That is… Incorrect, there is about a 30% death rate within one year of brain trauma but there is absolutely no data showing that someone is going to die within an hour of being knocked unconscious more often than not, especially if they are young
I’m not saying that you’re wrong. You sound like you might know what you’re talking about. I just like publications and medical evidence. I trust that you won’t take it the wrong way.
That is… Incorrect, there is about a 30% death rate within one year of brain trauma […]
Source?
[…] but there is absolutely no data showing that someone is going to die within an hour of being knocked unconscious more often than not, […]
Do you have a metastudy or something for that?
especially if they are young
That last sentence, do you have a source for the difference in outcome depending on the patient’s age?
I’d say it’s more a burden for the person making the claim that goes against reality. Imminent death is not in the least a common progression of getting knocked out.
Are you talking to me? I mean you replied to my comment, but saying that I’m referencing studies doesn’t make any sense. Well at least not to me, because I don’t believe that I claimed to have any studies for anything.
If you meant to reply to me, please go read my first paragraph, and the maybe try it a second time. I actively tried to avoid getting labeled as dismissing the claims.
I justified asking for studies. At no point did I claim to have spent hours searching pubmed. How hard is that to comprehend?
Have you ever tried searching pubmed and vetting studies by reading abstracts? It’s not like using google and clicking on the first result.
First off, searching for studies backing up some claims will always introduce confirmation bias. Secondly finding relevant studies, vetting the search results, by reading the abstracts, validating the scope of the study, deciphering the methods used, etc, will easily take the same number of hours as OP would spend in minutes to copy paste from their bibliography system.
OP’s claims of “oh mer gerhd you dead soon” were so broad and so wild that they didn’t seem rooted in research. Asking for citations would be like asking your antivax aunt for her DIY “research”. But at least the claims should motivate people to seek healthcare, if they get knocked unconscious. Something that will save lives. So I left it at that.
I asked for citations where I did, because it seemed like that commenter worked in the medical field, and actually could have the studies handy.
If you read my request as casting doubt, then I invite you to read the first paragraph again. I specifically pointed out I just like scientific research, data, and evidence. I actually tried to avoid being seen as arguing against the claims.
I can’t help that you (and a lot of other people, apparently) see asking for citations, as casting doubt. Expressing doubt wasn’t my intention, I was genuinely curious about the sources.
And if being curious about science is wrong, then I’m going crawl up under a warm blanket, with a cup of chai and a nice peer reviewed metastudy, while staying wrong.
I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them.
Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.
And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“
Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.
Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.
Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution.
Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.
That is… Incorrect, there is about a 30% death rate within one year of brain trauma but there is absolutely no data showing that someone is going to die within an hour of being knocked unconscious more often than not, especially if they are young
I’m not saying that you’re wrong. You sound like you might know what you’re talking about. I just like publications and medical evidence. I trust that you won’t take it the wrong way.
Source?
Do you have a metastudy or something for that?
That last sentence, do you have a source for the difference in outcome depending on the patient’s age?
This thread is like getting hit in the head with a can of beans.
The Lemmy experience.
Bricolo, A., Turazzi, S., & Feriotti, G. (1980). Prolonged posttraumatic unconsciousness: therapeutic assets and liabilities… Journal of neurosurgery, 52 5, 625-34 . https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1980.52.5.0625.
And it’s not on me to find the burden of truth for you. That’s a logical fallacy and a bad arguing tactic
Is it not the one who claims something that has the burden of proof? I’m confused.
Yes. The OP of this thread needs to back up their claim that getting knocked out will kill you
I’d say it’s more a burden for the person making the claim that goes against reality. Imminent death is not in the least a common progression of getting knocked out.
at least show the studies you’re referencing instead of just saying you have them and asking for others to show theirs
It’s because he doesn’t have them.
Are you talking to me? I mean you replied to my comment, but saying that I’m referencing studies doesn’t make any sense. Well at least not to me, because I don’t believe that I claimed to have any studies for anything.
If you meant to reply to me, please go read my first paragraph, and the maybe try it a second time. I actively tried to avoid getting labeled as dismissing the claims.
so by that you mean you just like them but dont use or reference them? and yet you still ask others to show theirs? what kind of logic is this?!?!?
I justified asking for studies. At no point did I claim to have spent hours searching pubmed. How hard is that to comprehend?
Have you ever tried searching pubmed and vetting studies by reading abstracts? It’s not like using google and clicking on the first result.
First off, searching for studies backing up some claims will always introduce confirmation bias. Secondly finding relevant studies, vetting the search results, by reading the abstracts, validating the scope of the study, deciphering the methods used, etc, will easily take the same number of hours as OP would spend in minutes to copy paste from their bibliography system.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15038-concussion This work (not for the 30% thing but just in general)?
A weird amount of people were triggered by you asking for evidence. A reflection on our times.
Maybe, but they could’ve also posted the same request for citations on the first poster but did not.
I think that really does reflect how someone can just say whatever and when challenged we are biased to only assume the second opinion as doubtful.
OP’s claims of “oh mer gerhd you dead soon” were so broad and so wild that they didn’t seem rooted in research. Asking for citations would be like asking your antivax aunt for her DIY “research”. But at least the claims should motivate people to seek healthcare, if they get knocked unconscious. Something that will save lives. So I left it at that.
I asked for citations where I did, because it seemed like that commenter worked in the medical field, and actually could have the studies handy.
If you read my request as casting doubt, then I invite you to read the first paragraph again. I specifically pointed out I just like scientific research, data, and evidence. I actually tried to avoid being seen as arguing against the claims.
I can’t help that you (and a lot of other people, apparently) see asking for citations, as casting doubt. Expressing doubt wasn’t my intention, I was genuinely curious about the sources.
And if being curious about science is wrong, then I’m going crawl up under a warm blanket, with a cup of chai and a nice peer reviewed metastudy, while staying wrong.
Edits: grammar hard
I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them. Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.
And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“ Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.
Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.
Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution. Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.
(god I should really learn to write more concise)
Source? Show me the evidence and metastudy