you do algorithms in your head with more than two or
| three variables and reliably get the right answer?
| swayvil wrote:
| How high could we boost it? I think I saw this scifi movie.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| And could it come crashing back down later, a la _Flowers for
| Algernon_ ?
| GordonS wrote:
| > Six out of seven patients improved their cognitive tests by 20
| to 30 percent
|
| My 9 year old daughter has Down's Syndrome, and this is the most
| exciting paper I've seen! I know we're a long, long way off any
| kind of treatment being available for people with Down's, but
| still, I can't help but feel some hope.
|
| BTW, you can AMA about Down's here if you want!
| adamm255 wrote:
| Yeah the summary made for great reading. This kind of research
| (and the fact it could help alzheimer's as well...) should be
| funded to high heaven.
| gavinray wrote:
| If anyone's curious, for a period of several months I
| administered a GnRH daily for health purposes (Triptorelin)
|
| Don't have down's syndrome. Likely on the autism spectrum. Didn't
| notice any significant cognitive benefits.
| jonwachob91 wrote:
| Autism and Down Syndrome are not related, so you shouldn't
| expect any benefits from a Down Syndrome drug.
|
| That would be like expecting eating to make your broken bone
| pain go away b/c eating made your hunger pains go away.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-03 23:00 UTC)