Hi my name is Lyndsey, I am 16 and my Mother Cindy
recently told me about the choking game. I have had
some experiences with this game. The only difference
is that my friends and I would call it Black Out.
How we would start out playing this game is, we
would sit on the ground with our knees up and leaning
over with our elbows on our knees. We would then take
really hard breaths in and out until we couldn't
h...
Hi my name is Lyndsey, I am 16 and my Mother Cindy
recently told me about the choking game. I have had
some experiences with this game. The only difference
is that my friends and I would call it Black Out.
How we would start out playing this game is, we
would sit on the ground with our knees up and leaning
over with our elbows on our knees. We would then take
really hard breaths in and out until we couldn't
handle it any more. Almost like hyperventilation. We
would take one last breath in really hard and lean
back on a chair or lay on the ground. Then someone would press with all
their body weight on our neck but not to close to our bronchial tube.
While they are doing this, our breath is leaving our lungs but they
wouldn't let go
until our body state was totally relaxed. At that
time we felt like we were in a dream and didn't know
what we were doing but our friends could see what was
happening. Some people when they are passed out, they would laugh, feel a
tingling body sensation when waking up. When they wake up they feel
refreshed and ask what they did. My friends would then tell them what
happened. One time I witnessed this girl, she was laughing and having a
good time,while passed out and then my friend actually punched her in her
face. She stopped laughing for
a second and then kept on laughing after she got
punched. After wards she asked why her face hurt, so then we told her what
happened. She laughed and then the next girl was up to try the game black
out. Another time one of my really good friends decided to try the game. I
was there with her and one of my other good friends was going
to preform the game on her. She did what she was told
to do and she blacked out. She laughed for a good 10
seconds and just when she started waking up she
urinated. This game obviously makes the brain very
confused and she lost control of her bodily functions.
I remember this game got introduced when I was in
grade school. It got more popular when I was in
Junior High School but didn't last long.
I have played this game before also and at first I was
scared, not knowing if I would wake up or not. As
a young child of course you want to try things not
knowing the dangers of the game. We just thought it
was "fun" but more and more kids are hearing about
this. There is a possibility that if more kids find out about this game,
we may hear of more deaths. We as a society, need to do something about
it. I find it very
offensive how the system seems to be overlooking this game. We need to
know the truth and consider the fact that suicide may not be suicide. I
would be just devastated if my younger cousins, that are in grade school
now, knew of this game; morevover, tried it or even think of trying it.
I just can't say how appaulled I am at age 16 how
the system is handling this situation. As I said
before, we as a society NEED to do something about
this new up coming "fun" game for kids to play. Let's
not have anymore accidental deaths happen to our childern of the future.
I watched the Fifth Estate program which aired March
15, 2006 and I was saddened to hear of the parents
who lost their children but also saddened on how
naive our system is to overlook what the truth really
is. I felt compelled to call the coroner myself and
tell him about my story growing up when we called the
Choking Game, the Passing Out Game. My friends and I
didn't use objects around our necks...
I watched the Fifth Estate program which aired March
15, 2006 and I was saddened to hear of the parents
who lost their children but also saddened on how
naive our system is to overlook what the truth really
is. I felt compelled to call the coroner myself and
tell him about my story growing up when we called the
Choking Game, the Passing Out Game. My friends and I
didn't use objects around our necks we would take 10
deep breaths to hyperventilation and then a friend
would stand behing us, hold the person around the
stomach to cut off air to lungs, we would hold our
breath until we "passed out." I am 46 now back then I
was only 16 years old. This is a serious issue and
needs to be researched and not overlooked. I was
happy to know that Dr MacNab is doing the work around
this sensitive issue. I am confident that his
findings will be factual and reasuring to those
parents who need comfort, truth and understanding.
I had also spoken to my sixteen year old daughter who
is aware of this game. She shared with me that when
she was in grade school, girls and boys played this
game and she witnessed two girls in the school
washroom using their hands to choke themselves. I had
also spoken to a co-worker who is now 21 years old.
When she was in high school, she too witnessed her
peers playing this game, hands around the neck,
choking each other until they lost Conscientious.
My heart goes out to Amanda Bryant, my prayers are
with you and I hope you will find the truth and that
the systems works with you and opens up their mind to
this possibility. God Bless you all.
Shepherd and Sivarajasingam provide a range of compelling reasons why
police records of violence should not be used to measure underlying trends
in
violence. Essentially there are major threats to validity. They do not
discuss
potential means to reduce this threat. They also identify significant
similar
threats to validity of emergency department data but do not say how these
should be addressed. They then conclude: "G...
Shepherd and Sivarajasingam provide a range of compelling reasons why
police records of violence should not be used to measure underlying trends
in
violence. Essentially there are major threats to validity. They do not
discuss
potential means to reduce this threat. They also identify significant
similar
threats to validity of emergency department data but do not say how these
should be addressed. They then conclude: "Governments should use
emergency department data as an objective indicator of violence of health
related harm .." Could the authors advise readers why they prefer one poor base for an indicator over another which is equally poor?
Just wanted to say that I currently work as a junior orthopaedic
surgeon in a London teaching hospital. My aim is to combine a career in
surgery with one in injury prevention as many of my counterparts in low
and middle income countries do.
On July 7th this year I was working at the Royal London Hospital and
worked alongside many brilliant people in the effort to treat the patients
predomina...
Just wanted to say that I currently work as a junior orthopaedic
surgeon in a London teaching hospital. My aim is to combine a career in
surgery with one in injury prevention as many of my counterparts in low
and middle income countries do.
On July 7th this year I was working at the Royal London Hospital and
worked alongside many brilliant people in the effort to treat the patients
predominantly arriving from the Kings Cross and Aldgate bombs.
There are many things I could write about this first hand experience
but all I wanted to say to you, Editor, and the late Robin Cook is:
"Hear, hear"
Poverty and injuries go hand in hand. I see it daily in my practice.
It is preventable. People throughout the world are terrorised daily by
poverty and feelings of hopelessness and lack of educational and economic
opportunity. When people are disenfranchised it makes them more vulnerable
to manipulation and brainwashing. I say this without excusing the
individual responsibility of the perpetrators.
We do need a war on poverty. Only then will we truly have a war on
terrorism.
I was concerned to see an editorial offering one opinion reduced to
poverty breeds terroism.
Suicide bombing can not be excused on any grounds; moreover, the
suicide killers of civilians are not usually from the poverty cohorts of
London, Iraq, NYC , nor Palestine. Such redutionist viewpoints give aid
to those who would have humanitarian concerns twisted. One can not equate
anything to such killings nor the...
I was concerned to see an editorial offering one opinion reduced to
poverty breeds terroism.
Suicide bombing can not be excused on any grounds; moreover, the
suicide killers of civilians are not usually from the poverty cohorts of
London, Iraq, NYC , nor Palestine. Such redutionist viewpoints give aid
to those who would have humanitarian concerns twisted. One can not equate
anything to such killings nor the killers of civilains.
Young children of terroists are brainwashed in their schools with
hate propoganda enforced with TV hate programs. These groups abuse and
misuse international poverty funds for their own promotion of virgins
in heaven as the only right way to die by killing civilians ( "source" :
where the independent accounting of the international money sent to
Arafat , HAMAS, or the PLO, etc ? )
Better support by the UN and the world community to stop such hate
teachings would go a longer way for promoting injury control, peace and
in imiting 'suffering' .
Les Fisher M.P.H.
Safety / Management Consultant
97 Union Avenue South, Delmar NY, 12054 ,USA; 518-439-0326
While difficult to disentangle what is getting Robertson so enraged, the following four possibilities seem likely candidates.
1. He denies my claim [1, p. 381-388] that US safety policy has been
a dramatic failure.
2. He disagrees with my explanation [1, p 389-408] that the
litigation focus of US safety policy has contributed to this dramatic
failure.
3. He dislikes my book "Traffic Safety" [1]
4. He claims that its author is incapable of clear writing and
technical understanding.
Let me respond in order.
1. The numbers speak for themselves.
2. Readers are encouraged to examine the considerable documentary and
other evidence presented [1, p 389-408] to arrive at an informed opinion.
3. With the sole exception of Robertson's review, the book has
received lavish praise by reviewers in the world's most prestigious
journals. Complete details at
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/Reviews.htm
I must add to Leonard Evan's "to do" list. After getting his skin
thickened, he needs courses in English comprehension and basic
epidemiology.
In my letter, I said that I gave "far more" than my litigation fees
for scholarships and a professorship, contrary to his claim that it all
came from litigation fees. I doubt that "far more" means something in
England, where Evans apparently learned...
I must add to Leonard Evan's "to do" list. After getting his skin
thickened, he needs courses in English comprehension and basic
epidemiology.
In my letter, I said that I gave "far more" than my litigation fees
for scholarships and a professorship, contrary to his claim that it all
came from litigation fees. I doubt that "far more" means something in
England, where Evans apparently learned to read poorly, than it does in
the U.S. In fact, most of the money I contributed came from investment
income enhanced by the statistical methods that Evans labels as
"unintelligible hocus pocus analyses " when I apply them to motor vehicle
fatality rates. My conscience is clear as to my motives for my gifts, my
litigation work and my statements regarding Evan's book. Anyone who knows
me and my work will laugh at Evan's allegations. Most of my scientific
work preceded any thought of being involved in litigation.
Anyone who knows the behavioral science literature will wonder about
someone who prefers to question his critic's motives rather than address
the points I made in the review. It is not unusual for someone with bad
motives to project them on others. In my review and in my articles and
books, I have praised Evans' work that I consider praiseworthy, but a
substantial part of the book under review is worthy only of condemnation.
Evans again raises the argument that litigation in the U.S. accounts
for changes in simple counts of motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. relative
to other countries. He presents no data on changes in litigation awards or
litigation activity in the various countries in correlation with changes
in death rates to support the assertion. In the book, he states that the
inference is based on his judgement (p. 389). The word “judgement” should
be preceded by “subjective”. In his most recent letter, he makes all sorts
of claims about what drivers are thinking without one shred of empirical
data to support his assertions, similar to the tone of many passages in
his book.
Although he corrects for increases in vehicle registrations in his
book, in his letters Evans relies on the 16 percent reduction in the U.S.
raw number of deaths versus more than 50 percent in other countries, such
as Canada, without specifying the years he is comparing. In the book, the
percentages are for the years 1979-2002. Litigation did not begin in the
U.S. in 1979 or therafter. The reduction in rate per vehicle given by
Evans in the book is 46% for the U.S. and 64% for Canada. Thus, simply
correcting for differential growth in number of vehicles narrows the
difference substantially. As I said in my review, other factors must be
accounted for in such comparisons: "demographic shifts, population and
vehicle density in geographic areas and changing mix of vehicles", any one
of which could close a gap between 46% and 64%. An epidemiology student
would be flunked for making the kinds of inferences that Evans makes,
without empirical analysis of the effects of such factors.
Anyone who is interested in how to reduce road-related injury should
download the recent WHO report on the subject (free on the web at
http://www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/en/) and save yourself the
outlandish $99 that Evan's wants for a book substantially full of
misinformation.
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my
central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with
his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in
the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this
happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that
an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety...
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my
central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with
his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in
the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this
happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that
an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety belt, as required by law.
Testimony cannot therefore be presented demonstrating that obeying the
belt-wearing law would have prevented or mitigated the injury
(particularly true in rollovers). The incessant message to the American
public is that injuries result from malfeasance by institutions with deep
pockets. As ordinary citizens do not make roads or vehicles, they are led
to believe that safety has little to do with them, whereas in fact the
greatest reductions in risk are from small changes in behavior (such as
wearing a belt). In what other country would a case about an injury
prohibit mentioning safety belts?
While traffic deaths in Canada (and other countries) declined by 50%,
U.S. traffic deaths declined by only 16%. My 2004 book Traffic Safety[1]
associates this huge difference with an enormously powerful U.S.
litigation industry pursuing money rather than safety. Critics of this
thesis need to offer a more convincing alternative explanation than that
U.S. legislators simply make different decisions from those in Canada.
Such decisions have antecedents, including massive campaign contributions
from litigators. The U.S. is a world leader in many public health areas
(smoking, air safety), but its emphasis on vehicle rather than driver
factors assures an ongoing catastrophe in traffic safety.
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable
review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book,
but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of
the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer
review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are
patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is t...
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable
review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book,
but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of
the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer
review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are
patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is too thin.
Evans notes favourable reviews of his book which I find astonishing in
some respects. Inury epidemiology and prevention will not be a viable
science if we stop being critical of one another's work. When I sent my
review to Dinesh Mohan, who reviewed the book favourably for the British
Medical Journal, he wrote back, “Leon, I agree with you! I should have
read the book a little more carefully. Your review is much more detailed
and sound technically.”
Evans attributes an alleged lag in adopting injury prevention in the
U.S. to a "giant litigation industry" from which I "greatly profited",
leading to my critique of his book. Although the U.S. led the world in
requiring improved vehicle crashworthiness and laws requiring the use of
child safety seats, it did lag in adoption of seat belt laws. That was not
the doing of the Insurance for Highway Safety, where I was employed in the
1970s, or personal injury lawyers. At the Insurance Institute, we financed
research by Australian researchers on the first law in Australia [1] and I
did research which documented the success of that law.[2] I know of no
involvement of personal injury lawyers in the debate regarding seat belts
in state legislatures. Both motorcycle helmet use laws and seat belt use
laws in the U.S. were delayed by debates regarding personal freedom,
mostly by state legislators who were trying to make political hay with
their constituents. Opinion polls indicated that most people opposed
belt use laws at the time. I favoured such laws as any of the students who
took my courses, and others who heard me lecture, can attest.
I did, for a period of time before my retirement, testify in personal
injury lawsuits but I did not profit one penny from that activity. I
donated all the fees I received, indeed far more (some $500,000 in total),
to Johns Hopkins University, the University of Minnesota and the Trauma
Foundation for injury prevention research and advocacy. If you want to
call the satisfaction that I get from giving away money to support the
field in which I laboured "great profit", fine. I noted in my book on my
work with lawyers, free on the web at www.nanlee.net, which Evans
apparently has not read, that I gave the money away and that my motivation
for that work was to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire when the
government stopped most of its regulatory activity in the 1980s.
Evans dismisses my analyses of safety regulation [e.g. 3] as
"unintelligible hocus pocus analyses that somehow manage to find effects
that support the analyst’s prior beliefs." Since Evans and I have never
had a conversation, much less discussed my beliefs, he has no basis for
such a charge. Indeed, I am sure the thousands of users of multiple
regression analysis throughout the sciences would be surprised to see that
method described as "untelligible hocus pocus". I reported what the data
showed me. Indeed, I noted in my 1998 book that the regression coefficient
on seat belt use in relation to fatality rates fit Evan's effectiveness
estimate from his useful double-paired comparison method.[4]
It is sad that, since Evans doesn't have the facts on his side, he
resorts to falsehoods in an attempt to impugn my motives.
Leon S. Robertson, Ph.D.
Retired Injury Epidemiologist
Yale University
References
1. Foldvary, L.A. and Lane, J.C. The effectiveness of compulsory
wearing of seat-belts in casualty reduction. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS ANS
PREVENTION, 6:59-81, 1974.
2. Robertson, Leon S. Automobile seat belt use inselected countries,
states and provinces with and without laws requiring belt use. ACCIDENT
ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION 10:5-10, 1978.
3. Robertson, Leon S. Reducing death on the road: The effects of
minimum safety standards,
publicized crash tests, seat belts and alcohol. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, 86:31-34,
1996.
4. Robertson, Leon S.: INJURY EPIDEMIOLOGY: RESEARCH AND CONTROL
STRATEGIES, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t
comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests”
(we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say,
claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want
it eliminated from high schools.
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t
comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests”
(we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say,
claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want
it eliminated from high schools.
What we did say is this: Despite worldwide evidence that driver
education does not produce safer drivers and in some cases increases the
crash problem, it has enduring appeal. Many new driver education programs,
often using computer-based technology, have been introduced in recent
years. There is a program in Australia combining professional driving
instructors and parents that we describe as promising. However, given what
research studies have told us about prior programs thought to be state-of-
the-art, we argue that scientific evaluations of the effects of new
programs are essential. We also need to be alert to programs that may do
harm. In this regard it is noteworthy that programs teaching skid control
and other emergency manoeuvres are becoming increasingly popular in the
United States; yet studies have shown that they can increase rather than
decrease the crash problem.[2]
This explains the title of our commentary (“Driver Education
Renaissance?”).[3] Yes, there has been a proliferation of new driver
education programs, but are they making a difference? We won’t know
without rigorous scientific evaluations to guide us. We don’t expect this
view to be appreciated by someone who declares that “we must respect what
is unscientifically ‘known’ by the public;” but as behavioural scientists
who have spent many years addressing the young driver problem, we think
this is the rational way to proceed.[4]
Allan F. Williams, Ph.D.,
Susan A. Ferguson, Ph.D.,
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
References
1. Huff DC. A rebuttal to skeptics of teen driver education. Inj
Prev, eLetters, 20 April 2005.
2. Jones B. The effectiveness of skid-car training for teenage
novice drivers in Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles,
1993.
3. Williams AF, Ferguson SA. Driver education renaissance? Inj Prev
2004;10:4-7.
4. Williams AF. Barriers and opportunities in reducing motor vehicle
injuries. Inj Prev 2001;7:83-84.
Hi my name is Lyndsey, I am 16 and my Mother Cindy recently told me about the choking game. I have had some experiences with this game. The only difference is that my friends and I would call it Black Out.
How we would start out playing this game is, we would sit on the ground with our knees up and leaning over with our elbows on our knees. We would then take really hard breaths in and out until we couldn't h...
Dear Editor,
I watched the Fifth Estate program which aired March 15, 2006 and I was saddened to hear of the parents who lost their children but also saddened on how naive our system is to overlook what the truth really is. I felt compelled to call the coroner myself and tell him about my story growing up when we called the Choking Game, the Passing Out Game. My friends and I didn't use objects around our necks...
Shepherd and Sivarajasingam provide a range of compelling reasons why police records of violence should not be used to measure underlying trends in violence. Essentially there are major threats to validity. They do not discuss potential means to reduce this threat. They also identify significant similar threats to validity of emergency department data but do not say how these should be addressed. They then conclude: "G...
Dear Editor
Just wanted to say that I currently work as a junior orthopaedic surgeon in a London teaching hospital. My aim is to combine a career in surgery with one in injury prevention as many of my counterparts in low and middle income countries do.
On July 7th this year I was working at the Royal London Hospital and worked alongside many brilliant people in the effort to treat the patients predomina...
I was concerned to see an editorial offering one opinion reduced to poverty breeds terroism.
Suicide bombing can not be excused on any grounds; moreover, the suicide killers of civilians are not usually from the poverty cohorts of London, Iraq, NYC , nor Palestine. Such redutionist viewpoints give aid to those who would have humanitarian concerns twisted. One can not equate anything to such killings nor the...
Dear Editor
While difficult to disentangle what is getting Robertson so enraged, the following four possibilities seem likely candidates.
1. He denies my claim [1, p. 381-388] that US safety policy has been a dramatic failure.
2. He disagrees with my explanation [1, p 389-408] that the litigation focus of US safety policy has contributed to this dramatic failure.
3. He di...
Dear Editor,
I must add to Leonard Evan's "to do" list. After getting his skin thickened, he needs courses in English comprehension and basic epidemiology.
In my letter, I said that I gave "far more" than my litigation fees for scholarships and a professorship, contrary to his claim that it all came from litigation fees. I doubt that "far more" means something in England, where Evans apparently learned...
Dear Editor,
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety...
Dear Editor,
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book, but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is t...
Dear Editor:
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests” (we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say, claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want it eliminated from high schools.
What...
Pages