Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Simon Naunton schrieb: > >This can be done without tools. > >I do not know the tools needed for the cited check, but can imagine that > >it implies the use of well maintained binoculars ( not sure about the > >degree of magnification needed. > > True. Having the ability to perform more than one type of check is not a > good thing? true. Is there something like a 5 minute bubble check for laymen? > I would like to see more of this study as well, which is why I think George > is wrong to have dismissed it so quickly and on so little evidence. The > chamber they use is the main hyperbaric treatment facility in New South > Wales so the data could have been obtained from real patients. I suspect > that this is the case - for starters, it would be cheaper. this may well be. Does it constitute a more or less closed group of data because these will reflect the style of diving imposed down under by the Queensland laws ( no decompression diving, depth limits, use of computers ) ? > >If there is a sufficient number of observed data, there will be no > >concern of an alpha error, if not, following guidelines derived from > >this study will add accidents to the DCS statistics where divers > >received no timely treatment because they did not show a sufficient > >number of bubbles in their tear liqid, and this perhaps in spite of > >neurologic symptoms. > > Probably not. In Germany doctors may well adopt the attitude of "we are not > 100% sure you have (whatever ailment) so will not give you any treatment". There is some truth in this. Sometimes it affords to bully your way to a chamber. Hopefully you can communicate in the native language ( of which we have quite a few in Europe). > In the UK and Australia a doctor is likely to be more cautious. Hopefully Matthias > > > > >Matthias > > > >Simon Naunton schrieb: > > > > > > I see your point, if you live/dive in Europe or the US. However, if for > > > instance you live in Australia or the South Pacific where it may be > >several > > > thousand kms to the nearest chamber, a simple diagnosis tool may be a > >good > > > idea. > > > > > > >From: mat.voss@t-*.de* (Matthias Voss) > > > >To: Simon Naunton <snaunton@ho*.co*> > > > >CC: John.Brett@qu*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com > > > >Subject: Re: detecting bends > > > >Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:56:24 +0100 > > > > > > > >I did not keep the message refferring to the study, so this is only > >from > > > >my memory: > > > >Wasn't it said that Bennett _reported_ on the study ? So , if correct, > > > >he would not even need be directly related to this investigation, which > > > >seems, to my view, a bit obsolete. > > > > When a diver shows symptoms, and his history of decompression is > > > >known, then next steps/ measures are obvious. No need to treat someone > > > >with no symptoms. > > > > > > > >So , if this study even was on the right track, to what purpose I may > > > >question. > > > >If a diver showed symptoms, _then_ look into his liquids for bubbles, > > > >and, to decide _what exactly_, which would not have to be decided to > > > >begin with . Get a Heli _or not_ ? Throttle lLever down the dashboard > > > >_or not_ ? Report to the chamber _or not_ ? > > > >The mere idea gives me some chills, and a distinct notion to beware of > > > >quickshot medical reviews. > > > >Matthias > > > > > > > >Simon Naunton schrieb: > > > > > > > > > > >From: John.Brett@qu*.co* > > > > > >To: snaunton@ho*.co* > > > > > >Subject: RE: RE: detecting bends > > > > > >Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 04:42:19 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because this is an forum for the discussion of technical > > > > > > > diving and another > > > > > > > diver made a statement I happened to disagree with on the > > > > > > > basis of the facts presented. > > > > > > > > > > > >I'm still struggling to work out what basis you have on > > > > > >which to express your disagreement. Do you have more > > > > > >knowledge than the WKPP about decompression? > > > > > > > > > > Errmm... no, and I haven't claimed to have. > > > > > > > > > > >Do you know > > > > > >Dr Bennett? > > > > > > > > > > Not personnally. How, apart from being a leader for you to name > >drop, is > > > > > this relevant? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strictly speaking, we are not talking about > > > > > > > decompression, we are > > > > > > > talking about the possibility of a simple method of > > > > > > > determining whether a diver has DCI or not. > > > > > > > > > > > >Ugh! It seems that you haven't understood G's comments. > > > > > >Detecting *venous* bubbles isn't the same as detecting > > > > > >a bend - a PFO makes a *big* difference to their significance. > > > > > >There's also far more going on at the sub-clinical level > > > > > >before you get visible symptoms, by which time the damage > > > > > >is done. > > > > > > > > > > So are you saying that once someone is bent then there is no point > >in > > > > > attempting treatment? > > > > > > > > > > I have sent this in a mail that has yet to appear on the list, but > >are > > > >these > > > > > venous bubbles? Could they not have been formed directly from gas in > >the > > > > > divers mask? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of > > > > > > > > > the achievements you have made with the WKPP, which are > > > > > > > > > truly impressive, I > > > > > > > > > am more inclined to believe a doctor who specialises in > > > > > > > > > hyperbaric medicine than yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Your loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subjective. It could be considered you loss as well. > > > > > > > > > > > >I know how to deco, thanks to G. > > > > > > > > > > I too have learned from him. I reiterate that I am in no way > >challenging > > > >his > > > > > deco procedures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so sure. A prostitute would probably be able to give a > > > > > > > trick or two on > > > > > > > avoiding the clap, but a doctor would be far more likely to > > > > > > > be able to tell > > > > > > > you what is going on in the body with some degree of > > > > > > > accuracy. Similarly, > > > > > > > George and the WKPP are a wealth of information on deco > > > > > > > practice, however, > > > > > > > AFAIK none of them have spent enough time at med school, if > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill Mee is a doctor of microbiology (WKPP project engineer) > > > > > > > > > > Did he attended medical school? BTW I am not trying not to be > > > >provocative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any time at all, > > > > > > > to go up to a hyperbaric doctor and tell him he is wrong, > > > > > > > particularly with > > > > > > > the minute amount of information presented in the email. > > > > > > > > > > > >Dr Hamilton goes to the WKPP for advice... > > > > > > > > > > I thought the WKPP acted as test-ish subjects-ish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read somewhere that George was a stock broker. I believe > > > > > > > that Dr Bennett > > > > > > > is very active in his field, both treating patients and > > > > > > > conducting research, so could hardly be called a theoretician. > > > > > > > > > > > >So just how much do you know about Dr Michael Bennett? > > > > > >Does he actually dive? > > > > > > > > > > Not much. I don't know. What is the relevence of whether he dives or > > > >not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the same token though, I do not > > > > > > > believe that any of the WKPP have ever sold their bodies for > > > > > > > the sexual > > > > > > > gratification of another party, but I also have never met any > > > > > > > of them so > > > > > > > that is pure speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > >Speculation appears to form the basis of your arguments. > > > > > >Not the best basis on which to work. > > > > > >I've tested G's decompression strategy to the best of > > > > > >my ability, so I have a little more basis than speculation > > > > > >on which to rate G's opinions over a doctor of whom I've > > > > > >never heard. > > > > > > > > > > As I have already said, I am not challenging G's decompression > >strategy > > > >- I > > > > > am not in the position to do that, just his rubbishing of Dr > >Bennetts > > > >study > > > > > based on the information contained in one paragraph written by a > > > >newspaper > > > > > journalist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Personally, I'd rather listen to someone who bets his > > > > > > > >life on the outcome, rather than one who bets a published > > > > > > > >paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, but this is not really relevant in this context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With apparently 0 incidents of DCI amongst WKPP members, how > > > > > > > much experience > > > > > > > does the WKPP have with DCI compared with a hyperbaric > > > > > > > doctor? > > > > > > > > > > > >Sigh. You obviously have *no* idea about the WKPP. > > > > > >The US Navy come to the WKPP for decompression advice, and > > > > > >have sent their hyperbaric doctors to examine WKPP divers > > > > > >after diving. > > > > > > > > > > Your point being? They have loads of experience at DCI avoidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bottom line: > > > > > > > Have the WKPP studied the formation of bubbles in the tear > > > > > > > film of the human > > > > > > > eye due to changes in ambient pressure? Probably not. Has Dr > > > > > > > Bennett? Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > >The relevance being...? > > > > > > > > > > The relevence being that Dr Bennett has studied it and concluded > >that > > > > > subjects with 20-30 bubbles in the tear film of their eyes also had > >DCI > > > >and > > > > > those with 2-3 did not. G & the WKPP, AFAIK, have not studied this, > >so > > > >how > > > > > can G justify his statement that it is bullshit - but I guess that > >you > > > > > cannot answer that John. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The issue is not so much whether additional bubbles appear in > > > > > >the tear film after diving, but the interpretation & relevance > > > > > >of the findings. Just finding bubbles isn't the same as DCI, > > > > > >which isn't the same as needing treatment. > > > > > > > > > > I think that you are looking at this from the wrong angle. I don't > > > >believe > > > > > that Dr Bennett even implies that these bubbles are the cause or > >part of > > > >the > > > > > damaging part of DCI, there are simply 20-30 bubbles with subjects > >with > > > >DCI > > > > > and 2-3 with subjects without, therefore, the possiblity exists for > >an > > > >easy > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > > > > http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to > >`techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > > > > > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to > >`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > > > >-- > > > >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > > > >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to > >`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > > > > > > Simon Naunton > > > snaunton@ho*.co* > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > Simon Naunton > snaunton@ho*.co* > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]