Will http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25525213 change deco procedures?

[UWSojourner]

There's also the famous story about two girls trying to enter a bathroom, and arguing for an hour which one should go in first.

This has nothing to do whatsoever with morality, it is a matter of being pragmatic. If your goal is to have a discussion, and stop having to respond to insults, then responding in kind is very much counterproductive.

I think the problem is in seeing any sort of "in kind" equivalence between Ross and <fill in the blank>, though certainly between Dr. Mitchell and Ross.

But perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know how far back this stuff goes. That you can't fathom someone saying Ross might be being dishonest tells me that's probably the case.

 

[ajduplessis]

Fanboy to the rescue in the same fashion as their "masters".

It is sad to see these wannabe industry leaders exhibit childish and highly unprofessional behavior in these threads and then hoping someone will take then serious.

You guys are joke. Go back and read the trail of "rubbish" left here/other forums and tell me you did good?!?!?

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

If your goal is to have a discussion, and stop having to respond to insults, then responding in kind is very much counterproductive.

You are absolutely right. In my defence, if you appraise yourself of the broader content of these debates you will find that I generally try to live up to this standard. It just gets difficult after a long period of debating Ross, and what you are seeing on this thread is a spill over from a much longer one on CCRX. Even so, you will find it difficult to find anything written by me of the following magnitude:

That wasn't hard to do when many of your talking points where stretched out half truths, back by faked graphs and made up measures, and fabricated comparison points and junk science. You used two business marketing / advertising experts as trolls to push the message along. Interesting that you put more value on public "popularity" ahead of science.

This commentary which contains allegations about falsifying data is about two scientists who have dedicated their careers to answering questions of high pragmatic relevance to divers. In other posts he is making the execrable allegation that someone paid marketing trolls to participate in the deep stops thread in RBW; a claim he appears unable to substantiate. You will also have seen David's response to more damaging professional claims from Ross earlier in this thread. If you think we are both unentitled to exhibit a degree of petulance in the face of this sort of thing (even though we would both agree that is not ideal) then that's fine - we are both human.

Finally, can you do me a small favour and go and look at the first exchanges between Ross and I (you only need to look at pages 2 and 3) of the CCRX thread.

More thoughts on helium perfusion and solubility - Page 2

You will at least get an idea of who fired the first shot in terms of abusive posts.

Simon M

 

[Storker]

From where I sit, accusatory, disrespectful, inflammatory statements are coming from both sides in comparable amounts

I guess not everyone understands how offensive it is for a real scientist to effectively be accused for being a paid shill. That's way, way over the top.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Hello AJ,

It is sad to see these wannabe industry leaders exhibit childish and highly unprofessional behavior in these threads and then hoping someone will take then serious.

You guys are joke.

Good to see you setting an example of professional behaviour and the non-proliferation of insults.

Go back and read the trail of "rubbish" left here/other forums and tell me you did good?!?!?

I will settle for 95,000 hits, a poll that demonstrated over 90% of readers adopted the viewpoint we debated, and a subsequent palpable shift in the way gradient factors are being applied.

It was a lot of work, but the result was worthwhile.

Simon M

 

[kr2y5]

I guess not everyone understands how offensive it is for a real scientist to effectively be accused for being a paid shill. That's way, way over the top.

I feel I've endured more than my fair share of dishonesty and false, malicious, unfair accusations, and realized that our world is not a friendly place... at some point, one has to just forget about who started first, who's more at fault, remind ourselves what we really want, and stick to it no matter what.

I know what I want from this thread: just pure, uncontaminated technical discussion about diving that we could all learn from.

Ross, what would be an example of one concrete conclusion drawn by Simon that you feel is not sufficiently well supported by data? Would it make sense to focus on something concrete, and see if all this boils down to just a misunderstanding, or there is something deeper behind it?

 

[Centrals]

This commentary which contains allegations about falsifying data is about two scientists who have dedicated their careers to answering questions of high pragmatic relevance to divers. In other posts he is making the execrable allegation that someone paid marketing trolls to participate in the deep stops thread in RBW; a claim he appears unable to substantiate. You will also have seen David's response to more damaging professional claims from Ross earlier in this thread. If you think we are both unentitled to exhibit a degree of petulance in the face of this sort of thing (even though we would both agree that is not ideal) then that's fine - we are both human.

I don't think any scientist will do nothing when being accused of falsifying result. This is an ultimate insult. I wonder if the other side can provide any evidence to substantiate the claim? Opinion alone is never enough without any scientific proof.

 

[boulderjohn]

My first response is to deal with what I consider to be squabbling issues.

• First of all, i agee that Ross could easily make any adjustments to his software offerings that he wants whenever he wants. Getting ahead of the curve would do him a world of good, so accusing him of making his statements for financial gain seems a bit off to me.
• On the other hand, accusing a scientist of misconduct in research and its reporting (etc.) is extremely serious. A scientist who does such a thing is THROUGH if exposed for doing so. Look at the issue with the falsified information on vaccination and autism as an example--the man who published that falsified information that has the world in a turmoil has no scientific credibility whatsoever any more. I cannot believe any scientists with the credentials of those in this thread would dream of doing something along the lines of the accusations being levied here. It would be a total career ender.

So can we try to get past those two issues and deal with what really matters?

I am a technical diver and a technical diving instructor. As a technical diver, I want to be confident that the protocols I am following are within the best practices of current knowledge. I want to go into a dive with the confidence that after it is over I will be enjoying a comfortable drink with friends rather than staring at the walls of a recompression chamber--or worse. More importantly, as a trimix instructor, I want to give my students the best possible information. I feel responsible for their welfare, and I don't want to let them down. I am reasonably capable in terms of scientific theory, but I am simply not in the league with the best minds on this thread, and I rely on the best advice I can get from those minds. I read through the deep stops thread in Rebreather World to the point of exhaustion (but not to the end) and adjusted my practices and my teaching to the best of my ability based upon what I read. I have not read the the rebreather thread that preceded this one, but I have read this one as carefully as I can. Sadly, when I read this thread in search of information, I am met primarily with personal attacks such as I described above.

I would really, really like it if people could help me and my future students by summarizing key results in practical detail. A couple months ago, I went diving with someone who is on a par with the scientists participating in this thread, a person who consults with NASA and the Pentagon with decompression issues related to high altitude flight. We discussed the deep stops thread, and he was able to tell me in clear terms how the research there had informed his diving decisions. It was very helpful, and I did change some of my practices as a result.

Would it be too much to ask the same thing here? Could people who have studied this latest research describe what impact it has had on their personal diving decisions?

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

First of all, i agee that Ross could easily make any adjustments to his software offerings that he wants whenever he wants. Getting ahead of the curve would do him a world of good, so accusing him of making his statements for financial gain seems a bit off to me.

Hello John,

Ross's financial interest in discussions around decompression (particularly deep stops) would fit squarely with the definitions of a conflict embodied in any scientific journal editorial guidelines or the guidelines for disclosure in presenting at any scientific conference. Observing that he has a financial conflict of interest in respect of these discussions is a simple statement of fact and is in no way an unsubstantiated allegation. There is a very good reason why journals and conferences are so strict about conflict declarations from people providing opinions to the public.

On the other hand, accusing a scientist of misconduct in research and its reporting (etc.) is extremely serious.

Yes it is, especially when clearly documented as this has been on a public forum.

I cannot believe any scientists with the credentials of those in this thread would dream of doing something along the lines of the accusations being levied here. It would be a total career ender.

You are quite right and nobody need have any worries that any of this has occurred. For example, if Ross could produce any proof of me having been involved in "paying trolls" on the RBW thread I will eat a turd whilst wandering around the main hall at Tek Dive USA wearing only placards advertising VPM. I obviously make this offer in total confidence that such proof would be impossible to produce (because it didn't happen), and I would ask that you reflect on the mentality and ethics of someone who would make false allegations of this nature on a public forum.

Could people who have studied this latest research describe what impact it has had on their personal diving decisions?

It probably should have no impact at this stage. David and his colleagues have performed studies in both animals and humans that appear to refute the assumed need to penalise helium use with longer decompressions in the type of deep bounce diving we do. HOWEVER, we have reason to suspect that those penalties for helium may have resulted in appropriate decompressions from deep dives where helium is typically used; in other words, deep dives need longer decompressions irrespective of the gas you use. We can't rule that out at this stage anyway. So, we do not recommend that anyone goes out and starts shortening their usual decompression from deep dives, or that we start messing with our computers by telling them we are breathing nitrogen when we are really breathing helium. In the fulness of time we will elucidate a sensible application of this new knowledge in the optimisation of decompression, but now is not the time to be making changes. Hope this helps.

Simon M

 

[ajduplessis]

Hello AJ,



Good to see you setting an example of professional behaviour and the non-proliferation of insults.



I will settle for 95,000 hits, a poll that demonstrated over 90% of readers adopted the viewpoint we debated, and a subsequent palpable shift in the way gradient factors are being applied.

It was a lot of work, but the result was worthwhile.

Simon M

Latest poll also shows thousands of people believing in Bigfoot. Seriously, is a poll your "go to place" to show it MUST be so?