Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Comment on Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

 

I wrote about the petition to protect paramedic incompetence in Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

Nathan Boone responded with the following comment
 

You’re forgetting about the rural medic out there.

 

No. I am not.

Are you suggesting that bad airway management for a longer period of time is less harmful than bad airway management for a shorter period of time?
 


 

Where we are with our patients for more then a hour, not 5 mintues.

 

The harm from incompetent airway management does not depend on distance from the hospital. Intubation even kills patients in the hospital.

You may believe that the efficacy of voodoo is directly related to the distance from the hospital, but it appears to be only your belief that increases.

Voodoo does not work, regardless of the distance from the hospital.

If the paramedic cannot manage an airway, the paramedic should not be permitted to intubate.
 

Sometimes air- craft isn’t available if its raining or on another call.. You want us to use a bvm and take chance of filling the patients stomic up for over a hour.. Yes we can be extremely careful and do everything in our power not to fill the stomic but there’s some patients out there who have difficult airways where bagging can be extremely difficult and or impossible.

 

Give incompetent paramedics dangerous tools to try to manage difficult airways because of distance? Wouldn’t it be better to try to make them competent – or to limit intubation to competent paramedics?

Intubation and BVM (Bag Valve Mask) are not the only forms of ventilation.
 

Rsi does save patients in rural areas, we need intubations..

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe RSI kills more patients than it saves.

Actually, what I mean to write is, Maybe paramedics using RSI kill more patients than they save.

If you want to claim otherwise, prove it with high-quality research.

Unless you can provide high-quality research, your plastic airway religion is just another alt-med scam.

If your patients are important, then you need to demand that we find out what is best for the patients.
 

Do I believe that Rsi is risky and their is some medics out there who would rather make the patient more hypoxic then before until they give up and go to a secondary airway..absolutely.. But to take it away from Rural Medics when we can have anything to burn patients to anaphylactic reactions and to take our ONLY definitive airway;away from us..

 

You seem to think that RSI (Rapid Sequence Induction of anesthesia) becomes less risky the farther you are from the hospital.

Why?

Incompetence for a longer period will be expected to cause more harm.

Sometimes the incompetence of the paramedic doesn’t kill the patient.
 

Trauma patients were significantly more likely to have misplaced ETTs than medical patients (37% versus 14%, P<.01). With one exception, all the patients found to have esophageal tube placement exhibited the absence of ETCO2 on patient arrival. In the exception, the patient was found to be breathing spontaneously despite a nasotracheal tube placed in the esophagus.[1]

 

The patient clearly did not need intubation.

As with the crash of Trooper 2 in Maryland, the survival of the patient for hours in the woods, in the rain, following the helicopter crash that killed all of the other healthy people on board, was clear evidence that there was no reason to send this patient to the trauma center by air.

The same argument was provided by people, including Dr. Thomas Scalea, the head of Shock Trauma – If you don’t let us have our toys, people will die![2]

The rate of helicopter transport of trauma patients was dramatically cut.

That was almost a decade ago and we are still waiting for the dead bodies.

I expect that the same failure of prophesy will occur, when incompetent paramedics are prevented from intubating.

I expect that the fatality rate will decrease, when incompetent paramedics are prevented from intubating.
 

I think you’re out of your mind.

 

Many religious fanatics do.
 

In the city, I can maybe defend you. But the studies need to be done out in the sticks as well. I believe that we should have to go outpatient surgery every year or 2 or have number set of how many we need in that time period successfully to keep our skills sharp..

 

Every year or two?

WTF?

You don’t want to be taken seriously, do you?

This is something that requires a lot of skill and practice, so I get just a tiny bit, every other year. Trust me with your life.
 

After a Rsi and I have no one in the back but myself for over an hour.., I can place the patient on a vent and care for my patient. If RSI is taken away. I loose the capability to monitor my patient, and would be more focused on bagging my patient, or making sure the secondary away isn’t failing and I’m filling the stomic on the vent, because it can happen.

 

It is just a staffing issue.

That is different.

Competence isn’t needed when you are in the back by yourself.

Why are you opposed to competence?

Where is a single reasonable argument that intubation improves outcomes?

Where is a single reasonable argument that rural paramedics have an intubation success rate that is above 95%?

Even 95% means that some of your patients don’t end up with a properly placed endotracheal tube. What do you think happens to them?

Does your EMS agency have a better than 95% intubation success rate?

If you can’t manage at least 95%, why do you believe you can manage intubation?

Is each intubation on video, or do they just believe whatever you tell them?

If you want to be taken seriously, these are just some of the essential points to address.
 

This is not a new topic. You might also read the series below:

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part I

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part II

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part III

How Accurate are We at Rapid Sequence Intubation for Pediatric Emergency Patients – Part I

How Accurate are We at Rapid Sequence Intubation for Pediatric Emergency Patients – Part II

Footnotes:

[1] Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system.
Katz SH, Falk JL.
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-7.
PMID: 11145768 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text PDF

[2] Helicopters and Bad Science
Thu, 09 Oct 2008
Rogue Medic
Article

.

Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

 

There is a petition to save EMS intubation, but it claims to be a petition to save patients. The petition is not to save patients.
 


Image source
Details here and here.
 

The petition states that its intent is to protect patients, but it does not provide any evidence. It only makes the same claims that every other quack makes to promote his snake oil.

We are worse than homeopaths, because homeopaths do not actively harm patients by depriving patients of oxygen, as we do when we intubate.
 

 
We are the quack, witch doctor, homeopath, horseshit peddlers Dara O’Briain is describing.

 

Today we are possibly facing the removal of the most effective airway intervention at our disposal as paramedics, endotracheal intubation.[1]

 

Most effective?

There is some evidence that intubation can be – in limited situations, by highly trained, competent people – beneficial. There is also plenty of evidence that intubation is harmful. It is easy to kill someone by taking away the patient’s airway.

Most effective?

No.

This petition does not mention evidence, so it has no credibility when it comes to claims of whether intubation is effective. This petition expects us to believe in a faerie tale of magical improvement with intubation. This petition wants us to clap for Tinkerbell, because If we believe hard enough, it just might come true. Grow up.
 

Please sign this petition so that these patients have a chance to live[1]

 

Prove that requiring higher standards for intubation would take away a patient’s chance to live.

Prove that intubation improves outcomes.

This is a petition to keep standards low for paramedics.

This petition does not mention competence, or even what is involved in competence, because this petition is opposition to competence.

This is the Protect Incompetent Paramedics from Responsibility Petition.

Responsibility is for professionals. In EMS, we reject responsibility.

We are more concerned with whether our shoes are shiny, than whether we are harming, or helping, our patients. The reason EMS exists is to improve outcomes for patients.

We don’t deliver competent care, but only the appearance of competence. We are medical theater, putting on a fancy show. The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is the same – all appearance and no substance.

Most effective? Maybe intubation is the most effective theater.

The outcomes of our patients are affected, but we refuse to learn if we are helping, harming, or doing equal amounts of harm and help.

We actually oppose learning. We are willfully ignorant – and proud of our defiant stand for ignorance.

How much hypoxia do we cause in our attempts to place the so called gold standard? The actual gold standard is helping the patient to protect his own airway, but who cares what’s best for the patient? Not those who sign the petition.

How much vomiting, and aspiration, do we cause?

How much airway swelling do we cause?

How many airway infections do we cause?

How much harm do we cause?

We don’t know. We don’t care. We oppose attempts to find out.

We are EMS and we believe that our actions should be protected from examination, because we are beautiful and unique snowflakes who demand our participation trophies without doing real work required to be competent.

Go ahead, snowflakes, demonstrate your incompetence by signing the petition, because this protect intubation petition is really a protect incompetence petition.

If we want to continue to intubate, and we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we need to demonstrate that intubation by EMS provides significant benefit and which patients are most likely to benefit. We can’t do that because we don’t care enough about our patients.
 

Brian Behn has a different reason for not signing the petition for low standards – Why I am Not Signing The Petition About Intubation.

Dave Konig also comments on the petition for low standards – Is ET Intubation Joining Backboards In Protocol?

Footnotes:

[1] Allow paramedics to continue to save lives with endotracheal intubation!
Anthony Gantenbein United States
Petition site

.

Drug Shortages Affecting EMS


 

The most recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) listing of drug shortages, editing out the many cancer drugs, and other non-EMS drugs, includes the following:
 

Generic Name or Active Ingredient                                                 Status
 

Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Solution (0.5%)         Resolved

This is important, but one way of dealing with a nebulized albuterol shortage is to alternate albuterol with nebulized saline. this prevents giving too much albuterol to the patient who is maintaining a reasonable oxygen saturation and keeping the airway humidified.
 

Atropine Sulfate Injection         Currently in Shortage

We should be accumulating atropine, since we no longer use atropine for asystole. Atropine maintains its strength, even when stored for extended periods, so we should only discard atropine when there is contamination.
 

Calcium Chloride Injection, USP         Currently in Shortage

Calcium (chloride or gluconate) appears to be the best drug for hyperkalemia. We are fortunate in EMS to not have to deal with sodium polystyrene (Kayexalate), which is just a means of creating the appearance of clostridium difficlie. Senna glycoside (ex-lax) can be just as effective at causing diarrhea and anything that causes diarrhea will cause some removal of potassium.
 

Calcium Gluconate Injection         Currently in Shortage

See above.
 

Cromolyn Sodium Inhalation Solution, USP         Currently in Shortage
 

Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate Injection         Resolved
 

Dextrose 50% Injection         Currently in Shortage

We should be using 10% dextrose, rather than 50%, but we are slow to learn from our mistakes.

Comment on 10% Dextrose vs 50% Dextrose.
 

Epinephrine Injection, 0.1 mg/mL         Currently in Shortage

Maybe we will be using less epinephrine after the results of the Paramedic2 trial are published. I expect that some patients will be shown to benefit from epinephrine in cardiac arrest. I hope that the results will help us to identify which patients benefit from epinephrine in cardiac arrest and which patients have worse outcomes because of receiving epinephrine in cardiac arrest. I don’t really expect these answers, because we seem to be trying to avoid asking appropriate questions about drug treatment.
 

Epinephrine Injection, 1 mg/mL         Resolved
 

Fentanyl Citrate (Sublimaze) Injection         Currently in Shortage

There are other drugs that are effective for pain management. Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) can be used safely by EMS.
 

Labetalol Hydrochloride Injection         Currently in Shortage
 

Lidocaine Hydrochloride (Xylocaine) Injection         Currently in Shortage

EMS should have disposed of our supplies of lidocaine and amiodarone following the ALPS and PROCAMIO.

Dr. Kudenchuk is Misrepresenting ALPS as ‘Significant’

The PROCAMIO Trial – IV Procainamide vs IV Amiodarone for the Acute Treatment of Stable Wide Complex Tachycardia
 

Lidocaine Hydrochloride (Xylocaine) Injection with Epinephrine         Currently in Shortage

This is more for wilderness EMS, than urban.
 

Methylprednisolone Sodium Succinate for Injection, USP         Currently in Shortage

This is an important drug for reactive airway conditions.
 

Nitrous Oxide, Gas         Currently in Shortage

A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of using nitrous oxide, but it is safe – as long as there is good circulation of fresh air.
 

Pantoprazole (Protonix) Powder for Injection         Currently in Shortage

This is usually not the part of allergic reaction that EMS treats, but it can be helpful.
 

Potassium Chloride Injection         Currently in Shortage

Not generally prehospital EMS, but interfacility.
 

Procainamide Hydrochloride Injection, USP         Currently in Shortage

This is an antiarrhythmic drug that actually works, but we tend to avoid it out of a lack of understanding and a lack of familiarity with the evidence.
 

Promethazine (Phenergan) Injection         Currently in Shortage
 

Ranitidine Injection, USP         Currently in Shortage
 

Rocuronium Bromide Injection         Currently in Shortage

Succinylcholine may end up as a shortage because of the rocuronium shortage.
 

Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP         Currently in Shortage

After calcium, sodium bicarbonate can be effective for hyperkalemia. Flush the line. Even better, use a different line for these incompatible medications.

We should not be wasting sodium bicarbonate in cardiac arrest patients, since it is not going to do anything to make things better, but it will make it more difficult to get sodium bicarbonate for the patients who can actually benefit.
 

Sodium Chloride 0.9% Injection Bags         Currently in Shortage

Do we really need to start as many IV (IntraVenous) lines with a drip?
 

Sodium Chloride 23.4% Injection         Currently in Shortage

Also effective for hyperkalemia, since it is the sodium that moves the potassium, not any myth of alkalinizing the patient.

.

Happy 91st Birthday Mel Brooks


 

Mel Brooks is great at using comedy to ridicule our truly ridiculous behaviors.
 


 

He also seems to be a fan of the recently deceased John Hurt, using him in Space Balls, History of the World, Part I, and The Elephant Man. Brooks produced, but was not listed in the credits for The Elephant Man, so that audiences would not expect a comedy.

.

The Medical Journal of Australia is Scammed by Acupuncturists

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

Acupuncture has been thoroughly studied in high quality studies. The result is that we know, yes we know, that acupuncture is just an elaborate placebo – a scam. A reputable journal is claiming that low quality evidence contradicts what we know and we should ignore the high quality evidence.[1]

So why did the Medical Journal of Australia fall for this? Are their reviewers incompetent, dishonest, or is there some other reason for misleading their readers with bad research?

What is acupuncture?

You stick special needles into magic qi spots on the patient’s body, in order to affect the body’s magic energy. Not mitochondrial energy. Not any real measurable energy, but some psychic powers, some Stephen King kind of energy.

Any competent/honest researcher would compare acupuncture with a valid placebo. What is a valid placebo? A valid placebo is one that the patient believes is the treatment being studied. If the treatment comes in a pill, you provide a pill that is indistinguishable from the pill, but without the active ingredient. If the treatment is to jab you with needles, you provide an experience that is indistinguishable from the needles, but without influencing any mechanism of action the proponents claim makes the needles work.
 


 

How do we get people to believe they are being stabbed with needles in magic qi spots, without actually stabbing them with needles in magic qi spots? Use toothpicks at spots that acupuncture specialists specify are definitely not magic qi spots.

Every study of acupuncture that has used a valid placebo has failed to show benefit over placebo.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]

Does this study use a valid placebo?

No. This study uses jargon and misdirection to distract us from the only important part of this study.

This study is just propaganda.

It doesn’t matter where you put the needles.

It doesn’t matter if you use needles.

All that matters is that you believe in voodoo.

We already knew that acupuncture is merely fancy voodoo, with the needles going into the patient, rather than the doll. These researchers want us to ignore the high quality evidence and pretend that the man behind the curtain is as great and powerful as he initially claims to be.

Footnotes:

[1] Acupuncture for analgesia in the emergency department: a multicentre, randomised, equivalence and non-inferiority trial
Marc M Cohen, De Villiers Smit, Nick Andrianopoulos, Michael Ben-Meir, David McD Taylor, Shefton J Parker, Chalie C Xue and Peter A Cameron
Med J Aust 2017; 206 (11): 494-499. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00771
Abstract from MJA

Free Full Text in PDF format from MJA

[2] A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain.
Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Avins AL, Erro JH, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Delaney K, Hawkes R, Hamilton L, Pressman A, Khalsa PS, Deyo RA.
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 11;169(9):858-66. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.65.
PMID: 19433697

Free Full Text from PubMed Central

[3] Acupuncture for treatment of persistent arm pain due to repetitive use: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Goldman RH, Stason WB, Park SK, Kim R, Schnyer RN, Davis RB, Legedza AT, Kaptchuk TJ.
Clin J Pain. 2008 Mar-Apr;24(3):211-8.
PMID: 18287826 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

[4] Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments.
Kaptchuk TJ, Stason WB, Davis RB, Legedza AR, Schnyer RN, Kerr CE, Stone DA, Nam BH, Kirsch I, Goldman RH.
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):391-7. Epub 2006 Feb 1.
PMID: 16452103 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from PubMed Central.

[5] Another acupuncture study misinterpreted
Science Blogs – Respectful Insolence
Orac
May 13, 2009
Article

[6] Acupuncture in the ED
Steven Novella
Neurologica
Article

[7] Emergency acupuncture! (2017 edition)
Science Blogs – Respectful Insolence
Orac
June 20, 2017
Article

[8] On the pointlessness of acupuncture in the emergency room…or anywhere else
David Gorski
Science-Based Medicine
July 25, 2016
Article

.

D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study

ResearchBlogging.org
 

Why treat hypoglycemia with 10% dextrose (D10), rather than the more expensive, potentially more harmful, and less available, but traditional treatment of 50% dextrose (D50)? Why not? The only benefit of 50% dextrose appears to be that it is what people are used to using, but aren’t we used to starting IVs (IntraVenous lines) and running fluids through the IVs?

We should be much more familiar with running in fluid, than in pushing boluses of syrup.

What happens when we have temporary shortages of 50% dextrose? Do we stop treating hypoglycemia? Are we supposed to panic, because we can no longer follow tradition? No. We give the more appropriate, and lower, dose of the much lower concentration of dextrose. We provide better care because of our need.
 

Despite the traditional use of D50, there is a minimal amount of data to support it as the standard of care.[1]

 

Is 10% dextrose the perfect treatment for hypoglycemia? No, but it does appear to be less likely to cause harm than the current overtreatment with 50% dextrose.
 

Seven patients had a drop in blood glucose after D10 administration, all of 10 mg/dL or less except for one patient with a drop of 19 mg/dL who had an insulin pump infusing that was not removed by EMS personnel during D10 infusion.[1]

 

Is that any different from what happens with 50% dextrose? If this is different from D50, how does the potential harm from giving too much dextrose to most hypoglycemic patients compare to the potential harm of giving a first that is too small to fewer than 1% of hypoglycemia patients?
 

There were no reported adverse events related to dextrose infusion. Six patients who received intravenous D10 were pronounced dead in the field during the period of study. On investigator review, all patients had altered level of arousal or were in cardiac arrest prior to arrival of EMS personnel and their deaths were deemed to be unrelated to dextrose administration.[1]

 

Dextrose does not reverse death, so there is no reason to expect a better outcome for dead patients with a higher concentration of a drug that does not reverse death. Go read the excellent review of the evidence on hypoglycemia, death, and the potential of dextrose to improve outcomes from death.[2]

But is 10% really better? We don’t have any good research, but is there any good reason to give all 25 grams of dextrose in a syringe of 50% dextrose if the patient wakes up before the full dose has been administered? Would we continue to give the entire syringe of morphine, or fentanyl, or most of the other drugs that we give, if our assessment shows that the patient no longer meets the protocol criteria for administration of the drug?
 


 

76% of patients received only 10 grams of dextrose, rather than the usual 25 grams. While it is not known if any of these patients required any further dextrose, or oral glucose, while in the hospital, they should have been awake enough to take any further dextrose orally, as they would the rest of the time.

23% of patients received only 20 grams of dextrose, rather than the usual 25 grams.

Fewer than 1% of hypoglycemia patients received a dose as large as we traditionally give.
 

We do not appear to be concerned with harm from administering more aggressive treatment than is justified by the evidence.

We do appear to be concerned about our anxiety of deviating from the traditional too much is not enough approach to hypoglycemia.

Footnotes:

[1] D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study.
Hern HG, Kiefer M, Louie D, Barger J, Alter HJ.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jan-Feb;21(1):63-67. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1189637. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
PMID: 27918858
 

Of the 1,323 patients administered D10 during the study period, the 452 patients excluded from the study cohort for the aforementioned reasons were similar demographically to the study cohort. The median initial blood glucose was the same at 37 mg/dL and the median age was also 66. There were slightly more women at 229 (51%) in the excluded group compared to the cohort.

 

[2] Using Dextrose in Cardiac Arrest
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Mill Hill Ave Command
Dr. Brooks Walsh
Article

Hern, H., Kiefer, M., Louie, D., Barger, J., & Alter, H. (2016). D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study Prehospital Emergency Care, 21 (1), 63-67 DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1189637

.

The March for Science is a March for Honesty and Accountability


 

There were some great signs at the March for Science because the march was about truth and it is difficult to go wrong defending the search for truth. The only time people seem to oppose the search for truth is when truth is seen as a threat to their ideology and/or income.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! – Upton Sinclair.

Scientists are accused of being arrogant, apparently because scientists don’t waste their time on ideas that cannot be tested or on ideas that repeatedly fail objective testing. Scientists learn by providing the most honest way of assessing the truth – they do everything they can to eliminate bias and to eliminate the effects of anything that is not being tested.

Is that arrogant?

Arrogance would be refusing to allow everyone to criticize your work, but science requires that scientists be open about their work and invite their harshest critics to poke holes in their work.

This means that nonsense will not survive for long. The better hypotheses will survive. Logical fallacies are eventually exposed and we learn the truth.
 


 

This is why science rejects claims that fail experimentation and claims that cannot be tested. These claims are not science.
 

Flat Earth claims are rejected. There is abundant evidence that the Earth is not flat, but people still claim that the Earth is flat. There is no scientific controversy about whether the Earth is roughly spherical in shape.[1]
 

Creationism claims are rejected. Creationism contradicts almost all of the sciences (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, . . .), so Creationism would need to be supported by some very well tested evidence. Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence, but that does not stop Creationists from claiming to be scientists.

The clearest evidence that evolution is real is provided by DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). When we want to confirm the relationship among different people, we use DNA, because it works. DNA confirms that we are related to baboons, bananas, and bacteria. DNA is able to show how close those relationships are. There is no scientific controversy about whether humans evolved along with the rest of life on Earth.[2]

 

I did not get a clear picture of the sign, but I have not changed the words.

 

Anti-GMO claims are rejected. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are recognized to be safe, nutritious, important in the prevention of widespread famine, overall much more beneficial than their critics claim, and dramatically better organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that organic foods would not produce a famine, if everyone were to eat organic foods. Those opposed to GMOs claim that modification is bad, even though humans have been modifying crops for over 10,000 years. We even use chemicals and radiation to cause mutations to crops that are still considered organic.
 

From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varieties have been released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%).[3] [3]

 

There is no scientific controversy about the benefits of GMOs.
 


 

Climate change denial is rejected. Climate change is real and harmful. Some people (not scientists) claim that natural factors are causing the unnatural warming. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming is a good thing. Some people (not scientists) claim that the unnatural warming isn’t happening. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 


This chart[4] does not include 2016.

If you are a climate change denier, you were counting on 2016 being something other than the hottest year on record. Three years in a row would be unprecedented. 2017 was hotter than 2016, which contradicts the denier arguments.[5] If you are a climate change denier, you should realize that denying science is not going your way. You have had some political successes, but you can’t deny reality forever. There is no scientific controversy about the reality of climate change.
 

Anti-vaccine claims are rejected. Anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are dangerous and that vaccines do not work. Do vaccines work? We should have eradicated polio by now, but anti-vaxers have discouraged vaccination. If you don’t like your children getting the polio vaccine, blame the anti-vaxers. We did eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. We stopped vaccinating against smallpox. Smallpox was killing 2 million people a year. If you don’t worry about smallpox, thank a scientist. There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States – Table 1


 

In response to the evidence in Table 1,[6] anti-vaxers claim that improved sanitation and hygiene. The decrease in cases and deaths due to the various vaccine-preventable illnesses should be the same for all of these diseases, but that is not the case. The diseases have also produced epidemics when the vaccination level drops below herd immunity levels.[7] There is no scientific controversy about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
 

Science is not perfect, but science is better than all other means of learning the truth.

When science produces mistakes, we learn about it from scientists, not from politicians, not from preachers, not from placebo pushers, not from psychics, and not from any other deniers of science.

Maybe the message of science got through.

Maybe we won’t need another March for Science.
 


??Gaby Mérida ??‏ @ThatSpanishLady Twitter
Click on the image to make it larger.

Footnotes:

[1] Flat Earth Rising
by Steven Novella
Neurologica
April 6, 2017
Article

[2] Objections to evolution
Wikipedia
Article

[3] Mutation breeding
Wikipedia
Article

[4] The 10 Hottest Years on Record
January 20th, 2016
By Climate Central
Article

[5] 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
Scientific American
Article

[6] Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.
Roush SW, Murphy TV; Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group..
JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
PMID: 18000199

Free Full Text from JAMA.

[7] “Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked
by David Gorski
March 29, 2010
Science-Based Medicine
Article

.

The Irony of being listed on BadBusiness dot org


 

Late entry 15:12 4-20-2017 – Badbusiness dot org does not appear to be a valid site for criticism of legitimate business problems.

Badbusiness dot org is a site that appears to be set up with the same goal as my blog, so it is ironic that their most recent article is about my blog (roguemedic.com). On their front page, they do state –
 

Please note that (badbusiness dot org) does not guarantee the authenticity or verifiability of complaints posted by its users.[1]

 

The person/people/business writing about me should be the focus of badbusiness dot org. The person/people/business behind the article appears to have three complaints. I will address the second complaint first, then the third, since these second complaint appears to be the reason for concluding the first.
 

This character will defame pharmaceutical companies online with no evidence or proof.[2]

 

The first irony of this complaint is that it is on a site set up to criticize bad business, but it is a complaint that I am criticizing bad business by someone defending the bad business of some pharmaceutical companies.

I am very critical of those who endanger patients with inadequately tested medications and/or with medications that have evidence of producing more harm than benefit.

The second irony is that I am accused of not providing evidence. I provide evidence. My critics provide excuses. The people, and companies, I criticize are the ones who do not provide evidence. If they did provide valid evidence, I would write about someone else.

Do you want to be a guinea pig for people who do not care enough to provide treatment that is safe? Do you want to be a guinea pig for people who do not care enough to provide treatment that works? Do you want snake oil?

I have been threatened with a law suit from SWAT Fuel, Inc. for writing that their product appears to be just another health food scam. I responded by challenging SWAT Fuel, Inc. to sue me and let the evidence speak in court. I provided links to evidence.[3],[4]

I have not heard anything in the six months since I responded. Apparently, SWAT Fuel, Inc. recognizes that the evidence supports my criticism. Maybe the lawyers for SWAT Fuel, Inc. probably were awaiting the final outcome of the Tobinick lawsuit.

The Tobinick lawsuit? I have criticized Dr. Edward Tobinick for doing the same thing SWAT Fuel does, only with a medical license. Dr. Tobinick is a doctor, but he is making claims that are not supported by valid evidence. Dr. Tobinick sued Dr. Steven Novella, Yale University, and Science-Based Medicine to stop valid criticism of Dr. Tobinick’s magical treatment.[5],[6],[7]

Dr. Tobinick appealed the decision against him, but his case was so bad, he was ordered to pay a significant part of Dr. Novella’s legal expenses.[8]

An apparent minion of Dr. Tobinick has accused me of many things, including being a terrorist for my criticism of Dr. Tobinick.[9],[10]

I also criticize acupuncture, homeopathy, Reiki, faith healing, and other alternative medicine for a lack of evidence of safety and a lack of evidence of benefit.

I provide evidence. My critics provide excuses.
 

The third complaint is that I aim to frighten, intimidate, and cause emotional distress to those who harm patients.

Based on what they claim, the goal of badbusiness dot org appears to be the same as mine –
 

Bad business postings are reports from your average consumers (our users) who are fed up with corporate bullies, and with overall BS. If it’s bad business, people oughta know.[11]

Why is badbusiness dot org posting a complaint by someone defending the bad business of some pharmaceutical companies whining about valid criticism?
 

What was the primary point from this defender of the bad business of some pharmaceutical companies?

1. I am accused of being an assholethe biggest asshole.

Gosh. Last month I was a terrorist, but now I am only an asshole. I never expected to please everyone, but I have aggressively criticized bad patient care and bad business. Our patients are more important than my reputation.

If that makes me an asshole, then I would rather be an asshole than defend bad patient care and/or defend bad business.

Why is badbusiness dot org providing a forum for companies upset by valid criticism?

PS – I attempted to comment, and post a link to this response, on the site. I received the following reply.
 

Your comment has been blocked because the blog owner has set their spam filter to not allow comments from users behind proxies.

If you are a regular commenter or you feel that your comment should not have been blocked, please contact the blog owner and ask them to modify this setting.

 

If resolving conflicts is part of their goal, preventing communication does not seem to be a reasonable approach.

Footnotes:

[1] Badbusiness dot org
homepage

[2] Timothy Noonan of RogueMedic.com is bad business
badbusiness dot org
By admin
March 24th, 2017
Article

[3] How to scam the police – SWAT Fuel
Thu, 26 Jul 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

[4] SWAT Fuel – Suing Me to Defend Their Scam
Thu, 06 Oct 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[5] Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Rogue Medic
Article

[6] Tobinick Lawsuit Update – Justice Has Prevailed
Science-Based Medicine
sbmadmin
October 6, 2015
Article

[7] Tobinick v. Novella
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:14-CV-80781-ROSENBERG/BRANNON
Decision

[8] Edward Tobinick et al. v. Steven Novella et al.
Case number 15-14889
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decision

[9] When Minions Attack
Sun, 26 Feb 2017
Rogue Medic
Article

[10] The Boy Who Cried Terrorist
Wed, 01 Mar 2017
Rogue Medic
Article

[11] Badbusiness dot org
homepage

.