Man Doesn't Defy Death Over Niagara Falls

Logical Fallacy

opinion guy wrote: »

The site he linked to wants to sell them harnesses too. You people really don't seem to get how this marketing thing works do you ?

Hmmmm...the link I saw was to wikipedia?

opinion guy

Dempsey wrote: »

You were getting very pedantic about my comment, I'm giving you the same courtesy. You seem to have gone from ignorant to an expert in suspension trauma and safety harnesses in a very short space of time! Congrats :pac:

Ignorant ? Where you getting that from ? You maybe got things backward. I'm the one linking to scientific articles here, not wikipedia and online shops.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Hmmmm...the link I saw was to wikipedia?

Seek and you shall find: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239708&postcount=34

Sorry I thought you were referring to that one.

I've linked to a proper science article if you look - a systematic review that found no evidence of this condition other than people feeling a bit dizzy. No death.

You've ignored the bit where Dempsey said he would be dead in 5 minutes.

That was, and remains, a ridiculous statement

Dempsey

opinion guy wrote: »

Ignorant ? Where you getting that from ? You maybe got things backward. I'm the one linking to scientific articles here, not wikipedia and online shops.

I linked those quickly to show you the timeframe for it to become life threatening. The times given by those biast shops is based on scientific evidence. Training for using a harness and what to when someone has a fall in a safety harness is based on this aswell. You didnt have a clue before this thread and it seems that you still dont because you googled an article!

Ah what am I thinking, you're now the expert it seems, well done! :rolleyes:

opinion guy

Dempsey wrote: »

I linked those quickly to show you the timeframe for it to become life threatening. The times given by those biast shops is based on scientific evidence. Training for using a harness and what to when someone has a fall in a safety harness is based on this aswell. You didnt have a clue before this thread and it seems that you still dont because you googled an article!

Ah what am I thinking, you're now the expert it seems, well done! :rolleyes:

By all means, post the scientific evidence of which you speak

Dempsey

opinion guy wrote: »

By all means, post the scientific evidence of which you speak

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hse.gov.uk%2Fresearch%2Fcrr_pdf%2F2002%2Fcrr02451.pdf&ei=ytzcT4D9EYWzhAf8uOmBCg&usg=AFQjCNEmOSUs8BBNAIt2welyTrxN56cZ0w

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outdoorswa.org%2Ffiles%2FHarness%2520Hang%2520Syndrome.pdf&ei=ytzcT4D9EYWzhAf8uOmBCg&usg=AFQjCNGei3WfJq3JLpCIDs-z_0dU-K-03A

Does google not work for you or do you just google the information to back up the ignorant opinion that you have maintained throughout this thread.

opinion guy

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hse.gov.uk%2Fresearch%2Fcrr_pdf%2F2002%2Fcrr02451.pdf&ei=ytzcT4D9EYWzhAf8uOmBCg&usg=AFQjCNEmOSUs8BBNAIt2welyTrxN56cZ0w

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outdoorswa.org%2Ffiles%2FHarness%2520Hang%2520Syndrome.pdf&ei=ytzcT4D9EYWzhAf8uOmBCg&usg=AFQjCNGei3WfJq3JLpCIDs-z_0dU-K-03A

Does google not work for you or do you just google the information to back up the ignorant opinion that you have maintained throughout this thread.

You are the one making extraordinary claims - the onus is on you to dop the googling. I provided evidence already to back up my point of view.

Neither of those documents are scientific. Neither states its rational for selected cases to cite - inclusion criteria. They have both obviously cherry picked evidence - none consider flaws of the cited case reports at all - they have only cited papers that back up their point of view - a form of bias. Neither do they postulate that these people might have feinted for other reasons - i.e. fright, just being feinters, pain from the straps digging in, panic - all reasons people feint. Nor do they consider that these people had underlying medical conditions.

Neither does either paper cite any case where somebody died in 5 mins as you have claimed would have happened the tight rope walker.
They are not scientific documents.

On the contrary the paper I cited is a properly conducted systematic review - i.e. the had clear criteria for what they included and didn't include. i.e. it was scientific. They didn't find evidence for what you claim.


Your claim remains ridiculous.

Dempsey

opinion guy wrote: »

You are the one making extraordinary claims - the onus is on you to dop the googling. I provided evidence already to back up my point of view.

Neither of those documents are scientific. Neither states its rational for selected cases to cite - inclusion criteria. They have both obviously cherry picked evidence - none consider flaws of the cited case reports at all - they have only cited papers that back up their point of view - a form of bias. Neither do they postulate that these people might have feinted for other reasons - i.e. fright, just being feinters.

Neither does either paper cite any case where somebody died in 5 mins as you have claimed would have happened the tight rope walker.

On the contrary the paper I cited is a properly conducted systematic review - i.e. the had clear criteria for what they included and didn't include. i.e. it was scientific. They didn't find evidence for what you claim.


Your position remains ridiculous.

All them safety harness courses must be wrong and you are right :rolleyes:

EDIT

To quote your "scientific evidence" again

In any case of harness suspension, the standard UK first aid guidance for recovery of a semiconscious or unconscious person in a horizontal position should be followed. Other recommendations included areas for further research and proposals for standard data collection on falls into rope protection.

opinion guy

Dempsey wrote: »

EDIT

To quote your "scientific evidence" again

So ? That doesn't change the fact that guy won't die in 5 minutes.
Why the quotes ?
Do you doubt its scientific evidence ? It was published in a peer reviewed journal and is listed on a science database.

Dempsey wrote: »

Ah what am I thinking, you're now the expert it seems, well done!

I never claimed any expertise.
I'm just some guy with an opinion

Dempsey

A person can die in 5 minutes, so you must act like its the worst case scenario everytime. There is plenty of evidence to support this if you are bothered to google it but you're only interested in material that supports your initial opinion, before you knew anything about this.