Son of Deep Stops *or* Waiting to be merged with the mother thread...

[rossh]

I don't think you understand this matter.

You are fond of citing the consensus document.

Go and read it. As David (who is an author on it) has categorically told you, it clearly states that VGE grades are correlated to risk of DCS.

Simon M

Ah yes,,, cherry pick a specific condition.....


See ...


RECOMMENDATION 11
Bubble grade data are most appropriately analyzed nonparametrically.
Attempts to linearize bubble data should be
employed cautiously. Consideration should also be given to
ensure that studies are powered appropriately.


Fair interpretation
Interpretation of bubble data should be appropriately
constrained, for a number of reasons:
• bubbles do not equal DCS;
• the intravascular focus of current technology provides
an incomplete picture of conditions in the body;
• the standard techniques of aural Doppler and twodimensional
cardiac imaging do not allow bubble sizing;
• Doppler technology captures only a limited threedimensional
space and two-dimensional images only a
slice of the three-dimension eld.
Most measures are made intermittently, capturing a small
percentage of total time.
While recognition of limitations is the responsibility
of authors, peer reviewers should critically evaluate
manuscripts for shortcomings.

 

[scubadada]

We've really gotten nowhere, just reopened the wound

 

[rossh]

We've really gotten nowhere, just reopened the wound

Yep. Because nothing has changed. They still want to pretend the same false connections and relationships, that do not exist, and they use the same "made up" data. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change that.

The nedu study has not grown a deep stop. VPM-B still works just fine, and all models and deco computers still have perfectly good off gassing formula inbuilt.

I have better ways to shows to deco stresses in all models now - the scientifically valid supersaturation graphs, which debunk, undefined heat maps.


There has been progress on VGE - away from the position desired by the other side, and making it far less reliable than they hoped.


And i will continue to gain ground, because the truth is on my side.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Ah yes.. .the mythical "body of emerging data". this would be the same one that got reviewed back in 2008. Your peers did not support or agree with this strongly one sided position you have taken Simon.

You have had it explained to you many times that my "peers" had very little to do with generating the consensus that came out of the 2008 deep stops workshop. In the process operant at that workshop the opinions of everyone present including many tech training agency operators teaching deep stops and tech divers riding the crest of the deep stops popularity wave held equal sway. Scientists with expertise in the field were vastly outnumbered. It was not a process designed to produce a scientific peer review consensus on the topic and thus it is NOT a review attributable to my peers. If we actually did restrict it to scientists then, and if we did it now, the opinions would be overwhelmingly confluent with mine.... which is why I feel confident in articulating them publicly here.

Simon M

 

[scubadada]

Yep. Because nothing has changed. They still want to pretend the false connention and relationships, that do not exist. All the wishfull thinkiking tin the world will not chnage that.

You seem to the the only one on your side

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Ah yes,,, cherry pick a specific condition.....

What do you mean by "a specific condition"?

RECOMMENDATION 11
Bubble grade data are most appropriately analyzed nonparametrically.
Attempts to linearize bubble data should be
employed cautiously. Consideration should also be given to
ensure that studies are powered appropriately.


Fair interpretation
Interpretation of bubble data should be appropriately
constrained, for a number of reasons:
• bubbles do not equal DCS;
• the intravascular focus of current technology provides
an incomplete picture of conditions in the body;
• the standard techniques of aural Doppler and twodimensional
cardiac imaging do not allow bubble sizing;
• Doppler technology captures only a limited threedimensional
space and two-dimensional images only a
slice of the three-dimension eld.
Most measures are made intermittently, capturing a small
percentage of total time.
While recognition of limitations is the responsibility
of authors, peer reviewers should critically evaluate
manuscripts for shortcomings.

Yes, so what? It still does not change the fundamental fact that bubble grades are correlated to the probability of DCS.

Simon M

 

[rossh]

You seem to the the only one on your side

And the truth and facts are still on my side. ....

 

[rossh]

Yes, so what? It still does not change the fundamental fact that bubble grades are correlated to the probability of DCS.

Simon M

See... a whole new "Consensus Development Conference" "Consensus guidelines for the use of ultrasound for diving research"

A meeting and paper... whose final recommendations completely discourage such bold and strong statements like the one you just made... yet you do it anyway... I guess the peer position and guidelines are not sufficient to contain your one sided thoughts and comments.


This is why your position is not valid - far too strong. far too extreme, too much good science has been abused and exaggerated for your argument to be satisfied.

.

 

[PfcAJ]

And the truth and facts are still on my side. ....

Lol

 

[UWSojourner]

From Tech Diving Conference Proceedings, page 120. Clearly VGE is correlated to risk of DCS and obviously a sharper rise in risk is associated with Grade 3+.