A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

check his Wikipedia edit<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Neurotrophic_electrode" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Neurotrophic_electrode</a><p>&gt; In Neural Signals&#x27; implantations of six people, only one had a short lived episode of focal motor seizures and brain swelling leading to temporary weakness on the contralateral side of the body.<p>&gt; That person was me, Phil Kennedy. And here I am writing this addition to the Wikipedia

Looks like there have been ongoing issues with his lab:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fda.gov&#x2F;inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations&#x2F;warning-letters&#x2F;kennedy-philip-r-597587-02272020" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fda.gov&#x2F;inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-c...</a>

This is absolutely crazy cool. Perhaps modern surgical interventions will only progress one crazy risk taker at a time. Reminds me of Werner Forssman and catheterization! An example where overly cautious ethics killed so many people before a brave self-experimenter saved so many lives.

To undertake such tremendous personal risk to advance the state of brain-machine interfaces for us all - this guy is a hero in my book.<p>Futurists and the general populace can hand-wave about humanity&#x27;s glorious digital future all they want - it will not come to pass without heroes like this paving the way.

FTA:<p>&gt; For human subjects he would replace the sciatic nerve with a chemical cocktail known to stimulate neural growth.<p>Anyone know what this &quot;chemical cocktail&quot; is they&#x27;re referring to?

Phil Kennedy is a hero. A bold risk-taker. The ultimate DIYer, experimenting directly on his own brain. And he&#x27;s a scifi author to boot!

Should have said almost lost his brain function.<p>Anyone who things an abled person wants a cell phone in their head probably already lost their mind in the colloquial sense long ago.<p>It seems like he&#x27;s doing amazing work that will really help a lot of people though. But being a cyborg doesn&#x27;t sound all that great.

Not a hero, but a fool.<p>Imagine what would the repercussions for the field be if the surgery went a little worse since it seems so badly planned from the outset? More restrictive regulation against the practice? All major funding either pulled outright or forever tainted with the stigma arising from this endeavor ?<p>I don&#x27;t know what it is about HN that this forum praises seemingly stupid pursuits such as a neurosurgeon choosing to operate on himself without (a) Validating the approach better and (b) Having a backup plan in case things went bad (No person in the US to come and care for him etc) and (c) Using antiquated electronics in the eyes of the very experts he was entrusting with the operation.

The FDA has laid out the ethical groundwork: if a patient has no other options, a safe (sterile) surgery may be performed. It&#x27;s only because they revoked his approval to use the specific type of implant. Would it really require so much money to demonstrate sterility? Or did Kennedy just not want to have to deal with bureaucracy and barely functional&#x2F;dying patients and therefore took matters into his own hands? If so I don&#x27;t blame him; if you can&#x27;t communicate with your subject it&#x27;s hard to make sure everything is being done right.<p>To Kennedy, he had no other options.

Apart from the clickbait headline, there is an important division between restorative and augmentative applications of BCI. The former, when the patient has already suffered serious neurological injuries (or even paralysis) presents an attractive risk&#x2F;reward ratio. The latter is dubious, even if only for the operation risks such as the swelling the article notes.<p>Interesting to ponder where that dividing line resides.

This article is too long, I hate this style of writing.<p>Here is something for the impatient.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;09&#x2F;247535&#x2F;to-study-the-brain-a-doctor-puts-himself-under-the-knife&#x2F;amp&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;11&#x2F;09&#x2F;247535&#x2F;to-study-...</a>

The story seems interesting enough, I&#x27;m curious what happened to him, what he discovered etc, but I can&#x27;t take this style of writing.i would like to have a tldr version somewhere of this as I have no intention of putting my entire morning into skimming through every single insignificant detail of the developments.<p>Or could anyone here just post a tldr summary perchance?<p>Thanks.

Link to the article without paywall [1]<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com.&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;phil-kennedy-mind-control-computer&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com.&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;phil-kennedy-mind-control-com...</a>

The headline is quite a bit of clickbait. And the frame of the article is aimed at clicks and keeping the reader hooked by creating the impression he had made some monumental mistake.<p>He had some brain swelling shortly after the surgery. Thats it.<p>Still great to have posted it, amazing guy

&gt; <i>His early fears of having damaged Kennedy for life turned out to be unfounded; the language loss that left his patient briefly locked in was just a symptom of postoperative brain swelling.</i><p>While I am glad that there was minimal harm done here, I am perplexed as to why a Neurosurgeon would risk their decades of training and career for such a high-risk low reward surgery. This could have been a terrible ending.<p>We should be weary about tampering with things we do not completely comprehend.