Click reader mode and if the article is truncated there, press reload/F5 to reload while being in reader mode.
If Firefox does not offer the reader mode symbol for a website, you can force loading the website in reader mode by prepending about:reader?url= to the URL.
>A tobacco smoke enema, an insufflation of tobacco smoke into the rectum, i.e. as an enema, was employed by the indigenous peoples of North America to stimulate respiration, injecting the smoke with a rectal tube.[1][2]
>Later, Europeans emulated the Americans.[3] Tobacco resuscitation kits consisting of a pair of bellows and a tube were provided by the Royal Humane Society of London and placed at various points along the Thames.[4] European physicians furthermore employed these enemas for a range of ailments.[3
Unless you've been living under a rock, you should have noticed that most news publications are now paywalled. It's annoying but you can't just ban journalism. Blogs are dead, smaller websites are drowned by spam and new search engine "algorithms", and if you want a somewhat authoritative news piece you'll find yourself increasingly having to go behind a paywall.
What would be nice to see is a universal micropayment system instead of ads and subscriptions, but after a decade or so of nobody implementing one, be glad you can still read what you can without having to spend $200 a month on a dozen subscriptions to cover your needs.
You could consider buying a subscription? I often see links on HN from places I subscribe to, so maybe the people who are voting are actually reading these articles and want to share and discuss them with the rest of the community?
I just wish I didn’t need to buy separate subscriptions for each publication. If I’m only reading one off articles from each based on others’ recommendations the individual publication subscription doesn’t really express what I’m trying to achieve.
I believe the liquid they are mentioning was featured in the movie The Abyss. It is painful for humans to breathe the liquid. But apparently giving you an enema with it works! Amazing.
I'm thinking that it could work as an emergency rectal oxygen enema for astronauts in distress. It ought to be very compact compared to pressured gas. Just push 'oxyjet' and don't forget to clench after.
Two trapped divers only have one rebreather left between the two of them. The conscious diver clenches his butt as he removes the tube and plugs it into his partner's ass for a few seconds.
I confess my first thought was mixing oxygen in a methane environment inside the body isn't ideal.
And this isn't a joke..... for example, cyclopropane is an excellent anaesthetic gas but no longer used due to the explosion risk. I believe (?) there was a case of a patients throat catching fire on the operating table.
>An intracolonic explosion or colonic gas explosion is an explosion inside the colon of a person due to ignition of explosive gases such as methane. This can happen during colonic exploration, as a result of the electrical nature of a colonoscope. The result can be acute colonic perforation, which can be fatal.
If my choice is between definitely dying of boring old hypoxia and maybe dying in a cool explosion I know which one I'm picking.
But to be serious it's risk management and if the patient is definitely going to die of low oxygen then the patient having a risk of dying another way is still a lower risk.
If I'm going to die from a small internal explosion, I'd rather it start at the other side of the tube. If my guts explode, I might still have a few more days to live.
The rectum is an interesting place. You can apparently also absorb water there, if you are severely dehydrated and unable to hold anything down (eg seasick). All you need, the saying goes, is a funnel and a friend..
I have heard, from some corny Discovery Channel survival show, that the bottom can filter out salt from the water. So if you're surrounded by ocean with no fresh water, the bottom is the place to go.
Wouldn’t the water seek isotonic equilibrium by moving to the side of the membrane with higher salt concentration? I don’t think that would work in your body’s favor.
Depends on which ocean you find yourself stranded. In the Mediterranean, don't even think about it. The Baltic sea, on the other hand, seems to be quite aenema-friendly.
7000 ppm for the N Baltic vs 35000 ppm for average sea water.
The limit for safe drinking water is 1000 ppm.
The salinity of blood is about 9000 ppm.
Drinking it from either end isn't advisable because the osmotic gradient wouldn't transport water it in very fast. It would be safe-ish but not hydrating.
Your anus is not actually just a hole you can just pour things into. It seals itself. A funnel is of the essence when trying to pour liquids into the rectal cavity.
These people spent 37 days in a 9ft dinghy in the ocean. A ladder rung, plus the rain water mixed with turtle guts from the bottom of the boat saved their lives.
"What kept them going was grit, determination and turtle blood. "You have to knock it back quickly, otherwise it sets into blancmange," Douglas explains. Plus it's got an "aftertaste that makes you want to wretch". Their mother rubbed turtle oil on the salt-water boils, and tried to keep them all hydrated with makeshift enema tubes made from the rungs of a ladder. "It was her nursing background. She knew the water at the bottom of the dinghy was poisonous if taken orally because it was a mixture of rain water, blood and turtle offal. But if you take it rectally, the poison doesn't go through the digestive system."
Or "plugging" if we are talking about other drugs.
> The insertion or other voluntary introduction of foreign matter into the anus or vaginal cavity for the sole purpose of recreational misuse (or use) of said item/substance. Similar to butt chugging, with the exception of using non-liquidous matter instead of alcoholic beverages.
Sounds useful for Ebola patients. Dehydration is apparently the thing that kills you the fastest. However, it could be very hazardous to your (very loving) friend.
My wife had toxicology courses and one of the things the lecturer said it's that the rectum is interesting because of its absorbtion capacitors that are not hampered by the body.
Alcohol is one example, where you can die of intoxication, while if you have taken it the more traditional way your body would have reacted earlier to get it out.
Silly, yes, but what do you mean by "debunked"? Do you dispute its definition? Are you an expert in the field of flatulence? Where's your scholarly citation that boofing is actually farting, and not stuffing cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine, heroin, or alcohol up your ass?
The only thing that was debunked was Brett Kavanaugh's lie under oath to congress that boofing is farting.
>Boofing: The act of smirkingly perjuring oneself before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.
>Boofing: The act of inserting drugs into your anus for a much stronger trip, even though it's named like a synonym for farting. Brett, we googled what boofing means, the definition conflicts with your testimony.
>Boofing: Common slang term used for anal sex in the 1980's. More recently used to describe the act of inserting drugs ( most often tab form or powdered ecstasy) through the anus to more quickly enter the blood stream, also referred to as "thumbing" or "booty popping" Sexual : Last night, my friends and I were boofing Molly!
>Boofing: the act of consuming alcohol via the anus, for rapid buzz e.g. Lance boofed a bottle of Old Thompson
>What is Boofing? Boofing is slang for inserting drugs or alcohol into the anus. People boof to get a faster and more intense high. Because there are a high number of blood vessels located near a thinner surface layer of mucosal tissue in the anus, drug and alcohol absorption happens at a faster rate than ingesting something orally. Just about anything can be boofed: alcohol, MDMA, cocaine, heroin, crushed up pills, you name it.
>What Exactly Is 'Boofing' And When You Should Never Do It
>When someone asks you a question, it helps to know specifically what is being asked. For example, if someone asks you, "have you boofed yet," don't answer unless you know exactly what that person means by boofing.
>Apparently Supreme Court-nominee Brett Kavanaugh asked that exact question in his high school yearbook page. During the confirmation hearings this week when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) asked Kavanaugh to clarify what "boofing" means, Kavanaugh responded that he used the term to refer to flatulence as shown in this PBS NewsHour broadcast:
>However, the word "boof" does not appear in the lists of synonyms for fart provided by Thesaurus.com or by Ben Applebaum and Dan DiSorbo in a HuffPost article entitled "150 Different Words For Fart."
Brett Kavanaugh implausibly claimed under oath that "boofing" was a reference to farting, but he perjured himself and lied to Congress on live television. So now we have a Supreme Court justice who ingested drugs through his butt hole, and lied about it by falsely claiming under oath that he was only farting.
Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook: the “boof” joke, explained
>The boofing exchange between Kavanaugh and Judge, along with other terms like “Devil’s Triangle” in Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry, bears significance because it presents a specific picture of the men as having spent a lot of their time drinking, partying, and pursuing sexual exploits in high school — a reputation that followed Kavanaugh to Yale.
>This is the reputation that comes into play in the account of Christine Blasey Ford, who also testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about her allegations that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, rubbed his genitals against her, tried to remove her clothes, and covered her mouth while she tried to scream for help during the summer of 1982. Ford also alleges that Judge witnessed the incident.
>Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.
In the context of the words written in his yearbook, "Judge, have you boofed yet?", how could it possibly make sense to ask a 16-year-old boy if he has ever farted yet? Why even ask that question? What do you guess the answer is?
Interpreting "boof" as fart in that context makes absolutely no sense. But interpreting "boof" as ingesting drugs or alcohol though the anus is perfectly consistent with his well documented behavior.
You're really going out on a limb and bending over backwards to defend a mendacious alcoholic rapist. Did you actually WATCH his belligerent histrionic performance in which he cried and screamed and threw a tantrum and repeatedly lied under oath to Congress? Or are you completely ignorant of the context, but defending him anyway?
Are you also willing to perform the same outlandish logical gymnastics to argue against the widely known definition of "Devil’s Triangle", too?
>A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality.
Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night? Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's. Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
And to argue just as vigorously and confidently that the women who went public to accused him of sexual assault, and subjected themselves to vicious attack and ridicule and death threats, were all lying?
And do you firmly believe it was right for Republicans to refuse to let the FBI investigate the stories and interview witnesses, or to call his friend Mark Judge as a witness to testify under oath, who was present when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Kirsten Gillibrand, and who could have also addressed who "Bart O'Kavanaugh" he wrote about in his book "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk" was based on?
>During questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Kavanaugh did not deny that he was the drunken "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who was said to have vomited and passed out in a car in Judge's book. A heated exchange between Kavanaugh and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont left the question unanswered, but suggested Kavanaugh believed Judge was referring to him.
>Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is blasting Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee for failing to call additional witnesses to testify about allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. The New York senator said Thursday that it is “an outrage” that Republicans did not force Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge to testify under oath. Ford says Judge was present when Kavanaugh attacked her.
So is it your opinion that "boys will be boys", and "(shrug) who hasn't been accused of rape at that age (chuckle)?"
Maybe you're only defending him because you acted the same way at that age, but you weren't nominated for the Supreme Court, and you didn't lie about it under oath in front of Congress.
I think you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. All I'm saying is that I wrote dumb shit and inside jokes that don't make sense syntactically in my friends' yearbooks. Don't you dare try to project beliefs about rape culture onto me because of that.
Jokes aside, when would this be useful? I can't think of many situations where a patient wouldn't be able to breathe but was still alive. Some burn victims I guess?
Severe lung obstruction, cases where intubation and tracheotomy are contraindicated, et cetera. It's not super common in the grand scheme of things, but then, neither are tracheotomies.
*Fuck* ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk.
ECMO – for patients with too destroyed lungs – is even worse, massive infection risk due to exposing vital arteries and veins, and it destroys your blood cells, requiring constant topping up with fresh blood transfusions.
This has the potential to be less invasive than either measure and could give the patients a chance to let their lungs actually heal from all the damage.
What a bizarre comment. Every patient who goes under general anaesthesia for surgery (life saving or otherwise) is ventilated and usually without issue.
“Laying tubes into the trachea” I presume refers to tracheostomy.
Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell. A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio. If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator. No ECMO = you die.
> Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?
Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
My comment was regarding your expletive laden derision of devices which save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And you seem to have missed the point. I did. It say hospital acquired infections are not prevalent or problematic. My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit. If you need ECMO you will almost certainly die without it. If you have ECMO there is a compratively small risk of infection that may kill you.
And yes thanks, I did read the article. I’m also a doctor and have spent many months working in ITU, anaesthesia, and operating theatres, and managing acutely unwell COVID-19 patients.
Let us all be glad you’re not making any treatment decisions.
> Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
Could've fooled me with how dismissive you were.
> My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit.
Then there should be no problem with highlighting the risks so people realise that alternatives are worth it not just as somehow inferior "second standard" as implied by the person I was replying to, but as equal or better solution.
To clarify for you (again), my comment was regarding your unfounded derision of existing, proven, lifesaving technologies—I was not dismissing of the technique proposed in the article.
I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.
On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.
Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.
You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
If someone gets their health advice off Hackernews comments I'd say they need a psychiatrist first.
Yes, they're the least bad treatment options we have right now, I can still be hyped about potential improvements.
> You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
I'd rather hope so. I've had to ask "so what health risks were you supposed to inform me about according to the form you want me to sign?" way too many times.
I think there are a significant number of general anesthesia patients who don't get intubated, but the big issue is that being intubated for four hours is very different from being intubated for two weeks, which is very likely to kill you. (And, yes, not breathing will also kill you. But intubation was working so badly that hospitals developed proning protocols for covid patients as a less fatal alternative which was less likely to kill them.)
If squirting oxygenated perfluorodecane up your ass for two weeks can keep you alive more often than proning or intubation, that'd be a great improvement. Could save a lot of lives. Buy Dow Chemical stonks.
In general it's true that being on a ventilator for two weeks carries a high mortality, but that's largely due to being sick enough to require ventilation for that duration. Presumably without effective oxygenation or airway protection, these people would have died before the two week mark. COVID pneumonia presents a special case. Early on the thinking was that noninvasive ventilation with bipap etc would promote spread of the virus, so the recommendation was to proceed earlier to intubation. In retrospect this did appear to lead to higher mortality, likely related to ventilator associated pneumonia and sedation and paralytic drugs. So we've returned to a more ordinary stance where intubation is a last resort. So, intubation is bad, but for most circumstances, it beats a trip to the morgue.
Getting in a car is fraught with peril. Every time somebody gets in a vehicle they're dicing with death.
I think it's important to contextualise the risk. The risk of dying from an anaesthetic is about 1 in 100,000. Compare with risk of dying in a car accident in a given year for example.
And again, it comes down to risk:benefit. Anaesthetics are not given out willy-nilly. The reason for the anaesthetic is considered along with the patient's co-morbidities and personal physiological parameter where relevant. Based on this a reasonable estimate of the personalised risks for that patient for that operation can be given for the patient to choose if they wish to proceed or not.
So bad that most countries voluntarily fucked up their economy by closing international transport or even interstate or between cities, closed all bars, restaurants and even stop people visiting their families, to prevent it spreading
Ahh ... OK, I wasn't thinking clearly. I forgot about the lack of ventilators and was only thinking of the lack of oxygen recently reported in the news.
They mention it being less traumatic than intubation so severe Covid-19 that can't be handled with just an oxygen mask would be one reason to administer this.
First thing I needed to check that I have not woke up in alternate reality and that today is not 1 April, after I remembered that some drug addicts use similar techniques to get high.
Sir, I object. Not everyone who puts drugs in their butt is an addict. Some of us can plug a pill at a full-moon party every so often and go about the rest of our lives as usual thank-you-very-much.
The thing that surprised me most with this was the injectable perfluorocarbon emulsion. And it’s apparently even standard practice. Oxidation damage is actually the bigger risk.
And here I was, fearing pizza trays and non-stick pans.
I think they are referring to PFASs [0] which have been a popular topic on HN for a while now. I’m not sure if the so-called perfluorocarbon emulsions in the original article would be classified as PFASs and/or carry the same risks, though.
It also dissolves in PFCs. Presumably the PFCs are flushed through the gut and the CO2 is carried out by the outflow. Outside, I imagine the CO2 would come off when the PFC is aerated for reuse.
The latest season of The Expanse featured a character who had been exposed to vacuum revived by an injection of “hyperoxygenated blood” in the arm. This makes me think they just got the method of administration slightly wrong.
In the future spaceship air locks will include a box of emergency oxygen suppositories.
External blood pumps (which ECMO uses) have issues with both clotting and mechanical damage to the red blood cells, both of which have to be actively managed.
> "...They settled on liquid perfluorocarbons, which can absorb large amounts of oxygen and are often used as a blood substitute or to assist the ventilation of premature babies...."
Reminded me of the scene from an old underwater sci-fi flic (? was it 'The Abyss' https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/), where the deep-divers had to learn how to 'breathe' the oxygenated liquid instead of air.
Speaking of liquid, there was also an example of 'fluid animation' (is it the term?), later also seen in Terminator 2 (the unkillable and self-reassembling T-1000) and other movies.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss "The breathing fluid used in the film actually exists but has only been thoroughly investigated in animals.[5] Over the previous 20 years it had been tested on several animals, who survived. The rat shown in the film was actually breathing fluid and survived unharmed"
I could see a low pressure breathing fluid being advantageous for space travel. I wonder how long a mammal could live in that environment. Now if we can just retain our gills.
The human body can take vacuum fine if supported. The lung pressure lower limit is the required oxygen pressure plus the vapor pressure of water at body temperature plus the pressure of the carbon dioxide being expelled. Putting your oxygen in a liquid isn't going to change this minimum.
Liquid breathing is being looked into for high pressure environments, not low pressure environments. The human body has no problem with any high pressure it's ever been exposed to, the depth limit for diving is because the dose makes the poison--you eventually hit the point where anything you could put in your tanks is dangerous.
The idea of breathing one of these heavily oxygenated liquids has been around for a while and I believe even tested on live animals. I can’t remember if it was tested on humans.
In theory it all works and has great benefits for breathing in high pressure environments. In reality I believe the issues encountered were: getting past the feeling of drowning at the beginning, needing very strong lungs for even normal breathing rates, and then transitioning back to air being problematic.
In this case, this gas would be injected directly into the rectum, so you could switch back to lungs as soon as the lungs were clear (or run both simultaneously). At least, that's the theory.
Liquid breathing has never been successfully tested in humans, or any large animal. It doesn't scale up well from small animals. The work of breathing is too high. It might be feasible at some point with external mechanical ventilation.
This reminded me of scene, from a sci-fi book (Arthur C. Clarke, maybe), about a naked race on the moon. The racers filled their lungs with some sort of oxygenated liquid.
168 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] threadhttps://web.archive.org/web/20210514233706/https://www.econo...
This article reminded me of the bizarre source of the expression to "Blow smoke up your arse":
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/05/origin-expre...
Click reader mode and if the article is truncated there, press reload/F5 to reload while being in reader mode.
If Firefox does not offer the reader mode symbol for a website, you can force loading the website in reader mode by prepending about:reader?url= to the URL.
https://archive.is/P7FvQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoke_enema
>A tobacco smoke enema, an insufflation of tobacco smoke into the rectum, i.e. as an enema, was employed by the indigenous peoples of North America to stimulate respiration, injecting the smoke with a rectal tube.[1][2]
>Later, Europeans emulated the Americans.[3] Tobacco resuscitation kits consisting of a pair of bellows and a tube were provided by the Royal Humane Society of London and placed at various points along the Thames.[4] European physicians furthermore employed these enemas for a range of ailments.[3
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tobacco-enema-blow-smoke/
The privilege here is real.
And you thought Master Yoda had grammatical issues.
I'm getting Requiem for a Dream vibes from this.
And this isn't a joke..... for example, cyclopropane is an excellent anaesthetic gas but no longer used due to the explosion risk. I believe (?) there was a case of a patients throat catching fire on the operating table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhalational_anesthetic#Gases
Methane in surgery can lead to flames when surgeons use electrocautery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting
Welp.
But to be serious it's risk management and if the patient is definitely going to die of low oxygen then the patient having a risk of dying another way is still a lower risk.
full disclosure: I've not tried that!
[Annual mean sea surface salinity for the World Ocean] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity#/media/File:WOA09_sea...
The limit for safe drinking water is 1000 ppm.
The salinity of blood is about 9000 ppm.
Drinking it from either end isn't advisable because the osmotic gradient wouldn't transport water it in very fast. It would be safe-ish but not hydrating.
Not sure if this is accurate, it's a show after all, but it doesn't seem too crazy.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/22/shipwre...
Unbelievable!
Tangent time: Florence Nightingale was an early pioneer (maybe the first?) of data-driven medical policies.
She grew up in a time when women hit a ceiling pretty quickly, despite being extremely competent and in her case mathematically gifted.
isn't that slang for anal sex
> The insertion or other voluntary introduction of foreign matter into the anus or vaginal cavity for the sole purpose of recreational misuse (or use) of said item/substance. Similar to butt chugging, with the exception of using non-liquidous matter instead of alcoholic beverages.
Alcohol is one example, where you can die of intoxication, while if you have taken it the more traditional way your body would have reacted earlier to get it out.
The only thing that was debunked was Brett Kavanaugh's lie under oath to congress that boofing is farting.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boofing
>Boofing: The act of smirkingly perjuring oneself before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.
>Boofing: The act of inserting drugs into your anus for a much stronger trip, even though it's named like a synonym for farting. Brett, we googled what boofing means, the definition conflicts with your testimony.
>Boofing: Common slang term used for anal sex in the 1980's. More recently used to describe the act of inserting drugs ( most often tab form or powdered ecstasy) through the anus to more quickly enter the blood stream, also referred to as "thumbing" or "booty popping" Sexual : Last night, my friends and I were boofing Molly!
>Boofing: the act of consuming alcohol via the anus, for rapid buzz e.g. Lance boofed a bottle of Old Thompson
https://www.healthline.com/health/substance-use/booty-bump#:....
>What’s the Deal with Booty Bumping (aka Boofing)?
>Booty bumping, sometimes called boofing, is a way to consume drugs — usually methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine — by way of your butt.
https://discoveryplace.info/effects-of-boofing/
>Understanding the Dangerous Trend of Boofing
>What is Boofing? Boofing is slang for inserting drugs or alcohol into the anus. People boof to get a faster and more intense high. Because there are a high number of blood vessels located near a thinner surface layer of mucosal tissue in the anus, drug and alcohol absorption happens at a faster rate than ingesting something orally. Just about anything can be boofed: alcohol, MDMA, cocaine, heroin, crushed up pills, you name it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/09/29/what-exactl...
>What Exactly Is 'Boofing' And When You Should Never Do It
>When someone asks you a question, it helps to know specifically what is being asked. For example, if someone asks you, "have you boofed yet," don't answer unless you know exactly what that person means by boofing.
>Apparently Supreme Court-nominee Brett Kavanaugh asked that exact question in his high school yearbook page. During the confirmation hearings this week when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) asked Kavanaugh to clarify what "boofing" means, Kavanaugh responded that he used the term to refer to flatulence as shown in this PBS NewsHour broadcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ccXpDhMmBY&t=1s&ab_channel=...
>However, the word "boof" does not appear in the lists of synonyms for fart provided by Thesaurus.com or by Ben Applebaum and Dan DiSorbo in a HuffPost article entitled "150 Different Words For Fart."
https://www.huf...
Brett Kavanaugh implausibly claimed under oath that "boofing" was a reference to farting, but he perjured himself and lied to Congress on live television. So now we have a Supreme Court justice who ingested drugs through his butt hole, and lied about it by falsely claiming under oath that he was only farting.
Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook: the “boof” joke, explained
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/27/17905818/brett-kavanau...
Brett Kavanaugh’s questionable definitions of “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle,” explained
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17911728/brett-kavanaugh-boof-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8&ab_channel=Satur...
>The boofing exchange between Kavanaugh and Judge, along with other terms like “Devil’s Triangle” in Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry, bears significance because it presents a specific picture of the men as having spent a lot of their time drinking, partying, and pursuing sexual exploits in high school — a reputation that followed Kavanaugh to Yale.
>This is the reputation that comes into play in the account of Christine Blasey Ford, who also testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about her allegations that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, rubbed his genitals against her, tried to remove her clothes, and covered her mouth while she tried to scream for help during the summer of 1982. Ford also alleges that Judge witnessed the incident.
https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1045416955522535425
>David Enrich @davidenrich Sep 27, 2018
>Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.
Interpreting "boof" as fart in that context makes absolutely no sense. But interpreting "boof" as ingesting drugs or alcohol though the anus is perfectly consistent with his well documented behavior.
Are you also willing to perform the same outlandish logical gymnastics to argue against the widely known definition of "Devil’s Triangle", too?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Tri...
>A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality. Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night? Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's. Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
And to argue just as vigorously and confidently that the women who went public to accused him of sexual assault, and subjected themselves to vicious attack and ridicule and death threats, were all lying?
And do you firmly believe it was right for Republicans to refuse to let the FBI investigate the stories and interview witnesses, or to call his friend Mark Judge as a witness to testify under oath, who was present when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Kirsten Gillibrand, and who could have also addressed who "Bart O'Kavanaugh" he wrote about in his book "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk" was based on?
https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-refuses-bart-okavan...
>During questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Kavanaugh did not deny that he was the drunken "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who was said to have vomited and passed out in a car in Judge's book. A heated exchange between Kavanaugh and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont left the question unanswered, but suggested Kavanaugh believed Judge was referring to him.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180928120612/https://www.gazet...
>Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is blasting Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee for failing to call additional witnesses to testify about allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. The New York senator said Thursday that it is “an outrage” that Republicans did not force Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge to testify under oath. Ford says Judge was present when Kavanaugh attacked her.
So is it your opinion that "boys will be boys", and "(shrug) who hasn't been accused of rape at that age (chuckle)?"
Maybe you're only defending him because you acted the same way at that age, but you weren't nominated for the Supreme Court, and you didn't lie about it under oath in front of Congress.
ECMO – for patients with too destroyed lungs – is even worse, massive infection risk due to exposing vital arteries and veins, and it destroys your blood cells, requiring constant topping up with fresh blood transfusions.
This has the potential to be less invasive than either measure and could give the patients a chance to let their lungs actually heal from all the damage.
“Laying tubes into the trachea” I presume refers to tracheostomy.
Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell. A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio. If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator. No ECMO = you die.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?
Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
My comment was regarding your expletive laden derision of devices which save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And you seem to have missed the point. I did. It say hospital acquired infections are not prevalent or problematic. My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit. If you need ECMO you will almost certainly die without it. If you have ECMO there is a compratively small risk of infection that may kill you.
And yes thanks, I did read the article. I’m also a doctor and have spent many months working in ITU, anaesthesia, and operating theatres, and managing acutely unwell COVID-19 patients.
Let us all be glad you’re not making any treatment decisions.
Could've fooled me with how dismissive you were.
> My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit.
Then there should be no problem with highlighting the risks so people realise that alternatives are worth it not just as somehow inferior "second standard" as implied by the person I was replying to, but as equal or better solution.
I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.
On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.
Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.
You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
Yes, they're the least bad treatment options we have right now, I can still be hyped about potential improvements.
> You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
I'd rather hope so. I've had to ask "so what health risks were you supposed to inform me about according to the form you want me to sign?" way too many times.
If squirting oxygenated perfluorodecane up your ass for two weeks can keep you alive more often than proning or intubation, that'd be a great improvement. Could save a lot of lives. Buy Dow Chemical stonks.
I think it's important to contextualise the risk. The risk of dying from an anaesthetic is about 1 in 100,000. Compare with risk of dying in a car accident in a given year for example.
And again, it comes down to risk:benefit. Anaesthetics are not given out willy-nilly. The reason for the anaesthetic is considered along with the patient's co-morbidities and personal physiological parameter where relevant. Based on this a reasonable estimate of the personalised risks for that patient for that operation can be given for the patient to choose if they wish to proceed or not.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thai-die/
So, some type of ultra cheap method to get high (but quite dangerous) is to get pump air with bicycle pump into the bottom. Article above.
"The death was not part of a "fad" for getting high"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bznDjbQLzMo&ab_channel=TLC
At least you don't need to use those expensive tasty gourmet beans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oep_DPDy6xw
[0] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210128/china-using-anal-sw...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-report-r...
[1] https://youtu.be/Ug5jVUv5V_A
[2] actually a South Park episode. NSFW
And here I was, fearing pizza trays and non-stick pans.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
In the future spaceship air locks will include a box of emergency oxygen suppositories.
Reminded me of the scene from an old underwater sci-fi flic (? was it 'The Abyss' https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/), where the deep-divers had to learn how to 'breathe' the oxygenated liquid instead of air.
Speaking of liquid, there was also an example of 'fluid animation' (is it the term?), later also seen in Terminator 2 (the unkillable and self-reassembling T-1000) and other movies.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss "The breathing fluid used in the film actually exists but has only been thoroughly investigated in animals.[5] Over the previous 20 years it had been tested on several animals, who survived. The rat shown in the film was actually breathing fluid and survived unharmed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing
The human body can take vacuum fine if supported. The lung pressure lower limit is the required oxygen pressure plus the vapor pressure of water at body temperature plus the pressure of the carbon dioxide being expelled. Putting your oxygen in a liquid isn't going to change this minimum.
Liquid breathing is being looked into for high pressure environments, not low pressure environments. The human body has no problem with any high pressure it's ever been exposed to, the depth limit for diving is because the dose makes the poison--you eventually hit the point where anything you could put in your tanks is dangerous.
You are referring to oxygen toxicity. There is far more to it than that. At great enough pressure, your body cannot expel CO2.
Why do you need to be so hostile?
In theory it all works and has great benefits for breathing in high pressure environments. In reality I believe the issues encountered were: getting past the feeling of drowning at the beginning, needing very strong lungs for even normal breathing rates, and then transitioning back to air being problematic.
Yeah, this seems to be quite an obstacle, giving the fact how long it may take for lungs to fully expectorate the mucus after a bout of pneumonia.