Jump to content

Talk:Head transplant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erroneous 'Citation Needed'

[edit]

The summary contains a citation request where there shouldn't be one. You wouldn't cite an absence of claims on human head transplant. You'd cite claims that such a thing *has* happened.

Wasn't the USSR the first?

[edit]

I believe that the USSR was the first to do a head transplant, not China. http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/head-transplant.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.191.162 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book

[edit]

An interesting book on this subject is "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive: Discorporation and U.S. Patent 4,666,425" by Chet Fleming. I haven't read it. (I have only read about it in another book which is not about head transplants.) Maybe someone who knows more about it can comment on it in the article. Two Halves 12 January 2003

Removed 1812 quote

[edit]

Removed:

The first head transplants were conducted in 1812, although there was only a marginal amount of success.

Added by the following: [1] in October of 2006. Travb (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Warning Quote

[edit]

Warnings about the future are subjective, not objective.

Thangalin (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording

[edit]

Changed "...subjects were typically done in by immune reactions..." to "...subjects typically died from immune reactions..." Nelliejellynoonaa (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed from article

[edit]

In 1998 Charles Krauthammer of Time magazine warned of the potential medical future of head transplanting with cloning:


Adamtheclown (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that this should be removed, I doubt that outlawing organ cloning is a widely held view point (at least I would hope not). After all the article on cancer research doesn't have a section on "Opposition to curing cancer"; even though I can gaurantee that there are people who believe curing cancer would be a sin.107.10.53.28 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furball4 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although the inclusion of this quote does not technically lend credence to the viewpoint, it does give airtime to only one side of a controversy. Since this article is not currently sophisticated enough to support a high-quality "Controversy" section, it should either avoid the controversy entirely or else reference its mere existence in one line without going any further. Furthermore, the Krauthammer quote is a particularly poor exemplar of the "against" argument. It does not even attempt moral argumentation, but references only the man's conclusion and call for legislation. I'm all for headless spares, but the "against" argument deserves better than Charles Krauthammer. I propose removing the quote entirely, and will do so in a week or so if no objections are made and discussed here.
Who wrote this? Igottheconch (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Krauthammer, Charles (1998). "Of Headless Mice...And Men". Time. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Discusses headless cloned humans

Update?

[edit]

a 30 year old man will be the first to undergo this procedure. --VirusKA (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's MGSV marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:250C:1EB9:F09B:76CC:FB95:5408 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full Body Transplant

[edit]

The title is wrong.

If a person is his mind so that his brain thus head, then, it's not the head which is being transplanted. But it's the body.

So the title should be changed.--95.10.87.61 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all call it "head transplant," so that's what we go with. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but then the sources are not all-knowing deities, they are mostly idiotic journo's who could do with a brain transplant.137.205.101.77 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean full body transplant? 130.234.202.135 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be headless-body transplant, since that's what you're essentially replacing, the function of a defective headless body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.47.202 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Canavero

[edit]

I'm in favor of leaving this out. If it stays, I'd like to see the citekill fixed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jerry Silver

[edit]

The Dr. Jerry Silver quote is from Nexus New Times magazine, which is full of stories about artifacts on Mars, crystals, Mayan codices, and how computers cause miscarriages. It does not seem like a reliable source to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Successful

[edit]

Per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article. And the article talks about several "successful" transplants. So that's what the lead says. The mentions in the article are backed up by sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition/awkwardness

[edit]

Under the human head transplant section, the preparation steps and procedure seem to sort of repeat each other. I think that section needs to be cleaned up a bit but I myself am not sure how to. NikolaiHo☎️ 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Canavero section is way too long. It should be cut back to what it was before the recent additions. After the transplant actually happens, we can expand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of successful transplant in South Africa

[edit]

http://newsexaminer.net/health/worlds-first-head-transplant-a-success/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanBK (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, written by this guy: [2] Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much of one version article has been cut away and removed

[edit]

There is so much from the original version of the article that has been deleted: [3] Moscowamerican (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are preferentially based on reliable, independent, secondary sources, giving WEIGHT as they do. That is the difference between that old version and the current one. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World's First Head Transplant (almost)

[edit]

There have been international reports about a planned, first human head transplant in 2017, and it was so big that 8 of the first 9 results on Google are about this not counting Wikipedia. Look!. So I added information about the matter but it was undone by Alexbrn for supposedly bad sources used (see the last 3 edits in history). Instead of reverting back, let's decide on an agreed version, so that this subject of great interest and the anticipated operation that never happened receive their fair share in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:MEDRS. We've already got quite enough on this fringey topic - more would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section header shows how tabloid the interest is. We are not a propagator of hype and gossip. Please read WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing back sources that were erased and adding a several more, per the above DAILYMAIL and MEDRS concern.

And then (quite unfortunately) nothing happened. And, well, it was not only discussed on social media and but was a major news item.

This should be covered, it is more than just relevant, it's a necessity. The focus should now be, in my opinion, directed at summarizing this information and adding it to the History section in the article. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Let's be careful with misusing WP:MEDRS. This article is not only about a medical procedure but about events and hype widely present in mainstream media. In my view it is absolutely justified for the article to mention Canavero's plans based on mainstream media (like Newsweek); demanding articles in a peer-reviewed journal for this feels somewhat over the top.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things, in the history of head transplants (whatever it is), Canavero likely is (or will be) just an insignificant episode who, in a couple of decades, will merit at most two sentences in an encyclopaedia if at all. However, today in 2018 plenty of readers seek information about this much-talked-about guy and his plans (wide coverage in popular media inciting interest), so I see no reason why Wikipedia should not offer the available facts. — kashmīrī TALK 22:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are an encyclopedia, not a vessel to provide what "readers seek information about", esp. when it's gossip & hype. We already have an article dedicated to this guy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plans are not history. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kashmiri is correct.
You asked to see a reliable medical paper and a source other than the dailymail - and many were provided, with different coverage. Now, the issue is that it's only gossip and plans?
Completely ignoring this subject is simply not an option. A 3-4 sentences paragraph is all that's needed. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple levels of the badness sure. "it is in sources" does not answer the NOT issue. It answers only the V issue, which is a different question. I have been saying NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL consistently in any case. What is there to actually say that is encyclopedic? There is Stuff Canavero Says and Stuff Other People Said. WP is not the blogoshere. We are not here to broadcast speculation and speculation about the speculation blah blah blah. This is what CRYSTAL/NOTNEWS are about.
You have said nothing about why this is encyclopedic. We don't include nonencyclopedic stuff in WP. We exclude it all the time. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A little late, I'll just leave these links here in case it is decided to add this info in the future. The story is encyclopedic because it was covered by the same sources that are currently used in the article itself (for other content which was deemed encyclopedic), and it is the a relevant part of the history of the subject. Covered by the NYT [4], the Neuroskeptic [5], Surgical neurology international [6] the ncbi (U.S. National Library of Medicine)[7], and lastly this popular science article [8] which stated that the operation has yet to take place. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removed sentence and source

[edit]

Quote:

However, the key objection, that a severed spinal cord cannot be repaired, has been disproven by animal studies.
References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29223327 Restoration of motor function after operative reconstruction of the acutely transected spinal cord in the canine model.Liu Z, Ren S, Fu K, Wu Q, Wu J, Hou L, Pan H, Sun L, Zhang J, Wang B, Miao Q, Sun G, Bonicalzi V, Canavero S, Ren X.Surgery. 2018 May;163(5):976-983;


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28612398 Polyethylene glycol-induced motor recovery after total spinal transection in rats. Ren S, Liu ZH, Wu Q, Fu K, Wu J, Hou LT, Li M, Zhao X, Miao Q, Zhao YL, Wang SY, Xue Y, Xue Z, Guo YS, Canavero S, Ren XP. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2017 Aug;23(8):680-685).

I think these are reliable sources, I am reverting the delete edit and adding the NCBI links I found. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology research paper on head transplants

[edit]

Here is some information which can be added to the article.

Head Transplants and Aging

There are two measures of individual aging, : life span and life expectancy. Life expectancy is the greatest number of years that any member of a species has been known to survive. The human life span is 120 years. The oldest verified person is 119 years ("World's Oldest Person," 1999). James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, developed the compression of morbidity thesis, which states that the maximum number of years a human is known to live is fixed and finite. In developed countries women live six to eight years longer than men. Life expectancy is the average number of years people can expect to live (Quadagno, 2017).

A recent development in science has the potential to increase the life expectancy of the human race and potentially even increase the human life span exponentially. Since 2013, Doctor Sergio Canavero has been publicallypublicly promoting the controversial medical procedure of head transplanting (Kirkey, 2019). Head transplanting would involve the grafting of a person's head onto the body of another. The biggest rationale for the operation is much like that of transplanting a human head onto a donor cadaver — which would enable someone who has a degenerative disease, such as the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking , or has total paralysis to have a healthy functioning body (Scott, 2017). Once perfected, the only long term limits to this surgery would be the health of the human head.

The procedure has been met with skepticism and moral outrage in the medical community. The consensus in the scientific community is that a head transplant operation is not possible with current surgical capabilities. Surgeons also argue that the procedure has not been supported with sufficient peer reviewed research. Canavero, an accomplished neurosurgeon who has published dozens of scientific papers, response is that every scientific and medical marvel was initially met with skepticism and anger – including the first heart transplant in 1967 and the first test-tube baby in 1978 (Wolpe, 2018). Canavero is attempting to do the procedure in China because of ethical laws prohibit him from performing the procedure in the United States or Europe ("Recent Events," 2019). Transplants have evolved immensely since the first 1950s successful kidney transplant between identical twin brothers. Transplant surgeons today have transplanted hearts, livers, lungs, hands, forearms, voice boxes, tongues, penises, faces and even a womb (uterine). Scientists are even able to grow beating heart muscle from stem cells. At the same time, advances in immunosuppression have dramatically reduced the risk of transplant rejection .

The biggest barrier to making a head transplant possible is that severed nerve spinal tissue is not able to heal properly. This is because scarred nerve tissue does not transmit signals well. This issue could potentially be resolved: some recent research at the University of Pennsylvania has shown that tissue-regenerating mice, can regenerate nerves without scarring. In addition, in 1982, Dr. Dorothy T. Krieger, the chief endocrinologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, successfully performed a partial brain transplant in mice. Recently scientists at Rice University in Houston Texas created a compound called "Texas-PEG", which helps knit severed spinal cords. A recent experiment with the polymer on rats allowed a rat to use its limbs after its spinal cord was severed. In March 2019, Canavero with Ren Xiaoping, published two peer-reviewed medical journal studies showing that dogs and monkeys were able to walk again after their spinal cords were fully cut during surgery and then those spines were put back together again (Hjelmgarard, 2019; Xiaoping, C-Yoon, & Canavero, 2019). Repairing 'irreversible' spinal cord damage (Parry, 2019). Xiaoping is a US educated orthopedic surgeon, who was part of the team that performed the first had transplant in Louisville Kentucky in 1999 (Kean, 2016).

The possibilities of head transplants in changing the long termlong-term life course for the aging is immense. The United States and Europe should support such research in their respective countries .

References

Hjelmgarard, K. (2019, March). Head transplant doctors Xiaoping Ren and Sergio Canavero claim spinal cord progress. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/27/italian-chinese-surgeons-cite-spinal-cord-repair-head-transplant-canavero-xiaoping/3287179002/

Kean, S. (2016, September). The audacious plan to save this man’s life by transplanting his head. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-audacious-plan-to-save-this-mans-life-by-transplanting-his-head/492755/

Kirkey, S. (2019). Head case. National Post. Retrieved from: https://nationalpost.com/features/head-transplant

Parry, L. (2019, March). Scientists planning the world’s first head transplant say they’re ready to start human trials. The Sun. Retrieved from: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8745721/scientists-worlds-first-head-transplant-ready-human-trials/

Quadagno, J. (2017). Aging and the life course: An introduction to social gerontology (7th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Recent events highlight an unpleasant scientific practice: ethics dumping. (2019, January). The Economist. Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/31/recent-events-highlight-an-unpleasant-scientific-practice-ethics-dumping

Scott, G. (2017). The science of living longer: Developments in life extension technology. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

Wolpe, P. (2018, June). A human head transplant would be reckless and ghastly. It’s time to talk about it. Vox. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/2/17173470/human-head-transplant-canavero-ethics-bioethics

World's oldest person misses millennium. (1999, December). BBC. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/584685.stm

Xiaoping R., C-Yoon, K., Canavero, S. (2019). Bridging the gap: Spinal cord fusion as a treatment of chronic spinal cord injury. Surgical Neurology International. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiaoping_Ren3/publication/332242359_SNI_Review/links/5ca8928892851c64bd53844b/SNI-Review.pdf


Moscowdreams (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong referencing

[edit]

The initial claim that in 2024 there is no success yet is justified by quoting two references that are from 2016 and 2017. 2A02:A45F:3BA9:0:90EB:24C4:A9FF:48CF (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Head_transplant&oldid=1252121028"