No, they're not at all equivalent. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, in the six years I've been doing them high-rep olympic lifts have never injured me, but a 1RM clean and jerk has. So until you can come to me with a large scale study supporting your point, you are just making baseless assertions that are contradicted by my personal (albeit anecdotal) experience.

The quality of discussion on HN has fallen so far that we are now using anecdotal evidence to argue that doing a complex multi-joint mechanical movement with heavy weights in a high-rep, high-tempo fashion is not dangerous, and the burden of proof is on dem non-Crossfitters to use large scale studies to prove that it is.

I, too, have written elsewhere in this thread. Specifically, I wrote that these lifts are so complex that Olympic athletes spend years learning and mastering proper form, and go through very strict regimens to ensure their form does not break under heavier loads. There's a reason for that: the human body operates within certain parameters and going outside those parameters in the name of "pushing your limits" can permanently cripple you.

So there is your "large scale study:" look at how Olympic athletes do it, because that's the way to do it safely and without destroying your muscles, joints and internal organs.

That's not your large scale study because they are focused on something completely different--namely max weight. A 135 lb clean and jerk is quite light in the grand scheme of things, but it can do a whole lot for your fitness when viewed in a holistic program that includes other exercises. Anecdotal evidence may not have the weight of a large-scale study, but it's not meaningless. In the absence of any other evidence, it is an indication that the mean probably tilts towards one side. And I have yet to see any real evidence that high rep olympic lifts are dangerous other than the non sequitur that they're complex motor movements.