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

[rossh]

So why don't you publish the data?

What do you want to know? You can search on most of it now. Its purpose is to document tech practices. We did not collect outcomes, because we have DAN PDE for that.

A second system was tied into the above data base with the DAN PDE survey reporting system, and divers were required to give outcome surveys to that. 7% of divers records were submitted with reports to DAN PDE.

.

 

[Storker]

entirely made up [...] to fabricate an non-existent data point [...] a clear attempt to deceive the public.

Someone has obviously not read - or understood - boulderjohn's mod post on page 3 of this thread:

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

The reason the other thread was closed was because of the flurry of personal attacks.

[...] In the previous thread, words like fake and phony were red flags because of the implication of an attack on an individual's character. [...] To say that a position is fake or phony, on the other hand, means that the other's position is a deliberate misrepresentation with the intent to deceive, and it is thus a personal attack. [...]if you have clear information showing that the opposing view is in fact a deliberate attempt to deceive, then that is a legitimate point, but you had better be able to prove that intent to the satisfaction of others, especially the moderators.

---

Added for clarification: As I'm participating in this thread, I am not in any way speaking or acting as a moderator here. My posts in this thread reflect only my own personal opinions, which carry just as much weight as any other member's opinions in the thread.

 

[rossh]

Someone has obviously not read - or understood - the mod post on page 3 of this thread:

NO. YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY FAVORITES !

Simon asked: " .... way of a reminder, could you explain how VPM B/E+5 is sanctioned whilst VPM B+7 is considered "fake"."


He asked the question - he gets his answer, as nicely worded as I possibly can.

.

 

[Storker]

We did not collect outcomes

Right. So you have no idea of the incidence of DCS. That makes the data... let's say "less valuable"... for assessing DCS risk for a bubble algorithm vs a disolved-gas algorithm.

 

[rossh]

Right. So you have no idea of the incidence of DCS. That makes the data... let's say "less valuable"... for assessing DCS risk for a bubble algorithm vs a disolved-gas algorithm.

DAN PDE knows the exact profiles used in every report, the model , the gases, the whole deal.



Use the search functions. 71% are VPM-B or B/E plans. Of those, half are in the 0-1-2 range of conservatism.

Take a look at few page of dive plans.... look at 10 random pages (250 dives) You get the picture.

Take in the big big picture of a decade of dive trends and models. You have all the answers right there.


*****

We wanted to collect tech practices first, and outcome if possible. As a result, we got a huge record of real world dive practices - does not exist anywhere else. Version 2 of this will be even better.

We made that decision a long ago, that trying to isolate one troubled individual plan is a waste of time. And we were correct. The 6 injuries that I know about in there, the plans are as mundane and ordinary as any other. There is nothing to be found or seen in the profile stress, because we don't have enough of it these days, to create an issue. If the industry standard injury averages of 1:5,000 to 1:10,000 is accurate, then there should be 14 to 28 injuries in there.


.

 

[oya]

There is theorizing and hand waving, but no measures. Despite this, the near-religious fervor is often felt."

I honestly believe this Pollock quote gets to the very heart of these, now, zillion pages.

Most of what I've said has been pretty flip or (weak attempts at) satire. The point of that has been mostly to amuse myself or those other rational folks who see what sense there is to be made in all this.

But I've been framing this by the measure flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, or climate deniers.

On one side there is scientific concensus and growing public concensus/awareness. On the other there are a few people with no proof, but with the fervent BELIEF they are right. They have put a lot of time and energy and work and thought into being right... So they know, it must be true, they must be right. Their worldview just doesn't allow for options, so any data, even that DIRECTLY CONTRARY to their position will be read in a way that supports their position anyway.

I admire Drs. Doolette and Mitchell for engaging and trying to set everyone on the right intellectual and scientific course. I appreciate everyone's participation in this "debate;" I've been learning much and enjoying some of the academic exercises of the conversation.

But for those trying to change minds or argue successfully with someone so deeply entrenched in their (even indefensible) position... we might as well be arguing about favorite color.

And the Decorusades are fought on!

 

[rossh]

I honestly believe this Pollock quote gets to the very heart of these, now, zillion pages.

Most of what I've said has been pretty flip or (weak attempts at) satire. The point of that has been mostly to amuse myself or those other rational folks who see what sense there is to be made in all this.

But I've been framing this by the measure flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, or climate deniers.

On one side there is scientific concensus and growing public concensus/awareness. On the other there are a few people with no proof, but with the fervent BELIEF they are right. They have put a lot of time and energy and work and thought into being right... So they know, it must be true, they must be right. Their worldview just doesn't allow for options, so any data, even that DIRECTLY CONTRARY to their position will be read in a way that supports their position anyway.

I admire Drs. Doolette and Mitchell for engaging and trying to set everyone on the right intellectual and scientific course. I appreciate everyone's participation in this "debate;" I've been learning much and enjoying some of the academic exercises of the conversation.

But for those trying to change minds or argue successfully with someone so deeply entrenched in their (even indefensible) position... we might as well be arguing about favorite color.

And the Decorusades are fought on!

Have you been paying attention? I don't think so.

On the "concensus" side, the are using unconnected data, exaggerated science, non-existent problems, and trying to move away from a decade+ of great success. To achieve what? Nothing new or better.

In the process they damage perfectly good understanding and knowledge, of the existing works and deco theory.

How is any of that good for the public?

.

 

[victorzamora]

Many human dives are executed yearly utilising VPM-B without incident, not sure what you are on about.

You're joking, right? If you reread the sentence you quoted, it says "based off of".....not "has had no." Having some successful human dives is different than basing an algorithm off of man-testing. They're worlds apart.

And if you're just going to take anecdotal data as fact, then how about the dozens of VPM divers that have switched away from it due to continuous and persistent skin bends, subclinical DCS, niggles, and (in some cases) full-blown hits? How about many of those divers switching over to ZHL16C and having no continued issues over the same profiles? You should know what they say about the plural of anecdotes.

 

[dmaziuk]

... a range of values. If you want tight and tidy then it will be biological.

That's sarcasm, right? (Asking as a "it" geek doing research support for biochemists since the start of the century.)

 

[David Doolette]

But why the difference in VGE?? That's the important question....

• They all had the same absorbed level of gas load,
  
• They all had the same volume of gas to be removed...
  
• They performed life threatening direct ascents.
  
• Why did half convert some dissolved gas into a gaseous (microbubble) state, and half kept it in mostly dissolved state?

Of course this is all pulmonary DCS at work here .

The biological variability in gas uptake, washout, and VGE formation is a question, but not one relevant to the issue at hand: your refusal to accept the demonstrable correlation between VGE grade and risk of DCS, symptom severity, and extravascular free gas.

Since you mention pulmonary DCS again, how is the homework from post #162 going? In the human data I presented there showing a correlation of VGE grade with incidence of DCS, how big a difference is there in the number of actual pulmonary DCS cases and your contention they were all pulmonary DCS?