Without warning, we gently pick up the patients hand and hold it above their face. Without delay, we drop it. If the patient were truely unconsious, the hand would fall and strike them in the face. Most likely on the mouth or chin. We’re not going to let that happen, but the patient doesn’t know that.
Steve notes that the test is remarkably reliable, and the reason this is so is because:
Patients don’t know what their hands are supposed to do when dropped over their face and the idea of striking themselves is instantly unappealing. But what to do instead? The resulting dilemma is both revealing and, often, hilarious. The amusing nature of watching a conscious patient decide what to do with their falling hand is certainly part of the popularity of this exam.
However, he warns that there are patients who have "played the game before" and may be able to fake a convincing response even to the hand drop test. In an article on "Faking Unconsciousness" in the journal Anaesthesia (April 2000), the author noted:
During a ‘hand drop’ test, to my astonishment, I have caught the glimmer of a smile and realised that this patient knew too much. She had indeed read the literature.
1973: Jean Haynes was almost deaf since birth, but then an allergic reaction triggered a bout of sneezing. Seems that she sneezed quite a bit. But finally, she gave one big sneeze, and suddenly she could hear again.
This falls into the recurring weird news theme of accidental cures (such as people who get hit in the head and are cured of blindness).
BBC News reports on the case of Johanna Watkins who has a rare disorder (Mast Cell Activation Syndrome) that has caused her to become allergic to a whole bunch of stuff, including the scent of her husband. The allergy only developed after they got married.
At this point, they live in the same house but can no longer get close to each other. Instead they communicate via phone. Their "date night" involves watching a show together: "he will be three floors below me in a room on his laptop and I will be on mine and we'll watch the show at the same time and then text about it as we're watching it."
Scott and Johanna Watkins
This reminds me of the 1949 case of Joyce Holdridge, aka the "Allergic Bride," who broke out in a rash every time she was near her husband. She was the first reported case of a wife who developed an allergy to her husband. (I wrote a fairly long article about her for about.com, but it looks like about.com has since deleted it.)
After the Holdridge case, quite a few women came forward claiming to be allergic to their husband. So allergic wives are definitely a recurring theme in weird news. For whatever reason, cases of husbands who are allergic to their wives are much rarer (although not nonexistent).
In September 1942, a young miner, Ronald Cutler, had finished his shift, so he blew his nose to get the coal dust out. His eye fell out onto his cheek. A superintendent was able to pop it back in, and Cutler appeared "little the worse for the occurrence."
News of the World - Sep 20, 1942
Kingston Daily Freeman - Oct 29, 1942
In April 1899, a similar case was reported in the Southern California Practitioner (which in turn got the story from a German-language paper, the Illinois Staatz Zitung). A glass blower blew his nose violently, and his right eyeball came out of its socket. A colleague was able to put it back in, but on the way to the doctor's office the same thing happened again... and then a third time at the doctor's office.
There's an old legend that if you sneeze with your eyes open, your eyeballs will come out. Mythbusters says that's not true, noting, "although a sneeze can erupt from your nose at an explosive 200 miles per hour, it can't transfer this pressure into your eye sockets to dethrone your eyeballs. Plus, there's no muscle directly behind the eye to violently contract and push the orbs outward."
How then do we explain these odd cases of eyeballs coming out when people blow their nose?
Update: I just found a third case of eyeball dislocation following nose blowing, reported by Dr. John Tyler of Kansas City in 1888. His patient, upon waking in the morning, "felt the need of a good, hard blow, and said he really was making an extra effort, when to his horror and amazement he felt his left eye pop right out between the lids, and stick!" His wife popped the eye back in, and the man suffered no apparent damage from the incident.
In 1977, the head of the National Peach Council, Robert K. Phillips, sent the following letter to the U.S. Department of Labor protesting their proposed ban on the pesticide DBCP, which had been found to cause sterility among male agricultural workers who handled it. Phillips noted that some men might actually want to become sterile, so for them infertility would be a welcome benefit of the job.
To: Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
Recently we received the interesting DOL news release concerning worker exposure to DBCP.
It appears to us that you and Secretary Marshall may have overreacted, or at least that is your public posture.
While involuntary sterility caused by a manufactured chemical may be bad, it is not necessarily so. After all, there are many people who are now paying to have themselves sterilized to assure they will no longer be able to become parents.
How many of the workers who have become sterile were of an age that they would have been likely to have children anyway? How many were past the age when they would want to have children? These, too, are important questions.
If possible sterility is the main problem, couldn't workers who were old enough that they no longer wanted to have children accept such positions voluntarily? They could know the situation, and it wouldn't matter. Or could workers be advised of the situation, and some might volunteer for such work posts as an alternative to planned surgery for a vasectomy or tubal ligation, or as a means of getting around religious bans on birth control when they want no more children.
We do believe in safety in the work place, Dr. Bingham, but there can be good as well as bad sides to a situation.
Above all, please don't try to get a ban on the manufacture and sale of the chemical DBCP, because that would cause some losses of agricultural production which would be serious.
Robert K. Phillips
Executive Secretary, National Peach Council
Despite Phillips's appeal, DBCP got banned anyway, because in addition to the sterility it was linked to various cancers. More info: NY Times, Multinational Monitor.
It's a plate that makes food healthier by soaking up excess calories, according to its creators (the Thai Health Promotion Foundation and BBDO Bangkok):
Hundreds of tiny holes inspired by the texture of sponge make AbsorbPlate able to separate excess oil from food before people eat it. The plate can reduce up to 7 ml of grease or approximately 30 calories per plate. The plates were designed to be easy to wash. In order to eat healthier, all they need to do is just continue their regular eating behaviour on our plate.
I have an idea that would work even better — a smaller plate.
Books Selected and endorsed for Pure Weirdness by Your WU Team
Get WU Posts by Email
Who We Are
Alex is the creator and curator of the Museum of Hoaxes. He's also the author of various weird, non-fiction books such as Elephants on Acid.
Paul Di Filippo
Paul has been paid to put weird ideas into fictional form for over thirty years, in his career as a noted science fiction writer. He has recently begun blogging on many curious topics with three fellow writers at The Inferior 4+1.
Chuck is the purveyor of News of the Weird, the syndicated column which for decades has set the gold-standard for reporting on oddities and the bizarre.
Our banner was drawn by the legendary underground cartoonist Rick Altergott.