Actually, I'm saying if a scenario brings about X% cases of DCS with a given decompression method, and those results cannot be replicated elsewhere using the same decompression method, likely it's another factor than decompression method in that scenario that caused those cases of DCS.
Right--that is indeed how they explained to me.
That said that the proof that RD works is that people don't get bent using it. When I pointed out the number of people in our small group who got bent, they said they did not count, because they got bent for some other reason. What was that other reason? Don't know. How do you know it was not RD? Because people don't get bent using RD, so any case in which it happens has to be caused by something else.
Hard to beat that kind of logic.
Now these dives were all done at altitude, so I was concerned at that time with using RD at altitude. We were told specifically and emphatically that altitude was not a factor in decompression, so RD could be used without changing at altitude. As Andrew explained it to me, he knows this to be true because he dives at Lake Tahoe using RD, and he is fine. It has therefore been empirically tested by none other than Andrew himself.
I was not convinced, and i started a thread on ScubaBoard in which I described this situation and asked for input on altitude considerations for decompression. I was then threatened by a UTD instructor, who said that I should have said that none of those cases were caused by RD, because RD does not lead to DCS, either at sea level or at altitude. I was told that if I were to post anything like that again (as I am now), I would be reported to PADI for disparaging UTD. PADI professionals are not allowed to disparage other agencies, and I was told that a public mention of people getting bent while using RD would be disparaging the agency, and I could be expelled and lose my PADI instructor status.