Brooke Greenberg

Apparently there was a programe on the WBAL (Balitmore) channel yesterday, about a girl who does not appear to age.

(12 years old)


Has anyone further info on the case and the scientists who investigate it?

May 15, 2005
WHAT HAPPENED TO BROOKE?
CATEGORY: Media
Was this heart tugging story a hoax? (SEE UPDATE BELOW)


Brooke Greenberg weighs 13 pounds and is 27 inches long.

But Brooke is actually 12 years old, reported WBAL-TV in Baltimore.

Brooke doesn’t age. Her syndrome remains undiagnosed and unnamed, and as far as doctors can tell, she is the only one in the world who has it.

“In height, weight, she’s 6 to 12 months,” Pakula said. “If you ask any physician who knows nothing about her, the response is that she is maybe a handicapped 2-year-old.”


When I wrote a post on this story on Friday, there were several dozen links to various TV News websites all carrying exactly the same story. They had all re-broadcast the original WBAL piece and used the same teaser on their websites.

All links to the story have now disappeared. The only links that work are to blogs that posted on the story in the first place.

A Welsh View has a cached copy of the original broadcast of the story. But that’s it. Every newsite that carried a blurb on poor little Brooke has yanked the piece from their websites.

Why?

Yesterday, I sent an email to WBAL in Baltimore asking them if the story was a hoax. I have yet to hear back from them. I’ve gotten about 200 search engine hits all referencing “Brooke Greenberg” so I know that there are a lot of people wondering the same thing.

At the moment, there just aren’t any good answers.

I’m going to stay on top of this all day today. I may even call WBAL and find out what the heck is going on. In the meantime, if you go to WBAL’s website, they have a drop down menu for sending emails. I urge everyone who’s interested to send them an email asking about this story.

If you get any kind of an answer, I’d appreciate it if you shared it with me. Send the info to elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com. (Remove hyphens).

Let’s get to the bottom of this.

UPDATE:

A Welsh View has also done an update on the story and with a little digging, found out that the story goes back to at least 2001.

A hoax? Probably not. So why pull the story? Did the parents intervene? Since they cooperated in the making of the story in the first place that seems hard to imagine.

Don’t ya just love mysteries?

UPDATE

I finally received an answer to the email I sent to WBAL in Baltimore asking if the story was a hoax. Here’s their response in its entirety:

Good morning,

Due to certain agreements, we are unable to provide additional information
on this story. It was not a hoax.

“Certain agreements” could mean anything. It could mean that the family didn’t realize the worldwide noteriety that would accompany the story after Drudge linked to the WBAL webstory and requested that it be pulled. Or it could be something contractural having to do with the news service that carried the story on so many websites (57 TV and radio sites by my count).

Regardless, while an insatisfactory answer, the only important thing is that the story is in fact true and not a hoax.

Rick Moran posted at 7:03 am | permalink | comments & trackbacks (4)

Wow, that's amazing!

If she won't die because of it being some health problem she'd be a medical wonder.

~Infernity

Woah. Immediately a number of thoughts come to mind.

If this is true:

1) I presume her mental capabilities have been stunted by a lack of neural development.

2) Could her condition be the result of defective/nonfunctioning developmental program(s)?

If so, it seems likely that her body would begin to experience measurable levels of damage, mainly because the cellular expansion that is normally associated with the development of a 12 year old (and which many have claimed has the effect of deluting damage levels until after the cessation of the developmental process) would not be present.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that, whether the girl develops normally or not, she should still acquire damage and senesce as her chronological age increases...

That is, unless aging is programmed... [huh]

I dont want to go through the detailed technical argument again but.... development is programmed, aging is not (or at least there is no evidence for programming). Aging begins when development stops.

This girl would have a highly unusual developmental curve. The answers to your questions are likely:
1) yes, neural development, like everything else, is highly dependent on hormonal regulation

2)yes, this has to be the case, something has happened to halt her developmental progression. If I had to guess I would say it is likely that she is deficient in a master regulatory gene that is necessary to kick a young child into the next stage of development.

Um Peter, this was sort of my point. I wasn't arguing that aging was programmed...

This is why I said:

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that, whether the girl develops normally or not, she should still acquire damage and senesce as her chronological age increases...

This is unless, of course, the girl continues to maintain the physiological age of a 2 year old indefinitely. If this very unlikely scenario did occur, well, then aging theory would be thrown on its head and the programming hypothesis given new life. Again though, I think this is very unlikely.

Ocsrazor

Aging begins when development stops.

Apparently yes. Is there a fundamental change in cellular processes after development that lead to the production of larger quantities of damage? I doubt it. What others have proposed to me, and which I think makes a lot of sense, is that damage is diluted by the various kinds of cellular expansions associated with normal development.

Cessation of developmental cellular expansion = stops dilution of damage = onset of significant damage accumulation.

What I am really interested in is whether this girl will begin to show premature signs of aging because the damage that is normally diluted by development was not diluted in this case.

Does anyone here know anything about Brooke Greenberg?Apparently she was featured on TV a couple of years ago as being a unique case defying the normal aging process.

My question is,does she really seem to not AGE at all???.I'm speculating that she may have a genetic mutation preventing her from developing but probably she will get age accumulated damage since that must happen even if you don't go through a normal development process.

What are your opinions about this case?Is she really unique?How do you think she will look in 10 years if she's still alive?
Has she been in the media since 2005?

Wow i didn't know about this case until now. Amazing indeed. I saw a few news but most of them were from 2005. I wonder how is the case now.



I assume that she ages notheless? Meaning that although she still has the body of a child, her body is start the decline after her 20s because of cumulative damage (she is already fragile as of now, so she may not even get there, unfortunately for her and for science)? Or she really doesn't age at all (i really doubt that but who knows)?


What an interesting case... i wonder why this hasn't received so much attention?

It did catch much attention from the public when it happened.However she doesn't appear to have been featured in media any more.She is really a unique case as she doesn't appear to suffered from any known syndrome.

What are your opinions about this case?Is she really unique?How do you think she will look in 10 years if she's still alive?

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that she has a very unusual developmental error, but that it has nothing to do with aging. I suspect that as she gets older, she will look weirder...

Yeah, there was a thread on this girl in 2005 (I think). So it's been in the news for a while.

Has any studies on her been published in any medical journals?

http://uktv.co.uk/st...item/aid/596894

Another case,However this girl was diagnosed with a severe form of turners syndrome.So she is apparently not like Brooke.

And she seems unlike Brooke to have suffered some kind of aging...

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that she has a very unusual developmental error, but that it has nothing to do with aging. I suspect that as she gets older, she will look weirder...

I'd put my money on this, as well.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that she has a very unusual developmental error, but that it has nothing to do with aging. I suspect that as she gets older, she will look weirder...

I'd put my money on this, as well.

An old baby. Now that would be sadly bizarre.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that she has a very unusual developmental error, but that it has nothing to do with aging. I suspect that as she gets older, she will look weirder...

I'd put my money on this, as well.

An old baby. Now that would be sadly bizarre.

Yes,very weird....

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that she has a very unusual developmental error, but that it has nothing to do with aging. I suspect that as she gets older, she will look weirder...

I'd put my money on this, as well.

I agree as well. She didn't stop aging, she stopped developing. I've read nothing of the details of the case but I'd up the ante and bet she'll die long before the average person.

And she seems unlike Brooke to have suffered some kind of aging...

She is also 10 years older than Brooke. hint?

I agree with the rest, if she survives (hopefully she does), she'll be an old aged baby.

Interesting what nature can do,I wonder where the genetic defect is located and what they'll find in her genes,Her doctor have apparenly not published any medical reports on her which is kind of odd considering the uniqueness....
However the whole situation is somewhat tragic,especially since her health has been fluctuating.....

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/Story?id...0954&page=1

she's still aging just not growing

True ... but I'm wondering if she'll ever show signs of aging when she reaches 40, 60, 80?

http://abcnews.go.co...d...0954&page=1

http://abcnews.go.co...d...0954&page=1

Wow!!!

Although I feel terribly sorry for her parents and family, the little girl represents an incredible opportunity to slash decades off the reaserch needed to defeat aging.

I don't think so. The girl has a profound developmental disorder. To say she isn't aging is just wrong. See what she looks like in 20 or 30 years, then ask if she isn't aging.

I don't think so. The girl has a profound developmental disorder. To say she isn't aging is just wrong. See what she looks like in 20 or 30 years, then ask if she isn't aging.

No doubt she does have a developmental disorder, but it doesnt negate the fact that she doesnt appear to be aging.
She does appear to be 16 months not 16 years, her "aging program" isnt functioning properly.
Disorders such as hers are a tremendous reaserch opportunity and I hope a reputable reaserch organisation such as the Buck Institute for age research seriously follow this up and not let coventional; medicine bury it as an oddity.

Lol from the piece of news everyone appears to believe that she is in fact not aging. I'd really hope she wasn't.. that would be so cool.


By the way i'm really glad there's been an update on the Greenberg case. Lately i've searched for some news about her but they were a few years old. Apparently nothing much has changed with her. I'm really interested to know how she will be in the next 10-20 years, if she survives that much..

Edited by forever freedom, 25 June 2009 - 06:02 AM.

well she should be careful since once she turns 18 in 2 years, creepy pedophiles will be all over her lol