|
Post by tedward on Jul 7, 2011 2:20:12 GMT -4
Tedward. The prioblem is one cannot get at the astronauts. So in such a situation, doctors would assume many thisngs to be possible, including infectious diease problems. They would act accordingly. Ask the astronauts to take their temperatures, try and assess Borman for dehydration and so forth. Often times, even with very sick patients in a hospital where there is tons of technology to sort things out, we may not know for some time, in certain cases a long time, what exactly is wrong with someone. We treat them, treat the situation, as though those problems deemed most likely are in fact responsible. And then you go from there. Think about AIDS, back in 1980. No one knew what was going on. we assumed it to be related to an infectious agent and behaved accordingly. Not read that transcript I linked to? And still I wonder if you know what they had? What was it? It seems clear to me the episode was over and did you pick up on the relationship between pilots and flight surgeons? It certainly comes over in the few memoirs I have read. What you do in a hospital is, I think, different to something many miles from earth on the way to the mooon with a bigger picture behind it. As I see it, looking at that link I put up earlier, it was done and dusted. The crew were OK, Borman was feeling a lot better by the time the ground knew about it. Also, I wonder what the mission rules are for illnesses? This comes back into play I think though I have not read anything on that matter. Looks like it was over, situation contained, carry on. They were not going to land. It was known about on the ground after it was over so what more could they do? If I went to the doctor after a prolonged trip examining the back of the privy door saying I was feeling better I think I would get a similar response. What has this got to do with AIDS?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 2:25:57 GMT -4
Dehydration does not cause a urinary tract infection. The 2 problems may well be related in certain situations, but dehydration per say does not put bugs in one's bladder. Obviously. But dehydration is very much a risk factor for a UTI. I speak from personal experience. That said, the original point was simply that little could be done for Haise and his illness that wasn't already being done. The Apollo 13 crew was already on their way home via a sped-up trajectory. Since the LM consumables (primarily cooling water and battery power) were projected to last until after entry, there was little point in taking further risks just to get home a little sooner. Jettisoning the damaged service module would have gotten rid of a lot of dead weight, but that would have exposed the CM heat shield to space for an extended period. A quicker trajectory also would have brought them down in a different ocean, far from the primary recovery force. And so on. Give these people some credit. They actually spent quite a lot of time before each mission thinking of as many possible failures as they could and what they should do in each case. The result was a thick set of "mission rules" that you can fetch and read today. So if you're going to second-guess everything NASA did during Apollo, why don't you at least do it from the available information instead of engaging in pure armchair speculation and argument from personal incredulity?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 2:33:33 GMT -4
Has nothing to do with AIDS apart from my mentioning sometimes doctors make educated guesses as regards to how best to deal with an unkown. The example I gave was of AIDS/HIV before it was recognized in its now distinct clinical and epidemiological sense. I wrote a bit more about HIV per se as another forum member challenged me and linked HIV awareness with my credibility. It is a bit strange, but I responded as best I could. Tedward
I have read the transcript you referenced again this evening. I have read that many times before, as well as other materials. Thank you for making it so easy to review.
There is an interesting comment made by Jim Lovell's wife in a deluxe version of the Ron Howard film, Apollo 13. She says Haise had a fever of 104 degress and Charles Berry "over reacted" to it. Or something of that nature. I would have to take a look and listen again.
Anyway, your points are good ones and well made. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 2:38:34 GMT -4
How did they know it was a UTI? UTIs in a man of Haise age typically do not cause a fever of 104. If you ask any physician right now would a simple UTI cause a fever of 104 degrees in a man, otherwise healthy, they would all say "no". So is that the correct diagnosis? How did they arrive at that? It is a fairly specific diagnosis to make from so far away. I read in one reference that he was diagnosed with prostatitis. Would that be possible, such a diagnosis from earth, a diagnosis of prostatitis for a patient in space?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 3:42:41 GMT -4
What does a norovirus have to do with any of this? Because noroviruses are a major cause of gastroenteritis, and are infamously contagious and difficult to decontaminate. But they're not the only possible cause, so I should have simply said "gastroenteritis". That was one of the differential diagnoses for Borman's illness and the one of greatest concern to Lovell and Anders since neither a Seconal reaction nor space adaptation syndrome is communicable. You yourself said that Borman's symptoms were not consistent with a Seconal reaction. That leaves space adaptation syndrome (not "a hoaxed mission") as the theory best fitting all the available evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 7, 2011 3:53:20 GMT -4
The example I gave was of AIDS/HIV before it was recognized in its now distinct clinical and epidemiological sense. I wrote a bit more about HIV per se as another forum member challenged me and linked HIV awareness with my credibility. It is a bit strange, but I responded as best I could. If you base your credibility off easily disproven statements, you're going to have your credibility questioned when you make them. Blessedly, my doctors are in general more competent than you appear to be. You don't understand the concept of "I had these symptoms, but I'm getting better." You assuredly don't seem to understand that patients don't always have any interest in cooperating. Consider this. Put yourself in the shoes of one of the astronauts. This is something you've been dreaming of and training for. Your profession has traditionally been one of taking risks, and this is just one more example of that. Does it surprise you to learn that symptoms might not have been reported until after they started to go away simply because you were afraid the doctors might force an abort of the mission? You seem to think the doctors had an awful lot more control than they did. And again, you keep harping on an insistence that temperatures should have been taken. Do you have any evidence that the equipment with which to do so was available in the capsule?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 3:58:45 GMT -4
So there you go. Many things could cause the illness and one would begin to sort out which were more likely based on questions. There is no reason to jump all over a viral diagnosis initially. Once questions were asked a viral etiology may look more or less likely. More or less correct. Additionally, this need not be an infectious disease problem.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 4:14:32 GMT -4
How did they know it was a UTI? Because he was diagnosed with one during his post-flight physical examination.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:23:29 GMT -4
That would not be a reason to say because he had one before, he still has the same infection now, or a new one, a "new" UTI with perhaps an altogether new bug. A UTI, I repeat, typically would not cause a fever of 104. With that temp and given that situation, doctors would be thinking very broadly differential wise. Simple UTI would be low on the list. A more complex urinary tract infection would be viewed as much more likely given the fever grade. Because of the reported rigors, even bacteremia/sepicemia, and so forth and so on and on and on.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 4:36:06 GMT -4
Additionally, this need not be an infectious disease problem. And indeed, it did not appear to be one. Instead, it was quite likely the first manifestation (to Americans, anyway) of what has since become a much more thoroughly studied (if not thoroughly understood) illness: 'space adaptation syndrome'. Less than a decade prior to Apollo 8, medical doctors and researchers were wringing their hands about all manner of unspeakable horrors that might befall humans traveling in space. Most of these fears turned out to be completely illusory. But is it so surprising that at least some humans might have temporary problems adjusting to the zero gravity of space travel? So what, exactly, is your problem?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:37:45 GMT -4
ka9q, they are making reference to Haise now , not Borman. Haise's situation is typically viewed as one where there is some agreement on the reported diagnosis, UTI. As mentioned, I have also seen prostatitis. But the situation diagnosis wise is not like Borman where you read one thing and then something else entirely without explanation as to why one possible diagnosis was favored over another
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 4:37:52 GMT -4
That would not be a reason to say[...] What exactly is your point? Are you questioning the post-flight physical exam?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 4:43:40 GMT -4
ka9q, they are making reference to Haise now , not Borman. I'm aware of that. Haise was the Apollo 13 astronaut who developed the UTI, confirmed in a post-flight physical exam. I'm still trying to figure out your point, if any. You began by claiming that the reported medical problems of Apollo 8 somehow proved that the mission was bogus. Now that you've demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the record, you seem to be backpedaling to a mode of simply arguing for argument's sake about the accuracy of remotely diagnosing in-flight illnesses. If this has anything to do with your original claim of a hoax then I would invite you to explain, because the connection (if any) is being lost on me as well as others.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:52:56 GMT -4
ka9q
I miss read the original post. I thought you had written pre flight. Must be a little tired fooling around with this all day. Anyway, sorry , my mistake. It still does not change the substance of my original point about these matters. The in flight evaluation of astronauts does not seem to me to be meaningful, real. It leads me to doubt the authenticity of the flights altogether.
Here's an anecdote that I find interesting. If one watches the deluxe version of Ron Howard's Apollo 13, and you go to the voice over/commentary version with Lovell and his wife talking over the film, one will hear Marilyn Lovell say that Dr. Berry was always "over reacting". she makes this comment in reference to Haise's reported fever/temp elevation of 104. It is a statement that makes no sense. I for the life of me cannot say what it might possibly mean. I could make some crazy guesses, but nothing fits well. why would she say that when the issue of Haise's fever of 104 is brought up? It would seem to me, under the circumstances, a doc couldn't possibly over react. I wonder what it is that motivated her to say that. Did she just hear her husband and his colleagues say, "That Berry, he's always over reacting! I ain't gonna' tell him squat ever again! You open your mouth about a pain, and you're off the flight". I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 5:05:56 GMT -4
I read in one reference that he was diagnosed with prostatitis. Going for the world record in uncited 'quotes', fattydash? I'm getting VERY sick of this unsupported handwaving.
|
|