From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Haugh II
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.135219.6967@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>We've been having some newsfeed problems this week, so John's last
>article about foetal brainwaves (you know -- the one where the man who
>insists that he never corrects spelling or grammar corrected my
>spelling of "Gray's") expired right after I read it.  However, I'd
>like to give him a few things to try to explain, insofar as how an
>incomplete brain is supposed to have readable human brainwaves (at 40
>days gestation -- I really wish he'd repost that chart so I could save
>it this time).

I've posted them 5 or 6 times now.  How many more times will your
"newsfeed" expire them?

But I'll play along for now.

>According to Gray's Anatomy, the median section of human foetal brain
>DURING THE THIRD MONTH shows the brain divided into 5 ventricles; not
>yet formed are the cerebrum, cerebellum and pons.  Perhaps John would
>like to enlighten us as to how a foetal brain can show READABLE HUMAN
>BRAINWAVES at 40 days (5-6 weeks) WHEN THE PARTS THAT MAKE A HUMAN
>BEING DON'T EVEN EXIST YET.  When things are that clearcut, an anatomy
>text is evidence enough.  All the higher parts of the brain don't even
>exist yet, so how can human brainwaves?  I asked a pathologist about
>this, and he categorized the idea that the primitive brain (at three
>months) could sustain brainwave function as "hogwash".

OK.  Really slow now.

There is photographic evidence that shows that a child of 9 or 10
weeks gestation is capable of voluntary movement in response to
external stimulus.  I have such a video tape showing my own child
flopping about.  It's just an ultrasound, but its pictures all the
same.  Others have made real pictures (meaning, in color ...) of
the same thing.

It is known from endoscopic observations during amneo that a child
will react negatively to being pricked by the needle used to draw
fluid.  This is often done well before the neural tube closes
because it is used to test for genetic defects which will result
in the neural tube never closing.  Closure of the neural tube is not
a prerequisite for brain functioning, or reflexes.  People with
severe spinal bifida will testify to this fact.

Finally, differentiation of the human brain begins, and is readily
observable as early as three weeks.  Gray's points this out on the
pages that I referenced.  Complete development is not a requirement
for human brain function.

Two points.  One, if you want to know about when the brain begins
to work, either look at a fetus on a monitor and watch what the
child does, or don't read an anatomy book.  An anatomy book tells
you when things are present.  Surprise, the brain is present from
early on.  Right now, at 4 months, my child alternates between
periods of sleep and periods of flopping about.  It responds in
different ways to different levels of noise, vibration, pressure,
temperature, etc.  Four months is not 21 weeks.  Two, if you believe
in binary outcomes, "all" or "nothing" as it relates to "human brain"
and "human brainwaves" sounds plausible.  There are people with one
half of their brain removed who are doing just fine.  It's an
operation called a "lobectomy" and is used as a treatment for very
severe cases of certain types of seizures.  The doctor takes out
the troublesome half, and leaves the lower portions (where human
brainwaves don't come from anyway), and the other half of the upper
portion (where human brainwaves do come from ...) alone.  So much
for needing all of your brain to generate brainwaves.

>But let's check a slightly different source.  Looking in "Obstetric
>Nursing" (Addison-Wesley), we find that the neural tube doesn't even
>close until after 4 weeks (28 days).  At 5 weeks (35 days) neural
>differentiation takes place.  And yet, John would have us believe that
>only FIVE DAYS AFTER NEURAL DIFFERENTIATION THERE ARE READABLE HUMAN
>BRAINWAVES.   Now, given a choice between John's pro-life propaganda
>sources and real sources, I think I'll believe the real sources.

But I've given you THREE sources now which support my point.  A text
on "Obstetric Nursing" which points out when certain neural developments
occur is NOT a refutation of a source which says when certain actions
take place.  What you need is a source which says that neural tube
closure is a prerequisite for brainwave activity.  It isn't, so your
source is simply irrelevant.  It's a nice source, I think Jeanette has
a copy of a similar text around here.  But it is IRRELEVANT to the
discussion.

>Looking in the same source for when there really is a human brain
>there, we find that it is not until the 18th week that all the basic
>division of the brain are present  That says that the parts aren't
>even all there until around 126 days into gestation, and yet John
>Haugh would have us believe that readable human brainwaves exist IN
>MUCH LESS THAN HALF THAT TIME.  And even at the 18th week, all the
>parts of the brain aren't matured yet -- they are merely PRESENT to
>some degree.  It is not until 24 weeks that the foetal brain resembles
>a human brain.  It is not until this point that we start to see any real
>brain function.  We start to see some basic reflex response in the
>vicinity of 21-24 weeks, and there isn't really any autonomic nervous
>function until 28 weeks.

This is BULLSHIT.

If you stick an endoscope into a woman's uterus, stick a needle into
the same uterus, and poke that child with a needle, at far less than
21 to 24 weeks, that child is going to react.  Leaving our endoscope
in place, if you shine a bright light against a woman's abdomen, you
will observe our subject turn away from the light.  Leaving that same
endoscope still in place, if you wait long enough, that child will
be found to be sucking its thumb (if it has managed to find both its
thumb and its mouth ...), grasping its umbilical cord, and a slew of
other actions.  All long before the child is too large to thrash
about.

I know you hate anecdotes, but here's one.  Jeanette was feeling very
tired after a long drive up from Brownsville, so I gave her a massage
all over.  We have one of those "vibrating" massages, so I was using
it on some of her muscles that were particular sore.  Whenever I would
get it closer to her abdomen, she would tell me that the kid was
being more active.  After a brief discussion, we decided this might
not be good for the kid, so we stopped.  Our kid was right at 16 weeks
gestation.  You can try this at home.  It will prove Fred wrong, but
you can try it at home anyway.  Our usual wake-up and welcome-home
dialog includes the child activity report.  This weekend makes 17 weeks
gestation, and we've been doing this for 2 or 3 weeks now.  Obviously
there is a minimum weight below which you can't feel the child moving,
but at 9 weeks gestation the kid was as active as can be.  With the
child nearing 1 foot in length and 1 pound in weight, it gets to be
pretty hard NOT to feel it.

These sorts of experiments are done over, and over, and over again.
They are even shown on TeeVee.  You will even find pictures in books.
They are even in some of the books I've mentioned.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton