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

[Diver0001]

I think you are actually missing something. What you are saying here, and in subsequent posts, is that the deep stop time in the NEDU A2 (deep stops) schedule needed to be compensated for by additional shallow stop time - that is the essence of the “shallow stops” paradigm. Under this shallow stops paradigm, you can do as [many] deep stops as you want, as long as they are part of a longer decompression - this can be extended all the way to doing for first stop essentially at the bottom and doing a saturation decompression. However, the “deep stops” paradigm is that time spent at “deep stops” is more than compensated for by reduced time at shallow stops. The NEDU test was a comparison of these two paradigms – hence the title, “Redistribution of decompression stop time…”.

Yes, David, this is exactly what I was trying to say. It's been pretty obvious since 2003 that the deep stop paradigm where it relates to shortening shallow stops has serious problems because by definition it leads to a deeper average depth for a given run time. Your profile was extreme which confused me because it looked more like muti-level stages than "stops" so it made me think something was wrong. However, I guess by taking an extreme example you've managed to illustrate the point that deep stops and average depth are each other's co-joined twins and therefore deep stops can't be compensated for by shorter shallow stops and in fact requires longer shallow stops. In your case it would have required a 6m stop that was 25 minutes longer than it was. It's blatantly obvious that it should work like this and it's good that the science backs it up.

If you accept the notion that the NEDU deep stops (A2) schedule resulted in more DCS than the shallow stops (A1) schedule because of continued gas uptake into slow compartments and consequently greater supersaturation in those compartments later in decompression – and this is the most plausible explanation – then any schedule showing this pattern is likely to be similarly disadvantaged.

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out by putting it in terms of average depth.

In an analysis of the time-integral of supersaturation (to assess both the magnitude and the duration, because both are important to bubble formation and growth) in fast and slow compartments for half a million alternative schedules with different distributions of 174 minutes of stops, we found that every schedule with any amount of time allocated to deeper stops than the A1 schedule resulted in the same disadvantageous pattern of increased and longer lasting supersaturation.

Which is intuitively exactly what you would expect.

The hypothesis that one of these alternative deep stops schedules might have been better than the A1 shallow stops schedule is to ask the question whether that alternative schedule could be better to despite this disadvantageous pattern of supersaturation. Maybe, but on the basis of currently available evidence, I do not see that as a plausible hypothesis.

Well... yeah. Any profile that would have shortened the deep stops and gotten the diver shallow earlier (making the average depth shallower over the run time) would have been better than the schedule you used. I started out with the disclaimer that I thought I must have been missing something and having read what you wrote above I get it. It's not so much about this specific schedule as the principle that ANY schedule following the same pattern will be similarly disadvantaged to one degree or another. That caused the coin to drop. Thanks.

R..

 

[David Doolette]

Yes, David, this is exactly what I was trying to say. It's been pretty obvious since 2003 that the deep stop paradigm where it relates to shortening shallow stops has serious problems because by definition it leads to a deeper average depth for a given run time. Your profile was extreme which confused me because it looked more like muti-level stages than "stops" so it made me think something was wrong. However, I guess by taking an extreme example you've managed to illustrate the point that deep stops and average depth are each other's co-joined twins and therefore deep stops can't be compensated for by shorter shallow stops and in fact requires longer shallow stops. In your case it would have required a 6m stop that was 25 minutes longer than it was. It's blatantly obvious that it should work like this and it's good that the science backs it up.

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out by putting it in terms of average depth.

Which is intuitively exactly what you would expect.

Well... yeah. Any profile that would have shortened the deep stops and gotten the diver shallow earlier (making the average depth shallower over the run time) would have been better than the schedule you used. I started out with the disclaimer that I thought I must have been missing something and having read what you wrote above I get it. It's not so much about this specific schedule as the principle that ANY schedule following the same pattern will be similarly disadvantaged to one degree or another. That caused the coin to drop. Thanks.

R..

Yes to all the above - except in 2003 we (authors of the NEDU deep stops study) still believed 'deeps stops' might be more efficient than 'shallow stops'. Of course, we chose to test the paradigms using models we had in-house. BVM(3) is a sophisticated model of bubble growth and dissolution in tissue, it fit to the calibration data as well as any other models, it provided better estimates of PDCS for non-calibration (validation) data than other models, and the schedules it produced looked plausible in comparison to other (gas-content) probabilistic algorithms that had been man-tested. But when man-tested under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, the bubble model-optimum schedule was far from the true optimum (wherever that is). It is a good object lesson to not believe your models too much.

David Doolette

 

[rossh]

Here is the VPM-B version of the hypothetical question - how to make VPM-B produce the A1 and A2 profiles.

It shows below, how to make the A1 and A2 profiles, by using ZHL+GF and VPM-B models. Now neither model will do it easily or properly, but with enough fiddles, those are the numbers needed to do it. You can see the A1 is not too hard to replicate, but A2 is a real unique and contorted mess of a thing. A2 is like nothing else.

data for the above

The method used it to manipulate VPM-B Critical Radius settings until it gives the matching stop time at each level.

It should be obvious that it is impossible to actually force VPM-B into making the shallow A1 & A2 plans. The settings needed to do this are way outside the normal range.


Here is the ZHL-C + GF version again.

data for the above

 

[Diver0001]

Yes to all the above - except in 2003 we (authors of the NEDU deep stops study) still believed 'deeps stops' might be more efficient than 'shallow stops'.

Mark's 250 metre dive in 2003 when he nearly died from using Wienke's algorithm basically killed RGBM for serious technical divers. Bruce was hammering *hard* at this idea but Mark proved by putting his own life on the line, that it was bull****. At that time we also saw that average depth was the culprit.

Of course, we chose to test the paradigms using models we had in-house. BVM(3) is a sophisticated model of bubble growth and dissolution in tissue, it fit to the calibration data as well as any other models, it provided better estimates of PDCS for non-calibration (validation) data than other models, and the schedules it produced looked plausible in comparison to other (gas-content) probabilistic algorithms that had been man-tested. But when man-tested under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, the bubble model-optimum schedule was far from the true optimum (wherever that is). It is a good object lesson to not believe your models too much.

I understand that several of the research team are technical divers. I'm actually amazed that none of them raised alarm bells. The profile that BVM3 generated was clearly broken (and clearly as sophisticated as it is) the model is broken as compared to everything we know about deco theory. I get that this extreme profile is one of many in the same "pattern" that don't work but you guys are off on a tangent that most technical divers need help to follow.


David Doolette[/QUOTE]

 

[shoredivr]

How ironic, the VPM-B +7 arguement and rebuttal was covered on the Rebreatherworld thread exactly 2 years ago to the day by CYS.




http://www.rebreatherworld.com/show...t-rate-thread)&p=445156&highlight=#post445156


Post 855 December 27, 2013


Re: Deep stops debate (split from ascent rate thread)


Originally Posted by rossh:
"There is no such thing as VPM-B+7. You just made that up to fit with your efforts of diversions and coercions."


Reply from CYS:


"The critical radius of 1.01 used in VPM-B+7 is less than 1.3, a value derived from the foundational VPM published gel studies. How can you reconcile your assertion that 1.01 is made up/not valid in view of this? Are the below Yount/Maiken/Baker references to a critical radius of 1.3/1.35 also made up?




"David E. Yount, Eric B. Maiken, Erik C. Baker, Implications of the Varying Permeability Model for Reverse Dive Profiles, Reverse Dive Profiles Workshop, October 29 and 30, 1999, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Pg14:
"In Figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19, the inert-gas loadings by compartment are compared with the respective Bühlmann ZH-L16B M-values. In Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20, the inert-gas loadings by compartment are compared with the VPM isopleths of constant bubble number. These lines of fixed gradient are shown upon surfacing and are labeled with the initial radius r0 assigned at the start of the dive series. A range of initial radii from 0.2 μm to 1.3 μm was selected on the basis of experimental values (Yount, Yeung, and Ingle 1979) and (Yount, Gillary, and Hoffman 1984)."




VPM-B Fortran Program:
PROGRAM VPM-B
C================================================= ==============================
C Varying Permeability Model (VPM) Decompression Program in FORTRAN
C with Boyle's Law compensation algorithm (VPM-B)
C
C Author: Erik C. Baker
C
C "DISTRIBUTE FREELY - CREDIT THE AUTHORS"
C
C This program extends the 1986 VPM algorithm (Yount & Hoffman) to include
C mixed gas, repetitive, and altitude diving. Developments to the algorithm
C were made by David E. Yount, Eric B. Maiken, and Erik C. Baker over a
C period from 1999 to 2001.
.
.
.
IF ((Critical_Radius_N2_Microns .LT. 0.2) .OR.
* (Critical_Radius_N2_Microns .GT. 1.35))
THEN
CALL SYSTEMQQ (OS_Command)
WRITE (*,903)
WRITE (*,900)
STOP 'PROGRAM TERMINATED'
END IF
.
.
.

Here is the VPM-B version of the hypothetical question - how to make VPM-B produce the A1 and A2 profiles.

data for the above

The method used it to manipulate VPM-B Critical Radius settings until it gives the matching stop time at each level.

It should be obvious that it is impossible to actually force VPM-B into making the shallow A1 & A2 plans. The settings needed to do this are way outside the normal range.


Here is the ZHL-C + GF version again.

data for the above

 

[tomfcrist]

Mark's 250 metre dive in 2003 when he nearly died from using Wienke's algorithm basically killed RGBM for serious technical divers. Bruce was hammering *hard* at this idea but Mark proved by putting his own life on the line, that it was bull****. At that time we also saw that average depth was the culprit. ]

You put a lot of weight on Marks dive. Let's not forget that he says he used RGBM(Abysmal) many times and got bent EVERY time. So he's either full of ****, or he has a PFO the size of Linda Lovelace's throat on top of being a moron for continually bending himself with a model he KNEW would bend him.

Just some clarity.

 

[rossh]

However, the “deep stops” paradigm is that time spent at “deep stops” is more than compensated for by reduced time at shallow stops.

No - that is 12 years out of date, and no longer used or available. Deep stop / bubble models do have extra shallow time to match the added minor uptake of deep stops. Simple checks with half times and saturation levels can verify that.

If you accept the notion that the NEDU deep stops (A2) schedule resulted in more DCS than the shallow stops (A1) schedule because of continued gas uptake into slow compartments and consequently greater supersaturation in those compartments later in decompression – and this is the most plausible explanation – then any schedule showing this pattern is likely to be similarly disadvantaged.

"...is the most plausible explanation - then any schedule showing this pattern is likely to be similarly disadvantaged"


Exactly - that is is the pertinent question: Are the patterns the same from the test dives to the tech diving schedules? Answer is no.


There is a gap between nedu test profiles and tech profiles. Nedu profiles are absent tech style deep stops, and tech profiles are absent the extended shallow difference of the nedu profiles. The schedules in use in tech diving, do not have the same pattern as the test profiles.



But the believers, offer no science to bridge the gap and show a valid connection. All they provide is fallacy and noise, and stretched out excuses to cover things up.












---------- Post added December 27th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ----------

How ironic, the VPM-B +7 arguement and rebuttal was covered on the Rebreatherworld thread exactly 2 years ago to the day by CYS.

This whole +7 fallacy is an excuse that is made up to pretend two dissimilar things are the same, and avoid providing a valid science or valid math connection.


A "+7" dive has a first deep stop at 110ft, while the nedu test is at 70ft or 40 ft. Does 110ft = 70ft?



I guess you missed the meaning in the post you quoted. It shows how to make the A1 and A2 profiles, by using ZHL+GF and VPM-B models. Now neither model will do it easily or properly, but with enough fiddles, those are the numbers needed to do it. You can see the A1 is not too hard to replicate, but A2 is a real unique and contorted mess of a thing. A2 is like nothing else.


The speedometer in my car goes up to 240 kmh, but I'm quite sure it will never go that fast, and no sensible person would ever try it. The same is true for the CR range - the 0.2-1.35 are not valid ranges - they are just arbitrary limits for error checking the input data.

the +7 is not the same as the nedu test. To make the nedu test you need a range of -10 to +30 (CR 0.18 to 4.0+), which is way outside the 0.2 to 1.35.


That +7 is too far off scale to considered realistic. We don't offer it for that very reason.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

....the model is broken as compared to everything we know (my emphasis) about deco theory...

Hello,
I truly think you are mistaking "know" for "believe" here. If you are implying that we "know" that what we currently do as tech divers is optimal practice or some sort of proven standard against which everything else must be judged then that is wrong. Indeed, although we "know" that our current decompression practice (whichever approach you choose) works most of the time, we have no idea where it sits in relation to what is tryly optimal because no one has done the research to answer that question. It follows that you can't deem the NEDU deep stops algorithm to be "broken" just because it doesn't look like what we normally do. We don't know how effective what we normally do would be under the same circumstances. Indeed, if you did a much shorter VPM-B+4 decompression from the same test dive (depth, time, exercise, temperature, prospectively monitored outcomes) then you would almost certainly get a higher incidence of DCS. The BVM model used in the study correctly predicted the incidence of DCS associated with its own decompression prescription - hardly broken.

"...is the most plausible explanation - then any schedule showing this pattern is likely to be similarly disadvantaged"
Exactly - that is is the pertinent question: Are the patterns the same from the test dives to the tech diving schedules? Answer is no.
There is a gap between nedu test profiles and tech profiles. Nedu profiles are absent tech style deep stops, and tech profiles are absent the extended shallow difference of the nedu profiles. The schedules in use in tech diving, do not have the same pattern as the test profiles.

You have completely missed David's point. In the deep stops skew analysis in the NEDU report (which anyone can obtain) the calculations of tissue supersaturation for the half million hypothetical profiles (which include many with decompression patterns similar or the same as all tech diving approaches) demonstrated that virtually all of those emphasising deep stops suffer the same problem (increased supersaturation in slower tissues) as the NEDU deep stops profile in comparison with the NEDU shallow stops profile. UWSojourner has also demonstrated the same thing in his comparison of VPM-B+4 and GF 40:74.

But the believers, offer no science to bridge the gap and show a valid connection. All they provide is fallacy and noise, and stretched out excuses to cover things up.

I must confess that this really made me laugh. In this particular debate the ONLY side with ANY solid outcome-based science are the "believers" as you refer to them / us. In fact, the "believer" sobriquet would, in this case, be far more appropriately applied to you; clinging as you do to a belief that aggressive deep stopping somehow magically reduces DCS in the absence of ANY supporting outcome-based evidence, and ignoring an increasing body of theoretical, pathophysiological, and outcome-based evidence that suggests you are wrong.
If you disagree with this, here is a simple question for you Ross: show me the evidence that bubble models are better than other approaches that place less emphasis on deep stops.

This whole +7 fallacy is an excuse that is made up to pretend two dissimilar things are the same, and avoid providing a valid science or valid math connection.

No amount of "insisting" on your part is going to erase the FACT that +7 is well within the VPM model parameters described by pioneer authors (of which you are not one).

A "+7" dive has a first deep stop at 110ft, while the nedu test is at 70ft or 40 ft. Does 110ft = 70ft?

Those few short extra deep stops in the VPM dive just make the relative tissue supersaturation problem worse (unless you believe in magic). The +7 and NEDU deep stop profiles are very similar (as has been clearly illustrated in the various comparative figures).

That +7 is too far off scale to considered realistic. We don't offer it for that very reason.

As above, +7 is well within the original model parameters. I accept you had to make a decision about what to offer in your software... that is fine. I can also accept that the decision was arbitrary (of necessity). However, you are implying that it was somehow objective. Can you please describe the data / evidence that allows you to claim that +7 is "too far off scale to be considered realistic"? The designation of off-scale for diving looks pretty on your diagram, but it is just an arbitrary judgement on your part. Are you REALLY saying that your model works on low conservatism but not higher conservatism??? I thought you had insisted on many occasions that it was internally consistent.
Also, earlier in this thread you made a serious allegation about "paid trolls" operating on the RBW deep stops debate. Your failure to this point to produce any evidence in support of this allegation suggests your internet behaviour has degenerated to the point where you believe it is OK to fabricate and post unsubstantiated damaging allegations about those who debate you. Can you please provide this evidence or withdraw the allegation.
Thanks,
Simon M

 

[rossh]

Hello,
I truly think you are mistaking "know" for "believe" here. If you are implying that we "know" that what we currently do as tech divers is optimal practice or some sort of proven standard against which everything else must be judged then that is wrong. Indeed, although we "know" that our current decompression practice (whichever approach you choose) works most of the time, we have no idea where it sits in relation to what is tryly optimal because no one has done the research to answer that question. It follows that you can't deem the NEDU deep stops algorithm to be "broken" just because it doesn't look like what we normally do. We don't know how effective what we normally do would be under the same circumstances. Indeed, if you did a much shorter VPM-B+4 decompression from the same test dive (depth, time, exercise, temperature, prospectively monitored outcomes) then you would almost certainly get a higher incidence of DCS. The BVM model used in the study correctly predicted the incidence of DCS associated with its own decompression prescription - hardly broken.

You have completely missed David's point. In the deep stops skew analysis in the NEDU report (which anyone can obtain) the calculations of tissue supersaturation for the half million hypothetical profiles (which include many with decompression patterns similar or the same as all tech diving approaches) demonstrated that virtually all of those emphasising deep stops suffer the same problem (increased supersaturation in slower tissues) as the NEDU deep stops profile in comparison with the NEDU shallow stops profile. UWSojourner has also demonstrated the same thing in his comparison of VPM-B+4 and GF 40:74.

I must confess that this really made me laugh. In this particular debate the ONLY side with ANY solid outcome-based science are the "believers" as you refer to them / us. In fact, the "believer" sobriquet would, in this case, be far more appropriately applied to you; clinging as you do to a belief that aggressive deep stopping somehow magically reduces DCS in the absence of ANY supporting outcome-based evidence, and ignoring an increasing body of theoretical, pathophysiological, and outcome-based evidence that suggests you are wrong.
If you disagree with this, here is a simple question for you Ross: show me the evidence that bubble models are better than other approaches that place less emphasis on deep stops.

No amount of "insisting" on your part is going to erase the FACT that +7 is well within the VPM model parameters described by pioneer authors (of which you are not one).

Those few short extra deep stops in the VPM dive just make the relative tissue supersaturation problem worse (unless you believe in magic). The +7 and NEDU deep stop profiles are very similar (as has been clearly illustrated in the various comparative figures).

As above, +7 is well within the original model parameters. I accept you had to make a decision about what to offer in your software... that is fine. I can also accept that the decision was arbitrary (of necessity). However, you are implying that it was somehow objective. Can you please describe the data / evidence that allows you to claim that +7 is "too far off scale to be considered realistic"? The designation of off-scale for diving looks pretty on your diagram, but it is just an arbitrary judgement on your part. Are you REALLY saying that your model works on low conservatism but not higher conservatism??? I thought you had insisted on many occasions that it was internally consistent.
Also, earlier in this thread you made a serious allegation about "paid trolls" operating on the RBW deep stops debate. Your failure to this point to produce any evidence in support of this allegation suggests your internet behaviour has degenerated to the point where you believe it is OK to fabricate and post unsubstantiated damaging allegations about those who debate you. Can you please provide this evidence or withdraw the allegation.
Thanks,
Simon M

Simon,

It's not my job to show you new science. It's your job because you have the new ideas, and you need to justify them. The nedu test is science for navy test profiles, but it is NOT science for tech diving profiles. You have nothing valid that connects the nedu test to the tech profiles.

There is a big gap between them. Nedu test has no deep stops; tech profiles have no extended shallow stops. The two profile types cross paths in the middle, but are different in many ways.

The plausible explanation you offered to bridge that gap before, has been shown to be invalid - using the very same theory and math that is in David's report.

David's plausible explanation above is all fine and well for the test conditions, but the test conditions are not present in tech diving, so the explanation is mute. Same goes for the geometry exercise in fitting different sized stops to arrive at a million variations.

The deep stop skew that is spoken of, is alreday accounted for in ZHL+GF and VPM-B by Haldane and Schreiner equations, and is easily verified using the formula of the test, as incorporated into MultiDeco. If you feel that VPM-B does not address it properly, then you have to be equally critical of the same formula that track this in ZHL+GF.


The comparison between VPM-B+4 and a ZHL+GF dive of some length is meaningless to the deep stop discussion. GF has such wide variance, and can be made into any profile shape desired, because GF has no basis definition. As such it becomes an argument of "my profile is longer and slower than your profile". That's all fine and well, but its not evidence of failure of one or the other - just a difference.


This +7 nonsense is a gross exaggeration, and simply not used or available. And its being used as deception to feed a string of other faked up connections and associations. Its one supposition on top of another, orchestrated by a marketing troll.


So where is it Simon? What is the quality link and connection between the nedu test and the tech practices. No BS this time, no stretched out excuses and fantasy or "guilt by association" nonsense allowed please.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Simon, It's not my job to show you new science.

I'm not asking for new science Ross. I'm asking for ANY science that demonstrates better outcomes for profiles emphasising deep stops. I can understand people believing it must exist, but they might get a surprise if they look. The frequently overlooked truth in this debate is that bubble models were only ever a theory that became so attractive that almost everyone started using them, but there is not a shred of outcome evidence that the deep stop component of the decompressions they prescribe actually add anything.

In contrast, there is evidence from multiple studies in which venous gas emboli have been used as an outcome measure, and from the NEDU study in which human DCS was the outcome measure, to suggest that emphasising deep stops in decompression dives is not optimal.

This is the simple truth as at this date in 2015. If you feel comfortable aggressively defending and promoting a bubble model approach to decompression in that milieu, one in which the world's most knowledgeable decompression scientists (and I am not including myself in that categorisation) are discouraging your message, then good for you.

It's your job because you have the new ideas, and you need to justify them.

This has been done, over and over and over again.

The nedu test is science for navy test profiles, but it is NOT science for tech diving profiles. You have nothing valid that connects the nedu test to the tech profiles.

The NEDU test scientists obviously do not believe that perspective and neither do I. The entire RBW thread was about evaluating the relevance of the NEDU study to technical diving.

There is a big gap between them. Nedu test has no deep stops; tech profiles have no extended shallow stops. The two profile types cross paths in the middle, but are different in many ways.

Go back and read the long post by David Doolette that was cross posted earlier on this thread.

The plausible explanation you offered to bridge that gap before, has been shown to be invalid - using the very same theory and math that is in David's report.

No it has not. Your rebuttal comparisons focussed on peak supersaturation rather than on an integral of supersaturation and time. It is the latter that matters, and yes, shallow stops produce higher (but transient) supersaturation peaks in fast tissues early in the ascent but this does not seem to matter, whereas the problem with deep stops is that they produce a greater "integrated supersaturation" in slow tissues later in the ascent. This is almost certainly the source of the long periods of venous bubbling after surfacing, which pathophysiological studies are increasingly suggesting are responsible for causing serious DCS.

David's plausible explanation above is all fine and well for the test conditions, but the test conditions are not present in tech diving, so the explanation is mute. Same goes for the geometry exercise in fitting different sized stops to arrive at a million variations.

You are completely missing the point of the simulated "million variations": those inevitably included decompressions that looked far more like the shorter deep stop approaches you promote, but the tissue supersaturation analysis showed that they all still suffer from the same problem (to greater or lesser degrees).... greater supersaturation in slow tissues later in the ascent.

The deep stop skew that is spoken of, is alreday accounted for in ZHL+GF and VPM-B by Haldane and Schreiner equations, and is easily verified using the formula of the test, as incorporated into MultiDeco. If you feel that VPM-B does not address it properly, then you have to be equally critical of the same formula that track this in ZHL+GF.

This is incorrect. The equations are just methods for tracking gas pressures (and therefore supersaturation) in tissues. It is how you then arrange your decompression based on beliefs about how much supersaturation different tissues can tolerate at different depths that determines the deep stop skew.

The comparison between VPM-B+4 and a ZHL+GF dive of some length is meaningless to the deep stop discussion. GF has such wide variance, and can be made into any profile shape desired, because GF has no basis definition. As such it becomes an argument of "my profile is longer and slower than your profile". That's all fine and well, but its not evidence of failure of one or the other - just a difference.

Ross, when UWSojourner compared VPMB+4 and a GF 40:74 decompression dive that was unequivocally relevant to technical rebreather diving he demonstrated that the VPM profile produced the same unfavourable distribution of supersaturation between fast (protected early in ascent) and slow (more supersaturation late in ascent) tissues as was found to be associated with worse outcomes in the NEDU study. If you want to believe that the outcomes would somehow be different if those VPM and GF dives he analysed were actually compared in a human experiment then be my guest, but the you cannot deny the simple physical facts of the analysis.

This +7 nonsense is a gross exaggeration, and simply not used or available. And its being used as deception to feed a string of other faked up connections and associations. Its one supposition on top of another, orchestrated by a marketing troll.

So says a software writer about the work performed by the originators of the model. I asked you before and you ignored it. What is your basis for saying this? Why do you claim the model works on low conservatism but not high conservatism?? Sounds ridiculous to me.

And where is the evidence supporting your allegation that there were "paid trolls" operating on the RBW thread?

Simon M