Bionet News Discussion
on Hydrocephalus Cases

The following is a discussion of cases reported by John Lorber of people who were severely hydrocephalic and did not have normally-sized brains, but who seemingly functioned normally. I don't have the medical expertise to evaluate the controversy, but in comparing it with similar controversies in areas I'm more familiar with, like reincarnation, I see the same patterns. Here we have scientific findings which run smack up against the materialistic assumptions on which current-day science is based. It can't possibly be true, so it is simply marginalized and under-reported. Note the skeptic's argument that the children when originally treated had abnormal brains, but that there is no evidence that the adults had abnormally-sized brains, appears to be countered by another person who, as I gather, watched the same PBS documentary. Note also the power of documentaries in shaping public opinion, which is why I feel it's so important to get "In Another Life" on the airways and past the "gatekeepers" who have prevented it from being broadcast (excepting KDBI in Denver) thus far.--Stephen S.

And I was wrong, because there were 600 CT scans on hydrocephalus patients, although one case was given as an example in the Science commentary by Roger Lewin (Science 210:1232-1234, 1980).

Barker, E et al (1992) Reciprocal neurological developments of twins discordant for hydrocephalus. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 623-632. Priestly, B & Lorber, J. (1981). Ventricular size and intelligence in achondroplasia. Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirugie, 34, 332-336. These are two of Lorber's published accounts of the video you wont believe. I suspect you will be very critical of these papers as well.

Lorber eagerly stirred the neuroscience community by asking the question of necessity. One can argue that it is necessary, and otherwise. In Sharon's case (one of his patient featured in the documentary), she seemed to have lost more neurons than the typical non-hydrocephalic person. Buth then again, perhaps there exists dense synaptic sprouting among those neurons that were retained. Hence, functionality is retained. The downside of Lorber's research (from a Neuropsychologist's point) is that there were no explicit indications of the type/kind of Neuropsychological tests that he performed to assess his subjects. It is possible that these ex-hydrocephalic people may actually have some deficits (cognitive, etc.) that can only be detected with the use of sophisticated and sensitive Neuropsychological tools.

Have you actually read the papers that you're citing? The first one is a perfectly good paper, but the only thing relevant in it is a passing mention of a man with an IQ of 112 who had CSF filling 50-70% of his cranial cavity. Now, a) this isn't enough brain-shrinkage to bother me, particularly given the increased head size usually associated with hydrocephaly, and b) it's only mentioned in passing anyway, without presentation of the evidence. More interestingly, there is also a mention of the "previously shown fact" that there are cases with normal intelligence and CSF filling 95% of the cranial cavity. Three references are given for this: one is a dissertation abstract, the second is a paper published by Dandy in 1921 (which I don't have access to), and the third is a book chapter written by Lorber in 1983, in a German book. For non-scientist readers, I should point out that book chapters are usually unreviewed. In any case, the book is not available in the Pittsburgh library system, so I can't easily get a look at it. I don't have ready access to the Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie either, but if the second paper you cite contains anything relevant, I'm surprised it wasn't cited in the other paper -- it would make a better reference than the three that are given. Can you summarize its contents for us?

--------------------

For anyone interested in Lorber, I also recommend viewing a 50 min video Lorber made of his patients called predictably "Is Your Brain Really Necessary". It's available for around $150 US or $75 rental from Films for the Humanities and Sciences tel. 800-257-5126 or 609-275-1400, FAX 609-275-3767. The film shows three of his patients together with their brain scans. Despite a fair amount of filler, it's really quite remarkable. -Stephen Lorber, J. (1981). The disposable cortex. Psychology Today, April, p. 126. Lewin, R. (1980). Is your brain really necessary? Science, 210, 1232--1234. Berker, E., Goldstein, G., Lorber, J., Priestly, B., & Smith, A. (1992). Reciprocal neurological developments of twins discordant for hydrocephalus. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 623-632. Priestly, B., & Lorber, J. (1981). Ventricular size and intelligence in achondroplasia. Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirugie, 34, 332-3326.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: sblack@ubishops.ca Lennoxville, Quebec J1M 1Z7 Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

From:Bill Skaggs >
Newsgroups:bionet.neuroscience
Subject:Re: Are brains necessary?
Date:26 Mar 1997 17:14:16 -0500
Message-ID: References:<19970326200201.PAA06655@ladder01.news.aol.com>

drgg4@aol.com (DrGG4) writes:
I wonder who here is familiar with John Lorber's studies of people with virtually no brains? Fully functioning adults with little more than a millimeter of cortex and nothing other than huge ventricles beneath that. How can this be possible? And why hasn't this attracted any attention in the neuroscience community?
Gary Greenberg

This question seems to come up about once a year or so. I'm going to take the liberty of reposting something I posted back in 1994 when it came up in this newsgroup:

lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Leslie Kay) writes:

In article, John Edstrom wrote:
I remember having read an article in Science, I think, around 1987 concerning a study of people who had had hydrocephalus while young but who seemd to have recovered and lived apparently normal lives but then, with CAT scans many years later, it was found that a large proportion of their cerebral hemisphers was missing despite their normal intelligence.

I saw this in a class I was TAing. They reported on it in the PBS series on the Brain (10 part series or something like that). THey reported on a woman who had normal or high intelligence even though all her "processing" or activity was done in a very small part of her brain, part of the occipital lobe, I think. I don't remember the citation or the names of researchers, but maybe someone else does . . .

This is a classic urban myth. It seems to pop up over and over again, like the story of worms in McDonald's hamburgers. Anyway, when it popped up on comp.ai.philosophy a couple of years ago, I was provoked into going to the library and doing a bit of reading, which I will now summarize.

The source of the myth is a story (not a research report) in Science, from December 12, 1980 (vol. 210, p 1232), called "Is your Brain Really Necessary?" The story is about a physician named Jeff Lorber who specialized in hydrocephaly and was going around saying some very provocative things. Among other things, he described cases of people with normal or high intelligence whose brain weights were far below normal. But it was all anecdotal. There was no solid evidence cited to show that these people truly had shrunken brains, and to my knowledge no such evidence has ever appeared. (I didn't see the PBS series, so I can't evaluate it.)

In the years between 1980 and the present, Lorber has never published any case study of an adult with an extremely thin cortical mantle and normal intelligence. Conceivably, of course, he wrote the stuff up but couldn't get it past hostile reviewers. He did, though, continue to work on the neurology of hydrocephalus, publishing several papers and co-authoring a book, but none of it mentions anything related to the Science story -- at least, none of it that I could find. (I couldn't find anything later than 1984; I don't know if he's still alive.)

He does quite definitely state that there have been cases having cortical mantles only one or two mm thick *at the time of treatment* who went on to develop normal or superior intelligence, but that's a very different matter. They were treated as infants, and the brain is very plastic at that age.

Finally, at the end of the Science story Lorber is described as admitting with a smile that he doesn't really mean to suggest that brains are unnecessary for intelligence, and that he may have somewhat overstated his case for dramatic impact.

I hope this sheds a little light on the situation.

-- Bill Skaggs

------------------------

IUBio Bionet News
From:bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Newsgroups:bionet.neuroscience,sci.med.psychobiology
Subject:Re: Split-brain/consciousness
Date:6 Sep 1995 03:57:17 GMT
Message-ID:42j66t$9iv@southern.co.nz
References:420gv8$763$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com 42f19n$5ca@southern.co.nz

Brian Sandle (bsandle@southern.co.nz) wrote:
[...] Another thing which bears on the matter is that people can live quite well and even be very intelligent with only a brain stem.

I've had a couple of questions regarding brainstem-only life, and perhaps have exaggerated slightly. Here is something on it which could be followed up.

Brian Sandle. Shell to snail? bsandle@southern.co.nz

From: flixman@news.dorsai.org (Robt_Martin)
Subject: Re: No brain/brain waves & Death? (Was: Re: Brain usage Was:Re: Function of sleep in brain (Neural-Nets)?)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 23:23:39 GMT

Brian Sandle (Brian_Sandle@equinox.gen.nz) wrote:
Mary Lacroix (mlacroix@interlog.com) wrote:
"So far some 70 individuals between 5 and 18 years of age were found to have gross or extreme hydrocephalus with virtually no neopallium who are, nevertheless, intellectually and physically normal, several of whom may be considered brilliant. The most striking example is a young man of 21 with congenital hydrocephalus for which he had no treatment, who gained a university degreee in economics and computer studies with first class honours, with an apparent absence of neopallium. There are individuals with IQs of over 130 who in infancy had virtually no brain and some who even in early adult life have very little neopallium" (J. Lorber, "Is your brain really necessary?" Archives of Disease in Childhood 53 (10): 834FF, 1978).

I've added talk.euthanasia to the groups. Does no brain waves really mean no useful life? Do the virtually no-brain people have brain waves? Should we euthanase people with no brain waves?

Lorber doesn't say these people had "no brain" -- he says "in infancy had virtually no brain" and "in early adult life had very little neopallium." The implication is that this subsequently changed somehow.

I think it's a little too soon for your questions. Can someone with access to Lorber's work please let us know how he backs up his rather surprising assertions?
------------------

In article , Bill Skaggs wrote: .....This is a classic urban myth. It seems to pop up over and over again, .... The source of the myth is a story (not a research report) in Science, from December 12, 1980 (vol. 210, p 1232), called "Is your Brain Really Necessary?" The story is about a physician named Jeff Lorber who specialized in hydrocephaly and was going around saying some very provocative things. Among other things, he described cases of people with normal or high intelligence whose brain weights were far below normal. But it was all anecdotal. There was no solid evidence cited to show that these people truly had shrunken brains, and to my knowledge no such evidence has ever appeared. (I didn't see the PBS series, so I can't evaluate it.) In the PBS series they showed nice MRIs of the woman's brain, and only the occipital portion was of any appreciable size. Also, they used some kind of imaging (I don't think it was PET) to show activity during various tasks, and only that part of the brain exhibited any "significant" activity (significant in quotes, because it was significant to the method of imaging). So, I don't believe that this was a case of simply comparing brain sizes. I'll try to hunt down the reference. Leslie Kay lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu