[deltawave]

But I have always (ALWAYS) been one to question the dominant opinion

Most people would identify themselves the same way, I think. Not many folks will self-describe as "I go along with what everyone else says and don't like to ask questions", will they? Even if they BEHAVE a certain way, how they self-identify is often much different (and more flattering). But that's an observation from spending 20+ years talking to people for a living, not a well-researched phenomenon by any means!

But even a "dominant" opinion pales in the face of FACTS. Which is what OUGHT to be used to make decisions, provided they are available.

[skydy]

But I have always (ALWAYS) been one to question the dominant opinion. Had a bumper sticker that said, "Question Authority,"

So this is probably one of the reasons I persist in questioning the popular opinion on this forum. I am always uncomfortable with strong opinions, especially when accompanied by the insistence that the source is an "expert."



Peace. Ann

Considering your statements above, I am surprised that you aren't persistent in questioning P2, after all, the popular opinion seems to be on their side.
You were defending them before you learned (on this forum) of their sleazy advertising practices and , many people continue to accept their sponsorship.

P2 has expressed "strong opinions" and, I believe, consider themselves "experts" since they are marketing the product.
It is interesting that you don't feel the need to question them before you question the people on this forum who have concerns.

[JER]

So this is probably one of the reasons I persist in questioning the popular opinion on this forum. I am always uncomfortable with strong opinions, especially when accompanied by the insistence that the source is an "expert."

All very good reasons to choose to believe the marketing hype.

Wasn't it on a previous thread -- the KOC one? -- that I had to explain to you the equation k = 1/2mv^2? I think this shows you're in need of some real expertise when it comes to simple physics. I don't know why you characterize the explanations of basic principles, as Reed as done many times for you, as 'strong opinions.'

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with 'strong opinions' that run counter to what you want to believe. If you're a social scientist, you might have read Leon Festinger's classic When Prophecy Fails, which is an exploration of the theory of cognitive dissonance. That seems to be what's going on in some of your posts.

(Another classic, but less directly applicable here, is David Rosenhans's On Being Sane In Insane Places, a study in which a group of people get themselves committed to psychiatric hospitals for research purposes. The gullible, professional staff (MDs included) give them meds and psychiatric diagnoses and in-patient treatment; their fellow patients -- the real crazy people -- are quick to figure out that they're fake inmates. Belief systems are hard to shake, even for 'scientists'.)

[deltawave]

a group of people get themselves committed to psychiatric hospitals for research purposes

Given access to Google or even a vivid imagination, I'd imagine adopting behavior to make oneself appear quite nuts is a piece of cake. One must only push a few "hot buttons" to make oneself appear in need of commitment. Doing so voluntarily, though--even in the name of science--well, maybe those brave folks are not so far off the bubble in question after all! Getting in is one thing. Getting OUT, quite another.

[ahbaumgardner]

I do not believe that I have defended the air vest companies. I have defended the use of the air vest by myself and others.

How have I defended the marketing hype? I don't even read it.

And yes, I am very familiar with original as well as decades of findings following Festinger's seminal research on cognitive dissonance. I do not think that I am falling prey to faulty logic. I am only doing what I think is best, based on my limited knowledge. I have not created a straw man to make my point, as in attacking the advertising as if it reflects directly on the actual product.

Again, bad advertising reflects on bad marketing. It does not reflect on the product per se. It is what it is.

Ann

[deltawave]

bad advertising reflects on bad marketing. It does not reflect on the product per se. It is what it is.

Yes. And what IS it? As safe as it might be? Sufficiently researched? Adequately shown to be fail-safe within reason?

Bad advertising also (IMO) reflects on the ethics and priorities of the company producing the product. Maybe to a small degree, maybe to a larger degree. That is of course for the individual consumer to decide. How much does each individual trust a product that is advertised by a company with shady or questionable practices?

[JER]

Given access to Google or even a vivid imagination, I'd imagine adopting behavior to make oneself appear quite nuts is a piece of cake.

Don't be so quick to denigrate, deltawave. Your biases are showing.

The Rosenhan Experiment was no 'piece of cake', and it was done decades before Google. It was a thoughtful, elegant experiment, and the participants followed a controlled plan of action. One participant was a pediatrician, several were psychologists, another was a psychiatrist.

With the help of Google, the Rosenhan paper is easy to find: On Being Sane in Insane Places. It's a short paper and a stunning read, but for those who want the short version, Google also found me this excellent summary:

The original Rosenhan Experiment was an amazing, and brave, study designed to test the accuracy of psychiatric diagnoses. The study had two parts. First, Professor David Rosenhan and seven associates had themselves admitted to a variety of mental hospitals. They described auditory hallucinations and were diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenics. After they were admitted, they acted normally and waited for the hospital staff to notice. While many of the real patients noticed that the imposters lacked symptoms of mental illness, the hospital staff did not. In some cases, Rosenhan’s associates were not released for months.

In a second part of Rosenhan’s study, a hospital was told that one or more imposters would attempt to be admitted as psychiatric patients. After hearing about Rosenhan’s initial test, this institution had claimed that similar errors would not occur there. Staff at the hospital subsequently determined that 41 out of 193 patients were highly likely to be imposters. But, in reality, Rosenhan had sent no imposters to the hospital. Rosenhan ultimately concluded that “one thing is certain: any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one.”

To quote a poster from earlier on this thread: This is why we do research, people.

[deltawave]

Don't be so quick to denigrate, deltawave. Your biases are showing.

No denigration was intended. It was meant to be a small joke. However, one COULD argue, if one were so inclined, that if simply to report auditory hallucinations was all that was required to garner a working diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia' in this study population (and the paper takes pains to point out that the subjects did little else to embroider on their pseudo-illness) then indeed the act of being diagnosed was, in fact, EASY. One simply had to play-act a bit. The practitioners and the "system" took it from there.

Don't jump to conclusions that I was trivializing the study, or defending said system. I stand by my original statement.

[Jealoushe]

I do find it interesting that a punctured lung is a common injury with people who are wearing air vests. Would love to hear how common they are for those without.

[wildlifer]

Completely unrelated, but JER, thanks for posting that -- I had never heard of that one and do not even have an adjective for it after reading it. Amazing, disturbing, cool, unnerving...ha, that rhymed. I need to sleep.

[ahbaumgardner]

I do find it interesting that a punctured lung is a common injury with people who are wearing air vests. Would love to hear how common they are for those without.

It is??? How common?

[deltawave]

I'd wager that a punctured lung is a fairly common sequela of any crush/rotational type of injury. Not sure if any governing body keeps that type of statistic, as it would have to comply with HIPAA regulations.

[JER]

Completely unrelated, but JER, thanks for posting that -- I had never heard of that one and do not even have an adjective for it after reading it.

How about 'empty', 'hollow' or 'thud'?

My favorite part is this:

Immediately upon admission to the psychiatric ward, the pseudopatient ceased simulating any symptoms of abnormality. In some cases, there was a brief period of mild nervousness and anxiety, since none of the pseudopatients really believed that they would be admitted so easily.

Holy crap, I'm in the looney bin! And back then you couldn't check yourself out without permission. One of them stayed for 52 days before release.

[JER]

re: punctured lungs

When you have six fractured ribs, you will almost always have an unstable chest wall. Any subsequent movement or pressure can cause further injury, like a punctured lung or perforated aorta.

The rapid inflation/compression and subsequent deflation by an air vest could be a mechanism of injury in this scenario.

[ahbaumgardner]

or protection...

[deltawave]

Yeah, it would sure be nice to know which, wouldn't it? It is easy to speculate that something pressing inward with a great deal of force (like an inflating thing around the torso) would be highly likely to drive rib fragments toward the center, with the lungs being the next layer of tissue and all. But without evidence and careful study of this question, we are just . . . speculating.

Given the nature of ribs, anything short of a hard shell (like an Exo) is highly unlikely to protect one from rib fractures in the event of a very hard fall, especially with the weight of a horse piled on. Broken ribs would be almost predictable. One simply would have to be left only to speculate upon which direction the fragments might be traveling . . . I shall refrain from offering an opinion, however.

[JSwan]

Since the vest pushes on the now broken ribcage; pushing the shards into the lung - I can't imagine it offers much protection.

The fact this company cannot provide any evidence their product works, much less causes no harm, is deeply disturbing.

But hey - if really do think that your belief is enough to save you, hedge your bets and go to church, too.

[ACMEeventing]

or protection...

No.

It is certainly an individual's decision whether or not to wear an air vest, but arm yourself with a greater knowledge of the mechanism of these injuries.

One of the greatest dangers of these devices is inflation AFTER the injury (I'm not Reed but I'm certainly no stranger to exposure to devastating injuries). I would venture that in the majority of rotational falls the rider is never separated enough from the horse to activate the lanyard. Thus inflation happens AFTER the horse rolls off the rider and AFTER the injuries have occurred.

A flail chest or broken ribs subjected to the sudden force of vest inflation is not desirable and has the definite potential to make a bad situation worse. The makers of these vests would be foolish to claim that they might "stabilize" injuries.

I noticed that TBS 24/7 stated that Andrea's vest saved her life. I would love to know if her vest inflated before or after her ribs broke. I wish her a speedy and full recovery and great sympathy on the loss of her lovely mare.

(Forgive typos, I'm at work and on a portable device)

[JER]

or protection...

I'll assume from the lol that you're joking.

Auto air bags (when deployed) have been known to cause rib fractures, aortic transections, pneumothorax and cardiac rupture. Airbag systems have been refined over the past several decades because of these incidents, especially where children and small adults are concerned.

MAST pants are known to cause vascular instability due to rapid deflation. But again, these devices are studied and refined (or, in this case, dumped) so that they do less harm.

A rapid inflation/compression to non-displaced rib fractures might result in displaced rib fractures and an unstable chest wall. Same with the subsequent rapid deflation of that compression. You don't want either of those things.

I like to understand my risks before I agree to undertake them. I'm not getting much understanding from the air jacket companies. Hearing that any number of BNRs wear one doesn't get me any closer to understanding those risks.

[deltawave]

I noticed that TBS 24/7 stated that Andrea's vest saved her life.

Pretty sure we can all agree that this is an emotional and not a forensic statement.