******* hell, this site is really filled with morons. to the brim.

No, no it's not.

according to wikipedia, yes, yes it is.

According to basic anatomy no it isn't. But I guess expecting any basic knowledge from someone who thinks 'wikipedia says no' is a valid argument is a bit much.

according to basic anatomy, yes, yes it is. the heimlich maneuver consists of upward directed abdominal thrusts. you get the same by using a chair's back or any other suitable object to inflict the same sort of pressure on yourself. But I guess expecting basic intelligence from one of the "wikipedia is full of lies! Lies, I tell you!!1!" crowd is a bit much.

You can get the same from using the chairs back but not from throwing yourself on it as it was unlikely to give you the correct upwards angle. Though I guess it was possible that she was just being melodramatic and vague in her phrasing. Sorry for the bitchy response, I should have looked it up first (and the method it suggests would indeed have a chance of working) and clearly pointed out why I disagreed. Wikipedia isn't full of lies as such but shouldn't be trusted, in my opinion. It's a brilliant starting point for anything as long as you do the research but isn't an authority on anything, which is why I disagree with people using it as a source. 'Wikipedia says it's true' can mean anything from 'someone linked to important journal X' to 'some kid with a computer heard it from a friend'. Also, very sorry for the snarkiness, it was uncalled for.

A study once found out that Wikipedia has just about the same amount of errors in it than Enciclopedia Britannica, but that's now a few years back (I would have linked to it, but FML kept eating my reply with the link in it). Still, the Wikipedia articles that should be handled carefully are the ones about companies (some hire people to cleverly fake entries), the ones about people (fans are sometimes idiots) and the political ones (obviously). While obvious errors get cleared out fast, some can stay undetected. The rest is rather clean and more often than not valid. The less people interested in something, the bigger chance of it being right on Wikipedia because noone cares to troll it ;) I once wrote an article about an old tv show that I have really big knowledge of. Within a week, something that was a basic article got improved to be a really great one without even one wrong statement. Sure, you should always check out the sources (you never know who sponsered a study..), but I think with something making as much sense as this, that's not really neccessary. Oh, by the way, congratulations to you. I am so used to the internet being filled with morons (FML is usually no exception) that I would never have expected a reply like yours. Really, I'm impressed. And I'm not even sarcastic this time :)