Girl Killed by 3 Sharks in Bahamas

[KC375]

Originally Posted by weavis

"I digress" is correct.

As a medical practitioner and researcher, I find your family history and prejudices irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It works like this. Postulate a theory, work through various pathways and directions, note the facts and leave everything else aside, including what you WANT to see.

Just the facts. All the above is hyperbole and non-scientific.

As for the reliance on 'experts', a huge mistake. Over 60% of all medical data and evidence-based results from experimentation presented to the Lancet magazine is incorrect or just plain made up.

As years pass and 'corrections' are made to accepted 'facts', we see a history of just plain wrongness in the initial telling.

A scientist can say "oops, we were wrong about menstrual blood, sorry".

The woman involved will not have that luxury.

As we say in Ireland.

First: Believe nothing.
Second: then believe nothing at all.

Fair enough much of what is published in peer reviewed journals is later revised or challenged by subsequent publications. I still find that a better source than a bunch of old farts sitting around bullshitting or repeating what they learned at grandma’s knee.


I would be delighted to hear your evidence based input on this topic. Absent that, imperfect as they may be I’m more inclined to listen to the opinions of people who spend their time in a relatively robust fashion exploring these topics.

[weavis]

Well those of us who are researchers, Find that the ratio of honesty and integrity in professional circles is equal to observations from lay people who are in the field of observation.

Logically you must include yourself in the chide, given that you are not a professional yourself.

Richard Horton is the editor of the Lancet Journal. A well-respected Doctor.

You have entered defence mode, and so you should because some of us who are researchers, will not give you opinions, only the results of experimentation without personal commentary.

Nothing is conclusive if the reason is not known for a Shark attack, and thusly menstrual blood may trigger a response in certain circumstances. You want to risk yourself, or wife or daughter?



Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed
to say who made this remark because we were asked
to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked
not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked
for government agencies pleaded that their comments
especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK
election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling
state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech
are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why
the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution?
Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and
reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome
Trust in London last week—touched on one of the
most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that
something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of
our greatest human creations.
*
The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness.

As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put
their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent
endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their
quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often
sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they
retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve
their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels
an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few
journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature
with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important
confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants.
Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and
talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as
high-impact publication. National assessment procedures,
such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise
bad practices. And individual scientists, including their
most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that
occasionally veers close to misconduct.
*
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the
problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive
and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science
help? Certainly, don’t add more layers of research red tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could
remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability
statements in grant applications and research papers.
Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist
on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and
post-publication peer review. Or improve research training
and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations
from our Series on increasing research value, published
last year. One of the most convincing proposals came
from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg
is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following
several high-profile errors, the particle physics community
now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results
through independent working groups, physicists are
encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The
goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists
are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set
the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle
physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p-value of 3 × 10–7
or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the
probability that the data would have been as extreme
as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that
something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree
that it was within our power to do that something. But
as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no
firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to
think somebody else should act first. And every positive
action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a
counterargument (science will become less creative). The
good news is that science is beginning to take some of its
worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody
is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

Richard Horton
richard.horton@lancet.com

[KC375]

Originally Posted by weavis

...
You want to risk yourself, or wife or daughter?
...

To answer your question I’d encourage them to find the best available information they can to inform their decision and make the decision for themselves. From what I’ve read I’d have no discomfort if they chose to swim while menstruating.

[cblurton]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Suddenly I find the flying toasters screen saver quite terrifying!!! [emoji33]

Other things to worry about:

https://www.sharksider.com/know-dang...hark%E2%80%A8/

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by KC375

That’s not to say that their are not differences between men and women...For example, I get it that at higher levels women and men should play soccer in different leagues BUT what I don’t get is why by all metrics (including economic viability) the US Women’s team outperforms the men’s team but should have worse working conditions AND get paid 1/6th what the men get. I digress

[Tangent Alert]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza.../#cc324576da4a

[End Tangent]

[weavis]

Originally Posted by KC375

To answer your question I’d encourage them to find the best available information they can to inform their decision and make the decision for themselves. From what I’ve read I’d have no discomfort if they chose to swim while menstruating.

Given the reality of the professional factual advice given, you have a 50 % chance of being correct.

[mglonnro]

Originally Posted by weavis

Nothing is conclusive if the reason is not known for a Shark attack, and thusly menstrual blood may trigger a response in certain circumstances. You want to risk yourself, or wife or daughter?

There's so much myth surrounding this that it would, indeed, be nice to see some demystifying research. The Baldridge research (from "late 60s") is anecdotally cited in a lot of places. Maybe someone should redo that experiment?

Anyway, here are some informative pages I found on the FAO site, discussing shark attacks in general, as well as offering advice to minimize risks (yes, menstruation is mentioned here as well):

http://www.fao.org/3/ad123e/ad123e36.pdf

Sorry if the document was included already in this thread

[rognvald]

"Anyway, here are some informative pages I found on the FAO site, discussing shark attacks in general, as well as offering advice to minimize risks (yes, menstruation is mentioned here as well):

http://www.fao.org/3/ad123e/ad123e36.pdf" mglonro


Thanks, M, for the very informative link about sharks and safety. It certainly seems like much real caution is advised in this short study for what some on this Forum believe to be a non-issue: shark attack. Good luck and safe sailing . . . Rognvald

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

If sharks had damsel fish brains no one would be safe in the water.

But...If Damsels had Shark brains, would the world be a safer place?
(Just kidding)

[taxwizz]

What is the "take-away" from this interesting discussion?

A: Logic states that because sharks chase blood, and menstruating women bleed, then women should not swim with sharks while menstruating.

B: Research SEEMS to indicate that sharks are not attracted to menstruation blood and that therefore there is no danger.

Personally, I would err on the side of caution, and postpone swimming to the following week.

You choose.............

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

What is the "take-away" from this interesting discussion?

A: Logic states that because sharks chase blood, and menstruating women bleed, then women should not swim with sharks while menstruating.

B: Research SEEMS to indicate that sharks are not attracted to menstruation blood and that therefore there is no danger.

Personally, I would err on the side of caution, and postpone swimming to the following week.

You choose.............

I believe it has been proven that male dolphins are attracted to menstruating women.. several have apparently been assaulted while 'meeting and greeting' dolphins on Oz beaches..
Or is that just rumour as well.??

https://youtu.be/LvpJdNiqZJc

And here we have a female dolphin who only attacks women.. chasing off competition.??

https://youtu.be/L-uVSUMVIiQ

[a64pilot]

Funny thing about sharks, they are a lot like lightning.
By that I mean they seem to not follow what research says they should, since at least WWII there have been several attempts at producing a repellant or a device that would repel sharks, there have been some very successful attempts, early testing has shown several times was that the shark “problem” was solved, but later fell apart as for some reason it didn’t work later, even though it did repeatedly in testing.
The Australians had developed some form of electrical or maybe magnetic field that looked to be very promising as have several chemicals, there was even at one time proof that alternating black and white stripes would repel sharks, thinking it mimicked a banded sea snake.

However the issue every time was that you may could have 50 successful tests one after another leading one to believe that it definitely works and the 51st time the shark simply ignored the repellant.
They are widely variable in their actions, and it’s my belief that they don’t feel pain nor have brains like we think of brains.
If you catch a shark and cut its guts open and release it, it will eat it’s own guts until it finally dies. I know of no other animal that will do that.

However you would have a hard time getting the survivors of the Indianapolis to believe that sharks don’t prey on humans, and that human blood doesn’t effect them

[steamgoat]

CBS news yesterday, Ft Lauderdale man bitten by shark while snorkeling at Great Guana Cay near Nippers.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by charlie.magen

Hey boatman,

1. Grammar advice on the level of 6th grade primary school:

Declarative sentences like "Id don't even know..." have no "?", but tiny little points or strokes with little points under to find at the end of a sentence. Need some examples?

2. Scientific advice, same grade, Biology/Physics interdisciplinary:

Compare the amount of blood that comes into the water through modern hygiene products to the amount of i.e. a little injury at your finger nail or at your gums - in order to find one realistic reason for this tragedy. Besides of those more intelligent, ethologic considerations above.

Your attempt to explain obviously has different roots, I'm afraid, (besides the obvious, extraorbitant wisedom of your-self, of course) and indeed might have to do with walls before your head...

Inspire us with your silence, naughty sir.

Hey Charlie;
We try not to be insulting in this forum.
We are allowed to make humour, but please, no childish insults.
Let's keep this friendly.......
Or leave.
Just sayin'

[KP44]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Hey.. WTF do I know.. never been to the Bahamas for 1..
Dont eat fish and dont kill for pleasure for 2..

When one of my kids would announce that she/he doesn't eat fish, I'd always answer, "Have you seen a shrink?"