MatthewMattersFeatured By OwnerJan 26, 2013Professional General Artist
Alzheimer's isn't a loss of memory, it's a loss of connection to them. This has since long been known a fact. For all I know, Fabrice Muamba's blood was kept flowing enough to not cause him brain damage: it's just that his heart stopped beating on it's own.
It's pretty much a fact that memories are physical neurobiological constructs, neurons wired to each other in the most unbelievably sophisticated ways.
thats my point about Alzheimer mate you don't lose the memories just the link tho them. to may people assume that people with alzheimers cant make memories or recall them which is wrong.
also fabrice muamaba had a cardiac arrest not a heart attack it seems some people don't know the difference.
if you have a heart attack the supply of oxygen to the heart is blocked if you have a cardiac arrest there is no oxygen getting to the brain
This is why cpr is crucial. however Cpr only gives a very small amount of oxygen (not enough to stop brain damage in the long run) i.e without cpr there dead in minutes with cpr they can survive longer before brain damage kicks in.
you need to someone make the heart beat in its natural rhythm which is why we try to shock it back into life with a dephib.
if you cant shock a patient back to life in 10 mins without cpr and 20 mins with they are declared dead. This is because there brain has no received enough oxygen to keep it alive so even with cpr they don't have enough of oxygen !
or to put is simpler CPR gives them some oxygen and increases there chances but not enough ot keep them alive.
Muamaba had a cardiac arrest not a heart attack so the only oxygen his brain was getting was from CPR meaning he needed a dephib pronto however the dephib did not appear to work.
so he had no oxygen to his brain apart fro mthe cpr which means he was dead after 20 minutes however you and i both know now this was not the case
but the doctors did not know that at the time when they decided to carry on regardless.
so my question is what caused them to carry on and if they had carried on in other cases would they of been able to save lifes.
also i pointed out he didn't suffer brain damage because we are told as a fact anyoen waking up after 5-10 minutes of CPR has a 98% chance of brain damage and after 20 mins there brains beyond repair.
yet he went 70 minutes + and none of that happened which suggests that science might be wrong.
im writing a more detailed report on this right now if you want to see it, this was typed fast and is only designed to try and quickly explain what happened the report will go into exact detail and explains it a lot better.
No, in a cardiac arrest, the heart goes into asystole. It simply stops beating. CPR on it's own often helps to save people, because sometimes cardiac arrest is cause by fibrillation, which heart massage can help remedy. Defribillation is then the normal course of action, along with adrenaline. I understand all you are saying, but your conclusion that this somehow constitutes a breach of science is utterly fallacious and has no basis in your axioms.
i dont know why i keep trying but i keep praying you might eventually listen as the informaton could save someones life :-
While the heart is asystolic, there is no blood flow to the brain
unless CPR or internal cardiac massage (when the chest is opened and the heart is manually compressed) is performed, and even then it is a small amount. After many emergency treatments have been applied but the heart is still unresponsive, it is time to consider pronouncing the patient dead. Even in the rare case that a rhythm reappears, if asystole has persisted for fifteen minutes or more the brain will have been deprived of oxygen long enough to cause brain death.
Cpr stops the brain being asystolic now its only Hypoxia which means you have a better chance of survival.
If someone was hypoxia and you gave them cpr they might get enough oxygen to wake up which happens in a heart attack.
but in A cardiac arrest the oxygen in your breath is only 17% because your body has used 4% of it your body needs 21% oxygen to function properly.
this 17% stops the brain tissue dieing as fast because its getting seem oxygen but it will still die.
you seem to think your still asystolic when people are performing cpr and i keep trying to explain how thats not the case anymore.
You keep thinking CPR saves there life and that's not the case CPR keeps them alive so you can save there life with other methods
if you don't get the heart working again they will die.
i suggest you look it up rather than keep telling me i am wrong because if you don't dephib someone quick enough there die and if your firend are really in the medical profession and they dont know this they could end up losings patients they don't need to!
It is a small amount, but it is enough to prevent apoptosis of neurons. Only if asystole goes untreated for 15 minutes or more will brain death be the likely outcome, not if the patient was receiving CPR. CPR is not JUST heart massage, it includes artificial respiration, which replenishes the levels of oxygen in the lungs, and thus the blood. Which prevents the brain tissue from dying. I repeat, asystole is when you heart is not beating OF IT'S OWN ACCORD. When CPR is performed, the patient is still asystolic, because the tiny organ which acts to fire the muscle tissue is either in fibrillation, or is not firing. CPR can revive patients, but when combined with defibrillation is much more effective. I have looked it up. Turns out, you are wrong, ultimately. So I state again, you are simply spouting nonsense. Your predicates in no way validate your conclusion.
Many people might of gave in trying to explain to you by now. However I believe you are a clever guy but way to stubborn for your own good (something that people could also say about myself).
Now because we are both stubborn we are probably never going to see eye to eye however I believe you deserve a chance to see why I find your arguments so hard to follow and why they appear to make no sense. I am doing this So you can try to defend yourself, because right now it appears to me that you just keep reclaiming the same flawed argument and you appear to be digging yourself a big hole.
In order to do this I will display your quotes *Please note I will include the whole quote rather than the bits that back me up so people can read it all and make there mind up for themselves.*
After that I will then display my counter arguments, so this might be a very long thread (I hope you don't mind reading) but I hope you take the time to read it because I fell its the only way we can move forward.
finally I Will then display the sources of information I used to state my points including links to the sites I got them from.
* Normal normal I only display links to the sites I got my information from so people can read more if they wish. However in this case I want to make it crystal clear where I got my information from so there is no confusion*
Also To try and help make this rather long thread clearer I will put the the very important bits of the information in-between stars * *
your quotes 1) “You are a moron. The papers say dead, *they mean asystolic. He was not brain dead*, he was not declared dead. Simple. “
2) “He was not declared dead. *He was described as "technically dead", asystole. * If he was declared legally dead, he'd have received no more treatment. He continued to receive treatment because legal death was not declared, *he wasn't brain dead*.” Simple. Seriously, like, my little sister could understand, and she's 8. It's...so simple. “
3) “*When CPR is performed, the patient is still asystolic, because the tiny organ which acts to fire the muscle tissue is either in fibrillation, or is not firing. “*
so it appears your argument is saying that you believe he wasn’t brain dead but you believe he was asystolic for over 70 minutes?
My argument :- I have tired to explain countless times that Asystoic is a state of no cardiac electrical activity, hence the patient has no cardiac output, so there is no blood flowing to the brain. I have further explained if you are Asystolic for over 15 minutes you are considered brain dead because your brain tissues die if they are deprived of oxygen .
And CPR is how you treat it :- CPR's main purpose is to restore partial flow of oxygenated blood to the brain and heart.
So if CPR is done right the brain has Oxygen so its not Asystoic .
Evidence taken from sites :-
While the heart is asystolic, there is no blood flow to the brain *unless CPR or internal cardiac massage is performed.*
if asystole has persisted for *fifteen minutes or more the brain will have been deprived of oxygen long enough to cause brain death*.
15 minutes of Asystolic (deprived of oxygen) = brain death
So you appear to be calling me a moron for calling him Brain dead and telling me how its simple! Then in your very own argument, your actually claiming he was asystolic so he would of been brain dead after 15 minutes! What exactly are you trying to prove? Because to me it appears your determined to prove he was Asystolic, but proving that would means he would of been declaring brain dead after 15 minutes. But you clearly want me to believe he he was never brain dead? Your argument seems to destroy itself does it not?
Personalty I would suggest that rather than arguing with me,you should count yourself lucky that I’m telling you that's not how it works and you should try to understand why it doesn’t work that way.
Because right now your the one who's killing your own argument (about him not being brain dead) and I’m actually handing you a lifeline that you don't seem to want to accept. Also you have to ask yourself why would I hand you such a lifeline if I didn’t believe it? Surely I should/could just let you carry on digging. But I come onto this forums to try and learn things and discuss things rather than to push my views onto others and you made some very good points before you dug yourself into this particular hole.
You also seem to miss interpret me and assume we are on different sides! I stated under law they can declare him dead if he has not woken up after CPR (his heart cant be restarted by the dephibilator.) Because of this the newspapers can legally say he was dead / arose from the dead or anything they want (that makes good headlines) . But this is where you make yet another huge mistake just because I say the papers can legal declare it doest mean I believe he was dead!
I keep trying to point out how someone made a mistake. Because he clearly never died yet your so busy arguing if he was asystolic and what the legal law is and calling me a moron that you don't even notice we are actually arguing the same dam point!
And just to make it clear to you that point is :-
The papers where wrong when they declared him dead!
Next I will tray and l explain why you appear so confused about CPR!
What does CPR DO
Your argument :-
“It is a small amount, but it is enough to prevent apoptosis of neurons. Only if asystole goes untreated for 15 minutes or more will brain death be the likely outcome, not if the patient was receiving CPR. CPR is not JUST heart massage, it includes artificial respiration, which replenishes the levels of oxygen in the lungs, and thus the blood. Which prevents the brain tissue from dying. I repeat, asystole is when you heart is not beating OF IT'S OWN ACCORD. When CPR is performed, the patient is still asystolic, because the tiny organ which acts to fire the muscle tissue is either in fibrillation, or is not firing. CPR can revive patients, but when combined with defibrillation is much more effective. I have looked it up. Turns out, you are wrong, ultimately. So I state again, you are simply spouting nonsense. Your predicates in no way validate your conclusion. “
It would appear you have sort of noticed the mistake I pointed out earlier By declaring he is asystole your declaring he would be brain dead. So you are trying to fix your error by saying if your asystole and receiving CPR you cant be brain dead but this is not the case.
You still have not twigged that I have already dug you out of this hole and you are making an even bigger hole for yourself. Some people might suggest I should let you carry on but instead I will throw you a rope because like I explained earlier we are actually on the same dam side!
You seem to be getting confused by what happens before after and during CPR . In your example you say “When CPR is performed, the patient is still asystolic” which can be true but is very rare and you don't twig that after CPR they wont/cant be asystolic.
So I will try and explain why its rare and how your getting confused. in cardiac arrest only (not in heart attacks)
Before CPR The patients heart has stooped altogether and they are in Ventricular fibrillation if untreated *it will likely degenerate further into asystole ("flatline") *
During this time (while they are not getting CPR) the victim’s chances of survival fall 7%- 10% every minute they go untreated. If the patient is not revived after a sufficient period (within roughly 5 minutes at room temperature), the patient could sustain irreversible brain damage and possibly become brain dead so you need to do CPR as fast as possible.
* So before CPR the heart could go into Asystole if its untreated *
Extra notes When the heart stops beating in cardiac arrest the breathing centre in the brain is still alive for a couple of minutes and this will cause the victim to take a few abnormal breaths. These abnormal breaths associated in dying are called agonal respirations. They may appear like snoring, gasping, or snorting and will disappear in a couple of minutes. Don't let abnormal breathing stop you from starting CPR.
This is why the following quote you keep using Tottenham club doctor Shabaaz Mughal was among those who rushed to Muamba's aid. He said: "He appeared to take a couple of gasps but was then unresponsive."
does not mean he was still alive.
During CPR Your aim during CPR is to try and stop VF from developing into asystole by restoring partial flow of oxygenated blood to the brain and heart. If the CPR is performed quickly enough and it is successful you should stop the body from going into asystole and you can latter use defibrillation to shock the heart into a natural rhythm.
However *If it does not work the body goes into Asystole and Defibrialltion will not work so the person is declared dead after 20 minutes. * This is why its Crucial that a patient gets CPR as fast as possibly by someone that's well trained because good CPR stops them going into asystole which can save there life and if performed correctly it can also save there brain.
Extra things to Note 1) CPR only works for so long and it is widely excepted that if CPR has not worked after 20 -30 minutes the person is beyond saving.
2) Something that appears to cause more confusion If someone goes into asystole you can still perform CPR on them and try to get them out of it. however there chances of survival are drastically reduced so your main aim is to perform CPR before they go into asystole. However you shouldn't give in if you think there asystole.
3) You are performing CPR to try and prepare the body for Defibrialltion, if you get lucky the person might wake up while you are doing it but this is incredibly rare (despite what you see on TV) because CPR is not designed to save someone on its own its designed to be used with Defibrialltion.
So hopefully I have pointed out where you seem to get confused. you argue that Mamba was in asystole this whole time. But you also want to argue that he was not brain dead
I have pointed out several times he would have been brain dead if he was in asytole for over 20 minutes (This is a medical fact)
Fortunately for you thought I have just pointed out that there's a slim chance the CPR actually worked and took him out of it but the medical staff somehow didn't originally noticed this or they didn’t report it to the media.
So you now have an argument again see? If the CPR worked he wouldn’t/ couldn’t of been declared brain dead . Now At first the medical staff claimed the CPR did not work because they couldn’t shock his heart back into a natural rhythm via Defibrialltion . However the fact he woke up latter seems to suggest otherwise.
When I keep telling you this I am actually offering you some rope but rather than using it to try and climb out the hole you seem to want to take it and hang yourself with it.
Note this is why I originally thought you where a troll! Because Whenever I try explaining how CPR works to you , you make the same flawed arguments and don't show me why you believe it.
Then whenever I am talking to other people you stick your nose in and start saying how i'm an idiot how i'm lieing.
I mean If you feel you have a case please feel free to defend yourself and show why you believe I am wrong to to everyone on this forum so they can make there own mind. But at the same time lets both stop the name calling and try to handle this like adults.
Where I got my sources
The following information is designed to show where I got my sources from so if you still don’t believe me you can read it for yourself, however if your finally understand what I have been trying to tell you you do not need to read all of this (unless you want to).
[link] ( I am aware A lot of people don't trust wikipedia but it puts it in laymen’s terms rather than advanced medical terms so its the easiest site to understand)
But if you don’t trust this site feel free to look up Ventricual fibrillation else where or alternatively you could ask your medical friends what it is.
Summary This long amount of text that follows simply states what I said earlier “Your aim during CPR or any treatment is to try and stop VF from developing into asystole” Because if the patient goes into asystole the patient can become brain damaged and eventually become brain dead.
ventricular fibrillation (V-fib or VF) is a condition in which there is uncoordinated contraction of the cardiac muscle of the ventricles in the heart, making them quiver rather than contract properly. Ventricular fibrillation is the most commonly identified arrhythmia in cardiac arrest patients. While there is some activity, the lay person is usually unable to detect it by palpating (feeling) the major pulse points of the carotid and femoral arteries. Such an arrhythmia is only confirmed by electrocardiography. Ventricular fibrillation is a medical emergency that requires prompt basic life support interventions. *If this arrhythmia continues for more than a few seconds, it will likely degenerate further into asystole ("flatline").* This condition results in cardiogenic shock and cessation of effective blood circulation. As a consequence, sudden cardiac death (SCD) will result in a matter of minutes. *If the patient is not revived after a sufficient period (within roughly 5 minutes at room temperature), the patient could sustain irreversible brain damage and possibly become brain dead due to the effects of cerebral hypoxia. On the other hand, death often occurs if normal sinus rhythm is not restored within 90 seconds of the onset of VF, especially if it has degenerated further into asystole*.
I told you earlier that :-
“Your aim during CPR is to try and stop VF from developing into asystole by restoring partial flow of oxygenated blood to the brain and heart.”
“You are performing CPR to try and prepare the body for Defibrialltion, if you get lucky the person might wake up while you are doing it but this is incredibly rare (despite what you see on TV) because CPR is not designed to save someone on its own its designed to be used with Defibrialltion.”
In sudden cardiac arrest the heart goes from a normal heartbeat to a quivering rhythm called ventricular fibrillation (VF). This happens in approximately 2/3rds of all cardiac arrests. *VF is fatal unless an electric shock, called defibrillation, can be given. CPR does not stop VF but CPR extends the window of time in which defibrillation can be effective. *
CPR provides a trickle of oxygenated blood to the brain and heart and keeps these organs alive until defibrillation can shock the heart into a normal rhythm. If CPR is started within 4 minutes of collapse and defibrillation provided within 10 minutes a person has a 40% chance of survival.
*CPR alone is unlikely to restart the heart; its main purpose is to restore partial flow of oxygenated blood to the brain and heart. The objective is to delay tissue death and to extend the brief window of opportunity for a successful resuscitation without permanent brain damage*.
*Brain death starts to occur four to six minutes after someone experiences cardiac arrest if no CPR and defibrillation occurs during that time. If bystander CPR is not provided, a sudden cardiac arrest victim’s chances of survival fall 7 percent to 10 percent for every minute of delay until defibrillation. Few attempts at resuscitation are successful if CPR and defibrillation are not provided within minutes of collapse.* [link] Administration of an electric shock to the subject's heart, termed *defibrillation, is usually needed in order to restore a viable or "perfusing" heart rhythm*. Defibrillation is only effective for certain heart rhythms, namely ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, *rather than asystole or pulseless electrical activity*. CPR may succeed in inducing a heart rhythm which may be shockable. *CPR is generally continued until the subject regains spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or is declared dead.*
im sorry if i have appeared rude to anyone but im get a bit annoyed of being told / asked the same thing
If a doctor says you are dead and does not say the words clinically before it i.e a report says he was Dead they have a legal responsibility because they have announced you dead.
under the law you can not be legally dead unless you are also brain dead.
so anyone that publicly claims claims someone is dead has to be able to legally prove they believed the person to be brain dead.
if someone says you are clinically dead that means that a machine is keeping you alive and if you where taken of the machine you would die. alternatively it can mean one of your vital organs has stooped working and you should be dead but your brain is still functioning.
I hope that finally clears things up if anyones declared dead or legally dead it means there Brain dead
This isn't true. They have a legally responsibility to confirm brain death before declaring you dead. They can use the terms dead and asystolic interchangeably talking to the media etc as is this case. Your whole argument is built on the misconflation of the ideas of asystolic and brain dead.
1) in effect dead, in the medical definition is a cessation in brain activity...doesn't mean it can't pick activity back up.
2) Alzheimer patients can still create synaptic connections, the myelin's just worn down between some of their old ones.
Maybe there is a soul, and maybe there is not. But if there is a soul, how come severe enough damage to the hippocampus makes you unable to create any new memories....at all? Should this soul thing interfere with that?
for everyone that keeps saying he was not brain dead and that the brain was clearly working fine :-
The human body needs oxygen to sustain itself. The decrease of oxygen to at least one body part is known as hypoxia. The total lack of oxygen is known as anoxia. Brain cells are destroyed after 4 to 6 minutes without oxygen. When the flow of oxygen to the brain is completely cut off, a person will lose consciousness within 10 seconds. Extended hypoxia leads to brain damage and ultimately death.
Read more: How Long Can Your Brain Survive Without Oxygen? | eHow.com [link]
It says that he was rushed to a cardio care hospital where they most likely put him on a machine that pumped it for him. In none of the reports I read did they say he was brain dead and if you have a a source that does you should link to it.
its illegal to call someone dead if they are not brain dead :-
Since the 1960s, laws on determining death have been implemented in all countries with active organ transplantation programs. The first European country to adopt brain death as a legal definition (or indicator) of death was Finland in 1971. In the United States, Kansas had enacted a similar law earlier.
In the UK the Royal College of Physicians reported in 1976 and 1977, adopted the notion of irreversible brain stem dysfunction as an indicator of death.
your free to look up legal history of brain death on any well know search engine if you dont want to take my word for it
That is the same report I read then. I thought you may have read one that had a bit more credibility. Like an actual medical document.
"In Effect" is a qualifier (A word or phrase that precedes an adjective or adverb, increasing or decreasing the quality signified by the word it modifies.) Meaning it was "like" he was dead. Considering that the events happened and he was not dead or stating that it was "like" he was dead has no legal recourse. It's drama.
Considering that this was not bigger news there is most likely more to the story than what was released. That would have made it far more mundane.
It's also good to practice not being so credulous as just because a person is a doctor does not mean they hold a higher standard of ethics than anyone else. Case and point [link] Now you might be wondering why I bring this up. Just think a man goes from a meagerly respected neurosurgeon to a world wide phenomenon. Not saying that he put himself in a coma but being someone who knows how the brain functions and how little everyone else does it would be easy to gain notoriety by making said claim. Kinda like all the religious apologists who claim to have been atheism. It lends the person a false credibility as if they would know better.
oh i see so if a doctor says your dead now it means nothing? i don't really care about the doctors ethics and what they think is right or wrong I care about them doing what there paid to do and being good at it.
Now if several doctors say someones dead I trust doctors views more than anyone elses.
Because if we cant trust doctors with medical matters who would you suggest we can trust?
and do you really think i can go into a hospital and declare medical documents for any patient especially a celeb?
also i think your making a big mistake no one claimed they brought him back from the dead or tried to get big off it they simply claim they thought he was dead and where shocked when he woke up.
Hell they don't even say they think there treatment cured him they admit they don't know why he woke up.
also no one is trying to claims he was a god or the son of Jesus or anything stupid like that.
All the story shows is that doctors called him dead to early.
Now i struggle to see how it paints the doctors in a good light because they seem to to admit to the fact they thought he was dead and incurable when he clearly wasn't?
they also seem to admit a huge amount of shock when he woke up which suggest to me they didn't know what they where doing?
is it really a good thing that the doctors had no idea how to cure him and where shocked does that really make them look god?
so what i keep asking is do we as humanity declare that people are dead to early because we assume that people die when the brain stops functioning?
are people still alive even if there brain is off and can the brain reboot?
because as everyone loved to try and point out he clearly wasn't brain dead or dead and they totally miss the point i never said he was i said doctors said he was!
p.s this story is jsut an example as its a big story i assume everyone knows there's plenty of other examples of people waking up from the dead i could show you but it was trying ot make a point
doctors and humans don't always know when someone is dead and they don't always know when we should lose are memory.
You kinda drug that out. The only thing I contest about your original post is the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. To which nothing of the case you brought up suggests that this was at all related.
Mercury-CroweFeatured By OwnerJan 23, 2013Professional Artisan Crafter
I'd think the argument would be the other way, that memory is NOT physical, which is why the physical degeneration of the brain doesn't always take memory away. In diseases and with no blood flow/O2 your brain physically dies, so to keep function and access to memories you'd have to have them stored somewhere ELSE.
How would you transfer memories if they are stored physically? As all matter is destroyed after death, there is no way for those to be moved. The only way to move them from plane to plane with you would for the memories to be imbedded in the nonphysical matter that is our 'soul'.
1) I believe that memory is part physical and part other. I believe that some types of memories are stored in our physical brain, and that others are stored in our 'soul'. 2) yes 3) unique among what? Our memories and life experience make us different than other humans and animals- but I don't think that our memories, etc, neccisarily make humans different from other animals. It makes us unique as individuals inside a species, but not as a species as a whole.
Our brains are like hardware, our minds are our active running processes, our souls are all software stored in non-volatile memory. Souls do exist, but they only exist as long as we have a functioning, working brain to support them. If the brain ceases functioning, the soul ceases to exist.
If there is hardware failure in the brain, the result of age or damage, the soul is affected, as the hardware can no longer read the software instructions that make the brain work. As we grow in knowledge, the brain records what we learn in storage. But as we grow older, the brain becomes less able to function.
all your explames point to the brain failing thought they don't point to electrons ceasing to exist and old people may forget your name and have to think about it but they eventually remember which suggest the connections to the information are just getting old and slow.
watch a sport and your realize just how different everyone instincts are and how only some people have the right ones to be top sports men while some players no matter how good others say they are have all the wrong instincts and always make the wrong decisions
Memories, or for that matter life experiences, do in fact affect instinct, but not as if your face is instinct and your memories are plastic surgery; no, in fact, the memories are more like make-up. They cover up your instincts, for better or worse. And everyone learns from their mistakes, but no-one forgets instincts.
This man that you mentioned was very lucky. I'm sure that some of his memories were lost, but not the important ones. I'm also sure that there were other cases of the same thing happening where the patient was less lucky.
yes he was lucky and hes not the only one to have survived like this, but clearly the reason doctors believe your dead after 20 mins of no oxygen to the brain is because 98% of people don't wake up after than so the odds of it are very slim and unfortutly if you haven't go celb status doctors work on % and if your in a ward/ taking doctors attention longer than you need to be (if they believe your dead) your a waste of resources so wards run to the % game.
I don't know what the consensus is on memory retention after resuscitation, but I have a feeling it probably has to do with how long you are dead. The longer your heart has stopped beating the more likely you are to experience brain damage because of a lack of oxygen reaching the brain, but I don't know if that necessarily means losing memories. It might just mean losing the ability to communicate or something along those lines.
Having said, I don't see how the retention of memories is suppose to equal some kind of continuation of the spirit after death. Memories are housed in the human brain. The memories are still there after you die, until the brain degrades, so it makes sense that if you were to come back to life you would still have your memories. Again, provided you aren't declared dead for too long a time. I don't see any prove of an after life, just an incredible ability for the brain to store memories. "Brain dead" means the brain is inactive, not that the memories which it held are no longer stored in it.
Basically it suggest for every second that the brain is starved of oxygen it degrades to a point of no return
it is widely believed (in the scientific world that)that 15 seconds withotu oxygen will result in you losing Consciousness and damage to the brain begins to occur after about four minutes without oxygen.
soem scientist also suggest a point of no return at 10-20 minutes.
this means during all the time with no oxygen your brain is dieing/ degrading .
now science also believes memory's are kept in the brain so if the brain degrades so should your memories
however in my example after 78 minutes he woke up and could speak and had all his memories.
so i am suggesting that maybe they are wrong and we keep memories longer
Well, yes and no. The affects of hypoxic-anoxic brain injuries can vary. See [link]
Also, individual people can vary and some can have remarkable recoveries from such events. Medicine is full of cases of people who beat the odds. However, one case is only the exception not the rule. I also have no way of verifying the details of the case study you mentioned, or whether or not he even exists. You haven't posted any links about the case.
I’m not talking about someone who’s brain stooped for a bit (someone who became unconscious) I’m talking about someone who's brain was it was starved of oxygen for 78 minutes.
Now you might not be inst rested but this is my exact recall of events :- I was watching spurs play Bolton when Fabrice Muamba appeared to fall over when no one was near him note I don’t member how far this was into the game as I don’t have a perfect memory like some people I just remember it happening) ! But reports claims it was in the 41st minute of the game
I shouted get up you girl no one touched you! he didn't get up! I shouted who you trying to kid he didn't get up! medical staff quickly surrounded him I shouted stop wasting time he still didn't get up something twigged in my brain holy shit this is serious I stooped screaming and was thinking please get up. It was as if everyone watching seemed to all twig this at the same time as me because it went deadly silent he still didn't get up people eventually started cheering his name he still didn't get up some of the players on the pitch got concerned and went over to see if he was okay the medics quickly pushed them away and these players came back crying
we all feared the worst
no one wanted to continue the game and it was cancelled
Why did we all fear the worse
Well i'm not sure how many people watching know about the brain but I knew that after 4 minutes of anoxia (total lack of oxygen to the brain) sometimes called or confused with hypoxia (a name used to describe any event that relates to the brain not getting oxygen/) you will have mental issues if you wake up. So when he didn't get up in that time on the pitch (which felt like it was at least 5 minutes if not 10. I feared he wouldn't even get up or if he didn't he wouldn't be the same person .
I also new that after 20 of it your considered brain dead and doctors stop trying to save you.
But the next day I remember reading that :- Because of all the media attention this event had claimed and the fact one of the doctors was his friend the doctors didn't want to announce to the world he was dead, so they kept trying to shock him back to life and and kept stalling the media .
Then they where all shocked when he woke up
they asked him “what’s you name” he replied they then said “I hear your a good footballer” he joked and said “well I try” they where shocked he has such a good sense of humor (they where expecting him to be have mental problems yet he appeared to had no problem holding a conversation with them) he then quickly asked about his son who wasn’t In the room and when he was told his son was fine he said he then said something along the likes of “I was playing a game before I woke up in here what was the end score?” they told him “the game was cancelled” he reply “why” they said “as you died on the pitch mate” and here's the real clincher he said “well clearly I am not dead as your talking to me now when the replay!”
obviously because he had heart problems he couldn't play but he sat and watched the replay and the team I support (spurs) beat his team and it was the only time I have ever been upset that my team won.
if you don't believe me look up his name on any search engine
or look up spurs vs bolton fa cup march 17 2012
why do I tell you all this you ask well it was one of the few times in life I can say I was there and its also one of the few times in life I can say science was wrong everything said he was dead. but he somehow survived and I’m sick of hearing how doctors got it wrong and how he couldn’t of been dead or how his brain couldn’t of been dead despite the fact it clearly had no oxygen!
I have tried to months to figure out how he survived because thigns like it was a miracle or are payers worked (if god exists! God don't work like that all we should all pray for the thousand of kids that die in war zones or that die of hunger every day and it will stop) or he couldn’t of been dead (he was declared dead by plenty of top doctors so you expect me to believe they all made the same mistake?) don't cut it to me and i'm not willing to accept oh it just happened I want to know why it happened I want to learn from it, because its proved everything I was originally taught about the brain to be wrong!
So this memory’s are software in the brain idea of mine might seem crazy to you but right now it explains what happened better than anything else I am hearing and its my theory that I hope one day we can test.
So I have told people what I believe hoping someone will find out how to test it or at least try to offer an explanation to what I saw that doesn’t rely on god or try to cover up that science was wrong!