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

- Rogue Medic

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

.

The Boy Who Cried Terrorist

 
This is the latest comment from Frederick Blum in response to what I wrote about his absurd defense of Dr. Tobinick.[1].[2] As you can see, in labeling appropriate respect for patients as terrorism, Frederick Blum completely lacks perspective.
 

I think a more apt description of what you are is ” Rogue Terrorist ” . Forget ” Rogue Medic. ” It’s not really you. Think about it.[3]

 

Think like Frederick Blum?

That might be torture.

If you honestly think that I am a terrorist, turn me in.

Go ahead.

It may be even worse to not turn in a terrorist, than to treat patients with inadequately tested medications.
 

If you see something, say something 1
 

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”[4]

 

What do terrorists do?
 

You hide behind a cowardly mask exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Cowardly?

I have allowed Frederick Blum a forum to make baseless accusations.

I have responded with evidence.

I have not made threats.

Frederick Blum calls this cowardly?
 

You fabricate lies about people and assault them with ad hominem attacks, also exactly as terrorists do.[3]

 

Frederick Blum, provide some sort of evidence to support your imaginative accusations.

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of safety.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have stated that Dr. Tobinick has failed to produce valid evidence of efficacy.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is not completely true?

I have not lied.

I have criticized Dr. Tobinick for a failure to provide evidence of safety and efficacy. Using safe and effective treatments is an important part of what separates ethical medical practice from alternative medicine.

If people conclude that Dr. Tobinick is unethical because of what I have written, that is only reasonable.

Neither of you have provided even an iota to suggest any other conclusion.

By the way, have terrorists switched from killing people to using honest criticism? I wish it were so.
 

Really, you’re just another unremarkable terrorist.[3]

 

Is your unremarkable remark intentionally ironic?
 

You should change your anonymous cowardly handle to ” Rogue Terrorist. ” At least in doing so you would be honest about yourself.[1]

 

Without valid evidence of safety, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate safety.

Without valid evidence of benefit, we must conclude that Dr. Tobinick cannot honestly demonstrate any benefit.

If Dr. Tobinick’s treatment is safe and effective, why hide the evidence?

Footnotes:

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

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

[3] The comment where Blum cried Terrorist
comment on Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish
Frederick Blum
Comment

[4] 1984
George Orwell
Free Full Text from The University of Adelaide Library

.

When Minions Attack

Minion vampire 1a
Image credit.
 

In the comments to Dr. Edward Tobinick Sues Barbara Streisand – or something equally foolish,[1] Frederick Blum (sometimes Frederick S. Blum) states that he does not like my criticism of Dr. Edward Tobinick for using inadequately tested treatment, on patients.
 

The fact that you’ve censored my comments speaks volumes about the kind of person you are, ” Rogue Medic.”[2]

 

I have not censored Frederick Blum’s comments. All comments are moderated. Not all spam is caught by the spam filter.

Since Frederick Blum’s earlier, similarly absurd, comment was approved and appeared in the comments hours before this comment, what leads Frederick Blum to conclude that this is censorship?
 

What are you afraid of being found out for, that you’re no more than a charlatan ?[2]

 

You chose to use the word charlatan. Since the topic is Dr. Tobinick, is this use of charlatan a Freudian slip?
 

Frederick Blum also obsesses about my use of a pseudonym, although I provide links to valid evidence and Frederick Blum only makes excuses to distract from the absence of valid evidence for Dr. Tobinick’s treatment.

Frederick Blum complains that it is wrong to criticize Dr. Tobinick for his failure to post valid evidence, since Dr. Tobinick uses his real name.

Is valid evidence less valid when I use a pseudonym?

No.

This gullibility is one of the primary reasons scams are so successful.

Bernie Madoff, perhaps the biggest thief of all time, had people, like Frederick Blum, defending his business. A lot of people trusted that con man for the same reason.

What was Bernie Madoff’s motto?
 

Also to his advantage, Madoff was adept at both selfpromotion and client relations. His corporate slogan, “The Owner’s Name Is on the Door,” would reinforce his managerial image, as well as provide his growing list of wealthy clients with a reassuring declaration—a personal acknowledgement of his fiduciary responsibility to them.[3]

 

Is Dr. Tobinick a medical, and much more dangerous, version of Bernie Madoff? Is Dr. Tobinick’s name on the door just a confidence gimmick?
 

You can’t hide the truth about yourself forever. Eventually it is seen for what it really is – the truth.[2]

 

We would be able to determine the truth about Dr. Tobinick, if Dr. Tobinick would adequately test his treatment.

Is the treatment safe, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment better than a placebo, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

Is the treatment as good as any adequately tested treatments, as Dr. Tobinick uses it?

The only suppression of the truth is from Dr. Tobinick and his worshipers, such as Frederick Blum.

What is the treatment?
 

The list of conditions for which Tobinick claims or even has patented use of Enbrel include Alzheimer’s, stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, brain tumor, spinal cord injury, and back pain. That quite impressive for a doctor who isn’t even a neurologist. Tobinick is an internist who, prior to curing a long list of neurological diseases, specialized in laser hair removal.[4]

 

Why doesn’t everyone go to a laser hair removal specialist for inadequately tested treatments?

I am sure that the FDA and the insurance companies are being unreasonable in wanting evidence of safety and efficacy.
 

And, the truth is that you have devised a falsified and libelous campaign against someone who is not only innocent but a truly great medical scientist with a proven honest intelligence that surpasses almost everybody else in medicine today, Dr. Edward Tobinick, only to further your own loathsome self serving agenda.[2]

A proven honest intelligence? Where did you come up with that nonsense? If an intelligent person uses a dangerous treatment, the treatment is still dangerous.

Go ahead. I dare you, Frederick Blum. Stop making excuses and provide evidence to back up your unsupportable claims.

Footnotes:

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

[2] Censorship comment by Frederick Blum
comment

[3] Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
Deborah Strober & Gerald Strober
Kindle Locations 1077-1079
Phoenix Books, Inc.

From the website of Bernie Madoff – http://www.madoff.com on December 15, 2008. In Appendix A (Kindle Locations 2760-2765)
 

The Owner’s Name is on the Door

In an era of faceless organizations owned by other equally faceless organizations, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC harks back to an earlier era in the financial world: The owner’s name is on the door. Clients know that Bernard Madoff has a personal interest in maintaining the unblemished record of value, fair-dealing, and high ethical standards that has always been the firm’s hallmark.

 

[4] Enbrel for Stroke and Alzheimer’s
Science-Based Medicine
Steven Novella
May 8, 2013
Article

.

2018 ACLS/PALS/NRP – AHA-ILCOR Guideline questions are being reviewed until 02-21-2017

AHA2015 - 2018
 

In preparation for the 2018 ACLS/PALS/NRP/CPR Guidelines (maybe 2017) the AHA (American Heart Association) and ILCOR (the International Liaison Committee On Resuscitation) are reviewing the questions they ask to examine the evidence, or the lack of evidence, on various interventions addressed by the guidelines for the:
 

First Aid Task Force (Public comment on PICO prioritization has recently closed. PICO categorization public comment period was open from October 10 to 24, 2016)

Advanced Life Support Task Force (Public comment on PICO categorization is NOW OPEN until 12:00 AM CST on February 21st, 2017!)

Basic Life Support Task Force (Public comment on PICO categorization is NOW OPEN until 12:00 AM CST on February 21st, 2017!)

Pediatric Life Support Task Force (Public comment on PICO categorization is NOW OPEN until 12:00 AM CST on February 21st, 2017!)

Education, Implementation and Teams Task Force (Public comment on PICO categorization is NOW OPEN until 12:00 AM CST on February 21st, 2017!)​

Neonatal Life Support Task Force (Public comment on PICO categorization is NOW OPEN until 12:00 AM CST on February 22nd, 2017!)[1]

 

Some questions are obvious and will be continued, such as 428. This is the review of antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest. Recent research shows no benefit to patients from amiodarone, or lidocaine.[2]

What do the 2015 ACLS Guidelines recommend?
 

Amiodarone may be considered for VF/pVT that is unresponsive to CPR, defibrillation, and a vasopressor therapy (Class IIb, LOE B-R).

Lidocaine may be considered as an alternative to amiodarone for VF/pVT that is unresponsive to CPR, defibrillation, and vasopressor therapy (Class IIb, LOE C-LD).[3]

 

Outside of controlled trials that are large enough to provide useful answers, amiodarone and lidocaine have no place in the treatment of cardiac arrest.
 

Much less obvious is 808, the suggestion that we should ventilate patients in the absence of evidence of benefit from ventilation – at least there is no evidence of benefit for the patient. Hands-only CPR seems to annoy doctors, nurses, paramedics, EMTs, . . . .

Why are we still ventilating adult cardiac arrest patients with cardiac causes of their cardiac arrest in the absence of evidence of safety and in the absence of evidence of benefit?
 

Why is there any question about 788? Results from Paramedic2 should be available next year. Is epinephrine in cardiac arrest better than a placebo?[4]

This is the first time we will have valid evidence to start to decide what to do with a treatment we have been using for over half a century based on the weakest of evidence. Paramedic2 is unlikely to answer many questions, such as which cardiac arrest patients should receive epinephrine and which should not, but it will be a start.
 

Then there is 464Drugs for monomorphic wide complex tachycardia. Considering the recent publication of PROCAMIO and the absence of discussion of tachycardia and bradycardia in the 2015 Guidelines, it is bizarre that this is among the questions recommended for elimination. Since there was no recommendation on treatment of ventricular tachycardia in the 2015 ACLS Guidelines, the recommendation from 2010 continues unchanged.

What did PROCAMIO show? If we give a high enough dose of amiodarone to actually try to treat the arrhythmia, major adverse cardiac events are more common than any benefit.[5]

Are we using amiodarone just to make stable ventricular tachycardia unstable?

Procainamide is safer and more effective.

Cardioversion is safer and more effective.

Adenosine is safer and probably more effective.[6]

Doing nothing is safer and only slightly less effective.

What about blood-letting for stable ventricular tachycardia?

Blood-letting is probably safer and maybe just as effective as amiodarone.[7]

Footnotes:

[1] ILCOR Continuous Evidence Evaluation
AHA (American Heart Association) and ILCOR (the International Liaison Committee On Resuscitation)
ILCOR 2016-2017 PICO categorization and prioritization public comment page

[2] Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Kudenchuk PJ, Brown SP, Daya M, Rea T, Nichol G, Morrison LJ, Leroux B, Vaillancourt C, Wittwer L, Callaway CW, Christenson J, Egan D, Ornato JP, Weisfeldt ML, Stiell IG, Idris AH, Aufderheide TP, Dunford JV, Colella MR, Vilke GM, Brienza AM, Desvigne-Nickens P, Gray PC, Gray R, Seals N, Straight R, Dorian P; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators..
N Engl J Med. 2016 May 5;374(18):1711-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514204.
PMID: 27043165

Free Full Text from NEJM

[3] 2015 Recommendations—Updated
Part 7: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support
2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
2015 Recommendations—Updated

[4] Paramedic2 – The Adrenaline Trial
Warwick Medical School
About

[5] Randomized comparison of intravenous procainamide vs. intravenous amiodarone for the acute treatment of tolerated wide QRS tachycardia: the PROCAMIO study.
Ortiz M, Martín A, Arribas F, Coll-Vinent B, Del Arco C, Peinado R, Almendral J; PROCAMIO Study Investigators.
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jun 28. pii: ehw230. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 27354046
 

The primary outcome, major adverse cardiac events within 40 minutes of infusion initiation, for procainamide vs. amiodarone, was 9% vs. 41%, p = 0.006. Severe hypotension or symptoms requiring immediate direct current cardioversion (DCCV) occurred in 6.3% vs. 31.0%. Results were similar in patients with structural heart disease (n = 49).

 

[6] Adenosine for wide-complex tachycardia – diagnostic?
Thu, 23 Aug 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

[7] Blood-Letting
Br Med J.
1871 March 18; 1(533): 283–291.
PMCID: PMC2260507
 

Physicians observed of old, and continued to observe for many centuries, the following facts concerning blood-letting.

1. It gave relief to pain. . . . .

2. It diminished swelling. . . . .

3. It diminished local redness or congestion. . . . .

4. For a short time after bleeding, either local or general, abnormal heat was sensibly diminished.

5. After bleeding, spasms ceased, . . . .

6. If the blood could be made to run, patients were roused up suddenly from the apparent death of coma. (This was puzzling to those who regarded spasm and paralysis as opposite states; but it showed the catholic applicability of the remedy.)

7. Natural (wrongly termed ” accidental”) hacmorrhages were observed sometimes to end disease. . . . .

8. . . . venesection would cause hamorrhages to cease.

 

.

Does use of Lights and Sirens save lives?

AmboLights
 

A recent Fire Chief Magazine and the current JEMS have some articles on the use of lights and sirens and the effect on patient outcomes. Doug Wolfberg, one of the EMS lawyers who might be trying to defend your choice on use of lights and sirens, states –
 

Few cows are more sacred in fire service based EMS than the ones that flash, wail and yelp. The use of emergency lights and sirens is an inseparable part of everyday EMS life.[1]

 

and –
 

Yet when we look at the actual evidence, a few things become apparent about RLS use. First, it’s proven to be dangerous. Second, it’s not proven to be beneficial.[2]

 

In another article, several of the top medical directors in the country state –
 

Unlike fire emergencies, which can grow exponentially and spread quickly, only a small subset of medical emergencies is truly time sensitive. Most don’t dramatically worsen in the course of a very few minutes, and they don’t spread from person to person.[3]

 

In rare cases, such as those where we are not able to control bleeding, or breathing, and the hospital is close enough that the patient won’t be dead by the time we get there, does use of lights and sirens save lives? In those rare cases? Sometimes.

Wouldn’t it be better to improve the quality of the people treating these patients, rather than increase the speed of transport?

When is the last time you transported a patient to the emergency department for something that needed to be done immediately to save the life of the patient?

Why not do that before transport?

Was it out of your scope of practice, did you not know what was going on, did you not feel comfortable performing the skill, could you not make up your mind about what to do, . . .?

Can’t place an endotraceal tube successfully? Use an LMA (Laryngeal Mask Airway), King Airway, BVM (Bag Valve Mask or resuscitator bag), stimulate the patient to breathe for himself, . . .

Can’t place an IV successfully? The IV is not a life line, but you can place an IO (IntraOssesous) line, apply direct pressure to bleeding, lay the patient flat (Trendelenberg does not improve things for the patient, although it might make you feel like you are doing something good), consider IM (IntraMuscular) or IN (IntraNasal) administration of medication, . . .

But it is an emergency!
 

We used to drive cardiac arrests to the hospital quickly, because we thought that was better.

We were wrong. If we do not resuscitate people prior to arrival at the hospital, they will probably stay dead. Driving fast just increases the odds that we will be as dead as the patient.

There has never been any good evidence to support driving fast.

We need to develop a better understanding of the treatment we provide. We need to provide better assessments (and continue to assess). We need to provide appropriate treatment on scene prior to transport. We need to rush less.
 

Do you believe in frequent lights and sirens transport?

Here is a dare for you.

Keep track of the times you transport with lights and sirens (these should be sentinel events) and document the actual life saving treatment provided in the emergency department in the first 10 minutes.

Keep track of this for a month, or a year.

Do you have anything?

Was it really something that saved the patient’s life?

If you do come up with something, does it amount to more than 1% of lights and sirens transports?

If we have almost always beenwrong about what is going on, should we be endangering everyone on the road to cover for our ignorance?

Footnotes:

[1] Why running lights and sirens is dangerous
Fire Chief
June 5, 2016
By Douglas M. Wolfberg, Esq.
Article

[2] Pro Bono: EMS Use of Red Lights and Siren Offers High Risk, Little Reward
JEMS
Wed, Feb 1, 2017
Doug Wolfberg
Article

[3] The Case Against EMS Red Lights and Siren Responses
JEMS
Wed, Feb 1, 2017
S. Marshal Isaacs, MD, FACEP, FAEMS , Carla Cash, MD , Osama Antar, MD , Raymond L. Fowler, MD, FACEP, DABEMS
Article

.